Originally Posted By jonvn "show me ONE FREAKIN PLACE where anyone said it is acceptable-- ONE. If you can't I am done with you also." By "acceptable," I mean acceptable enough to stay with the church. Not acceptable in terms of "Oh, rape is ok." No one has said that. You see, I could not accept what has happened and stay. You have stayed. So, the question is, what is acceptable? At what point do you say "I can no longer accept this and stay with this church?" Is there nothing? Can the leadership of the Roman Catholic church do absolutely anything and you would still remain a member?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Again we are back to the process that do 1 billion people abandon their faith for the actions of say 7500, who are acting outside of the faith - need to be addressed and proecuted. Nowhere is the leadership saying this is the way everyone should act, or that this is within the faith doctrine. The leaders that have done the criminal activites - are not Catholicism- they ae not equal parts no more than G Bush repesents my exact feelings today. I have not left the United States because of the actions of our leaders as I still believe this is the best place to live...we need to fix the problem not abandon the country.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 until we get past membership in a belief is not support of each and every person within that faith - this really can go no further. It is support of the rules of the faith - and those clearly have been broekn by some - the rules have not been changed. You ask about a circumstance in which I would leave -- if the church doctrine changed - and the commandments were declared void - and anything goes - in other words if the faith itself was attempted to be changed - that would be reason, However a handful of people in 2007 cannot change a centuries old belief system - so I still do not see it. I will never say never, as that would be foolish.
Originally Posted By jonvn "A THIRD topic on the same subject" WEll, he wanted one... "do 1 billion people abandon their faith for the actions of say 7500" If that 7500 are running the thing, then yes, and if they are engaging in absolutely amoral behavior, then yes. Otherwise, you let them simply do anything, and they are doing it in your name, whether you approve of it or not. "I still believe this is the best place to live..." Why? People say this all the time, too. But how do they know this? I think other places could be just fine if not better to live in.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Oh good. A THIRD topic on the same subject. hoping against hope for honest discourse - depending on who joins we will see. If it degenerates like the others, it will cease quickly also. Some would like to discuss this -
Originally Posted By jonvn "However a handful of people in 2007 cannot change a centuries old belief system" Vatican II changed it a lot. The problem with your idea in that you are believing in a doctrine and not the people involved is that the people are the doctrine. They create it, enforce it, and build upon it. It is a wholly crafted thing by the very people committing these crimes. IF the priests did not exist, if the bishops and cardinals did not exist, there would be no church. It's a very regimented and hierachial structure that depends on all of this to continue. The major basis of the church rests about the concept of the primacy of the pope. And so, I find it rather hard to disengage the doctrine in which faith is to be placed in a system and ideaology that not only allows, but encourages these things to happen.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Otherwise, you let them simply do anything, and they are doing it in your name, whether you approve of it or not. < People are trying to effect change - there are victims groupds within the church - I already mentioned the principal here in Chicago who gave up her career to fight this -- what exactly are you expecting - armed revolt ? Change may not come quick enough but Yes, people are working on it -- everyone is just not standing by as you insinuate. AS far as the US being the best place to live- that is my opinion. I have spent time in other countries and there are more than a few I could live in- but I like the US overall- is that so bad ? AS a % the leaders here ae as out of line...however hopefully people working on it will effect change also. One does not flip a switch and change an entire landscape as you suggest. as far as I requested it, I requested it if mature discourse was going to occur. You opened the thread so obviously you wanted to try, so why not take ownership for the thread ? If you want to stop - request it closed
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The problem with your idea in that you are believing in a doctrine and not the people involved is that the people are the doctrine< yes that is faith - congratulations <IF the priests did not exist, if the bishops and cardinals did not exist, there would be no church. < I disagree for years in Russia ther were no priets or churches- yet Catholicim survived. <but encourages these things to happen< tell me how the doctrine does this ? It is expressly forbidden -
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Vatican II changed it a lot.>> Not really. V2 was more of a pastoral council. If anything big came out of it, it was a more conciliatory approach to Protestants.
Originally Posted By jonvn "exactly are you expecting" I would expect people to leave and boycott. "One does not flip a switch and change an entire landscape as you suggest." This is simply not a subject that can NOT have a switch flipped. This needs to change immediately. And that the churches are being sued into bankruptcy left and right, it better be, or the RC church in this country is going to be reduced to non-existence through the courts. "so why not take ownership for the thread" I don't know what that means, but OK, I own it, and I won't even charge rent. "tell me how the doctrine does this" No, I didn't mean that the doctrine encourages this, but the execution of it by the people who are running the place is, however. "V2 was more of a pastoral council. If anything big came out of it, it was a more conciliatory approach to Protestants." Lots of changes went on at that time in basic teaching, how mass was done, etc.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 No, I didn't mean that the doctrine encourages this, but the execution of it by the people who are running the place is, however. execution of 4% of hte perpetrators and some % of their bosses has been as bad as it can be - that is what needs to be fixed and efforts are under way to do so. They likely need to better organized, no question, but yes there are efforts for reform. Would I like to see the Pope take a more active role immediately - yes. and again leaving and boycotting versus fixing the portion that is broken seems like a very poor option
Originally Posted By jonvn "and again leaving and boycotting versus fixing the portion that is broken seems like a very poor option" I wouldn't consider it an option. I would consider it a moral imperative if I were a member. Even if I were to remain faithful to the doctrine, I'd have nothing to do with the organized church at all. Not unless specific remedies were in place, not unless the guilty had been removed from their jobs, not until.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So, the question is, what is acceptable? At what point do you say "I can no longer accept this and stay with this church?" Is there nothing?>> I honestly don't know. Frankly, I don't think anything could happen that would make me do that but you never know. Let’s look at a non-religious example. Ford Motor Company knew very early on that the Pinto had some major design flaws that significantly impacted the car's safety. They were aware of the problem. They chose to 'cover it up'... they consciously decided that it would be less costly to settle the lawsuits that would come than it would be to redesign the car. These design flaws resulted in people's deaths. So... you have people killed by a company's actions. You also have a conscious decision by the company to not publicly admit and correct the problem, but choose instead to pay off people as they sue. Does that mean you never buy a Ford again? Not to me. If I found out that a very substantial number of their cars had significant safety defects I would probably stop. But would one bad model, which a company finally acknowledged and paid the price for, make me stop? No.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Does that mean you never buy a Ford again?" Well, actually, to me, yes. Not for a very long time. I do not patronize things that engage in activity I find to be amoral. Paying the price in dollars is not enough for me. The people who were involved had to be removed from the company.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I wouldn't consider it an option. I would consider it a moral imperative if I were a member. Even if I were to remain faithful to the doctrine, I'd have nothing to do with the organized church at all. Not unless specific remedies were in place, not unless the guilty had been removed from their jobs, not until. again when you are talking about 1 Billion peoples worth of organization I find that far too general. I have already stated I stopped donating general monies until I am satisfied that the money does not need to be used to pay off crimes. However my local church has never been involved so I continue to donate my time and equipment, my wifes teaches religious education etc - so that all the good things my church does locally are not harmed or stopped. Sorry but I see that as a better option than abandonment. I will NOT donate another dime nationally until I am satisfied with the resolution. this may not be the revolt level you want, but it is the way I have chosen and I view the positive things done locally too important to stop. When asked for general donations ( and one does get asked) I have made it clear I was not going to do that at present until the landscape changes..
Originally Posted By jonvn "again when you are talking about 1 Billion peoples worth of organization I find that far too general" I'm talking about me. One person, not a billion. A billion people will do what a billion people want to do. Most people will go along with ANYTHING. They do what they are told, and think what they are told. "I have already stated I stopped donating general monies until I am satisfied that the money does not need to be used to pay off crimes. However my local" I'm very glad that you've done that. I think the organization needs to face justice for its actions, and the only way to do that is with feet and pocketbook and jail for the criminals.
Originally Posted By Fe Maiden <<I have already stated I stopped donating general monies until I am satisfied that the money does not need to be used to pay off crimes. However my local church has never been involved so I continue to donate my time and equipment, my wifes teaches religious education etc - so that all the good things my church does locally are not harmed or stopped. Sorry but I see that as a better option than abandonment.>> We've taken this approach as well. The priest who married my wife and I was found to have molested however many kids over the years. When the news broke my wife, who had gone to catholic school all of her life and attended his parish until after we married, was absolutely crushed. But not once did she ever consider abandoning her faith.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Does that mean you never buy a Ford again? Not to me. If I found out that a very substantial number of their cars had significant safety defects I would probably stop. But would one bad model, which a company finally acknowledged and paid the price for, make me stop?<< Wow, I'll confess to be surprised at this. People died because of Ford's actions. You can bet I'll never buy one. While I think this is a flawed analogy, I'll try and keep it going. I'm not going to make an impact on Ford if I don't buy their cars. It's not about Ford - it's about me. I have information about them that I find morally reprehensible. I cannot in good conscience go out and buy one of their cars and feel good about myself. It's why I don't shop at Wal-Mart and why my wife knows the only diamond she's ever getting from me is on her wedding ring. I have information about these industries that troubles me. Wal-Mart certainly isn't going under without me, and kids will still get their arms hacked off in Africa as part of the diamond trade (and I knew about this and boycotted it long before the movie). It's about me and my conscience, not them. Likewise, I no longer attend my church. In part it's simply because I'm a non-believer, but also because of my church's continued racist, sexist, and homophobic beliefs. My wife and I have talked at length about going back and participating, despite both of our agnostic tendencies. We believe in community and in service to others. But in the Mormon faith, there's quite literally no way to express displeasure. If you do, you're looked down upon because you aren't following the leaders (who are revered by grown men and women with reverence and who are, for all realistic purposes, seen as infallible) and aren't with the program. I realized that by going to church, I would be tacitly endorsing reprehensible beliefs. I sacrifice something as well (just like with Wal-Mart, I sacrifice lower prices), being a member of a community, acceptance, the ability to serve, etc. I've made the choice that it's a worthwhile trade off. I would think at some point one could say, "It's not about the Catholic church or punishing them, it's about me. I can't, in good conscience, remain a member of an organization that does this." As I've reiterated several times, I'm not necessarily saying the abuse scandal is the precipitator for something like this. But, as is so often the case with religion, people say things like "There's nothing that could happen that would make me abandon my faith," or "I've never had any doubts my whole life," and they act as if this is a good thing, or something to be respected. It's not. There should be dealbreakers, and questions should be asked.
Originally Posted By jonvn <<I would think at some point one could say, "It's not about the Catholic church or punishing them, it's about me. I can't, in good conscience, remain a member of an organization that does this." >> Yes, very much so my feeling. I could never be part of something like that, either.
