Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Once again, though, giving them your time and money is mandatory...that whole fear and brainwashing thing again.>> No fear and brainwashing on my part. I was not born Catholic. I converted. I'm a pick and choose Catholic. I think many of their rules and regulations are bogus. On the other hand, the religion I converted from (Conservative Baptist) was far worse. I grew up believing I could go to hell for drinking, smoking, playing cards and dancing. Can you imagine how cool it was to find a religion that not only allowed that, but frequently allowed it ON CHURCH PROPERTY?? Crap. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. Plus you should have seen Sister Marcie, the babe who taught my RCIA class (The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults). I decided that if women that hot were willing to devote their lives to the Catholic Church, it must be a pretty darned good religion! ;-) (Hey, I AM RoadTrip) But on a more serious note (I sometimes do that)… I thought that the Catholic religion had no more ridiculous rules than any other church I’d investigated. I liked the Catholic Mass. I found it meaningful and comforting to me. I also have seen far more Social Justice work done by the Catholic Church than by any other denomination. So I’m Catholic, and I don’t feel the least bit guilty about it. The Catholic Church has its faults. SERIOUS faults. So does every other denomination. Any organization run by humans will have sin. That does not make the Catholic Religion bad; just those men who would abuse the trust given them by the Church and those men who would try to cover it up.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Someday as you age and mature you will discover the million shades of grey that life holds.** I disagree, RoadTrip. When it comes to certain attrocities, such as child rape, there are no shades of grey. It's plain wrong. In that, I agree with Jon. What I think some here are missing is that he's NOT saying "hey, if something remotely bugs you and you stick around, you're bad for doing so". What he IS saying is "some things are just too bad to ignore". I'm pretty sure that's the gist anyway. **That is what all of Christianity is predicated on. Forgiveness. With your views being what they are, I'm sure you don't understand the concept.** You've got me all wrong, RoadTrip. As Jon said, if they'd simply dealt with the criminals without worrying so much about their holy image, there would be no scandal. The two things that bug me are 1) that they covered it up, and probably would still be doing so if they'd not been exposed, and 2) the church leaders continue to be smug and santimonious to this day, rather than somewhat humbled and contrite as they should be with all the bad things their representatives have been caught doing. Just like others, the coverup bothers me more than those sicko rapists. The fact that they would actually move them somewhere else to continue preying on kids is, in and of itself, a horrible crime. And THAT was perpetrated or condoned (or both) by many of their highest officials. Thus, my contention that they should be held accountable as an entity just as countries or other large groups that commit mass crimes and coverups.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I disagree, RoadTrip. When it comes to certain attrocities, such as child rape, there are no shades of grey. It's plain wrong.>> As I think you know, I was not saying there were shades of grey about child abuse/rape. I do feel that there are shades of grey about whether you totally reject a faith because some of the men affiliated with that faith are shown to be very sinful men. For me, shades of grey are there. The Priests are not the Church. The Bishops are not the Church. The Cardinals are not the Church. The Pope is not the Church. The Catholic Church is Jesus Christ and the millions of people throughout the world who believe in Him and find the Catholic religion meaningful to them. Those others? They are the bureaucracy. They come and go. Christ and the people who believe in him go on forever.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>As I think you know, I was not saying there were shades of grey about child abuse/rape. I do feel that there are shades of grey about whether you totally reject a faith because some of the men affiliated with that faith are shown to be very sinful men.<<< I'm glad you said "some", because the people that write "a few" to try and minimize the issue really bug me. 500 plaitiffs in one lawsuit in one city. And that's ONLY those that came forward, undoubtedly there are far more men out there who are too ashamed by being raped by a man to ever come forward. This adds up to tens of thousands of rapes perpetrated by one group. It equals or even surpasses the war crimes of Japan perpetrated on those Korean women. Then you have the systemic condoning of the crimes going all the way up to the highest officials of the group (something that can't even be said for Japan). To me, this adds up to crimes against humanity. As far as wanting to worship Jesus, that's fine. Like Jon said, there are plenty of other organizations out there who do, why not join one of them? The fact that the catholics continue the antiquated celibacy rules certainly exacerbates the problem here, and other christian churches with leaders who are able to marry do not invite such attrocities to begin with. So, I agree with Jon that those who continue to support and fund catholicism given all the crimes that organization has commited is certainly offering their tacit support for the crimes.
Originally Posted By jonvn "To condemn an entire religious belief" No one is condemning an entire religious belief. "No, that is never how it was, not ever." You are engaging in revisionism. It's ok, I've had to explain who St. Christopher was to people who said they were Catholic, too. I found that really weird that someone wearing a St. Christopher medal did not know anything about his story. "Someday as you age and mature you will discover the million shades of grey that life holds." I'm sorry, but are you saying there is somehow a grey area involving child rape? "Again, this is an organized group, they had all the options open to them and they chose to cover up the crimes en masse." Not only that, but they've known about this for decades. A group was set up in the late 1940s to deal with this problem, and the recommendations have been ignored. Only through litigation has the Catholic church started to do something about it, because it is costing them MONEY. "That is what all of Christianity is predicated on. Forgiveness." Then Christ can go ahead and forgive the rapists and their support system. In the meantime, I would go with another brand.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I was not saying there were shades of grey about child abuse/rape. I do feel that there are shades of grey about whether you totally reject a faith because some of the men affiliated with that faith are shown to be very sinful men." I'm sorry, but when you have this sort of thing going on, not just in one area, not just by one set of individuals, but over the course of decades and all over the world, then that is not just "some," and it's not just an oddity. It's a systemic issue that is not just a guy here or there. 5000 rape victims in this country alone, that we know about. That's not some little shade of grey. A shade of grey would be "hey, I don't agree that the mass should be in the vernacular, but I'll go with it because otherwise I find the church to be worthwhile." No, that's not it. Instead it's "Priests have been raping children for years, and it has been condoned and assisted by the church hiearchy, up to the cardinal level." We're not talking some silly thing here, but the ruin of lives of these people, and their families too. And this is what you support with your tithes and your attendance.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>You are engaging in revisionism. It's ok, I've had to explain who St. Christopher was to people who said they were Catholic, too. I found that really weird that someone wearing a St. Christopher medal did not know anything about his story.<<< Wow, how pompous can a person get. You know more about my religion then I do. How fortunate for you. You did fail to mention that there is NO St. Christopher anymore. That he has been dropped from the roles of Saint status because, basically, he was folk lore. There was no evidence of his existence.
Originally Posted By Mr X Is there any evidence that Moses existed? It could easily be said that most or all of any churches historical figures are "basically folk lore".
Originally Posted By Mr X From wikipedia... >>Christopher's feast day was downgraded by the Vatican to a purely local commemoration in 1969 based on a lack of specific historical evidence regarding the details of his life. Contrary to popular belief, he was not "de-canonized" or declared not to be a saint. He is still considered to be a saint in the Catholic Church.<< Guess there are conflicting reports.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost The point is that the Catholic Faith is not the enemy here...it is the leaders, hopefully mostly past leaders, that tolerated and downplayed that behavior. That doesn't in anyway imply that the members of this belief condone it or support it's cover up. This focus happens to be on the Church but it could be any place. The Boy Scouts, Congress, the Senate, The Whitehouse and so on! Have any people stopped paying taxes because the government is filled with perverts and hypocrites? How about Walt Disney. Creative genius, perhaps! Wonderful human being, I don't think so. He was closed minded, self absorbed, mean and as warm as a block of ice. He treated employees like slaves, never offered any words of praise, took credit for everyones ideas, fought with and ignored his own brother...the very one that made it possible for him to be the icon he ended up being. He mentally abused his family, employees and anyone that didn't agree with him. Some of that lead to physical harm caused by depression to the ones that made him the "legend" he became. He was not a nice person. Yet, we all are here on a Disney Board for the most part, extolling his wonderful contribution to our world and completely ignoring the "nasty" stuff. Why do we support his legacy when we know that he was not always a shining star? Because we see beyond the faults and take comfort in the product created by the man. I don't support the actions of these priests or other clergy at all. I am not surprised by it when you think about men not allowed to marry and in most cases unable to relate to women. I think that is the biggest route of the problem but that also is not church teaching, it is church tradition started by humans. I don't support them but I am still a Catholic. My basic belief in the way I recognize God is not altered by the behavior of "some". To condemn a congregation because of something happening out of their control is just wrong. If you will take notice many things are starting to happen because of the concern of the public and the members. None of us are fighting to keep the records secret. I would hope for some damage control but I want the truth out and the victims eased as well as the perpetrators admonished and punished. Which my belief tells me will happen, in the end as well as in the present. BTW, Wikipedia has always been my first choice for factual information. (note of sarcasm)
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Goofy...I'm out. I only answer to two people...neither of which is X or jonvn. Peace be with you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think a more interesting statistic that should be investigated is just how many of the priests found to be guilty of deviant behavior come from seminaries and backgrounds that are quite theologically liberal on a lot of matters? That would ultimately say plenty about whether it's the longstanding institution of "the Church" that must be blamed, or whether in fact it's a problem more exacerbated by those with a more libertine theologically view of the world and their attempts to conform to it.> You're not serious. Oh wait, you are. You actually believe that. Or would like to. No seminary, from the most conservative to the most liberal, teaches that child abuse is okay. From just the cases I could google and discover the backgrounds of, the priests in question have come (not surprisingly) from both conservative and liberal seminaries. Not surprising, because conservative/liberal has nothing to do with this. Mark Foley was a rising star in the GOP, but had a thing for underage boys. So, undoubtedly, do some Democrats, congressmen or not. This has nothing to do with party or ideology. But nice try. Now can "the church" in general be blamed? We can argue all day about whether the Catholic Church's policy of celibacy for priests (which didn't exist for more than half the Church's existence, so would not be a requirement to retain) contributes to this. I would say yes, but whether it does or not, even that wouldn't justify blaming "the church" in general, IMO. It's an unwise policy in my opinion, yet millions of celibate priests never molest anyone. Where the church can be blamed, though, is in the coverup and knowing moving around of known offenders, which sometimes reached quite high in a diocese. As I said before, I think anyone who can be shown to have facilitated that should be prosecuted according to the laws of his country, and bishop or cardinal status should shield no one. That said (and I'm not Catholic), I can't get with jon and Mr. X's views on the church in general. I know too many Catholics I respect that the religion speaks to, and too many fine people (including some of my liberal heroes like the Berrigan brothers and Dorothy Day) who derived their strength FROM their religion, just as Dr. King did. Could they have derived their strength from another religion, or none at all? Perhaps, but they didn't. In the end, though I really want to see some higher-ups held accountable here, I think RT put it best at the end of #41, and especially at the end of #43.
Originally Posted By Mr X I hope I've been clear that my problem is not with Catholic churchgoers, but with the leaders who allowed this to happen. However, I do think that Jon's point is very valid...members of the church who support and fund these guys should really re-think whether or not another place of worship is more appropriate.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<However, I do think that Jon's point is very valid...members of the church who support and fund these guys should really re-think whether or not another place of worship is more appropriate.>> I appreciate your thought, but where would you send us? The religion of Jimmy Swaggert? The religion of Jerry Falwell? The religion of Pat Robertson? The religion of Jim Bakker? My point? All religions are represented by humans. All humans are sinful. You are never going to find a 'pure' religion. The one thing I can say for the Catholic Church is that although the Church itself has amassed great wealth, no Catholic Priest or Bishop or Cardinal or Pope is rich. For all their faults they serve the religion because they believe in the religion -- not because it will make them rich via a TV show.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Wow, how pompous can a person get." I'm not pompous. I had to go find an article from EWTN on Primacy of the pope.... "You know more about my religion then I do." That might be true. Or at least I'm looking at it objectively. "You did fail to mention that there is NO St. Christopher anymore." I'm sorry, but I didn't mention anything about his story at all. And as Mr. X points out, he's still a saint.
Originally Posted By jonvn "This focus happens to be on the Church but it could be any place." That's right. It could, and if it were, as I said, I'd immediately stop supporting those organizations. "Have any people stopped paying taxes because the government is filled with perverts and hypocrites?" You don't have a choice in paying taxes. You do have a choice in what religious group you belong to. The people worked for Walt Disney chose to do so, as well. "I don't support them but I am still a Catholic." If it were one or two, I'd agree with you. You can find a bad person here or there in any walk of life. But this goes far beyond that. Not only were thousands of children raped, but the hiearchy basically encouraged the behavior by shuffling the rapists around to varous locales after they were caught. Not just a few like you want to believe, but a lot of them. All over the world. This is in direct opposition to a board set up in 1948 that was advising the church THEN to keep these priests away from people. "To condemn a congregation because of something happening out of their control is just wrong" No one is condemning you for what they did. What I am talking is something you are doing.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I appreciate your thought, but where would you send us?" Who wants to SEND you anywhere? And aside from Jim Baker, none of those people committed criminal acts. And Jim Baker only stole money, and did not rape children. Any one of them would be a better choice for a christian type than an organization that has hid and helped people to rape children. But you don't have to pick the most extreme nuts we have to go to, either. There are other denominations. I mentioned Episcopalians, which has a church almost identical to the Roman Catholics, except for a couple of things they don't do. There really is very little reason to not join a group like that. I know some ex-Catholics who have joined born again churches because they are rather unhappy with the Catholic church. It's entirely possible to remain a Christian and not be a Catholic.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^^^ Listening to you talk about religion is like listening to a priest talk about marital sex. You no playa the game, you no maka the rules!
Originally Posted By jonvn That's cute, but religion is a decision that every person makes, even me, because it is so ingrained in society. I have made the decision that these beliefs are irrational and illogical and useless. At best they are harmless, at worst, they allow for torture, murder, and in this case, child molestation--all on a grand scale. And people are ok with that because it is a religion. I find that disgusting. However, this does not mean I don't realize that people seem to have a need for this in their lives. I am not entirely sure why, but they do. So I am not telling anyone to "give up their faith." I am saying go to ANOTHER group that does basically the same thing. No one here has explained at all why they can not be Episcopalian instead of Roman Catholic. I see almost no differences between them at all in what they believe. By continuing to stay with the Roman Catholic church, it is condoning the behavior that went on in a small way, and that is very wrong.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The fact that the catholics continue the antiquated celibacy rules certainly exacerbates the problem here, and other christian churches with leaders who are able to marry do not invite such attrocities to begin with. < so you are saying married people or people who are nor celibate do not commit these tyoe of crimes ? Please.
