mudcat.org: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]


BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'

Steve Shaw 11 Mar 13 - 09:32 AM
Wolfhound person 11 Mar 13 - 09:56 AM
Stringsinger 11 Mar 13 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,CS 11 Mar 13 - 11:28 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 11 Mar 13 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,mg 11 Mar 13 - 02:45 PM
Uncle_DaveO 11 Mar 13 - 05:27 PM
ollaimh 11 Mar 13 - 07:02 PM
Joe Offer 11 Mar 13 - 07:17 PM
GUEST,mg 11 Mar 13 - 07:33 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Mar 13 - 08:06 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Mar 13 - 08:15 PM
Bonnie Shaljean 11 Mar 13 - 08:28 PM
Jack Campin 11 Mar 13 - 08:45 PM
Joe Offer 11 Mar 13 - 10:44 PM
mg 12 Mar 13 - 12:32 AM
Joe Offer 12 Mar 13 - 02:19 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 12 Mar 13 - 03:48 AM
MGM·Lion 12 Mar 13 - 04:10 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Mar 13 - 04:47 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 12 Mar 13 - 04:48 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 12 Mar 13 - 04:59 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Mar 13 - 05:01 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 12 Mar 13 - 05:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Mar 13 - 05:21 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 12 Mar 13 - 05:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Mar 13 - 05:40 AM
Ed T 12 Mar 13 - 05:53 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 12 Mar 13 - 05:53 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 12 Mar 13 - 06:01 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Mar 13 - 06:04 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 12 Mar 13 - 06:13 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 12 Mar 13 - 06:59 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 12 Mar 13 - 07:03 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Mar 13 - 07:17 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Mar 13 - 07:43 AM
Ed T 12 Mar 13 - 08:00 AM
gnu 12 Mar 13 - 08:07 AM
gnu 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Mar 13 - 09:04 AM
John P 12 Mar 13 - 09:43 AM
John P 12 Mar 13 - 09:49 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Mar 13 - 10:09 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,mg 12 Mar 13 - 01:37 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Mar 13 - 01:57 PM
gnu 12 Mar 13 - 03:23 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Mar 13 - 03:35 PM
Ed T 12 Mar 13 - 03:51 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 09:32 AM

I am absolutely with Bonnie on this point of benign neglect. Millions of Catholics the world over are taught in school various tenets of the faith, as interpreted (perhaps not always very well) by teachers and priests. How, after that, are they supposed to keep up with the kind of slow drift from one way of thinking to another? I am 61 now and I'm sure that much of what I was taught about the faith over my 13 years in Catholic schools is not taught any more, but the point is I'm going to stick with it unless someone tells me explicitly that things have changed (or unless I become an atheist, of course ;-) ) No priest from the pulpit is ever going to tell his flock that that can now ease up on stuff they've always thought are mortal sins. For the record, here's some stuff I was told:

I must not receive communion if I have a mortal sin on my soul (we were given a fair old sin list at one time, venial with one star, mortal with two stars).

Masturbation is a mortal sin, as is thinking about girls in an impure way (always deliciously imprecise, that one). We were even told that we should look away and pray to Our Lady whilst washing our genitals.

The only acceptable form of contraception is the rhythm method. Even coitus interruptus is not acceptable. Sexual intercourse is solely intended for procreation.

An unbaptised baby can never enter heaven, no matter how tragic the circumstances.

Catholics are the only people who go to heaven.

Homosexuality and abortion are such abominations that we don't even talk about them. There is no need.

OK, now I know that you'll tell me how outmoded all that lot is. But who, once I've left school, is ever going to tell me it's outmoded? Well, no-one - and I regard myself as one of the more savvy members of the human race! So I wonder about all those women in Africa and central America where the Church has an iron grip, and I wonder whether the benign neglectors really know what the local clergy are teaching. So we are expected to glean these gradual relaxations in thinking all by ourselves. I contend that that is actually immoral. You are setting up a situation in which some get it but millions won't. And the millions who won't are exactly the people who most need to get it. Well done, Church, for promoting poverty, disease, terrible rates of abortion and ignorance in developing nations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 09:56 AM

More or less the sanme age in this household, and that list of yours sounds awfully familiar, Steve.

The state of mind is still there, even if the day to day application of those (?) guidelines has eased up.

Paws


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 10:44 AM

It appears that the Catholic hierarchy is fascistic with the laity and followers at odds with the governance. If it is to survive, it will have to change. Priests and nuns will have to be allowed to marry, women will have to become priests and outmoded sexual instruction such as the ridiculous "rhythm system" be cast aside, not to mention the odious shielding of sex offenders in the clergy.

Aside from that, I don't care about this issue as I am a non-believer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 11:28 AM

Agree with Steve Shaw below. It's great that educated and relatively affluent Westerners are liberated enough to cherry pick the bits of religious dogma which personally suit their way of life, but far more unfortunate that it is not the case for the majority of Catholics in places where there is little money or education to offer them the luxury of doing the same.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 02:04 PM

Even among the more privileged nations, how many people are aware that the ban is being Neglected, or that they get to choose, or follow their conscience, or however it's phrased? This is the first I've heard of it (though I'm not up on the latest rulings so that doesn't mean much).

But is it generally known about? The powerful within the Vatican agreeing among themselves to turn a blind eye, but keeping this fact quiet, is rather like harbouring secrets from their flock. I honestly don't know how widespread this knowledge is, or how that sort of thing works, so it's a genuine question.

I haven't heard of it here (one of the larger Irish cities) but as it doesn't affect me personally, it's not on my immediate radar screen. So what's the story with announcing it? Or don't they?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 02:45 PM

It is just plain wrong to terrify people and then expect them to figure out you were just whoofing them. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 05:27 PM

. . . Mother Teresa, one of the wickedest people who ever lived.

I know this is a VERY late response, Steve, but I'm a newcomer to this thread, and I wanted to read the whole thing lest I repeat what someone else has said.

But they haven't, so I'll ask: What in the world would make you say a thing like that?

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: ollaimh
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 07:02 PM

well i there mythological way the cathars got it right. the catholci church is worshipping satan, and thats why they hide mazis from justice for decades--in france, let child rapists move arounf untill the world almost lunches them, trades in the most vile banking pratices and attacks the adult survivors of priestly rape, and helped(with several other church) with the genocidal residential schools, where native children were subjected to illegal medical experiements, starved, deprived normal medical care, with a pre 1908 death rate over fifty percent-- a real slaughter of the inno0cents.

i don't by the way believe in mythological views but the cathars didn't have another way to see the world. catholci leaders even on mudcat come from american military intelligence, with complete acceptance of hiding nazis to this day.

i'm jusy hitting the high lights, but is there evil not done by these monsters, who have betrayed every trust put in them by the faithfull?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 07:17 PM

So, Steve Shaw, you got 13 years of Catholic education. That would take you to the age of 19 or 20, right?
And you're 61 now, right?

Can you seriously say that your Catholic education that ended 40 years ago, must suffice for the present time? What's wrong with getting an update, so you understand things in an adult context?

Now, if you were taught 40 years ago that masturbation, in and of itself, was a mortal sin, that was incorrect and a gross oversimplification. Some teachers taught that way, and it was wrong. The Baltimore Catechism (and other national catechisms of the 1950s and earlier) taught that for a sin to be serious, it had to be a serious matter, known to be serious, and done with the intent of doing serious wrong. Almost all the statements you made of what you learned in the 1960s, were incorrect theology in the 1950s. Maybe you were taught wrong, or maybe you understood wrong.

Bonnie, for your reference, here's a link to Humanae Vitae, the document that prohibited birth control - (click). Again, while it's on the books, it's really not talked about all that much. And neither is homosexuality. Therefore, it seems to me that it is not what I would call a central teaching, the core part of the Catholic faith. Abortion is another matter, since it is seen as taking a life, but neither birth control nor homosexuality have that level of importance in Catholic teaching.

Nonetheless, I'd like to see the restriction against birth control taken off the books. I just don't believe it has as much impact as you claim it has. I think that large families are a cultural thing, far more than being a matter of church law.

John P, the Catholic bishops are expressing their right as U.S. citizens to object to legislation that affects them. The law hasn't taken effect yet, and the bishops are still fighting it - as is their right. Many bishops seem inclined to accept the latest compromise offered by the Obama Administration.

Jim Carroll quotes me:
    Joe;
    (Joe Said) "you have no idea how appalling that is to me"
    (Jim says) And you appear to have no idea how deeply these arguments upset me.
What's upsetting, Jim? That I acknowledge that child molestation was and is a serious problem, but also state the reality that most of the offense happened long ago and have been dealt with in a different way in recent years? That I ask for proportionality, acknowledging that the vast majority of Catholics did not commit or condone child molestation?
I abhor murder, and yet it happens in my society all the time. I support laws and procedures meant to prevent murder - but I do not support capital punishment. Some people have told me sincerely that since I do not support capital punishment, I am a horrible person and I am advocating crime. Is that true?


-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 07:33 PM

I can guarantee you 99% of what we were taught in high school was birth control was bad. Very little else. Almost no mention of homosexuality, and frankly anything I have heard about it did not suggest it was worse than heterosexuality, because how could it be? Everything was wicked wicked wicked. That is I think the main reason child abuse spread..the shame of being with a woman.

And I do not buy for a minute that large families in the past were cultural as much as forced. All those tragic stories about the mother being pregnant through declining health..probably fending off the father, who either suffered in silence, perhaps drank, and in extrmee cases, took an unnatural interest in daughters. Sons in meantime sympathized often with mother, developed a mother worship, and guess who became priests in some cases. There was so much poverty in these large families..so few resources. Some would have had large families anyway, and some women were built for it and had adequate resources, but many did not. Our questions in high school religion classes were always..but what if I have 12 kids and the doctor says the next one will kill me and I will leave 12 orphans behind..couldn't I then use birth control. The answer was always always no. And not said nicely either..at least they could have shown some sympathy toward the poor women..some of whom were our own mothers and ourselves projecting into the future..and the men were worked literally to death supporting these huge families. I do not buy what you are saying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 08:06 PM

Now, if you were taught 40 years ago that masturbation, in and of itself, was a mortal sin, that was incorrect and a gross oversimplification. Some teachers taught that way, and it was wrong. The Baltimore Catechism (and other national catechisms of the 1950s and earlier) taught that for a sin to be serious, it had to be a serious matter, known to be serious, and done with the intent of doing serious wrong. Almost all the statements you made of what you learned in the 1960s, were incorrect theology in the 1950s. Maybe you were taught wrong, or maybe you understood wrong.

I was taught by the Salesian Fathers and Brothers at an all-boys grammar school in Bolton, Lancashire, from 1962 to 1969 (by which time I was 18). To name-drop, I went to both the primary and secondary school that Danny Boyle attended, though he was about five years below me (I wonder whether I ever bullied him on the school bus...). I'm a pretty honest broker, Joe. I don't make stuff up, and I was one of the brightest in a bloody bright year. I certainly didn't understand wrong. That's what those guys were like. It sort of confirms in a way, possibly, what I was saying about the Vatican officialdom not knowing what the ground troops are actually propagating to their flocks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 08:15 PM

. . Mother Teresa, one of the wickedest people who ever lived.

I know this is a VERY late response, Steve, but I'm a newcomer to this thread, and I wanted to read the whole thing lest I repeat what someone else has said.

But they haven't, so I'll ask: What in the world would make you say a thing like that?

Dave Oesterreich


I know it sounds a shocking thing to say, Dave, but I've rattled on about it in other threads. I think I posted both the following bits on mudcat, but I could be wrong. There's some overlap 'twixt the two posts for which I apologise but I'm way too knackered to edit them into one sensible post, so here goes.

Mother Teresa taught that suffering and poverty were Godly virtues, not injustices to be opposed. Conditions in her orphanages and her Homes for the Dying were dreadful. There was gross neglect, physical abuse and the espousing of wacky (to say the least) "medical" practices that often left sick people in unnecessary agony, denying them even basic painkiller relief, with the claim that suffering brought people closer to Jesus. She denied medical training to the nuns working in her homes, claiming instead that God would empower the ignorant and weak. She forbade her sisters to read newspapers and secular literature. Her financial dealings were dodgy to say the least and she received donations from exceptionally shady sources. For example, she accepted donations from Papa Doc and praised him. She diverted donations away from needy people in favour of new convents and missionary work. She capriciously refused help to sick people who didn't exactly comply with her arbitrary qualifying criteria. All in all, an evil bastard if ever there was one. No doubt she'll soon be sainted by the Catholic church.



Mother Teresa was the very opposite of ignorant. It would be more accurate to say that she promoted ignorance. She knew exactly what she was doing when she accepted the adulation (and money) of dictators and fraudsters. She ran horrid institutions that were unhygienic, staffed by unqualified people and filled with neglect and unnecessary suffering and shabby medical practice, whilst at the same time channelling huge money into opening new convents and promoting missionary work. She claimed that abortion was the biggest threat to world peace and she condemned all notions of family planning and contraception, a great way of keeping millions of women in poverty. Her constant message was that the poor were good for the world and that poverty was good for the poor and that they should never fight it. Instead of encouraging the people of Bhopal to fight for justice, she instructed the stricken families to simply forgive Union Carbide. Not at all ignorant, but the deliberate arch-promoter of ignorance. Mother Teresa was the extreme fundamentalist arm of The Vatican and she was supreme when it came to doing the Pope's dirty work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 08:28 PM

> I just don't believe [the birth control ban] has as much impact as you claim it has.

No, of course you don't. Not believing something is a whole lot easier than facing facts.


So is telling yourself what you want to hear.

> I think that large families are a cultural thing, far more than being a matter of church law.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 08:45 PM

here's a link to Humanae Vitae, the document that prohibited birth control - (click). Again, while it's on the books, it's really not talked about all that much. And neither is homosexuality. Therefore, it seems to me that it is not what I would call a central teaching, the core part of the Catholic faith.

That's not how Keith "Bigot of the Year" O'Brien saw it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9121424/We-cannot-afford-to-indulge-this-madness.html

Keith O'Brien has more on his conscience than simply abusing his authority to pressure young men into having sex with him. Here he was doing an Irish-style coverup of a child abuser:

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/cardinal-o-brien-blackmail-threat-to-abuse-victim-1-2820121


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 10:44 PM

Yeah, Jack, I gotta agree with you. I was surprised that the Catholic bishops would get their hackles up over gay marriages. It's not like they're being required to perform gay marriages in church, is it? I was also surprised that the U.S. bishops made such a stink about contraceptives being covered by health insurance, since nobody was being forced to practice birth control.

I have a theory on that. There has been a rebirth of conservatism in the Catholic Church in recent years, and conservatives are feeling their oats. They are making issues out of matters that have long been forgotten - and they're having some success at it, since the rules were on the books. They start with little things like the wording of songs, and then move to bigger issues.

And their success does have me worried. We need another John XXIII to be elected this week, and we need him bad.




So, Bonnie, about this birth control ruling and its effect. I can count.

When I was a kid in Wisconsin, there were three large families in our Catholic school - the Vanderhoofs (17 kids - seemed every parish had one like that), the Kivlins (6 kids), and the Offers (5 kids). All the other families in the parish were smaller. The Vandehoofs seemed to get along quite well, and certainly didn't seem to be suffering. The Kivlins and the Offers were well off, and both seemed to be quite happy families. The Offers had 8 grandchildren, so you can see the next generation had smaller families. Don't know about the Vanderhoofs and the Kivlins. But note that all the other families in the Catholic school were smaller - mostly three or four childrens - in the late 1950s.

In my current parish in California, there are a couple of families with six kids, and they are very conservative. There are two other large families, but their children are mostly adopted.

Yes, here and there you see a suffering, unhappy Catholic woman with more kids than she can handle - and oftentimes, it seems the husband doesn't go to church with her and she's stuck taking care of all the kids. Whether those kids are a result of Humanae Vitae or not, is another question.

Polls show that in the U.S., 98% of Catholics ignore the prohibition against birth control. That about fits with my experience.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: mg
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:32 AM

we didn't consider 6 to be large families..had several of that or more on my block. large seemed to start at 7 or 8 and went up to 21.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 02:19 AM

MG, I think you're exaggerating. And whatever the case, it sure doesn't happen in Catholic families nowaways.

Steve Shaw, I acknowledge that there have been Catholic institutions like the one you describe and entire Catholic dioceses that have been oppressive. Even in the more balanced dioceses, there are oppressive regimes in certain parishes - but I wonder why anybody bothers to take part in such travesties when there are alternatives available.

In general, the negative comments in this thread seem to me to describe the extreme, not the usual Catholic experience. I don't deny the existence of the extremes people describe. But I have a broad spectrum of experience in the Catholic Church, both in the U.S. and internationally - and what people describe in this thread is not the reality I have experienced. It's far from perfect, but it's certainly not anywhere near as bad as what's described in so many messages here.

As far as I can tell from this thread, there is only one practicing Catholic among the persons who have made negative comments in this thread about the Catholic Church. That's mg, and her perspective is different from that of any participating Catholic I've known in this day and age. What she talks of, seems to be another era.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:48 AM

You can have different eras Joe. You can have different geography too.

The Catholic culture a couple of hundred miles North of me in Scotland or to the west in Ireland is a much greater distance than between your childhood and your present.

Yet Scotland and Ireland are far more sectarian than where I came from and Catholics were and still are never branded as such. Branded as supporters of a football team or whether they drink in pubs or working mens clubs, ,branded by occupation or hair colour but never really by religion.

Perhaps that is why I remain bemused by religious leaders pontificating and adherents apologising for them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:10 AM

Joe's of 10:44 last night affords a prime example of how some Americans, even ones as intelligent as Joe, think that Wisconsin is The World and the US is The Universe, and extrapolate their arguments on that basis. The comparative "then'n'now" birth-rates among RC populations of Wisconsin & California, benignly neglectful as they may be of some aspects of the Church's official teaching, are really not relevant to the worldwide {& esp the Catholic 3rd World} picture, Joe.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:47 AM

"What's upsetting, Jim? "
Your latest response to the crimes of the church, which you have reduced to a "handful of bad apples" and "happened long ago" - will do for a start.
Nowhere to you acknowledge or, as far as I can see, even refer to the guilt of the Church as a whole in this affair.
Don't you find it at all important that the leadership of the world's most powerful religious body colluded in perpetuating the widespread, probably worldwide sexual abuse of children under its influence and often in its care?
Is it of no concern to you that the church - right up to the Vatican - fought tooth and nail to keep these offences hidden for as long as they could, hiding and denying access to evidence - still very much a feature of all this?
Doesn't it outrage you to learn that the retired pope lied about his knowledge of these scandals?
Is the involvement of the church as a body, from top to bottom not even worth a mention?
That the surviving victims of these crimes had to demand, often to the point of humiliating themselves, to have their cases aired, never mind acknowledged and dealt with, is bad enough. That any church member should write it off as "a few bad apples a long time ago" after the church leadership has offered little more than lip-service expressions of sympathy is what I find most offensive.
These go far beyond crimes of the individual - they are offences committed against the faithful by a church that still remains uncaring and unrepentant beyond the effect that it has on its own well-being.
They bring into question the role of the church its responsibility to its followers and its role in the world.
It has shown it cannot be trusted - if I were a Catholic, it is that fact that would be uppermost in my mind.
What upsets me personally is that it is somebody I have grown to respect and like who is supporting this by reducing its importance to a few criminals a long time ago.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:48 AM

> Polls show that in the U.S. 98% of Catholics ignore the prohibition against birth control.

Oh well, that's all right then. As long as it's OK where you are. And of course "polls" include absolutely every single Catholic out there.


When I was a kid in Wisconsin, there were three large families in our Catholic school

THREE WHOLE FAMILIES in the local school. Well, that proves the case. If "it doesn't happen in Catholic families nowadays" - i.e. those within your eyesight - then of course it doesn't happen anywhere.


Joe, you haven't a clue about what goes on beyond your back door. None. It doesn't even seem to concern you. You don't realise what a massive insult that is to the rest of the world. No wonder Americans get accused of insularity and ignorance. [I've just refreshed the thread and seen MGM's post. He's right, Joe. Living abroad does give you a whole other perspective.]

You've also managed to dismiss the views of non-practicing Catholics, though they're as relevant and valid as your own. There will be *reasons* why those people no longer practice their faith. But they're inconvenient. Easier not to look at them. Practicing Catholics are of course free to jump into this conversation. It's not like they've been barred from joining in.

Exclude, rationalise away, deny, accuse anyone you disagree with of exaggeration. "It's not the usual experience" / "it doesn't happen any more" / "it's only a handful".

Classic techniques for protecting yourself from ugly realities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:59 AM

> What upsets me personally is that it is somebody I have grown to respect and like is supporting this by reducing its importance to a few criminals a long time ago.

Yeah. That upsets me too. Because I too both like and respect you, Joe. A lot. In so many ways you represent the best of Christian ideals. (And yes, I do know priests about whom I can say the same.) That's why this willful blindness is so disturbing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:01 AM

Some time ago a woman in Ireland died because she was refused a termination to her pregnancy; she was told by hospital staff "this is a Catholic country".
In July, after nationwide pressure, the Government will present proposals of changes to the law regarding terminations in certain circumstances.
Pro-life (sic) organisations are on the streets in their thousands and will circulate leaflets by post to every household in Ireland demanding that things should remain as they are.
God moves in a mysterious way - doesn't he just?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:17 AM

The pregnancy had already terminated *itself*. That fetus' heart had stopped three days before and it was DEAD. So it was no longer really an abortion.

A similar thing happened to my mother when I was very small. What would have been a very-much-wanted child (as was the case with Savita Halappanavar) died. So, nearly, did my mother, of the same internal poisoning. When the baby-to-be is already deceased, it really does move the goal posts.

Fortunately for my mother (and me), the hospital acted on medical principles rather than personal beliefs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:21 AM

To be accurate, there was a foetal heartbeat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:32 AM

No, that stopped on the Wednesday. It took her until the following Sunday to die.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:40 AM

I was going by Guardian, 17th November.
"The 31-year-old dentist died of blood poisoning on 27 October (Tuesday)in University Hospital Galway despite asking repeatedly to terminate her 17-week-long pregnancy. Staff refused to carry out an abortion because her husband said they had detected a foetal heartbeat even though the couple were told the baby would not survive."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:53 AM

""As far as I can tell from this thread, there is only one practicing Catholic among the persons who have made negative comments in this thread about the Catholic Church""

Giood try Joe. But, that is an old and "tired" technique to minimize the opinion of others in a discussion, that is oft' used by politician, and PR types.

That minimizes the direct personal experience of those who were abused inside the RC church noted here by mudcat posters in one form or another. Minimizing and demononizing the suffering of those victims (most often the impact follows them through their life, which is now, not long ago) seems commonplace among some in the RC church.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:53 AM

I was going by the BBC:

The baby's heartbeat stopped on the Wednesday. "I got a call on Wednesday night that Savita's heart rate had really gone up and that they had moved her to ICU," Mr Halappanavar said. "Things just kept on getting worse and on Friday they told me that she was critically ill." Some of Savita's organs stopped functioning and she died on Sunday 28 October.

So it depends on *when* the heart was beating, which initially it was. The hospital used that as their reason for refusing, though why they continued to refuse isn't clear. All they would speak about was the heartbeat, but they didn't mention anything about the time-frame.

I just Wiki'd it, and it sez:

The death of Savita Halappanavar on 28 October 2012, at University Hospital Galway in Ireland, led to nationwide protests . . . Halappanavar, a Hindu of Indian origin, was suffering from a miscarriage when she was some 17 weeks pregnant, and she sought medical attention and treatment at University Hospital Galway. Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said that the hospital told them the foetus was not viable, but they could not perform an abortion under Irish Law as the foetus heart was still beating. During the next several days, Halappanavar was diagnosed with septicemia which lead to multiple organ failure and her death.

I think the "during the next several days" is the key. But it's not totally clear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:01 AM

Actually the date of heartbeat-cessation is something of a side issue (and yes, I know I was the one who brought it up!) because the real question is: if a pregnancy - i.e. a living fetus - endangers the life of the mother, it should be terminated. IMO.

She was found to be miscarrying - which sounds like the child was never going to be born anyway. And what shape would it have been in if it had been?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:04 AM

"The baby's heartbeat stopped on the Wednesday."
Bonnie - please don't get this extremely unpleasant limpet-like troll involved in this thread unless you wish to see it disappear without trace.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:13 AM

Yes, sorry for the thread-drift! Ed T wrote:

> ""As far as I can tell from this thread, there is only one practicing Catholic among the persons who have made negative comments in this thread about the Catholic Church""

> Good try Joe. But, that is an old and "tired" technique to minimize the opinion of others in a discussion, that is oft' used by politician, and PR types.

> That minimizes the direct personal experience of those who were abused inside the RC church noted here by mudcat posters in one form or another. Minimizing and demononizing the suffering of those victims (most often the impact follows them through their life, which is now, not long ago) seems commonplace among some in the RC church.


Ed has put it better than I could. In fact, I think there's a pretty clear reason why there aren't more practicing Catholics defending the abuses and the bans.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:59 AM

Before I get pulled up for saying "defending" the abuses and bans: What's being defended is a core belief-system, in the face of repercussions over some of its evil behaviour.

So delete "defended" in my last post; but there's no single other word to put in its place which really says it all - minimising, rationalising, isolating in the past, excluding on some arbitrary grounds… take your pick.

I don't think for a nanosecond that Joe defends the sexual abuse (at least those instances of it that he'll admit to recognising) or any other atrocities. But he dishonours the very real - and ongoing - suffering of its victims* by this fantasy-reframing technique.



*Including those who have killed themselves over their experiences and now can't speak up. I worked on a suicide helpline in Cork and spoke to some of them on the phones, others in person; but this was somehow not convincing, didn't count as evidence unless I could "prove" it IIRC. Of course I couldn't prove it, so voila! It never happened.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 07:03 AM

Mark me down as agreeing absolutely with Bonnie and Ed. I have already described elsewhere the treatment I and my schoolmates received from "God's Stormtroopers", the Jesuit Brothers who taught at my grammar school.

There are other ways for children to be abused than sexual abuse, and the Catholic Church (the institution, not the faithful) has tried most of them at one time or another, usually on the faithful.

In my case it was verbal, psychological and physical abuse, in about equal portions.

As they would say in the Southern States, "It's a control thang!"

I consider myself fortunate to have shrugged off that control and am much the better for it.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 07:17 AM

Sigh. Well there may have one or two "negative" remarks about the Church on this thread, but as far as I can see most of the remarks in question have been critical, not negative.

In recent years the Church itself (not its critics) has shown itself to be fundamentally institutionally flawed. The errors we see arising are not sporadic or piecemeal. They propagate all the more because of lies and denials and protection of perpetrators. That is what's so sad. I don't see anyone here condemning two thousand years of Catholicism because of a few maverick priests and nuns, but I do see an institution that is rotten almost to its core. The institution, not Catholics. You're going to need more than a John XXIII. Every cardinal now in the ring is a product of a rotten setup, don't forget. Only a time-serving insider is going to get the job. Don't you think that sounds a bit hopeless?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 07:43 AM

"Yes, sorry for the thread-drift! "
No need for apology Bonnie - I brought up the subject and I certainly don't believe it to be 'thread drift'.
The reason I did so is that I believe the mixture of religion (any religion) and politics(any politics) is a toxic one and the worst of this mixture has surfaced when the church's power has been unassailable.
Despite all that has been revealed over the last decade, and despite the fact that the power and respect of the church has declined enormously in the eyes of the people (here at least), it seems that as far as the State is concerned, the voice of the church on such issues such as the ending of pregnancies for whatever reason, contraception, homosexuality, single-sex marriages ..... still rings loud and above all others.
Until the role of the church is confined totally to spiritual matters and is totally the business of the believers and their personal and uninterfered-with choice of church - certainly completely removed from any role in education other than it being taught as a philosophy, these problems will re-occur.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:00 AM

Good points Steve Shaw.

Joe O:
What is unfortunate is the reaction of many "practicing" RC's to legitimate criticism, some of which RC s tend to agree with,at least to some degree.

Rather than participating in a dialogue and considering different viewpoints, the tendancy of many Rc s is to "circling the wagons", turning outwards and ignoring or vilanize those with constructive ideas,which while they may differ from theirs, are no less logical. A more positive approach would be to openly consider genuine concern for the future plight of the RC church and ideas for change.

What you see is negativity. What I see are victims,former RC's and other Christians wanting a more open, accountable, caring and safe RC church, not the end of the church. Would that also not be the same goal for those who care for the future of the church from the inside?
I do not see people calling for the end of the RC church, but an end of practices they see as hurtful to persons and society and many that they see as uncaring and even "unchristian".

If the RC church ended tomorrow, it would be a sad thing for the many people in society who hold it close to their hearts. IMO, it would also be a sad thing for society in general. But, it is also a sad thing if in today's enlightened society this organization cannot make changes that a child could see as needed.

It is honourable to "stay the course" and try to make change from inside. But,I see no reason why it is less honourable to depart from an organization, one that you have lost trust in, and try to impact change from the outside, as many victims and concerned folks have chosen to do. Do I detect a degree of disdain for those who have chosen to leave?

My last comment is your frequent reference to your experience in the RC church. Joe, you should re-read some of your comments through the lens of a person who holds a different perspective on some related issues. Your experience is just that and does not necessarily reflect what is happening around the world with the RC church. (I am puzzled that you downplay the experiences of others in the RC church as "non-representative" at the same time as you promote your experience as "representative").I will not accuse this approach as being intentionally condescending, as I observe you to be above that word.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:07 AM

134 posts... I think I have gleaned the answer to my question.

Question #2 requires a list of the issues. Please join me in brainstorming a list. I'll start it. If anyone is not sure how to brainstorm, search "brainstorm def" first and then expand as required or simply watch the process... it ain't rocket science. It can be enlightening and FUN! So please join in and remember the most important rule of brainstorming... there ain't no rules... so blurt out whatever thought comes to your mind.

1. Marriage of priests.
2. Marriage of nuns.
3. Ordainment of women.
4. Punishment within the church of sexual abusers.
5. Birth control.
6. Abortion.
7.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:04 AM

Well I'm not a member of the Catholic church any more so it's not really my business...but I do have an issue with this business of letting priests and nuns get married. Don't get me wrong - I'd be all for it - but it seems odd to me to suggest that this would be the panacea to end child abuse. If it's being suggested that there's some simple correlation between sexual frustration and the propensity to harm children, I'm very suspicious. First, many married people are abusers anyway. Second, the vast majority of celibate people do not abuse children. Third, sexual abuse of children is a serious criminal issue. To suggest that a man who has been allowed to marry might otherwise have become an abuser is a little bit pat for my liking. There is surely something fundamental in the psyche of that bloke that must be pushing him in that perverted direction, married or not. The worry is that seriously flawed human beings are being allowed into the priesthood, and letting them marry is not the point. I suppose you could argue that the marriage prospect might attract a better sort of bloke. But I still think that the perception that you can probably get away with your abuse is the big issue that needs addressing first. It's complicated. Just saying we should have married priests in order to address the abuse issue is a bit simplistic, desirable though it may be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John P
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:43 AM

Brainstorm:

4. Punishment within the church of sexual abusers.

As in, immediately turn them and all records associated with them over to the secular authorities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John P
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:49 AM

Steve, I'm not aware of anyone saying that marriage for priests will take care of sexual abuse. They seem like two separate issues to me. Sexual abuse is a crime and ought to be treated as such, no matter who does it, married people, priests, or otherwise.

Keeping priests from getting married and not ordaining women just seems stupid. Well, and illegal anywhere that there are laws against sex-based employment tests.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 10:09 AM

"Punishment within the church of sexual abusers."
We are talking about the sexual abuse of children - child rape - a serious crime, punishable by, at least and, in Britain anyway, and an entry into the sexual offenders register.
Would anybody here suggest that a paedophile teacher should be punished by a stiff talking to by the headmaster, are are the clergy above national laws?
I've yet to read a case of a judge sending a serious criminal back to his family or community and allowing them to deal with it.
The behaviour of the hierarchy makes them accomplices in serious crimes, from obstruction of justice to placing criminals of the worst type in positions where they can continue their 'little weaknesses'.
In these circumstances, in any other environment they too would be facing serious criminal charges.
Why should the church be allowed to investigate, try and punish(!!!) child rapists or be immune from prosecution for assisting them?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM

Steve, I'm not aware of anyone saying that marriage for priests will take care of sexual abuse.
I agree that they are separate issues. It's just that letting priests marry frequently pops up in the abuse context as if it would provide the solution (or part of it).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM

Damn!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 01:37 PM

Great article on bishop accountability today..Shonborn's mother has spoken out and does not want him to be pope because he does not like dishonest people and also would not do well with the bitchiness of the Vatican. I still think he would be the best, but I am OK with Scola, Oullett. Horrified by Bertone and aspects of Turkson. Bertone is still coming up 3 or 4 in gambling sites.

What I want to know is am I the only one horrified by D from New York? He strikes me as totally brutish and dishonest but am I misjudging him? I think he would be the worst pope in my lifetime and he is seriously being mentioned. I get the creepiest feeling whenever I see his picture.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 01:57 PM

Sorry - that should read "punishable by at least a prison sentence and, in Britain anyway, an entry into the sexual offenders register."
Senior moment!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:23 PM

Sooooooooo... JohnP'... would you consider this acceptable during a Bs session?


4. Punishment of sexual abusers.
a. Punishment within the church.
b. Exposure of sexual abuse(rs) for investigation by secular authorities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:35 PM

"Exposure of sexual abuse(rs) "
Poor choice of words in the circumstances, don't you think!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:51 PM

I suspect that most RC faithful, as good people, would know what should be done, or at least come up with it and work it out among themselves if they were allowed to have a greater say (and, I am not talking about the local parish stuff often thrown about as examples of real local empowerment).

That is not to say that everyone would agree, differences would likely emerge as some regional differences are met (as does with governments). Some may even leave if they do not have their way with change (like with the Anglican discussions. But, doing the right thing always carries some risk, as "not doing the right thing" also carries risk.

So, my suggesting is broad -a change in organizational structure to include more of the faithful in broader organizational decisions, versus the current "old guys network". To me this would inrease local input and impact real change to meet some of the deficiencies that are easy to see.

I realize that religion is not a democracy - but IMO, the RC church organization can do a better job of inclusion in decision making. Some "faithful" may say that is already happening - but, if so, it is not happening fast and broad enough, and the door of change is not wide enough.

Part of the slow reaction to the child sexual abuse issue was because of the current structure. Top folks saying they are sorry rings hollow, without breaking down the structure (and people) that caused it and the structure and folks that enabled it to continue for years. I remain unconvinced that potential abusers have not gone in hiding, only to emerg again, and to do a better job of hiding their sinful and harmful acts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 15 September 9:02 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.