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'

DMcG 14 Mar 13 - 12:04 PM
DMcG 14 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM
Bonnie Shaljean 14 Mar 13 - 12:44 PM
Stringsinger 14 Mar 13 - 03:04 PM
DMcG 14 Mar 13 - 03:17 PM
Bonnie Shaljean 14 Mar 13 - 03:39 PM
gnu 14 Mar 13 - 04:49 PM
Ed T 14 Mar 13 - 07:39 PM
GUEST,999 14 Mar 13 - 08:36 PM
gnu 14 Mar 13 - 08:48 PM
Ed T 14 Mar 13 - 09:04 PM
Joe Offer 15 Mar 13 - 03:21 AM
Joe Offer 15 Mar 13 - 03:55 AM
MGM·Lion 15 Mar 13 - 05:06 AM
Ed T 15 Mar 13 - 05:45 AM
Joe Offer 15 Mar 13 - 06:13 AM
MGM·Lion 15 Mar 13 - 06:23 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Mar 13 - 06:25 AM
Joe Offer 15 Mar 13 - 06:58 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Mar 13 - 07:12 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 15 Mar 13 - 07:53 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Mar 13 - 08:26 AM
DMcG 15 Mar 13 - 09:56 AM
GUEST,mg 15 Mar 13 - 02:14 PM
Joe Offer 15 Mar 13 - 03:14 PM
Joe Offer 15 Mar 13 - 04:53 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Mar 13 - 04:59 PM
Joe Offer 15 Mar 13 - 05:15 PM
Bonnie Shaljean 15 Mar 13 - 05:23 PM
GUEST 15 Mar 13 - 05:40 PM
Joe Offer 15 Mar 13 - 05:42 PM
Ed T 15 Mar 13 - 05:55 PM
MGM·Lion 15 Mar 13 - 06:18 PM
gnu 15 Mar 13 - 06:29 PM
GUEST,mg 15 Mar 13 - 08:26 PM
Ed T 15 Mar 13 - 09:16 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Mar 13 - 09:22 PM
Joe Offer 16 Mar 13 - 03:47 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Mar 13 - 03:56 AM
Joe Offer 16 Mar 13 - 04:40 AM
MartinRyan 16 Mar 13 - 04:46 AM
Joe Offer 16 Mar 13 - 04:51 AM
MartinRyan 16 Mar 13 - 05:10 AM
Ed T 16 Mar 13 - 05:54 AM
gnu 16 Mar 13 - 06:17 AM
Joe Offer 16 Mar 13 - 06:18 AM
MGM·Lion 16 Mar 13 - 06:40 AM
gnu 16 Mar 13 - 06:56 AM
Ed T 16 Mar 13 - 07:20 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Mar 13 - 07:21 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 12:04 PM

Way back in something like 1962, when I was in a Catholic primary school and aged around 7, I remember a question like Bonnie's coming up. In short, that was when you are in the situation during childbirth you could only save mother or child, the teaching was to save the child always. I didn't agree then - or at you couldn't have such a simplistic rule - and I don't now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM

believe there are still books that catholics are debarred from reading.

From Wikipedia: The final (20th) edition [of the list of banned books] appeared in 1948, and it was formally abolished on 14 June 1966 by @ope Paul VI.


As I've said elsewhere, even the RC church does change over time ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 12:44 PM

> …when you are in the situation during childbirth you could only save mother or child, the teaching was to save the child always.

But if, as Joe says, the conscience has primacy, then you cannot have a hard and fast rule to cover all situations. These two concepts conflict.

When issuing these edicts, how much does the Church tell you about the primacy of conscience? Joe is well informed on the subject, but many of the faithful do not have his depth of research, learning or experience. Are ordinary lay folk told about primacy of conscience, in language they can understand (both literally and metaphorically)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 03:04 PM

Speaking as a non-believer, I see the logic of not painting every Catholic or Jew or Muslim with the same brush. Conscience is a personal thing and everybody has a difference sense of it.

For example, in the Catholic practice, I see the value of Liberation Theology.

I see that Jews are on board with BDS in their criticism of Israel.

Certainly there are Muslims who don't accept the violent interpretation given by other Muslims of Jihad.

Ghandi, a Hindu preached an equal status of Hindu and Moslem alike.

I think if Catholicism is to survive, the followers will have to rebel against the unjust Church edicts. I think this may be true for other religions as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 03:17 PM

…when you are in the situation during childbirth you could only save mother or child, the teaching was to save the child always.

But if, as Joe says, the conscience has primacy, then you cannot have a hard and fast rule to cover all situations. These two concepts conflict.

When issuing these edicts, how much does the Church tell you about the primacy of conscience?


As I say, when I was told that I was around 7 and it was over 50 years ago, so I hope you don't expect me to remember the conversation verbatum. But I think what were told was sophisticated and complex but not actually conflicting. Yes, in the end conscience has primacy, we were told. But also, you have to be careful to distinguish between something 'as a matter of conscience' and claiming something is for reasons of conscience when it is simply 'that which you wanted to do'. It is no mean feat separating those two. As for the 'always', while the teachers did try to cover quite subtle things with us, that was understood to be 'always' in the informal conversational sense rather than the mathematical.

And for those who doubt it, this was the sort of thing taught to 7 year olds in my school!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 03:39 PM

Sorry, that post wasn't aimed directly at you - it was a general question which I hope Joe will address. But the example I gave tried to pose a genuine conscience dilemma, and I don't think the distinction is very clear.

So, some rules *are* binding...? But which? And how do you interpret? What if you believe you're acting in good faith? Joe?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 04:49 PM

Don't forget... the worst they can do is not communicate with you. So... you actually DO have the ULTIMATE choice. I could make a crass joke at this point in addition to the slightly crass joke above, but given my tirade above, I had better remain dumb. I may just end up in purgatory.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 07:39 PM

Just when you thought you may have figured out Catholics in Rome, there are the whole gaggle of non-Roman and un-popely Catholics, such as the Eastern Orthodox Catholics, the Polish, the Lebanese, the Greeks, the Russians, those in the Orient - yada yada. And, then there are the Anglicans, who are Catholic, not protestant (and, of course the Orthodox Anglicans, known as the Anglican-Catholics)*

*Note the Anglicans, though born out of protest-like the Protestants, are not Protestant at all. They are actually Catholics in drag - I mean disguise, (sans the Pope and Rome) thought they still tend to protest against the power of Rome, much like the Protestants.

Pope Leo XIII's in 1896,said the Anglicans weren't at all Catholics, because their succession was invalid (as it was a broken in apostolic succession by the use of the Ordination Rite of King Edward VI, which deleted all reference to the central priestly function and was deliberately designed to contain no indication of the "fullness of the ministry", specific tasks of the Catholic bishop or the "high priesthood", which the Holy See saw as essential. The RC's see that their point of view, based on Late Medieval sacramental theory, is valid for all periods of Catholic church history).

However, the Anglicans, who see themselves inside "as Catholic as the Pope", protested that (among allot of other issues, no such priestly functions or sacramental theology were also evident in the Roman Catholic Papal ordination rites of the 9th and 10th centuries - this would make the Roman Catholic ordinations invalid as well, using the same criteria the RC Pope used against the Anglicans) they are as Catholic as the any other Catholic.


To confuse things, the Anglicans have kinda patched up historic differences with the protesting Protestant German Lutherans (former catholic, Martin Luther), and they now share some facilities and can attend each other's services. Recently, the last Pope tried to move closer with the Anglicans, saying they were maybe Catholic after all the disputes. Now I am not sure where other original Protesting protestants lie, those founded under the French under John Calvin and the Swiss under Ulrich Zwingli.Let's not forget that John Wesley largely credited, along with his brother Charles Wesley, founded the Methodist movement and was an Anglican cleric (aka Catholic) that felt he was helping evolve Anglican Catholicism but was more influential in promoting an evolved Protestantism, especially in the USA.

I could go on and on-but, I am getting tired:)


But, before I leave, I will confuse yo a bit more with some religious statistics by country:World religions


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 08:36 PM

"Now I am not sure where other original Protesting protestants lie . . .".

They lie in church, just like everyone else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 08:48 PM

Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! THAT is priceless, 9!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 09:04 PM

:)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 03:21 AM

Bonnie asks: Using Joe's reasoning, in this case it would be OK for the doctor-husband to perform the termination, because they have sincerely consulted their consciences. Is this correct?

That is correct, Bonnie. The Catholic Church might excommunicate both the doctor and the pregnant woman - but excommunication is an administrative action of the Catholic Church, and does not necessarily coincide with moral culpability.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it quite clearly:
    1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law... (underlining mine)


If you'd like to see the entire line of thinking, follow the link. I replied to MtheGM that the teaching on conscience goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas, but it's quite in line with the anti-legalistic teaching of Jesus that is expressed in the New Testament.

This idea of primacy of conscience is hard for our legalistic world to understand, and many in authority in the Catholic Church do some fancy dance steps in attempts to assert their own authority. Church authorities often don't make it easy for Catholics to follow their consciences in moral decisions. A Mercy sister in our province was excommunicated by her archbishop for following her conscience in just such a situation. She was vice president of St. Joseph's hospital in Phoenix, and a member of the hospital's ethics board. She voted with the board to allow the hospital to perform an abortion when the mother's life was in danger. The hospital also lost its status as a Catholic hospital, and it can no longer have a Catholic chapel. In a wonderful statement of solidarity, the world headquarters of the Sisters of Mercy in Dublin is now home for the tabernacle from the hospital chapel.

When I was a kid, our religious education consisted mostly of memorizing questions and answers from the Baltimore Catechism, a compendium of the teachings of the Catholic Church that was based on the Catechism of Trent of the 16th century. In many ways, it was a dumb way to teach religion, but I still have those questions and answers in my head - and they're still solid theology. Most of it had a very positive tone, and there wasn't the emphasis on hellfire and damnation that so many people say they learned from the nuns.

I didn't hear much about hellfire and damnation from the Dominican nuns I had in grade school, or from the diocesan priests who taught me for eight years in the seminary in Milwaukee.

We had Passionist or Redemptorist priests come to the parish once a year to preach a parish "mission" - nightly sessions for the men one week, and for the women the next week. They always did the "hell" sermon on the last night, and it was always the most popular evening because those preachers were so graphic and dramatic and colorful in their presentations. The preachers heard confessions for hours after those presentations. Oh - and that was the night that the preachers took up the collection to pay for their services. But other than that one night a year, we didn't hear much about hell.

The Passionists and Redemptorists still preach parish missions, but they don't do "hell night" any more; and men and women attend together. Both orders of priests are renowned for their preaching and storytelling.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 03:55 AM

In the oft-neglected Original Post, gnu asks, "Why does anyone get pissy about the fact that the Cat'lic church is at least 70 years behind "the times" with regard to SOME issues? Isn't it NOT rocket science?"

Well, I get pissy about it all the time. I hold to the general compendium of Catholic teaching; but I think the Catholic Church is wrong in its teaching about homosexuality, contraception, and ordination of women and married people. I think the child molestation scandal is good evidence that the authorities of the Catholic Church do not have enough expertise in sexual matters to be able to give credible directives on matters of sex.

I agree with the Catholic Church that abortion is the taking of a human life, but I think it needs to approach this issue with far more compassion and understanding. I also think that if the Catholic Church would ally itself with Planned Parenthood and promote birth control, it could make a dramatic reduction in the number of abortions that take place.

But they haven't asked my opinion lately, and they're not likely to change theirs in the foreseeable future. So, on these matters, I listen to my conscience and wait for the day when the Powers That Be are enlightened.

Oh....one other thing: Ed T questions my statement about laicization. I said, "It's like saying a plumber is no longer a plumber, because he has committed a crime." Ed wonders why the Catholic Church can't decertify a priest in that manner. Ordination to the priesthood involves reception of a sacrament. Once a sacrament is bestowed, it cannot be taken away. It just doesn't work that way. Laicization is not ordinarily done as a punitive measure, although it can be granted to men who have resigned from the priesthood and want to get married. What is supposed to happen, is that a priest who commits a heinous crime like child molestation is supposed to have his faculties (his license to function as a priest) taken away. If a priest does not have "faculties," he does not have permission to function as a priest, anywhere in the world. But some of the organizations began to demand laicization of child molester priests, and now it is done in certain cases.

I don't mean to be condescending if I ask what a person knows about the teachings Catholic Church if he/she has not been inside a church for twenty years, or has not had significant Catholic religious education as an adult. It's true, though. If what you know about Catholic teaching is from the newspaper or from what you learned as a kid in catechism class, you really don't know. Trouble is, most adults within the Catholic church have had no adult education about what the Catholic Church teaches, either. It's not all that complicated. Most adults with a college education should be able to understand the Catechism of the Catholic Church quite well. And the official Catholic teaching in the Catechism is far less harsh and far more rational that many of the understandings of Catholic teaching that I see expressed above.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 05:06 AM

This idea of primacy of conscience is hard for our legalistic world to understand, and many in authority in the Catholic Church do some fancy dance steps in attempts to assert their own authority. Church authorities often don't make it easy for Catholics to follow their consciences in moral decisions. A Mercy sister in our province was excommunicated by her archbishop for following her conscience in just such a situation. She was vice president of St. Joseph's hospital in Phoenix, and a member of the hospital's ethics board. She voted with the board to allow the hospital to perform an abortion when the mother's life was in danger. The hospital also lost its status as a Catholic hospital, and it can no longer have a Catholic chapel.
.,,.
Sorry, Joe, but you seem to me to be doing a good job on our side of this question, in demonstrating a thoroughly alarming degree of confusion and inconsistency in the beliefs and practices of your authorities in relation to one another, to their 'flock', and to the communities they serve at large. I mean, if even those in charge can go against the authority of the Pope, because their consciences tell them to do so as authorised by their official doctrines as you quote above, resulting nevertheless, however 'conscientious' their decision and practice, in their being removed from the Communion ['excommunicated'] and forbidden to continue to own premises in which to practise the liturgies of their Faith... If even the right hand of the Church doesn't know, or can't control, what the left hand doeth, how can you expect the rest of us to understand, or respect, whatever is going on?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 05:45 AM

A person does not need to know the details of the internal teachings of the RC church to make a personal assessment of the result - or, to recognize if something seems "out of wack or wrong" (in their opinion).

One does't have to know all the fine details of the internal workings of a car to recognize that something is going wrong and the car does not do what it is supposed to do. One does not need to have the knowledge of a medical specialist, to understand when a body is not working well. One doesn't have to go through years of training and apprentiship to know when the plumbing isn't working.

Many aspects of Christian religions are based on history and are the result of centuaries of human interpretations of Christs instuction. When I look back at some of the history, and some questionalble persons involved, it puts it all in perspective for me.

It is certainly an accomplishmment that some folks have invested the time to understand all the fine internal workings of the RC church. While that detail may be needed to diagnose what needs to be done to fix it from inside (if the option "to fix it" is present for the faithful), it is not needed to know when it needs fixing and what needs fixing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 06:13 AM

Now you're starting to catch on, Michael. From the outside, the Catholic Church appears to be an absolute monarchy, ruled with an iron hand by an infallible pope. That's not how it works, and that's not how it's supposed to work. Every bishop is supreme authority in his own diocese, so the Pope's authority over them is akin to herding cats. But then, pastors are more-or-less supreme in their own parishes; and bishops don't have a whole lot of luck herding them, either.

On top of all that, parishioners belong to the Catholic Church voluntarily. They're largely ignorant of Catholic Church teaching and policy, so pastors don't have a lot of luck controlling them, either. In the United States, Catholics seem to know more about evangelical Christianity than they do of their own religion, because the evangelicals have overwhelmed the broadcast media.

Ideally, the Catholic Church is ruled by collegiality, with decisions made by consensus. The nuns in the U.S. actually make this work, but the men still seem to think they need an authoritative structure.

You're right - the Catholic Church is an absurd structure frought with "thoroughly alarming degree of confusion and inconsistency." But the essence of the Catholic Church isn't the structure or the authority. Although they may disagree about ancillary issues like birth control and the gender of priests and homosexuality, almost all Catholics share a belief in the central doctrines, mostly as expressed in the Nicene Creed of 325 AD - and there's very little disagreement among Christians (not just Catholics) about the Creed. The central acts of Catholic worship are the Mass and the sacraments, which are treasured greatly by all Catholics.

That's the point - it's not an authority structure, it's a worldwide community of believers. It's amazingly diverse, both in the ethnicity of its members and in its spectrum of theology. And membership is voluntary.

So, if you want to understand the reality of the Catholic Church, repeat this ten times:
    Catholic Church: herding cats


-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 06:23 AM

How can it be a "community of believers" whose "membership" is voluntary", who are not subject to external authority, if they can be involuntarily removed from the membership of the community if their conduct in some particular does not conform to the thinking of this [putatively non-existent] authority?

I am sorry, Joe; but from where I am sitting, far from my 'catching on', you are just not making any sort of coherent sense.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 06:25 AM

Controversy seems to have arisen surrounding the election of the new Argentinian pope.
It centres on the on the role of the church during the reign of terror which led to 10,000 Argentinians being murdered and more being tortured and 'disappeared' at the behest of the military junta.
The church was,as tends to be the case, silent on these events at the time, but one aspect in particular has been raised. Priests working among the poor in ghettos were ordered to desist; those who refused, had the protection of the church withdrawn leading to two being arrested and imprisoned for eight months, several more 'disappeared' and were never seen again.
It's not clear whether your man was directly involved though reports have suggested that he should make his position clear.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 06:58 AM

At this point, I think I'd like to quote Ronald Reagan: "There you go again, Jim."

The incident in question happened in 1976. Two Jesuit priests were kidnapped by the regime and tortured. It was claimed that Bergoglio failed to inform the regime that he supported the work of the two priests, and that resulted in their captivity and torture.

Given the fact that the incident happened 37 years ago and that it isn't clear what exactly the offense was, I'm not quite ready to send the guy to prison.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 07:12 AM

I agree with the Catholic Church that abortion is the taking of a human life, but I think it needs to approach this issue with far more compassion and understanding. I also think that if the Catholic Church would ally itself with Planned Parenthood and promote birth control, it could make a dramatic reduction in the number of abortions that take place.

I agree with everybody that the taking out Saddam, Osama and Muammar was the taking of human lives. I agree that the deaths of innocent civilians in Gaza, in Shatila, in Iraq was the taking of human lives. So what am I saying here? Well nothing. So what were you saying? You were doing no more than staking out the same tired old moralising Catholic position. That is more than implicit in your next sentence, which calls for "compassion and understanding". In other words, abortion is wrong but let's try to understand it a bit more. Well this won't do. This is what has got us where we are, with scandalously high abortion rates and all the attendant misery, disease and poverty, especially for women. How about a different starting point. Abortion is not wrong, but there is a lot wrong with the Catholic church's stance on abortion. If we start right there we are beginning to see the light. We are beginning to see what it is we need to attack, and it certainly isn't women, if we want to get abortion numbers down (and I'm convinced that the Church doesn't actually want this. The Church is nothing without its sticks to beat us with). The bottom line is that the Catholic church hasn't got a bloody clue about abortion. It hasn't got a bloody clue about good sex education, about contraception, about raising the status of women, about dealing with poverty. The Catholic church, some time quite soon, is going to make a saint out of someone who preached that poverty is a virtue, not an evil to be confronted, and that abortion is a threat to world peace. When you lionise a person like that instead of meting out richly-deserved ostracism (cf. Jimmy Savile), you just know that the Church will never, ever do anything constructive about abortion. We'll get the same old sanctimony, the same old moralising, the same old institutionalisation of the submissive place of women.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 07:53 AM

> The Catholic Church might excommunicate both the doctor and the pregnant woman - but excommunication is an administrative action of the Catholic Church, and does not necessarily coincide with moral culpability.


WHAAAAAAT? Excommunicate them? So there are strings attached to this conscience thing. Strings big enough to strangle you.

It's not good enough to say Oh, the rules aren't binding, and then neglect to clearly cite the horrific consequences if somebody breaks one (and excommunication IS horrific for believing, practicing Catholics, as it's meant to be). They. Can't. Have. It. Both. Ways.

I know you're going to write a big long thing contradicting me and telling me how wrong I am, but moral logic is moral logic. Making something "allowable" but then punishing someone for it is no different from outlawing it EXCEPT THAT IT'S HYPOCRITICAL. It's pretending one thing while actually doing another. And you just seem blind to this.

Excommunication is not only depriving people of their worship, it's also a huge social stigma in large areas of the world. It will damn them in the eyes of their neighbors and get them shunned in many cases, harm their businesses, cause their children suffering from their peers at school - AS THEY DAMN WELL KNOW. It is pure mendacity to pretend otherwise.

And don't you dare tell me I'm over-dramatising or exaggerating. Just because it might not happen there (where you are: but the US is a big place) doesn't mean it happens nowhere. As Ed T has already pointed out, you seem to think that no one's experience or perspective is valid but your own.

ED T and MGM have both made the other comments I would have followed with and I can't improve on them. But I can repeat them (the boldface emphasis is mine):


MGM

Sorry, Joe, but you seem to me to be doing a good job on our side of this question, in demonstrating a thoroughly alarming degree of confusion and inconsistency in the beliefs and practices of your authorities in relation to one another, to their 'flock', and to the communities they serve at large.

How can it be a "community of believers" whose "membership" is voluntary", who are not subject to external authority, if they can be involuntarily removed from the membership of the community if their conduct in some particular does not conform to the thinking of this [putatively non-existent] authority?


ED T

A person does not need to know the details of the internal teachings of the RC church to make a personal assessment of the result - or, to recognize if something seems "out of wack or wrong"… [or] know all the fine details of the internal workings of a car to recognize that something is going wrong and the car does not do what it is supposed to do.
[BS: read "does not do what it says it does".]

It is certainly an accomplishment that some folks have invested the time to understand all the fine internal workings of the RC church… [but] it is not needed to know when it needs fixing and what needs fixing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 08:26 AM

"Given the fact that the incident happened 37 years ago"
And there YOU go again Joe
There is no 'sell-by-date' on crimes against humanity, nor should there be
It is immaterial how long ago it happened and how many people were involved, this was the action of the established church and, as you say, directly involves Bergoglio.
What do you say to the surviving 'Mothers of the Disappeared' who were still meeting regularly up to fairly recently - "it was a long time ago, forget your children, go home and take up knitting".

Bergoglio was involved, and if he is going to operate in any effective way he should clear up exactly what part he played and where he stands on such regimes now.
The Church has a history of siding with despotic and oppressive regimes, particularly in South America, Chile, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil...
Some people still talk, read about and watch films of "Hitler's Pope", who nodded through many thousands of Jews to their deaths at the hands of the Nazis.
If the church has any future role, it has to concentrating on the populace in general rather than giving unqualified support to history's monsters.
Don't sweep this one under the carpet too Joe.
This has not come to light because of my "going again", it is a public issue directly brought to light by the election of the pope - I should have thought it was important for you and all Catholics to ascertain that you got a suitable man for the job.
The last pope came into office with a historical blot on his copy-book which was brushed under the carpet in the same way the complicity of the German people in the Holocaust was, "They made us do it". For the sake of your church, don't let it happen again.
BTW - the Argentina affair involved more than two priests - stop supporting by minimising it (again)
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 09:56 AM

Bergoglio was involved, and if he is going to operate in any effective way he should clear up exactly what part he played and where he stands on such regimes now.

Whatever else happens, I think it is pretty clear that the degree of involvement and his guilt or innocence is going to be gone over pretty thoroughly in the next month or so. There are too many people on all sides interested in getting to the bottom of it for things to just fade away.

In the meantime, I think it premature of us, on either side, to behave as if we knew all the facts already. And it is very easy for those of us who aren't under the threat of being disappeared to say how people who are/were should behave. I know a woman who lived near Belsen during the war and had her arm cut off by a soldier for offering some Jews being marched to the camp some bread. Who blames her for not doing anything else to help them after that? And what about those standing next to her who saw it happen? Are they to be blamed? What about those who only heard about it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 02:14 PM

I am a little confused abou the military thing as well. I am not going to condemn him because I don't know the facts and none of us ever know how we will behave when a bayonet is at our throats. But I think it is unusual that with a new scandal breaking out every day in the church that they would not have immediately issued a statement (which they are now doing in response to many discussions) that we know about the accusations and they have been cleared to our satisfaction..signed..all the cardinals. Otherwise they (shock) look like they could not have seen this train wreck coming..surely someone had a dossier on him and could have revealed this in session..as in do we want to start out a papacy with this to deal with..or has it been sufficiently debunked and there will be a small storm and then it will be over..I do not know. He does seem like a very decent man from what I have seen, sincere etc...I just don't know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 03:14 PM

Jim, I think that you and the conspiracy theorists have a lot in common. Much of what you say is correct, but you have no sense of time or proportion. Once I hear solid evidence one way or another, I'll make up my mind about what the pope did in 1976.

Why is it when you make these accusations, you consistently fail to give dates and data?

And I have to say again that 1976 was a long, long time ago. I really can't do anything now about what I did in 1976. In fairness, I think I should be judged by who I am now and what I've been doing in the last five or ten years.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 04:53 PM

Bonnie, I think that your expectation is that the Catholic Church should have all the questions answered, and that all Catholics should support those answers. You wouldn't want to belong to an organization that dictated all that you're supposed to think and do, but you think that Catholics should have such an organization so that it's easier for you to condemn Catholics without your being thought of as bigoted. You want to redefine the Catholic Church in fundamentalist terms, to make it easier for you to feel smug about condemning it. Your line of thinking cannot account for the messiness that quite healthily exists in the Catholic Church.

But no, it's isn't all that clear-cut. There are many Catholics who are every bit as intelligent and well-meaning as you are. They also question the Catholic Church's discrimination against women and homosexuals, its scandalous failure to protect children from molestation, and its illogical condemnation of birth control. Thinking Catholics exist in the Catholic Church in large numbers, and they don't always buy the company propaganda. The balance of the discussion seems to be tipped toward those in authority, but those who "dissent" have one big thing in their favor: their participation in the Catholic Church is voluntary. And all those thinking Catholics are still there, slowly and quietly pushing for change.

Yeah, it was a heavy price for our nun to pay, to be excommunicated for following her conscience. It's how conscientious objection works, however - you have to be ready to pay the penalty, knowing that the Almighty has a far higher opinion of you that church authorities do. To be readmitted, she had to go through a demeaning process of renouncing her decision to allow the abortion. She was moved to another diocese where the bishop wasn't so intent on grandstanding on the abortion issue, and she's back at work doing good stuff. Her religious order, the Sisters of Mercy, supported her completely during this trying time. But if Catholics don't pay the price and stand up for what is right, can we ever make any progress?

No, that Catholic Church is not going to make abortion "allowable" for those who choose abortion in good conscience. Yes, the Catholic Church will continue to impose sanctions on those who choose to have an abortion. It takes the issue of abortion seriously, and it has to impose sanctions to make its position stick. Still, it acknowledges that those who choose abortion in good conscience do not have moral culpability - i.e., they can't go to hell for it unless they think it's gravely evil and freely choose to do it anyhow.

A woman I know and love had two abortions in the 1980s. This woman would have been a good mother to those two children, but she was unable to escape her relationship with the children's father, and didn't feel she could raise the children safely in his presence. So, she chose abortion, and took the lives of those two children. I think the loss of those two children was wrong, and it is cause for grief. Still, I think the woman made the decision that was right for her. Now, that might not be satisfactory to those of you black-and-white people who think that things must be either right or wrong. But in real life, we have to make a lot of decisions that don't offer clear-cut moral certainty.

I suppose that according to Jim Carroll's rules, if I'm a good Catholic, I should condemn this woman for her abortions for the rest of her life. But those abortions happened thirty years ago, and they can't be undone. Life goes on, and this woman is a wonderful woman It would be absurd for anyone to continue to condemn this woman for decisions she made thirty years ago.

Our lives are full of grey. It's not all black-and-white.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 04:59 PM

Joe - I haven't made up my mind, please show me where I have.
I am aware of the Church's past and you are more than welcome to put me right if I am wrong, but it is not "conspiracy theorising" to point out the recorded facts regarding the new Pope - unless you would like to show me I have imagined it.
Nor is it "conspiracy theorising" to point out that the question of in his role at the time of Argentina's military coup has become an issue.
I'm afraid you're one of those people who prefers to deal with problems by undermining the credibility of the people who raise them rather than dealing with the problem head on.
Do you really need dates and data to learn the truth of what has happened and is still happening in these places - I don't believe for one minute that you are unaware of them and couldn't confirm or disprove them with a few dabs of the finger.
It is yet another real problem that your church must deal with if it is going to survive; you have to be aware of the damage already done by hoping that these problems will blow away with the next strong wind.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 05:15 PM

I'll admit you told the story quite fairly, Jim. I just wondered why you failed to report the dates in your narrative, as you failed to report the dates of the molestations at the school for the deaf in Milwaukee.

The context of time, is a very important one. Your failure to include the fact that these incidents took place in the 1970s, definitely and unfairly tips the scales in your favor.

On the other hand, what's ironic about this is that you and I basically agree. I think the Catholic Church has a long and sordid history of being in bed with tyrants. I acknowledge and detest the Catholic Church's failure to deal with the child molestation scandal at the time it was happening (it's dealing with it now, but now is far too late). I think that the Catholic Church should bless homosexual marriages and ordain women and married people. And I think the birth control ban is silly. And while I see abortion as objectively wrong, I adhere to the longtime Catholic position that sometimes people must choose between two wrongs, and then they must follow what their conscience dictates. I don't defend the Catholic Church's position on any of these matters. But still, it's my church, and I stick around to do what I can to move the church toward change. And I see these issues as important but ancillary - not central to the essence of the Catholic Church.



-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 05:23 PM

Don't tell me what my expectation is, and then generalise it to the point of meaninglessness.

My expectation is that if a large powerful body is going to impose rules and regulations (or severe punishments for transgressing them) they should be transparent about the implications and consequences of those regulations. In other words, say clearly what they mean and mean what they say. Whether it's about abortion, the contraception ban, or anything else. There's too much leeway for inconsistency. I am not the only person to have problems with the contradictions and non-answers, as you can see from the above posts.

You could at least try to get what I'm saying right. And I'm not the only one to say it.

> so that it's easier for you to condemn Catholics without your being thought of as bigoted

> You want to redefine the Catholic Church in fundamentalist terms, to make it easier for you to feel smug about condemning it. Your line of thinking cannot account for the messiness that quite healthily exists in the Catholic Church.

BULL!! Do not put words in my mouth. Do not tell me what I want and what I feel unless you have some clue as to what it is, and can get it even half right. And do not, DO NOT, DO NOT EVER use the word "bigot" in connection with me. Ever. It is a lie. YOU DO NOT KNOW ME, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO JUDGE, AND YOU DO NOT SIT ON ANY HIGH MORAL GROUND FROM WHICH TO CALL OTHER PEOPLE NAMES. And, most especially, do not ever ever call anyone else "smug". Pots and kettles.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 05:40 PM

""participation in the Catholic Church is voluntary""

Most likely this was not the case for the far too many children who were offered up and molested throughout the years. Their parents did so in trust and with confidence that they were safe, and that this Christian-based church would enrich their lives. Unfortunately, this trust was violated again and again over the years. I suspect many parents ignored all the clues, and were blinded with the long-held belief that people they trusted fully, those in decision making positions of authority, could do no wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 05:42 PM

Bonnie, moral issues are complicated. You insist they should be simplistic, but they just aren't. Everything we do, has complicated implications. HOWEVER, the Catholic teaching on morals is that in the end, no matter what anybody else says, you have to follow your heart and do what you think is right - even if the Catholic Church says you're wrong.

Take just one issue, birth control. Pope Paul VI covered the issue in his encyclical, ("Human Life"). You can read the entire thing here (CLICK). In this document, the matter of birth control is discussed in context, and you can judge from the document its level of importance. Please note that the document says nothing about sending anybody to hell for taking a birth control pill.

If you at least browse through this one document, you'll see how moral issues are handled by the Catholic Church. It's all in print (and now on the Vatican Website) for those who care to take the time to read it.

Sorry I made you angry. It's not that you are a bigot. It's just that you aren't very tolerant....

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 05:55 PM

Time to fess up.Last cookie-less guest twas me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 06:18 PM

Never mind Heaven & Hell, Joe. You speak with the utmost confidence about them, which is, in the true sense, an entire begging of the question about their very existence, which sounds like a pretty good fairy tale to some of us. I am sure that the person driven from her employment, and her Communion, by the Church for following her conscience, despite their own assertion, from Aquinas et al, that the conscience must be paramount, must feel very much consoled by the consideration that, tho the Church has driven her from the occupation she loves and the Communion & comforts of her Faith, because it must, despite its own teaching [or, rather, as the result of that confusion & inconsistency whereby two of its own teachings -- regarding the primacy of conscience v. the mortal sin of abortion -- are in conflict with one another], if she truly acted conscientiously she won't have to go to Hell after all! That must cheer her occupationless and Communionless declining years immeasurably, I am sure! Tho the consideration that there are probably many in authority in the Church who continue in the conviction that, yes, she will suffer damnation because she has committed a mortal sin for which she has lost the right to absolution by Confession, might give her occasional pause, at that...

One of the things that has always puzzled me about people's need for religion [I remember making exactly this point to a very Orthodox Jewish colleague once], is that life, by its very nature, is bound to be full of acute problems and difficulties from the off: so why-oh-why, I cannot help asking, do so many people embrace systems & lifestyles which seem to me to function entirely on the compulsion to add to them to the degree of ∞? Beats me!

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 06:29 PM

Since my attempt at centralizing the discussion thru brainstorming had NO effect on keeping this thread in line with the OP, allow me some drift too.... if you will... if you dare...

Define "Hell". Go on. I'll bet less than 0.0001% of you can do it... even the "GOOD" Cat'lics. I'll spot Joe on this.

Joe... don't answer for a while, please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 08:26 PM

You are put in a fire and roasted for eternity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 09:16 PM

Hell (A few definitions from the Urban Dictionary) - take your pick:

1)By far the most effective fear tactic created by an intelligent human being centuries ago used to control millions of people by taking the mystery of live and giving them insecurity of the unknown nature of death. There is no such place. People that claim they have had near death experiences to hell are lying.
The pastor mentioned hell quite often before passing the offering plate.

2) The life we are living now. Seriously, with over thousands of ways to die and suffer on Earth you shouldn't be surprised. At least in Hell you know you're dead so you can be as carefree as you want.

3) A place that child molesters told their victims they'd go if they told anyone.

4) A word used at the start of a southerner's sentence.
Hell,I think those chickens are just trying to get eaten.

5) The Department of Motor Vehicles. A place where you stand in line for 4-5 hours, in mid-summer, in a building with no air conditioning, only to be told by one of Satan's imps that you lack 1 one of the 5 forms of identification needed to exchange your Minnesota drivers licence for a Utah one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 09:22 PM

A woman I know and love had two abortions in the 1980s. This woman would have been a good mother to those two children, but she was unable to escape her relationship with the children's father, and didn't feel she could raise the children safely in his presence. So, she chose abortion, and took the lives of those two children.

No. She chose abortion. Just stop right there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 03:47 AM

I guess, Steve, that you see moral decisions as either right or wrong. You "believe" in abortion, so you see the choice of abortion as always right. Moral decisions are often far more complicated, and introspective people tend not to be so sure they're right. Because of my friend's decision, two young people are not living today. In at least some sense of the term, she took the lives of those two children. I think she made the proper decision, but I still think there's reason to grieve the loss of those two lives. If a woman has a miscarriage, there is cause for grief, even though it is a natural thing that happens time and time again. If a woman has an abortion, there is also reason to grieve - even if the decision to abort was the proper decision.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 03:56 AM

"Jim. Jim. I just wondered why you failed to report the dates in your narrative, as you failed to report the dates of the molestations at the school for the deaf in Milwaukee.as you failed to report the dates of the molestations at the school for the deaf in Milwaukee."
Because they are totally irrelevant to the discussion Joe
Quite frankly, I have become sick to the back teeth on another thread, of somebody defending the massacre of 3,500 unarmed refugees because "it happened thirty years ago".
It is totally unimportant how long ago these events took place, just as it is not important that child abuses stopped (if the have stopped) 10, 20, 30 - however long ago.
The fact that they happened, the way that they happened, why they happened and who was involved are all relevant to this case - when is not.
If somebody elected to the highest holy office there is, is accused of collaborating with a viciously murderous regime, that merits investigation and should not be given a get-out card because it happened a long time ago.
At the time I watched film reports of the 'Mothers of the Disappeared' standing silently with on the streets with placards requesting (not demanding) that they should be told of the fate of their sons and daughters. If the church, particularly if the new pope, was in any way part of that terrorism, then the Catholic faithful have every right to know how and why (if it matters and if they don't already know, they can simply find out when).
Atrocities do not have a shelf life, they are part of the history of our history and certainly the history of every person and every institution involved, and the more we know the more likely it is that they will never happen again
I didn't bring this matter to public notice (and I bitterly resent being equated with a "conspiracy theorist".
I believe it should automatically be part of any discussion like this so I drew attention to it.
Please tell my why the time these events occurred is important.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/survivors_voice/pollard_case_against_forgetting.htm
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 04:40 AM

And just who was it, Jim, that "defended" the massacre of 3,500 unarmed refugees? It was indeed a horrible thing, but it's history. Nothing, nothing at all can be done about it now - except that you can capitalize on it as ammunition to destroy somebody living now. You can carry on and on with your self-righteous horseshit; but in the end, it's just outright bigotry.

You start with the assumption that the Catholic Church that is part of who I am, is evil. Then you build on it with the assumption that Catholics must be evil or profoundly stupid to belong to their church.

Catholics don't deny that Catholic leaders have been in bed with dictators, particularly in Latin America. To say that Catholics deny or defend that, is a fucking lie.

Catholics don't deny the child molestation scandal. For Christ's sake, the victims were Catholic children! To assert that Catholics deny or defend the child molestation scandal, is a fucking lie.


And a person who tells fucking lies, may well be a fucking liar.

And a fucking bigot, on top of that.

I've had it with the lot of you, all you fucking bigots. What's the difference between you and the Know-Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan? Nothing, not a damn thing. I acknowledge all the wrongs of the church I love, and I've worked all my life to understand and correct those wrongs. But you bastards don't want to carry on a discussion. All you want to do is attack and destroy.

You're bigots, all of you. You're very self-righteous about it, but so was the Ku Klux Klan. Jim Carroll, Steve Shaw, and Bonnie Shaljean, you three are the worst of the bigots, no matter how self-righteous you may be about it.

I'm disgusted with you. I thought you were intelligent, tolerant people and that it would be worthwhile to discuss things with you. But no, you're blinded by your hatred. And I'm sick of it. I'm happy about the election of the new Pope. He seems like a decent, gentle man. I'm hoping that he will cure at least some of the many ills of my church. If you think of yourselves as fair, reasonable people, don't attack him unless you have proven evidence.

And don't say I defend the massacre of 3,500 unarmed refugees. You fucking liar.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 04:46 AM

Calm down, Joe! As you well know, attempts to replace "the opium of the people" with cheap, proletarian weed only induce smugness in the purveyors.

Regards


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 04:51 AM

No, Martin, I won't calm down. All my life, I have believed that "liberals" were tolerant, decent people who would give others a fair break. That's not the case here at Mudcat. The liberals are every bit as bigoted as the fascists. Maybe it's time for them to learn that what they attack, is what others hold sacred - for reasons they can't begin to understand. And it has nothing to do with "defending" wrongdoing. Fucking bastards.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 05:10 AM

The liberals are every bit as bigoted as the fascists.


Of course. Forty odd years ago, I spent a year as a post-grad student in University College Cork. The Chemistry Department had just appointed two new professors. For the first time in the College's history, neither was a Cork graduate. One (my research supervisor) was a conservative Catholic from Northern Ireland; the other was an English atheist - "liberal about everything except other people's religion", as I described him at the time. In many ways an intelligent, rational scientist with an inherent courtesy in his dealings with others, he simply had no idea what went on in the heads of those of a religious persuasion. You can imagine how he got on in conservative, Catholic Cork at the time...

Several of our regular disputants remind me of him - without the courtesy.

Regards


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 05:54 AM

It seems wrong, based on a difference of perspective/opinion on any topic, to negatively brand all of the liberal-leaning people on mudcat. And, IMO, it is wrong to indicate these folks views are all "cut from the same cloth". It also seems foolhardy to suggest fine mudcat folks lump all RCs and the organization together as evil. Differences of opinion on specific topics, and heated discourse, does not give good reason to demonize anyone.

It has been suggested earlier that Mother Teresa was not without her flaws, as earlier portrayed in the media. Unfortunately, a close look at any human reveals human flaws. But, at a minimum, my observation is this woman seemed to keep her language (at least in public domain) respectful and civil. There is something to be said for that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 06:17 AM

240 posts compared to my 130 posts. I applaud you, Joe, for trying to wade thru the bullshit so long before turning from "gnu to Wildebeeste". There have been lots of interesting and insightful posts, some also very funny posts (Hell is the DMV - hehehehe, good one, Ed) but there have been far more ranging from pure bullshit to vile.

I do know one thing for certain : Joe is going to heaven. On accounta Joe knows what hell is.

In my case, it's a tossup, but there is always hope.

I will continue to read this thread for a while yet but I do find it difficult at times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 06:18 AM

You know, Ed, sometimes it's appropriate to get angry, especially in the face of bigotry and injustice.

The word "fucking" tends to get the attention of the bigots, when nothing else works.

You will excuse my exaggeration. Heck, I consider myself to be a "liberal-leaning person." It's only certain individuals who express the bigotry, but it causes me great disillusionment. I thought they were bigger than that.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 06:40 AM

Dear Joe: I do not wish to aggravate your resentment at the obloquy of things you hold dear; and I appreciate your not including me in your list of the prime villains of the thread [at least, I think I do, but perhaps there is some ambivalence here!]. And I know you are not a person who is easily stirred up to such a degree of animadversion. But I do think that, with your deep beliefs, you fail to see that others feel just as strongly that beliefs of this sort are a mischievous drag on human enlightenment and progress; and so are bound to express themselves as vehemently against them as you do in their defence. I honestly do not believe that the nay-sayers to your convictions deserve the sort of opprobrium you have, most uncharacteristically it seems to me, heaped on them, for expressing their honest and deeply-held opinions in tones of emphatic conviction. They [we] see it as their [our] duty to do so to as great an extent as you feel honour-bound and motivated to contradict them. On a forum of this sort, may not contrary views be vigorously expressed without incurring such a degree of rage?

With respect, and genuinely loving difference of view

~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 06:56 AM

MtheGM... "...as you feel honour-bound and motivated to contradict them."

Talk about a poor choice of words given what Joe is upset about. I don't think it's true, either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:20 AM

When I am not closely attached to an issue, I can just about argue either side, and easily see perspectives on any position.

However, there are some issues that are "closer to my heart" that cloud this broader perspective. These fall in the "danger zone" where I am more likely to loose my cool and tolerance to extreme views or approaches. I suspect we are all like that. When it happens to me I normally see myself as "spinning my wheels" and just losing traction on progressing on issues.

As to the new pope, I choose to be positive and not to rush to judgement (but, I may add that, because of the lessons of history, I am cautious about my level of enthusiasm) It is a minimum I would expect if I took on a new job and a big task. Because of the nature of the post, there are many media folks seeking out the warts,and many eager ears waiting to learn of of them.

Because he is human, and has been around for awhile, I expect and am tolerant to some warts. Just because the church organization has been accused of questionable practices, it does not mean that he has been an active part of that.

Additionally, I believe we have to be understanding that it is complex to operate under an extremely cruel dictatorship. One would have to be there to better understand the challenges. There are different views of the value of serving the needs of a larger number of people over the longer term, versus sacrificing this to help a few persons in pressing need. There is also the issues involved with the separation of church from governments, the good ones and the bad.

I suspect if we were to closely examined our past "heros" who have accomplished good works with the same rigor as today, there would be many warts showing. Today, leaders are under greater public scrutiny than ever before, and citizens are increaingly interested in paying more attention to the warts than the potential.(maybe the media and technologuy and social media plays a part in that, or, maybe it is just changes in society) But, IMO, even people who made mistakes in the past, and are not "perfect humans" (and will also make mistakes in the future) can accomplish good things.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:21 AM

Thank you for that little outburst Joe - it clears the air no end.
I have never as you claim referred to "the The Catholic Church that is part of who I am, is evil", neither do I believe it.
If you are as honest as you claim to be you will either show where I have or will withdraw your accusation and apologise.
That the Church hierarchy has carried out evil acts is beyond dispute - the covering up of child rape and passing the perpetrators on to fresh field and pastures new, thus allowing them to continue their practices is as evil as evil as it gets.
The continual denial of access of documents so the survivors of those abuses are unable to get closure comes a pretty close second.
Not far behind is the relegation of these crimes to "the past", which leaves the door open for the whole bloody affair to start all over again because they have been forgotten.
How dare you describe me or anybody else as a bigot because the behaviour of the church make us wish that these things never happen again and try to prevent them doing so by attepting to show what has been and is still shrouded in secrecy.
It is those who put a statute of limitations on such abuses who are the greatest bigots.
You never responded to the link I produced; did you even bother to read it. I didn't really expect you to; the continuing suffering of survivors of long-term abuse does not appear to interest you.
My definition of 'the church' takes in the rank and file faithful who give support and follow its teachings, including those who were betrayed and defiled by its officers. Thes include family members and dear, sometime lifelong frieds and aquaintences.
"And don't say I defend the massacre of 3,500 unarmed refugees. You fucking liar."
I never claimed you did and if you don't withdraw the accusation, it is you who is the fucking liar.
If you hadn't become so apoplecticly defensive about all this you might have read what I wrote - I suggest you put your head between your knees, take a few deep breaths and do so again.
Your bullying and aggressively hectoring attitude here sums up the reception that greeted many of the abuse victims when they finally had the courage to reveal what happened to them, thank you for giving such a clear example
Just as with the abuse, the churches historical relationship with dictators and human rights abusers speaks for itself, and that too has no statute of limitations, especially as one of those who may have been involve has just been elected pope. At the very least, your followers have the right to know.
Jim Carroll


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

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 23 September 12:33 PM 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.