Am I insulting all Catholics everywhere?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

44% have changed religions, 9% of the population is Catholics who have changed religion. But they should trust their religion and learn to not question their moral superiors in the church.

Why be so mad at people who know better than you but not question the part that gives your the belief of them knowing better?

Of course 9% when it is only out of 25% is still nearly 40% of catholics.

What on earth are you talking about there? Who is mad and who knows better than I and what is it that they know better than I? What is it you think I believe anyway?

And back to your statistics, it's pretty evident that Catholics convert at a much lower rate than Protestants, which was the point made by myself and jhunter.

[jhunter1163]

From the Wiki article on Catholicism:

Quote:

The Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches together form the "Catholic Church",[22] or "Roman Catholic Church",[23] the world's largest single religious body and the largest Christian church, comprising over half of all Christians (1.1 billion Christians of 2.1 billion) and nearly one-sixth of the world's population.

The OP better get busy if he's going to insult all 1.1 billion of them.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

You're forgetting that the RCC isn't a democracy. Priests aren't voted in or out; they are assigned. The congregation has no say whatsoever in which priest is assigned to which parish.

The idea that Catholic congregations "put up with" pedophiles is simply wrong. There's no denying that the hierarchy covered it up; but there is literally nothing that the congregations at large could have done about it.

Really? They can't throw the bums out? Why not? Because the Church says they have to keep a pedophile around their children? Does that make any sense at all to you?

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

From the Wiki article on Catholicism:



The OP better get busy if he's going to insult all 1.1 billion of them.

The intent was there, so the deed is unnecessary. (Thank you, St. George of Carlin.)

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Really? They can't throw the bums out? Why not? Because the Church says they have to keep a pedophile around their children? Does that make any sense at all to you?

They are Catholics they don't have choice.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

What on earth are you talking about there? Who is mad and who knows better than I and what is it that they know better than I? What is it you think I believe anyway?

And back to your statistics, it's pretty evident that Catholics convert at a much lower rate than Protestants, which was the point made by myself and jhunter.

And your evidence for that is what? A lower percent of the population doesn't prove that until we compare it to total percentages.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Really? They can't throw the bums out? Why not? Because the Church says they have to keep a pedophile around their children? Does that make any sense at all to you?

Really, they can't, because the Church assigns a priest to a parish. Typically, the assignment will last five to ten years, although it can be more or less. So people may not have suspected that particular priests were pedophiles, because it's not really unusual for priests to be moved from place to place.

That makes absolutely no difference, though, regarding the reprehensible pattern of moving pedophiles from place to place. People in the hierarchy knew and did nothing. That's what needed (and needs) to be stopped.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

In a larger city, a protestant won't even have to switch denominations, he or she can simply find another pastor at another church that they like more. The RCC is much more hierarchical. Regularly attending a church in a different parish is frowned upon.

There are vanishingly few non-Catholic denominations to which a Catholic could go. I can think of only one (Episcopalian, or "Catholic-Lite" as they're also known).

Oh, there are plenty of breakaway groups who maintain catholic traditions and beliefs, but most of them are pretty small. I mentioned one just above in this thread: the Old Catholic Church, which originated around 1700 in the Netherlands when the Pope accused the apolostic vicar of Utrecht of being a Jansenist and deposed him. They're pretty liberal: ordain women, no celibacy and have no problems with gays. If Latin is more your style (and optionally, Holocaust denial) you could go to the Society of St. Pius X. And there are plenty more groups claiming catholic tradition and apostolic succession:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevac...Roman_Catholic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakaw...holic_Churches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen...holic_churches

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And your evidence for that is what? A lower percent of the population doesn't prove that until we compare it to total percentages.

I'm sorry, you've ignored my primary question(s). I am really curious what it is you were talking about there.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by ddt

Oh, there are plenty of breakaway groups who maintain catholic traditions and beliefs, but most of them are pretty small. I mentioned one just above in this thread: the Old Catholic Church, which originated around 1700 in the Netherlands when the Pope accused the apolostic vicar of Utrecht of being a Jansenist and deposed him. They're pretty liberal: ordain women, no celibacy and have no problems with gays. If Latin is more your style (and optionally, Holocaust denial) you could go to the Society of St. Pius X. And there are plenty more groups claiming catholic tradition and apostolic succession:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevac...Roman_Catholic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakaw...holic_Churches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen...holic_churches

Yeah, plenty of options there for the wandering Catholic, but a couple of problems, not the least of which is there isn't one within a three hours drive of most people. Secondly is the fact that these are schismatic groups who generally have a faith at odds with conventional Catholic doctrine. But this is really not the issue.

Really, the assertion that anyone who self identifies as a Catholic is aiding and abetting pedophile priests is, as I have stated earlier, an arbitrarily severe standard of collective guilt. It's fine to apply that standard with your atheistic supercilious righteous indignation, but that's not what people are like. Many of them are outraged by the scandal, many have and will call the police if they think the parish priest is a pedo, and they're still going to be at mass on Sunday. Get over it. People are not going to play by your rules.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

That's not what that grid says. It says that 9% of people raised Catholic (not 9% of the US population) have converted to other faiths during their lifetimes. So it's not something that happens a lot, despite your effort to spin it otherwise. To look at it the other way, 91% of people who were born Catholic still identify as Catholic.

ETA: My mistake; it does say that. However, I notice that the sample size isn't exactly vast (less that 1,000 recontact interviews) and many of the people (four in ten) leaving the faith did so because they stopped believing in any God, not just the Catholic one. *raises hand*

There's also this page at Pew which has a larger sample size, 10,545. 32% of Catholics have left: 15% to protestant, 14% to to unaffiliated, 3% to other. So yes, it is quite possible for a catholic to vote with their feet. And frankly, I don't think the average catholic is so high on the finesses of dogma, like what happens at the Eucharist, that that aspect is overriding in their decision to stay in the RCC (or undecision to leave).

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

The ones that put up with this abuse are giving their tacit approval. That's not really hard to figure out, guy.

So, when you bring this up, you are deliberately insulting them, but you take umbrage when they act insulted.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Really, they can't, because the Church assigns a priest to a parish. Typically, the assignment will last five to ten years, although it can be more or less. So people may not have suspected that particular priests were pedophiles, because it's not really unusual for priests to be moved from place to place.

That makes absolutely no difference, though, regarding the reprehensible pattern of moving pedophiles from place to place. People in the hierarchy knew and did nothing. That's what needed (and needs) to be stopped.

They could vote with their feet if nothing else.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So, when you bring this up, you are deliberately insulting them, but you take umbrage when they act insulted.

No, I think they're idiots.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

No, I think they're idiots.

And this is what a supercilious atheist looks like.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

And this is what a supercilious atheist looks like.

So, you're fine with continuing to support the Church that won't get rid of its pedos and the people who can't figure out what to do about it? Them idiots.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

So, you're fine with continuing to support the Church that won't get rid of its pedos and the people who can't figure out what to do about it? Them idiots.

I don't actually support the church, so clearly I'm not "fine" with it. But I'm confused, are Catholics idiots because they take offense or because they don't take offense at your mention of sex abuse? Or are they just all idiots because they still believe in God?

It's funny, and I suppose it's more a reflection of my total lack of brains, but I've met quite a few Catholics (and Protestants, Jews, and Muslims) in my time who didn't impress me as idiots in any way. In fact, I haven't seen a correlation between faith (or its lack) and anything I would consider "intelligence". Or for that matter, "ethics".

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I don't actually support the church, so clearly I'm not "fine" with it. But I'm confused, are Catholics idiots because they take offense or because they don't take offense at your mention of sex abuse? Or are they just all idiots because they still believe in God?

Is that the best you can do?

Quote:

It's funny, and I suppose it's more a reflection of my total lack of brains, but I've met quite a few Catholics (and Protestants, Jews, and Muslims) in my time who didn't impress me as idiots in any way. In fact, I haven't seen a correlation between faith (or its lack) and anything I would consider "intelligence". Or for that matter, "ethics".

Does that include the ones that can't figure out that leaving their kids with pedos is not a good idea? Your standards are very low.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Is that the best you can do?

Does that include the ones that can't figure out that leaving their kids with pedos is not a good idea? Your standards are very low.

So wait, are all Catholic priests pedophiles? This is news to me. I went to a parochial school and I never got molested. Neither did my brother or sister. Perhaps the risk of sexual abuse in the Catholic schools is no greater than in public schools. You have yet to present any evidence to the contrary.

As far as "the best I could do", I don't actually understand what you're saying there. I asked a question. Do you have an answer?

[Gawdzilla]

There we have it, folks, Yeahbutism at its best. This is why I have no respect for Catholics who aren't trying to get rid of their local pedos.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

There we have it, folks, Yeahbutism at its best. This is why I have no respect for Catholics who aren't trying to get rid of their local pedos.

So this is an argument you're making here? Is this critical thinking? No wonder I suck at it, I've been trying to construct arguments based on fact.

Oh, just out of curiosity (I know, another question you'll likely ignore but I'll give it a shot anyway), since most priests aren't pedos, then most parishes don't actually need to get rid of them, are they still idiots if they don't try?

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Oh, just out of curiosity (I know, another question you'll likely ignore but I'll give it a shot anyway), since most priests aren't pedos, then most parishes don't actually need to get rid of them, are they still idiots if they don't try?

It's looking that way, isn't it.
Very strange thinking

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

There we have it, folks, Yeahbutism at its best. This is why I have no respect for Catholics who aren't trying to get rid of their local pedos.

So, could you name any Catholics anywhere who aren't trying to get rid of their local pedos? Can you point to any instance of any Catholics anywhere who say that it's ok that their priests are pedophiles?

And, more directly to the point of the OP, you are calling people idiots if they support the Catholic Church. You are also saying that by supporting the church they are partially responsible* for the abuse. Surely you acknowledge that this is insulting them. So, the answer to your question from the OP is "yes". There's no need for me or anyone else to explain it to you, you have explained it to us.


*In your exact words, they are "giving their tacit approval".

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So, could you name any Catholics anywhere who aren't trying to get rid of their local pedos? Can you point to any instance of any Catholics anywhere who say that it's ok that their priests are pedophiles?

And, more directly to the point of the OP, you are calling people idiots if they support the Catholic Church. You are also saying that by supporting the church they are partially responsible* for the abuse. Surely you acknowledge that this is insulting them. So, the answer to your question from the OP is "yes". There's no need for me or anyone else to explain it to you, you have explained it to us.


*In your exact words, they are "giving their tacit approval".

And they are. They don't care enough to shake up the church, the church is trying to get away with doing the absolute least it can do and they support that. Because they actually offer support to the church.

They have a choice and they choose to support the church, so therefor they are partially responsible for its actions.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And they are. They don't care enough to shake up the church, the church is trying to get away with doing the absolute least it can do and they support that. Because they actually offer support to the church.

They have a choice and they choose to support the church, so therefor they are partially responsible for its actions.

I don't disagree.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't disagree.

Why is being responsible for something ongoing and giving tacit approval of it so different? They know what the church does and choose to not leave over this, so we assume some degree of apathy over these actions.

[Visual Purple]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

They could vote with their feet if nothing else.

I know several posters have mentioned that walking away is not the same for a Catholic as a Protestant, but I suspect that those who don't quite see the the difference don't understand the source of the difference. To oversimplify in what I hope is a useful way, Protestants and Catholics have completely different views of what Jesus' fundamental legacy was. To a Protestant, it's the New Testament; that seems to be easy for modern types to get. To a Catholic (and the Orthodox churches), it's the institution of the church itself in all its parts, including its teachings, but particularly including the laity.

This idea of the church as at the core has interesting results. For instance, it's perfectly possible to be an anticlerical Catholic. Central America had lots of that. Also. there's a long history of Catholics thinking that constant activism by the laity is necessary to keep corruption from getting entrenched at the top. It also explains how a modern person can be a heretical Catholic, and not simply be an apostate.

Personally, I think the reforming types are fighting a losing battle. What has occurred in the Catholic Church is something that could occur in any rigid hierarchy. Religious hierarchies are surely particularly prone to this though, with the near-reverence given the anointed class. Judaism as whole is largely decentralized. I know that there have been sporadic instances of child-molesting Rabbis throughout all the divisions of Judaism. The centralized and hierarchical Hasidic sects seem to be the ones with institutional concealment issues. (I know that the situation with Hasidim is not completely comparable, but it does have some parallels.)

(I'm probably posting and running today. I still think it's worth pointing out that many atheists have unconsciously absorbed a Protestant, and often specifically fundamentalist, view of what christianity is supposed to look like.)

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Visual Purple

I know several posters have mentioned that walking away is not the same for a Catholic as a Protestant, but I suspect that those who don't quite see the the difference don't understand the source of the difference. To oversimplify in what I hope is a useful way, Protestants and Catholics have completely different views of what Jesus' fundamental legacy was.

The Lutheran church in the area where I grew up didn't at all. In fact, when we were in the Boy Scouts, we had a church weekend, where we attended both a catholic mass and then the Lutheran service. They were very similar in lots of ways. They typically had the same readings, even!

The biggest difference was in how they viewed communion, with the Lutheran church not taking the "body and blood of christ" thing literally. Also, the Lutherans didn't have the stringent rules, like the no contraception and you have to attend services every week. It was basically a more liberal version of catholicism.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Why is being responsible for something ongoing and giving tacit approval of it so different? They know what the church does and choose to not leave over this, so we assume some degree of apathy over these actions.

Which part of "I don't disagree" did you fail to comprehend?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Which part of "I don't disagree" did you fail to comprehend?

So you agree that they do give tacit approval then?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So you agree that they do give tacit approval then?

Yes.




There's a bit of an asterisk involved, because there has been some question begging in some of the previous posts, going all the way back to the OP. The people of the Catholic Church give their tacit approval to the activities of the Catholic Church. That doesn't mean they give their tacit approval to everything done by every priest, nor even to everything done by every Pope.

For example, in the case of sexual abuse by priests, I don't think anyone in the Church gives tacit approval to sexual abuse by priests. However, I think the sexual abuse by priests, rare as it may be, is a symptom of the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality and the institution of priestly celibacy. Those teachings are things that the laity do give their tacit, and sometimes explicit, approval, and to the extent that those teaching contribute to the problem, the laity must take some responsibility.

Put slightly differently, I think there are a lot of teachings of the Catholic Church that are just moonbat crazy. In saying that, I have insulted each and every Catholic in the world, and I would never deny doing it. When it comes to sexual abuse by priests, I think those moonbat crazy teachings create, unintentionally, an environment where sexual abuse is practically guaranteed. In saying that, I am, once again, insulting every Catholic in the world.

Recognizing that I am doing so, I generally keep my mouth shut about those opinions unless I'm in a place where ridiculing religion is considered acceptable. I would never spout off like that around ordinary citizens. Here on JREF, though, I feel much safer insulting Catholics.

And please don't tell my mother I said this. She's Catholic, and in my opinion, a fairly nice, intelligent, person. Like most Catholics.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Yes.




There's a bit of an asterisk involved, because there has been some question begging in some of the previous posts, going all the way back to the OP. The people of the Catholic Church give their tacit approval to the activities of the Catholic Church. That doesn't mean they give their tacit approval to everything done by every priest, nor even to everything done by every Pope.

For example, in the case of sexual abuse by priests, I don't think anyone in the Church gives tacit approval to sexual abuse by priests. However, I think the sexual abuse by priests, rare as it may be, is a symptom of the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality and the institution of priestly celibacy. Those teachings are things that the laity do give their tacit, and sometimes explicit, approval, and to the extent that those teaching contribute to the problem, the laity must take some responsibility.

Put slightly differently, I think there are a lot of teachings of the Catholic Church that are just moonbat crazy. In saying that, I have insulted each and every Catholic in the world, and I would never deny doing it. When it comes to sexual abuse by priests, I think those moonbat crazy teachings create, unintentionally, an environment where sexual abuse is practically guaranteed. In saying that, I am, once again, insulting every Catholic in the world.

Recognizing that I am doing so, I generally keep my mouth shut about those opinions unless I'm in a place where ridiculing religion is considered acceptable. I would never spout off like that around ordinary citizens. Here on JREF, though, I feel much safer insulting Catholics.

And please don't tell my mother I said this. She's Catholic, and in my opinion, a fairly nice, intelligent, person. Like most Catholics.

So, you support your Mother, that makes you a Pedophile apologist![/tsig]

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Yes.




There's a bit of an asterisk involved, because there has been some question begging in some of the previous posts, going all the way back to the OP. The people of the Catholic Church give their tacit approval to the activities of the Catholic Church. That doesn't mean they give their tacit approval to everything done by every priest, nor even to everything done by every Pope.

For example, in the case of sexual abuse by priests, I don't think anyone in the Church gives tacit approval to sexual abuse by priests. However, I think the sexual abuse by priests, rare as it may be, is a symptom of the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality and the institution of priestly celibacy. Those teachings are things that the laity do give their tacit, and sometimes explicit, approval, and to the extent that those teaching contribute to the problem, the laity must take some responsibility.

Put slightly differently, I think there are a lot of teachings of the Catholic Church that are just moonbat crazy. In saying that, I have insulted each and every Catholic in the world, and I would never deny doing it. When it comes to sexual abuse by priests, I think those moonbat crazy teachings create, unintentionally, an environment where sexual abuse is practically guaranteed. In saying that, I am, once again, insulting every Catholic in the world.

Recognizing that I am doing so, I generally keep my mouth shut about those opinions unless I'm in a place where ridiculing religion is considered acceptable. I would never spout off like that around ordinary citizens. Here on JREF, though, I feel much safer insulting Catholics.

And please don't tell my mother I said this. She's Catholic, and in my opinion, a fairly nice, intelligent, person. Like most Catholics.

Then why take issue with the statement about their tacit approval?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Yes.




There's a bit of an asterisk involved, because there has been some question begging in some of the previous posts, going all the way back to the OP. The people of the Catholic Church give their tacit approval to the activities of the Catholic Church. That doesn't mean they give their tacit approval to everything done by every priest, nor even to everything done by every Pope.

For example, in the case of sexual abuse by priests, I don't think anyone in the Church gives tacit approval to sexual abuse by priests. However, I think the sexual abuse by priests, rare as it may be, is a symptom of the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality and the institution of priestly celibacy. Those teachings are things that the laity do give their tacit, and sometimes explicit, approval, and to the extent that those teaching contribute to the problem, the laity must take some responsibility.

Put slightly differently, I think there are a lot of teachings of the Catholic Church that are just moonbat crazy. In saying that, I have insulted each and every Catholic in the world, and I would never deny doing it. When it comes to sexual abuse by priests, I think those moonbat crazy teachings create, unintentionally, an environment where sexual abuse is practically guaranteed. In saying that, I am, once again, insulting every Catholic in the world.

Recognizing that I am doing so, I generally keep my mouth shut about those opinions unless I'm in a place where ridiculing religion is considered acceptable. I would never spout off like that around ordinary citizens. Here on JREF, though, I feel much safer insulting Catholics.

And please don't tell my mother I said this. She's Catholic, and in my opinion, a fairly nice, intelligent, person. Like most Catholics.

I've been trying to follow this thread and I may have missed this point, but the quoted post from Meadmaker reminded me that what we're dealing with regarding the Catholic church is a few thousand years of confession and the sacredness of that.

So, I can easily see that, according to church doctrine and habit and legal protection, all a priest has to do is to go to confession and follow the rites of contrition that the confessor gives. The church would see that the steps of saving one's immortal soul outweighs any legalities so BAM! instant literal get-out-of-jail-free card. The laity probably sees this differently -- though perhaps not enough to go picket churches or write mass emailings calling for temporal justice to be done in protecting children.

According to this following Catholic website,

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...on/re0059.html

"The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would "displease" the penitent or reveal his identity."

It may not necessarily be easy to perform the rites of contrition, but I think anyone would be a fool to think they'd be harder than 10 years in prison and a record for life.