Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
A long as you're so upfront about taking your world view on sexual morality unquestiongly from a bunch of aplogists for persecution and child abuse - which is pretty much the tone of the current Vatican hierarchy, despite the cosmetic attempts to spin things otherwise - it's a bit rich to expect to be taken even halfway seriously.
-
Steven...
If I could say it slower for you, I would.
Each and every person has to choose for themselves, including my children. Would saying it _again_ help?
-
Pedophile sex, Tess, your church is well known for it.
Yes, we have had a problem with sexual abuse. OTOH so have all the other churches.
And lets not forget sexual abuse in education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment_in_education
I mean really... Where ever there are vulnerable children or adults there will be people who take sexual advantage of that. One of my best school friends was raped again and again by her father. Does that make all fathers bad?
No, if you really want to lay blame, it's on the institutional cover ups that non-abusing Bishops created. Moving abusers around allowing them fresh fodder. Listening to so called professionals who claimed that abusers could be cured by attending some course or other. Ignoring the pleas of parents, in order to protect clergy.
-
Just as it is unfair to taint all clergy by the actions of a few, the same goes for gay activists:
-
Okay, I'm cooking dinner, I don't have time to engage on this, and I've had the most 'fascinating' day. But we're in serious danger of losing civility here on both sides. Can we keep a lid on it please?
Otherwise it's that NIN Kirk-Spocking video...
-
Yes, we have had a problem with sexual abuse.
Is it all sorted now?
I bloody hope so, my oldest son is an altar boy.
If anything I think it's really hurt those priests who are good men. I've seen my boys rush up and hug the priest and he looked uncomfortable, even though it was in a church full of people. Adults are never left alone with children, the room where altar servers robe up, the door is always open. No priest dare be alone with a child. Even the room used for confession has a window in it.
But I have friends who are teachers, and they live with the same issues of safety, ie not being alone with a child, not hugging them etc.
As a parent I think it's always something you think of. Pedophiles are not just dirty old men in coats, they are relatives, friends, people in positions of responsibility. To gain access to children they usually have to gain the trust of the parents. So you're always aware of that.
-
Aye aye Capt. Emma.
I'll go back to playing nice.
-
But I HAVEN"T insisted that. I have said, over and over and over again that people must be free to do what they will in this regards.
Actually, that's a far cry from what you've said at many points in the thread. That gays make bad parents even though research tells us otherwise, that the meaning of marriage as a cultural institution is between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation, and so forth. In fact, a lot of people seem to be asking you about your beliefs, but not me, and I have no problem whatsoever with what you teach your kids. However, since you've said many times that you subscribe to the church's teachings, well, the church's teachings are that nobody should get divorced or use contraception and that homosexuality is wrong, regardless of personal belief - none of this tolerance that you profess to hold.
And btw, we all knew what you meant by the word "pike" being big pointy stick, rather than the fish.
Somebody apparently didn't, but that was soon straightened out. However, let me assure you that I would harbour no thoughts of that nature if the catholic church wasn't in the business of telling everybody else how they should live. That's not a major problem in NZ, but in countries where Catholics are a majority (or politicians excessively beholden to the episcopal congregation or fundies of various kinds), it is tantamount to the many legislating against the few, and that, as some of us have tried to say, and in the spirit of what this thread is about, is bigoted and wrong.
It is possible of course to be Christian and progressive - the Valdese community springs to mind. The descendents of the surviving few, that is - the vast majority of them got the pike treatment.
-
Where ever there are vulnerable children or adults there will be people who take sexual advantage of that.
Ah, so you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs then. That seems awfully cynical.
Just as it is unfair to taint all clergy by the actions of a few, the same goes for gay activists:
The old 'you'll find a few bad eggs wherever you look' defense. The church's problem is that the abuse is institutional, facilitated by a culture of silence brought about by unquestioning obedience to earthly authority. Children don't tell because they fear going to hell, "good" clergy and caregivers know something's amiss, but maintain their silence.
If 'faithful' catholics were to constructively criticise the church's authority, much like a diehard National supporter might express misgivings about some action taken by John Key, it would be evidence that the culture of secrecy was on the wane. This happened in the time of Roncalli/John XXIII, but ever since the Vatican has worked to return the papacy to the status of an absolute monarchy.
-
That gays make bad parents even though research tells us otherwise
I did not say that.
-
If anything I think it's really hurt those priests who are good men.
I wasn't clear enough here.
The greatest harm has been those children and their families who have been so deeply wounded. This harm has been perpetrated by the abusers and then covered up by leaders who should have been protecting the vulnerable, not enabling the pedophiles.
However, an unintended consequence of this is that good priests have been tarred by the abusers brush. Which is something I don't think the Bishops thought of as they were shifting around abusive priests. The Bishops thought they were covering the Church. In reality they were just allowing the abuse to continue and for good men to be blamed as well.
really, until the Bishops can front up and quit trying to make excuses, no one can move on.
-
Ah, so you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs then. That seems awfully cynical.
I was making an observation, not claiming it was okay.
Please, can you stop reading my words in the worst light possible.
If 'faithful' catholics were to constructively criticise the church's authority...
You obviously don't read Catholic blogs then. I assure you there's criticism, and a lot of it. Remember it's Catholic children who got abused, so your average pew sitter is NOT happy. Some Catholics have left. Some have moved to Orthodoxy, not because of the abuse, but because of the Bishop's utterly pathetic reaction to it.
I assure you, no one is happy that serial abusers were covered up for. We think of all the lives that could have been protected had the Bishops faced up to what was happening and had had the courage to deal with it.
-
Here's an initiative to track the abuse in America:
-
I assure you, no one is happy that serial abusers were covered up for.
Were? Diocesis of Florence mean anything to you?
Remember it's Catholic children who got abused, so your average pew sitter is NOT happy.
Wow, that was dodgy in about fifteen different ways.
-
Please, can you stop reading my words in the worst light possible.
How about providing a link to one of these catholic blogs that offers constructive criticism of the policies of the current papacy? On an issue that you might personally feel some sympathy with. It's something you've been conspicuously unwilling to do in any of your posts so far.
-
Diocesis of Florence mean anything to you?
No. The reports that I know of are from the English speaking Catholic world. America and Ireland for the most part. But also New Zealand and Australia. As far as I am aware, these are historical claims of abuse, especially from children's homes that have now closed.
Also I'm not sure why what I said was dodgy. It wasn't meant to be. I was just trying to say that Catholics are angry and are criticising the Bishops.
This abuse was done by people that we were supposed to trust, and then we were betrayed by our Bishops who protected the abusers and not the abused children. Of course Catholics are angry.
What more am I supposed to say to you? What are you looking for me to say now?
-
How about providing a link to one of these catholic blogs that offers constructive criticism of the policies of the current papacy?
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/irish-abuse-report-demands-decisive-action
-
-
Thanks Tess, a good link. Not exactly a blog, but a well-articulated and heartfelt opinion piece, and the comments are interesting. Sadly, though, voices within the church such as Thomas Doyle's will remain muted until the Vatican deals proactively with abuse. Like most such statements, and your blaming of the bishops, it stops short of calling upon the pope himself to act with urgency. In a hierarchical organisation where a leader holds close to absolute power nothing will change while scapegoating remains an option.
It's not so long since Ratzinger characterised revelations of abuse as primarily attacks on the church, a position which he has never really recanted. It'd be a great day for the church if the Vatican uncovered and actively dealt with entrenched abuse, rather than making token apologies years after the fact, but as long as the pope's word is up there with the gospels the problem will persist.
-
Please cut them some slack, even know you most likely don't know who they are.
Oh God yes. These poor people have been damaged in ways that are likely to affect them for life and most won't have come forward.
Whilst I think certain actions are sinful, I have no idea how culpable any individual is who does them. For an individual to sin, they have to knowingly and willingly do wrong. Only God can judge something like that.
Personally I think there are a number of Bishops who should stand down and offer the rest of their lives in prayer and penance for the evil they have allowed to occur. These men knew what was happening and they just swept it under the rug. They forfeited the right to be spiritual and moral leaders when they did that.
The actual abusers need to be judged by the Courts and go to prison. Afterwards they need to be sent to a monastery somewhere out of the way of everybody else. I wouldn't defrock them, not because I think they are worthy as priests, but because then the Church can keep control on their movements and order them into safe obscurity away from children.
-
Warning: this link could be triggering for survivors of sexual assault and rape.
-
Yes, the Holy See does need to do more.
One of the problems (so I have heard) under John Paul II was the accusing priests of sexual misconduct was a classic way that the KGB tried to remove priests in Poland. So he didn't believe it. I just don't think JPII really believed that priests could act in such an evil way. So he never did enough. I'm not sure about Benedict. He's an academic and I think his focus is on other things. But without the Holy See really fronting up, it's not going to be dealt with.
The other thing is that Bishops are also pretty much free to do as they will within their dioceses. The hierarchical organisation isn't as tight as a lot of people expect it to be. In many ways, the Pope is a Brother Bishop, rather than an unquestioned leader.
A lot of the time the Pope has no desire or mandate to be involved in the local ecclesiastical situation. This has been criticised by the lay because it means that if you have a bad Bishop (as has happened) there does need to be some recourse.
-
Warning: this link could be triggering for survivors of sexual assault and rape.
"The greatest of evils"
And there is a Bishop that needs to go, NOW.
- shakes head -
This is exactly why there is so much anger from lay Catholics, because some Bishops just persist in not getting it. I mean really, how stupid do you have to be to say this kind of thing.
So for example you get Bishops who refuse to open up the historical files, documenting the list of people trying to tell the Bishop that Fr. X kept raping boys. Rather than assisting justice, Bishops have been fighting it.
-
Oh, so much to say. It's taken me two bloody hours to read all these posts, dammit, and I intend to have my say! Pardon me if I repeat points already made....
I don't particularly see why anyone would want to get married who isn't religious.
I've been wondering why I said "yes" all those years ago. Really, I was never, ever going to get married. I love my husband dearly, more than when we got married, but if I'm honest, at the beginning, I think I got married because he asked, and I loved him, and I think I may have got temporarily swept away with it all. There are, of course, many reasons why people want to get married. You don't need to have a personal god to be into it. Which brings us to.....
I am clearly the only non-religious person in New Zealand who really liked getting (non-religiously) married.
Me too, Danielle. There are alot of us around, you know. And they're getting married younger too. Now, the marriage thing appeals to me because as Craig said
hey made a choice, and stuck it no matter how hard it got. If you can't do that -- won't even try -- how the hell do you end up with anything worth having
I don't take away from nonmarried partnerships at all. Marriage just seemed to be the thing that worked for me. Surprisingly. Having said that, with the benefit of age and experience, if my husband died, which he could very well have a few years ago, there's no way in hell I'd ever do it again.
My father was a forty nine year old Maori Anglican widower who married a white Catholic woman quite literally young enough (27) to be his daughter.
Snap, Craig. Apart from the Maori thing. Dad was 47, Mum was 24, and I was in the womb.....No-one blinked an eye, although, like your father, my dad's second wife had died exactly a year to the day he married my mum. Interestingly enough, in 1963, because Dad had been divorced, they weren't able to be married in an Anglican church, so they got married in a Presbyterian one.
And back to same sex marriage.......So I ask, what is it about "marriage" that the opportunity to partake of it by same-sex couples is so keenly sought, when civil union provides all the substance?
. If people want to get married, why on earth shouldn't they be allowed to? Never mind all the legal shit - if someone loves someone else, and wants to make a go of being with that person for a very long time, and they'd quite like to do the wedding thing, why not? Alot of this sentiment, for me, seems to come from those to whom the right to marry is not denied. You only take the right to it for granted because you have it IMNSHO, Chris.
And now, my turn to question Tess.Actually, let me be more precise, if a couple marry and choose not to have children, I don't agree with that.
You kid, do you not? Perhaps not. I got married, been married 17 years, have no children, want no children, got a husband. Haven't I suffered enough? But seriously. I find this really, really hard to believe that, in this day and age, this sort of anachronistic view still exists. I'm just saying. All due respect. But, really? Oh, don't worry, just colour me speechless.
the greatest threat to your beliefs won't come from shrinking polite Christianity, but from a disgruntled Islam
. That is such a lazy argument, Tess. Did you study the Koran in your search for spiritual enlightenment? Speaking of which, I just have to ask. Do people who say things like this ....
I wanted them to have access to a spiritual life.
not understand that spirituality and religion are not synonymous? Why can children not have access to a spiritual life without the church/place of worship thing? Just asking. Glad you're a happy Catholic BTW. Although why one would subsribe to the tenets largely set down by a man who's never been married, and can't have sex, I just don't know.
And finally, because no-one else really addressed it, and because I love her so.I am very unhappy that those paticular holidays are tied to one religion - Christianity. I'd be interested in hearing other views on this matter because it does have relevance into the thread i.e a lot of our law is still based on 'christian' concepts, and we are no longer a nation where Christianity is the majority religion.
Sing it sister. I'd be happy with the whole Easter/Xmas/religious holiday thing if it was at least acknowledged that all of them are stolen from the ancients, and have been conveniently tailored to fit biblical myths. Right. That's my say. As you were, with all your very intellligent musings.
-
Easter is directly from the Jewish Passover rather than from any pagan belief set. Most languages call it something derived from "Pasch" - Passover.
Hence you get all that Jesus as the lamb of sacrifice saving us from death symbolism.
The word "Easter" has pagan origins, as do all the eggs, chicks and bunnies. But the actual feast comes from the Jewish religion.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.