FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bud]

Im not having a go at Catholics or Christians in general, but for some reason a lot of Priests seem to be abusers. Now the church's can continue their current stance and push it under the rug or they can confront this problem and try and solve it. Perhaps its time to drop the vowel of celibacy for starters!

[Juliet P]

Im not having a go at Catholics or Christians in general, but for some reason a lot of Priests seem to be abusers. Now the church's can continue their current stance and push it under the rug or they can confront this problem and try and solve it. Perhaps its time to drop the vowel of celibacy for starters!

The vowel of celibacy? Is that e, i or a?

For once I agree with AKR, this is a stupid thread. I'm not a catholic, and I actually despise the way the Catholic Church has used its influence and power to control and repress people for centuries.

But if you believe in something, why would the fact that other people who profess to believe in the same thing do evil things, make any difference to your own faith?

Say, for example, you believe in climate change caused by human activities. Would the fact that climate change scientists falsify evidence and lie about their results necessarily change your belief that we are adversely effecting the climate? Of course not.

Or if you're a Democrat, and a Democratic candidate commits murder, lies about an affair or undertakes fraud and the party tries to cover it up, would you automatically change your political stance and join the Republicans instead? Of course not.

[bud]

this threads real point isnt debating religion its about the problem that does exist within the church.

The vowel of celibacy? Is that e, i or a?

yes sorry vow of celibacy..... those two words are not in my vocabulary

[EwanM]

And you can't talk about it, cause your living in a code of silence...

[Juliet P]

this threads real point isnt debating religion its about the problem that does exist within the church.

The thread is called 'Why are there still Catholics?'. That suggests that DD's original point was that the prevalence of sexual abuse within the catholic church and the way they have dealt with it should mean that catholics should somehow cease to be catholics in protest. Or am I misunderstanding DD's original post?

The problem that exists is horrific, the Catholic Church has consistently erred towards protecting its clergy (and therefore its own reputation) instead of protecting innocent, helpless children. That is unforgivable. I'm sure that celibacy plays a part in it - cutting off the possibility of healthy, adult, legal outlets for sexual desire would logically channel that desire into other, less healthy, illegal and damaging outlets. I don't think any of us disagree on these points.

[vaptin]

I think DD was suggesting Catholics boycotting until this problem is taking seriously by the Church should occur.

[What's Burning?]

I think DD was suggesting Catholics boycotting until this problem is taking seriously by the Church should occur.

No need to boycott per se if that's their belief, however what the need is, is for accountability and holding ALL accountable for their "sins" equally, and not sweep things under the carpet because of a collar or because of a perceived stain.

At this point in time it is the people of the catholic faith that should demand that change. The same people that fill the churches coffers every Sunday morning are the ones that ultimately have control of the Vatican. They have chosen to overlook decades of evidence of what's been going in their churches. I hope latest groundswell is the final catalyst for that change.

[darwin dali]

Im not having a go at Catholics or Christians in general, but for some reason a lot of Priests seem to be abusers. Now the church's can continue their current stance and push it under the rug or they can confront this problem and try and solve it. Perhaps its time to drop the vowel of celibacy for starters!

The vowel of celibacy? Is that e, i or a?

For once I agree with AKR, this is a stupid thread. I'm not a catholic, and I actually despise the way the Catholic Church has used its influence and power to control and repress people for centuries.

But if you believe in something, why would the fact that other people who profess to believe in the same thing do evil things, make any difference to your own faith?

Say, for example, you believe in climate change caused by human activities. Would the fact that climate change scientists falsify evidence and lie about their results necessarily change your belief that we are adversely effecting the climate? Of course not.

Or if you're a Democrat, and a Democratic candidate commits murder, lies about an affair or undertakes fraud and the party tries to cover it up, would you automatically change your political stance and join the Republicans instead? Of course not.

Talk about stupid: the examples you're giving in your arguing against the thread's title are inadequate to say the least.
To go back to my example of the chain of daycare centers: if that chain is known to employ child abusers (many of them - it's epidemic, not just 'A Democratic candidate') and to cover up and simply move offenders to another location, you as a parent wouldn't send your children there. No! You'd seek alternatives (maybe some stay-at-home mom or whatever - fill in here other denominations, buddhism, etc.) or yes, even stop altogether. AND you'd seek to have the whole chain closed down for good!

[f1ea]

But there lies the problem DD, its not a majority, its not an epidemic. Its specific cases of problems coming to light and being publicized with the intention of damaging an institution. For example, not all of the cases of priests abusing chilfren are catholic priests, but it is advertised as such. Its not a majority nor a default attitude had by catholic or religious educators. There's thousands of catholic and non catholic schools and priests, and this does not happen in all cases.

A problem has to solved. The individual perpretators should be punished and held responsible. Institutions that cover or encourage damaging behaviour should be punished and controlled. But I guess that's it...

[f1ea]

The vowel of celibacy? Is that e, i or a?

yes sorry vow of celibacy..... those two words are not in my vocabulary

I'd take it you'd be more familiar with Bowels?

[bud]

wtf

[Juliet P]

Im not having a go at Catholics or Christians in general, but for some reason a lot of Priests seem to be abusers. Now the church's can continue their current stance and push it under the rug or they can confront this problem and try and solve it. Perhaps its time to drop the vowel of celibacy for starters!

The vowel of celibacy? Is that e, i or a?

For once I agree with AKR, this is a stupid thread. I'm not a catholic, and I actually despise the way the Catholic Church has used its influence and power to control and repress people for centuries.

But if you believe in something, why would the fact that other people who profess to believe in the same thing do evil things, make any difference to your own faith?

Say, for example, you believe in climate change caused by human activities. Would the fact that climate change scientists falsify evidence and lie about their results necessarily change your belief that we are adversely effecting the climate? Of course not.

Or if you're a Democrat, and a Democratic candidate commits murder, lies about an affair or undertakes fraud and the party tries to cover it up, would you automatically change your political stance and join the Republicans instead? Of course not.

Talk about stupid: the examples you're giving in your arguing against the thread's title are inadequate to say the least.
To go back to my example of the chain of daycare centers: if that chain is known to employ child abusers (many of them - it's epidemic, not just 'A Democratic candidate') and to cover up and simply move offenders to another location, you as a parent wouldn't send your children there. No! You'd seek alternatives (maybe some stay-at-home mom or whatever - fill in here other denominations, buddhism, etc.) or yes, even stop altogether. AND you'd seek to have the whole chain closed down for good!

Thanks for calling me stupid, DD - appreciate that one.

You're comparing a commercial choice of a product with a fundamental religious belief - I would argue that your analogy is a lot more tenuous than mine.
Are you likely to just up and abandon your atheism and have a look at some of the other religions instead because Richard Dawkins does something heinous?

[darwin dali]

Im not having a go at Catholics or Christians in general, but for some reason a lot of Priests seem to be abusers. Now the church's can continue their current stance and push it under the rug or they can confront this problem and try and solve it. Perhaps its time to drop the vowel of celibacy for starters!

The vowel of celibacy? Is that e, i or a?

For once I agree with AKR, this is a stupid thread. I'm not a catholic, and I actually despise the way the Catholic Church has used its influence and power to control and repress people for centuries.

But if you believe in something, why would the fact that other people who profess to believe in the same thing do evil things, make any difference to your own faith?

Say, for example, you believe in climate change caused by human activities. Would the fact that climate change scientists falsify evidence and lie about their results necessarily change your belief that we are adversely effecting the climate? Of course not.

Or if you're a Democrat, and a Democratic candidate commits murder, lies about an affair or undertakes fraud and the party tries to cover it up, would you automatically change your political stance and join the Republicans instead? Of course not.

Talk about stupid: the examples you're giving in your arguing against the thread's title are inadequate to say the least.
To go back to my example of the chain of daycare centers: if that chain is known to employ child abusers (many of them - it's epidemic, not just 'A Democratic candidate') and to cover up and simply move offenders to another location, you as a parent wouldn't send your children there. No! You'd seek alternatives (maybe some stay-at-home mom or whatever - fill in here other denominations, buddhism, etc.) or yes, even stop altogether. AND you'd seek to have the whole chain closed down for good!

Thanks for calling me stupid, DD - appreciate that one.

You're comparing a commercial choice of a product with a fundamental religious belief - I would argue that your analogy is a lot more tenuous than mine.
Are you likely to just up and abandon your atheism and have a look at some of the other religions instead because Richard Dawkins does something heinous?

Don't put words in my mouth You called this thread stupid, so I picked it up from there.

If I was in a club of atheists (yes they exist) and that club would do such things, yes, I would leave that club. Nowhere did I say people should give up their belief in whatever (or give up sending their kids to daycare centers) However, they should change their affiliation and go to another club of similar common interest or indeed rethink their belief system at such an opportunity and draw conclusions.

And btw. a religious belief is also a choice, in many cases even a commercial choice There aren't any genes in one's body that make you a Catholic or Presbyterian or whatever - it's a choice!

[darwin dali]

They simply don't get it:


A lonely abbot

Martin Werlen, the abbot of a Benedictine monetary in Einsiedeln, a town nestled in the foothills of central Switzerland, is a proponent of creating a central registry in Rome. He feels increasingly lonely.

"I'm afraid that the Church leadership in Rome is not taking the situation seriously enough," Werlen said in an interview in SonntagsBlick. "Our credibility is at stake."

“I realise only a few decision-makers’ assessments of the situation are correct, in my view,” he said.

Some dioceses in Switzerland are very vigilant, he argued. There are others “which seem to hardly notice what a difficult situation we are stuck in.”

Werlen says at least three of his monastery’s 77 monks had committed acts of abuse since he took up office in December 2001. No legal action has been taken.

A database, Werlen argues, would allow dioceses to check on incoming priests, no matter the location. He plans to put forth the proposal to the Swiss Bishops Conference and is calling for an extraordinary session, saying a decision must be made before the group’s next regular meeting in June.

The Bishop of Basel's general representative, Roland-Bernhard Trauffer, told the Sonntag newspaper he would back a blacklist if it meant cases of sexual abuse could be avoided.

Christoph Darbellay, leader of centre-right Christian Democrats, called for priests found to have committed abuse to be blacklisted.

"Whoever abuses children should never work again with children," said Darbellay.


Don't break the seal

Abuses within the church are not routinely brought to the attention of authorities, notes Brunner. If a bishop or priest discovered abuse, the offender is invited to turn himself over.

Sometimes not. Disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law shuffled two priests from parish to parish in the United States despite allegations of sexual misconduct in what became the country’s most high profile church abuse disgrace. He is now archpriest at one of the Vatican’s four papal basilicas.

And if crimes are admitted, it can take a long time: a priest in eastern Switzerland last week resigned and surrendered to authorities after confessing to umpalumpa abuse more than three decades ago.

In very severe cases, Brunner said, the church would report abuse to authorities if the victim agreed. That’s a policy the church here has consistently towed the line on.

If a priest were to admit abuse during confession, Brunner says it would remain secret. “The sacramental seal must not be broken,” he said.

Brunner said canon law stipulates penalties for all crimes committed by priests. “If the priest is improving, if he repents, you can waive the penalty.”

swissinfo.ch and agencies


The last paragraph is particularly disgusting

[EwanM]

Hullo Hullo