Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[Clydeside_Sheep]

What a disgusting statement. Trying to slander the character of people who claim to have been the victims of abuse.

 

With attitudes like that, it's little wonder than paedophilia was so wide spread within the Catholic church.

 

Slander is making false statements about someones character.

 

The things I linked to are facts.

 

You shouldn't use worlds if you don't know what they mean.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

With that statement you've got your excuses in early regardless of the outcome.

 

What excuses, I thought that was a very dispassionate run down of the situation?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

I'd like to hear CS's view on this.

 

Thank you VDA, very fair-handed as usual :-P

 

The whole thing is, of course, a smokescreen to fool non-thinkers and those eager for something to justify their existing prejudice.

 

The article says a bishop said he would go to jail rather than report 'allegations' of abuse made in the confessional.

 

I would be very surprised if he said that (its probably been doctored - it is the Guardian, after all) because you don't go to the confessional to make allegations about people, you go there to unburden yourself regarding your own failings.

 

Hence the name "confessional" not "allegational".

 

It isnt a sin to be the victim of a crime.

 

if someone has been the victim of a crime, they should go to the Police Station, not a Church.

 

So, we can see that the situation as presented is based on a falsehood.

 

Other examples of this kind of twisted logic include the old canard that the Church would insist women stay with violent husbands, because it believes marriages are important and worth trying to save. Or that because it advocates women controlling their fertility naturally, rather than artificially, it condemns women to a life of being brood mares.

 

Its surprising how easily people accept this kind of thing, but then some folk do really believe everything they read in the papers!

 

As regards the 'seal of confession' generally - I do believe in that principle, as otherwise it seems you are saying people do not have the right to their own conscience, which seems very Orwellian to me.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The victims are drug addicts and criminals

 

Yawn

 

 

it was really their track record of making claims of abuse against people which I thought pertinent, not their own drug taking.

[Parklife]

 

Slander is making false statements about someones character.

 

The things I linked to are facts.

 

You shouldn't use worlds if you don't know what they mean.

A fact like the fact that the Catholic church has a long history of it's senior employees raping young boys and then covering it up? Those kind of facts?

[Redforever86]

 

 

Its surprising how easily people accept this kind of thing, but then some folk do really believe everything they read in the bible!

 

 

 

Fair point like.

[manboobs109]

CS the peado apologist. Nothing new here.

 

I'm sure there's some Muslim lunatic equivalent on a Pakistan fitba message board claiming the mozzies down south doing all the rapey shit are fair game also.

There's a few on here doing that.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

There's a few on here doing that.

 

Bingo!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

 

Confession - what a load of shit.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/15/melbourne-archbishop-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-report-child-abuse-heard-in-confession

 

Henry,

 

What is your opinion on confidentiality in other cases?

 

For example, between a lawyer and their client in a court case? Should the lawyer be compelled to divulge to the court everything which has been discussed in confidence with their client?

 

What about doctor-patient confidentiality?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

You been in the confession booth afore, C_S?

Of course.

 

Bet the old bastard is pulling the heid aff it when you're asking him to forgive you for using a rubber jonny with some dirty tart.

Im flattered to think I could be considered sexy

[robbojunior]

 

Henry,

 

What is your opinion on confidentiality in other cases?

 

For example, between a lawyer and their client in a court case? Should the lawyer be compelled to divulge to the court everything which has been discussed in confidence with their client?

 

What about doctor-patient confidentiality?

 

I don't think that's the point. Confession is a way for Catholics to admit their sins and then absolve themselves of any guilt. Say 5 hail marys and you are forgiven for making those choirboys suck your cock.

 

How anyone can think that is acceptable is beyond me.

 

The difference between that and a lawyer / client conversation, is that the accused has to face a real trial and a real punishment for their sins. They don't go to court and the judge tells them to say 5 hail marys and they can go home.

[Ohjimmyjimmy]

 

I don't think that's the point. Confession is a way for Catholics to admit their sins and then absolve themselves of any guilt. Say 5 hail marys and you are forgiven for making those choirboys suck your cock.

 

How anyone can think that is acceptable is beyond me.

 

The difference between that and a lawyer / client conversation, is that the accused has to face a real trial and a real punishment for their sins. They don't go to court and the judge tells them to say 5 hail marys and they can go home.

Exactly. I'd expect that a doctor would keep details of my medical records confidential, however if I told him I'd stuck my cock up some little boys bum - I'd fully expect that doctor to fulfil his moral obligation to society and go straight to the police with that information.

 

Why should confession be any different?

[craegDAMH]

 

The whole thing is, of course, a smokescreen to fool non-thinkers and those eager for something to justify their existing prejudice.

 

Irony

 

 

Henry,

 

What is your opinion on confidentiality in other cases?

 

For example, between a lawyer and their client in a court case? Should the lawyer be compelled to divulge to the court everything which has been discussed in confidence with their client?

 

What about doctor-patient confidentiality?

 

The difference is lawyers and doctors are trained professionals who have a code of ethics. Anyone failing to live up to those ethics can no longer be a doctor or a lawyer.

 

Priests have a recorded history of covering up the rape of children to protect their own institution, they can't be trusted. That's why it should be criminal for them not to report allegations or confessions of crimes. Especially crimes relating to child abuse which is their specialist subject.

 

Not a catholic example but relevant nonetheless... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christian-school-reportedly-told-12-year-old-his-alleged-rape-was-boys-being-boys_us_599327a3e4b0091416404199?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

 

 

The suit says that when Doe’s mother found out about the assaults from another parent at the school she went to a private Christian counseling center called Daystar Counseling, which was founded by a former Brentwood employee.

 

The counselor she met with reportedly advised her to not report the assault, telling her: “Reporting this may not be the best thing to do. This isn’t how Christian institutions handle these things.” The Tennessee code requires counselors to report any information of suspected child abuse or neglect.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

I don't think that's the point. Confession is a way for Catholics to admit their sins and then absolve themselves of any guilt. Say 5 hail marys and you are forgiven for making those choirboys suck your cock.

 

How anyone can think that is acceptable is beyond me.

 

The difference between that and a lawyer / client conversation, is that the accused has to face a real trial and a real punishment for their sins. They don't go to court and the judge tells them to say 5 hail marys and they can go home.

 

If someone has broken the law, they should still be subject to a secular trial and associated punishment. Confession is the means of putting things right with God, it isn't meant as a replacement for the ends of Justice.

 

Never mind the seal of confession as a principle, major issues with asking priests to report crimes which have been confessed include:

 

1) Confession is anonymous, the priest doesn't know who the penitent is, all he hears is their voice. You just join a queue and go in when its your turn, you don't give your name or register or anything. And you could do this in any Church in the world, assuming language isnt a barrier.

 

2) If the Church announced tomorrow that, from now on if you mention crime xyz in Confession, we will grass you to the cops - all that would happen is that people would stop going. (and making it difficult or impossible for people to go to confession is turning the Church's mission upside down - but that's by the by)

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Irony

No irony!

 

The difference is lawyers and doctors are trained professionals who have a code of ethics. Anyone failing to live up to those ethics can no longer be a doctor or a lawyer.

Yes, and this of course means that all lawyers and doctors are squeaky clean, very principled and are never corrupt or incompetent, doesn't it?

 

 

Priests have a recorded history of covering up the rape of children to protect their own institution, they can't be trusted. That's why it should be criminal for them not to report allegations or confessions of crimes.

Come on, we have seen similar failure across the board in society - but you cant write off an entire group as "cant be trusted".

 

Regarding it being a crime not to report confessed crimes - how could that be policed? Only 2 people (and God) know what is said in the confessional, so how would it come to light that something had not been reported?

 

And given the confession process is anonymous - what could he report of worth?

 

If you went down the police station and reported that "someone said he felt someone's arse" you would be treated with utter contempt for wasting their time.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Exactly. I'd expect that a doctor would keep details of my medical records confidential, however if I told him I'd stuck my cock up some little boys bum - I'd fully expect that doctor to fulfil his moral obligation to society and go straight to the police with that information.

 

Why should confession be any different?

A defence lawyer isnt obliged to report anything his client tells him/her in confidence which might incriminate the client or prove guilt.

 

Why should confession be any different?

 

And as confession is anonymous, the priest doesnt have sufficient information to report someone - you would need at least a name, for example.

[craegDAMH]

Yes, and this of course means that all lawyers and doctors are squeaky clean, very principled and are never corrupt or incompetent, doesn't it?

 

Of course not, but it means that when a doctor or lawyer is outed as being a child rapist they swiftly get struck off instead of just being moved to another hospital where they can abuse more kids.

 

 

Come on, we have seen similar failure across the board in society - but you cant write off an entire group as "cant be trusted".

 

When an entire group claims to be the arbiter of absolute morality and then is complicit in the largest cover up of child abuse in the history of humankind... yes I can.

 

 

Regarding it being a crime not to report confessed crimes - how could that be policed? Only 2 people (and God) know what is said in the confessional, so how would it come to light that something had not been reported?

 

And given the confession process is anonymous - what could he report of worth?

 

If you went down the police station and reported that "someone said he felt someone's arse" you would be treated with utter contempt for wasting their time.

 

In the same way it is policed for teachers and other professionals.

 

Well, imagine a priest is in his confessional, and over the course of a few months or years he gets multiple confessions from anonymous kids about how they have sinned because they sucked Father Doyle's sausage and they've been feeling harrowing guilt about it because not only did they not want to do it but also they get taught every day that sex and homosexuality is sending them straight to hell....

 

Don't you think that the priest should be obligated to notify the police so they can carry out an investigation on Father Doyle?

[Henry]

There's no hell says the Pope:

 

 

During the meeting Scalfari asked the pope where “bad souls” go, to which he was quoted as responding: “They are not punished. Those who repent obtain God’s forgiveness and take their place among the ranks of those who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot be forgiven disappear. A hell doesn’t exist, the disappearance of sinning souls exists.”

[maryhilldon]

He's making it up as he goes along!

#lifeofbrian

[Clydeside_Sheep]

He's making it up as he goes along!

#lifeofbrian

 

Your right, he is, which is why he is an unpopular disgrace who cannot be deposed and/or go to his grave fast enough (whichever method of getting rid of him is faster).

 

He does not actually have the capacity or power to change Catholic doctrine - immutable truths are unchanging facts, after all - but what he is doing is advancing his own ideas (as in this case) in its place.

 

This is because he is an atheist-socialist and a peronist, not a Catholic. He is also a formal heretic, with these latest comments being the only the latest confirmation of that.

 

His ongoing Pontificate is undoubtedly one of the low points in the Church's 2,000 year history so far and he is easily a strong contender for the worst pope ever.

 

Even previous shocking Popes had some redeeming qualities - e.g. Alexander VI who, while being an immoral disgrace in a personal capacity, actually governed the Church reasonably well in places, in his capacity as Pope. But Bergoglio is just an all round loser.

 

He has gotten away with it thus far, due to most modern Bishops being completely limp-wristed and due to a complacent and over-comfortable institution.

[Henry]

 

 

 

This is because he is an atheist-socialist and a peronist, not a Catholic.

 

 

Do bears still shit in the woods?

[The Boofon]

The best one was the pope who invented Eggs Benedict.

 

Not sure of his name but by fuck he made a cracking dish.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

How would you rate the succession of Popes that thought child abuse should be covered up ?

 

Mediocre.

[shut up meg]

 

Your right, he is, which is why he is an unpopular disgrace who cannot be deposed and/or go to his grave fast enough (whichever method of getting rid of him is faster).

 

He does not actually have the capacity or power to change Catholic doctrine - immutable truths are unchanging facts, after all - but what he is doing is advancing his own ideas (as in this case) in its place.

 

This is because he is an atheist-socialist and a peronist, not a Catholic. He is also a formal heretic, with these latest comments being the only the latest confirmation of that.

 

His ongoing Pontificate is undoubtedly one of the low points in the Church's 2,000 year history so far and he is easily a strong contender for the worst pope ever.

 

Even previous shocking Popes had some redeeming qualities - e.g. Alexander VI who, while being an immoral disgrace in a personal capacity, actually governed the Church reasonably well in places, in his capacity as Pope. But Bergoglio is just an all round loser.

 

He has gotten away with it thus far, due to most modern Bishops being completely limp-wristed and due to a complacent and over-comfortable institution.

 

He must be pretty bad if he's worse than this lot

 

http://www.thisisinsider.com/crazy-popes-in-history-2017-1#benedict-ix-was-a-three-time-pope-described-as-a-demon-from-hell-3

[Parklife]

Wait, the Pope actually ISN'T a Catholic?!?!

[fatjim]

 

Your right, he is, which is why he is an unpopular disgrace who cannot be deposed and/or go to his grave fast enough (whichever method of getting rid of him is faster).

 

He does not actually have the capacity or power to change Catholic doctrine - immutable truths are unchanging facts, after all - but what he is doing is advancing his own ideas (as in this case) in its place.

 

This is because he is an atheist-socialist and a peronist, not a Catholic. He is also a formal heretic, with these latest comments being the only the latest confirmation of that.

 

His ongoing Pontificate is undoubtedly one of the low points in the Church's 2,000 year history so far and he is easily a strong contender for the worst pope ever.

 

Even previous shocking Popes had some redeeming qualities - e.g. Alexander VI who, while being an immoral disgrace in a personal capacity, actually governed the Church reasonably well in places, in his capacity as Pope. But Bergoglio is just an all round loser.

 

He has gotten away with it thus far, due to most modern Bishops being completely limp-wristed and due to a complacent and over-comfortable institution.

 

It's not like he is going against anything true.

 

He is the head of a business and businesses have to evolve in order to stay relevant.

 

the catholic church has evolved over it's history and will keep doing so if it wants numpties like you to follow and put cash into the business.

[BWG]

One of the lowest points of the Churches 2000 year history. Megalolz.

[shut up meg]

One of the lowest points of the Churches 2000 year history. Megalolz.

 

Yep, this pope is worse than the Pope Sixtus IV who fathered a child with his sister.

I think it might be worth reading up on this Argentinian pope, he sounds like he's a right character.

[Foster14]

 

Your right, he is, which is why he is an unpopular disgrace who cannot be deposed and/or go to his grave fast enough (whichever method of getting rid of him is faster).

 

He does not actually have the capacity or power to change Catholic doctrine - immutable truths are unchanging facts, after all - but what he is doing is advancing his own ideas (as in this case) in its place.

 

This is because he is an atheist-socialist and a peronist, not a Catholic. He is also a formal heretic, with these latest comments being the only the latest confirmation of that.

 

His ongoing Pontificate is undoubtedly one of the low points in the Church's 2,000 year history so far and he is easily a strong contender for the worst pope ever.

 

Even previous shocking Popes had some redeeming qualities - e.g. Alexander VI who, while being an immoral disgrace in a personal capacity, actually governed the Church reasonably well in places, in his capacity as Pope. But Bergoglio is just an all round loser.

 

He has gotten away with it thus far, due to most modern Bishops being completely limp-wristed and due to a complacent and over-comfortable institution.

 

Surely if he was that much of a disgrace:

 

a) God wouldn't have let him become Pope or;

b) Now that he has turned into a disgrace, God would ensure his swift dismissal, by whatever means.

[The Boofon]

Maybe this is Gods way of punishment to the Catholics for all the child molesting theyve done. Giving them a bad pope as punishment.