BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'

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-

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-

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

:)

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

Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! THAT is priceless, 9!

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.

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

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)?

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 ...

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 11:56 AM

""If someone on earth can do that, what is the point of judgement day?""

I believe I am right in saying that only the Pope can excommunicate or decide what actions warrant excommunication, which is basically analogous with banishment or exile by kings , of transgressing subjects.

It is one of the areas of his infallibility, and it is an interesting fact that for a sigificant period in the twentieth century, reading Lady Chatterley's Lover could lead to excommunication.

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

My point wasn't about any of that. It was about the Church dissociating itself from the child abusers in the most serious and final manner possible within catholic doctrine and dogma, as a better protection of reputation than covering up abuse.

I don't particularly believe in Heaven, Hell, Limbo or Purgatory. I just think whitewashing an institution isn't the same as proving it is intrinsically white.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 10:33 AM

Suppose you're a Catholic doctor, who has the training and skills to perform a safe and medically-qualified abortion. Now suppose the life of your pregnant Catholic wife is seriously endangered and she will die if this pregnancy is not terminated. You know this to be a medical fact, beyond doubt. The baby is one you both want.

You commune with your conscience, your wife communes with hers, and you both come to the conclusion that you must perform the abortion to save your wife's life. It is really "trading" a life rather than taking one, because the wife will die if the baby is allowed to come to term. The alternative is that the baby dies and the wife lives. But that's assuming a normal healthy birth. There's no guarantee that the baby won't die too, at some stage, whereas the wife *will* without this intervention.

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 05:48 AM

.. or, to put it a bit differently, to some of us outside the One Holy And Apostolic Church, "conscience" might just appear synonymous with "cop-out".

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 05:45 AM

I asked Joe above to define 'always' as used again in gnu's post --

"As always, conscience is the final arbiter"

but was not entirely persuaded by his reply.

Was it so at the height of the activities of the Holy Office, aka The Inquisition? If so, many would question some of the 'conscientious' decisions reached, and ask why the victims' doubtless sincere pleas of having followed their 'consciences' in what were then deemed heresies did not prevail.

But if this 'always' hadn't started then [which, despite Joe's adducement of Aquinas, the above phenomena might appear to suggest], what are we to extrapolate from 'always'? Or, if it had, then what effect or significance can we attribute to the actual perpetual operation of the 'conscience'?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:43 PM

"And standard Catholic teaching tells people that a rule does not apply when it leads people to do wrong. As always, conscience is the final arbiter."

That' what I was taught. Too bad some posters haven't a clue that IS what is taught.

And too bad so many do not understand that even when it defies a "ruling", that conscience STILL applies. It overrules all.

Unlike the idiots that show up at my door early on Saturday, first good weather and ask for $.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:19 PM

It is not for us or any member of the somewhat pompous church to try to make it so people can't get to heaven. I am not sure that is what excommunication does exactly. Who knows what sort of mental illness they have...the notion that a person could condemn someone to hell (or maybe you just meant non-heaven, which is what you actually said and is a different matter) is horrifying to me. If someone on earth can do that, what is the point of judgement day? What is the point of teaching us about a merciful GOd when any nutcase religious person can now condemn someone to hell or purgatory or wherever.

What I want is for them to be out of reach of children. That now means prison. I think before all the coverups it could have meant essentially imprisonment in a Catholic monastary/jail but probably too much water under the bridge.

I think of course their ability to practice as priests should be removed, but not their status as priests. They could be defunct priests or whatever, but the day will come when priests will be either so scarce or so needed in a massive emergency that they will be needed..in which case severe precautions should be taken and probably only volunteers should go to them. I would go to one.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:41 AM

Although I am not religious, I do see that the ideology of certain theological precepts
run counter to what the hierarchy of that theology profess. For example, I am a devoted American and subscribe to the Constitution, generally, which like all documents has its flaws. However, I don't approve of where the elected representatives of this country are taking us; away from American values of democracy and under the guise of "freedom",
distorting these values.

This is analogous to those who in certain theologies subscribe to their ideals without going along with the hierarchical program. I see this in Jewish, Christian, Catholic and Islamic people. It's true of many countries of the world when the people don't agree with their erstwhile leaders.

Bottom line: Talk is cheap. Action is what counts. For example, I admire the Catholic Worker for its social action with Dorothy Day and Ammon Hennesey. I admire the "boycott, divestment and sanction" movement of Israel which is supported by many Jews. I admire "liberation theology" and understand its role in South and Central America.

I can see that you don't have to swallow the whole enchilada.

Personally, I hope a time will come when people don't need religion but can make a choice to believe as long as they don't enforce it on others or harm others in the process.
I hope for the bricks of the Wall of Separation of state and religion to remain in place despite the fundamentalist religions that are trying to tear it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:08 AM

""Believe me, Jim, Lawrence Murphy most probably went to hell as a priest. He molested 200 deaf children. But "defrocking" him wasn't necessary. He should have been prosecuted, tried, and sent to prison if found guilty.""

I rather think that defockng and excommunication are not only necessary but obligatory Joe.

The church covered these mens' misdeeds to protect the reputation of the "Catholic Church".

How much better it would have been, to protect that reputation by not only handing over the abusers to well deserved secular legal punishment, but also by repudiating them and all their actions by publicly severing their ties with the Church, and depriving them (in the eyes of the faithful at least) of any chance of heaven.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 10:03 AM

I reckon I too will start blowing smoke through the chimney.

Black when my posts to this thread disappear mysteriously.

White when one is still there the next time I log on...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 08:39 AM

Thanks Bonnie
How's Packie by the way
Best
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:30 AM

Jim's link to JAMES O'SHEA ARTICLE

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Up-to-350-Irish-priests-were-likely-accused-child-abusers-134769948.html#ixzz2NPtsd52V

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

""But to make an issue out of Ratzinger's refusal to laicize Murphy, is not understanding the process. It's like saying a plumber is no longer a plumber, because he has committed a crime.""

That does not make any sense.

Most governing bodies having certification powers over professions, for example doctors, lawyers and even plumbers can remove it. So, a certified plumber can cease being a certified plumber. Let's not confuse this with removing the educational qualifications for a profession (for example, taking a PHD away from a doctor), that does not make sense.

The RC church has the sole power to name a RC priest a priest, and authorizing these people to practice under this title. So, logically the RC church has it has within it's power to withdraw the professional status (within the bounds of this planet), or, if it does not oficially have it now, it has the power (on Earth) to change it's own rules to make it so - if it had the will to do so. (However, I suspect the pope has such power now, if one wished to exercise it). They can leave it to the Lord (and, whomever) to deal with the situation beyond this planet, and beyond this life.

Where would society be if police officers remained police officers after consistantly breaking the law? Generally, they are removed from the profession, and cease to be police officers. Often where this has not happened in western society (for example, in LA), poeple have rioted in the streets to have it rectified.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:09 AM

Sorry, missed a bit of the article:
Of course the overwhelming majority of the cases were never pursued because of the unholy alliance between the church and the government and the police to cover it all up for decades
If you think things are getting any better think again perhaps.
Last month Father Patrick McGarvey (43) was elevated to the position of parish priest of Fanad, County Donegal, by Bishop Philip Boyce of the Raphoe diocese, the man whose diocese was one of the worst offenders when it came to clerical abuse.
According to the Belfast Telegraph, in August 2004 McGarvey was caught by undercover police at Foyleside shopping centre in Derry, watching men in the public restrooms. The police caught the priest while carrying out an investigation after members of the public had complained.
Is that the kind of man you want in charge of a parish? Would you let your kid near such a priest?
Will the church ever learn?

Here's a breakdown of the figures:
Raphoe (Donegal)
.52 allegations reported to gardaí against 14 priests
. Eight out of 14 priests out of ministry, six retired
. Four convicted of an offence against a child
. Significant errors of judgement made by successive bishops
. Too much emphasis on accused priests, not victims
. More attention should have been given to preventative actions

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Up-to-350-Irish-priests-were-likely-accused-child-abusers-134769948.html#ixzz2NPtsd52V
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:05 AM

It is extremely difficult to find out exactly how many abusers and victims there have been, - part of the conspiracy of silence' no doubt,
This article – (over 2 years out of date – the situation has moved on since then) puts some of it into context, though nowhere has there been any indication of those who have been bought off, and we will never have the remotest idea of how many never reported it, but it will be certainly a far greater proportion than those women who were too ashamed (or too frightened of the maulings they will most certainly get from our legal systems) to report 'ordinary rape' (isn't that an appalling phrase.?)
"I'm sure he would have spoken of Fr. Murphy's crimes during the funeral."
He would have been the first one to have done so - can you think of one other occasion this this has happened, or is he a single lone voice crying in the wilderness?
Jim Carroll

UP TO 350 IRISH PRIESTS WERE LIKELY ACCUSED CHILD ABUSERS
New report shows it was far more than just a small element
By
JAMES O'SHEA,
Irish Central Staff Writer
One of the arguments made frequently in Ireland is that it is only a tiny minority of priests who were abusers. Yet the latest investigation, released yesterday, into six dioceses seems to indicate the opposite.
The report was compiled by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church.
The figures, shown below, were on the RTE television website soon after the investigation made its findings public seem to indicate otherwise.
All in all a total of 85 priests across six dioceses were accused of child sexual abuse. If you extrapolate that number across the 20 other dioceses you end up with a number close to 350 if you include the fact that Dublin and three other archdioceses are still to be counted and will have far more accused as a result of larger numbers of priests.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 06:52 AM

Along the same lines as Jim, I was reading this article alongside the latest posts in this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 05:48 AM

Joe
Quickly - breakfast calls

Tell me again how these things have been long dealt with in the US
It appears that the church is still buying (at extremely high prices – though maybe not to the wealthiest church in the world) the silence of abuse victims
This from this morning's Irish Times
Jim Carroll

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony and a former priest have agreed to pay a total of nearly $10 million to settle four child sex abuse cases brought against them, lawyers for the victims said yesterday.
Mahony, who retired in 2011 as head of the largest US archdiocese and is now in Rome taking part in choosing a new pope, was accused of helping a confessed pedophile priest evade law enforcement by sending him out of state to a church-run treatment center, then placing the priest back in the Los Angeles ministry. As part of the agreement approved by a Los Angeles judge earlier this month, none of the parties admitted wrongdoing, according to a plaintiff's attorney in the case. (Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 05:17 AM

Jim, I agree with you completely. There's no question that my church "was and still is implicated in serious crimes against children," no question at all. And I find that appalling.

So, where's our disagreement? You know that I respect your opinion more than that of just about any other Mudcatter. If I had known about this at the time I lived in St. Francis, I would have stood before the City Council and demanded that they order their police department to arrest this horrible person. But I didn't know at the time. The School for the Deaf seemed strange because I never saw anyone outside there, but that's all I knew at the time. And hey, I was 14 years old when I lived next door to that school.

Fr. Murphy was buried in a Catholic funeral, and a bishop I knew well (and still admire more than any other bishop) presided at the funeral in 1998. This bishop was a very honest man, and I'm sure he would have spoken of Fr. Murphy's crimes during the funeral. I wish I knew what he said. Yeah, I know that many people might say the man should have been denied a Catholic funeral, but the Catholic practice is to let God (and the civil criminal justice system) do the condemnation. Still, I wonder why my friend, as a bishop, couldn't have faded into the background and let some other priest do the funeral. My friend was someone who always forgave people - and he got a lot of criticism for that.

Sister Helen Prejean ("Dead Man Walking") faced the same questions for ministering to inmates on death row in Louisiana.

-Joe-

Gnu, I know this will break your heart, but please remember that it is a Mudcat tradition that the thread originator does not have control of anything beyond his/her own posts. What other people post, is their business. The thread goes, where it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 05:07 AM

And still you are reducing this whole affair to the behaviour of individuals Joe.
Your church was and still is implicated in serious crimes against children - does that not upset you enough to even acknowledge and perhaps discuss it some time
"But why wasn't he prosecuted?"
You damn well know why he wasn't prosecuted - for centuries the church has held entire countries and their governments by the balls; thanks to all this, we're beginning to see light at the end of that particular long, dark tunnel - I just hope we come out at the other side in my lifetime - if I thought so I'd put the champagne in the fridge today (I'm lying - I hate champagne)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 04:37 AM

Believe me, Jim, Lawrence Murphy most probably went to hell as a priest. He molested 200 deaf children. But "defrocking" him wasn't necessary. He should have been prosecuted, tried, and sent to prison if found guilty. I am sure a trial would have found this man guilty, and I can't understand why there was no trial. This matter was in the press in the 1970s, well within the statute of limitations.

I don't excuse or deny his horrible conduct in any way, but I don't think the issue was whether he was "returned to the lay state" or not. If he's laicized, he's allowed to get married. If not, then he's supposed to remain celibate (which, for this guy, is an obscene irony).

But to make an issue out of Ratzinger's refusal to laicize Murphy, is not understanding the process. It's like saying a plumber is no longer a plumber, because he has committed a crime. The appropriate punishment was to prosecute him as a criminal, and fire his ass as a priest. And yes, he was fired. But why wasn't he prosecuted?

St. John's School for the Deaf was an esteemed institution, and students came from all over the United States. The school was located in the City of St. Francis, Wisconsin, a suburb on the outskirts of Milwaukee which has a population of 9,365. Within the city limits were a Catholic church and school, two Catholic seminaries (one now closed), two Catholic high schools (one for boys, one for girls - both closed now, I think), and the motherhouse of an order of Catholic nuns. I suppose that, with a population like that, the St. Francis Police Department might be reluctant to arrest a priest. They should have arrested him, though. Most likely, these serial molestations were the most serious crime that ever took place in the City of St. Francis.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 04:35 AM

Joe:
"Lawrence Murphy"
That was the most appalling piece of dodging responsibility I have ever read and it sums up all the double-think that has gone on throughout this affair.
Murphy was allowed to continue his crimes long after he was found out; it really doesn't matter that he eventually stopped preaching, He was allowed to remain a priest to the end of his life.
He died a priest, he was buried as a priest in a priests plot, - and, by your own rule book 'went to heaven as a priest'. So far as your church is concerned his crimes were acceptable enough for him to remain a priest - all the rest of your justification of the church's behaviour is no more than double-talk.
He expressed not an ounce of contrition right up to his death.
One of the most disgustingly distressing scenes in 'Mea Maxima Culpa' was the visit to Murphy's house by some of his victims, filmed by them.
With some difficulty, after being berated by his housekeeper they eventually managed to persuade him to the door - he drove them off telling them to leave him alone, he was an old man - no contrition, no apology.... nothing.
I wonder whether your stance would remain the same if it was you or yours on the receiving end of such despicable treatment; somehow I doubt it.
It is watching scenes like this and the Brendan Smyth documentary, 'Betrayal of Trust' (freely available for viewing on U-tube along with much more) that I deeply regret that I don't believe in Hell or eternal damnation – these animals (sorry for the insult animals!) died unpunished and their accomplices still refuse to acknowledge their part in serious criminal activities .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODvv6tQ3naQ   
http://banishedbabies-ireland.blogspot.ie/2012/03/documentary-betrayal-of-trust-brendan.html
What comes over in all of these is the cold indifference of the church authorities and the smug attitude that "God, history and the State is on our side".
Your benign defence of the Church by simply ignoring and refusing even to discuss this matter in all its aspects and by your persistence in reducing it to "a few bad apples" will guarantee that it will run longer than 'Les Mis' or 'The Mousetrap'.
Last year in Ireland a an abuse victim who entered a church to protest the visit of a bishop who was involved in child abuse, was booed and driven out - abuse deniers still lurk in this country.   
Contrary to your claims, it is far from having been dealt with with in Ireland and it never will be until every implication of the fact that the most powerful church in the world colluded in the long term and widespread rape of helpless and vulnerable children, has been recognised and dealt with in its entirity - I suspect that this is also the case in the US and in the other numerous countries where similar behaviour too place.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/priest-sex-scandal-shocks-brazil/2005/11/28/1133026405263.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-if-clerical-abuse-was-a-car-crash-wed-still-be-looking-for-the-victims-612209-Oct2012/
So far we know only of the events that occurred over the last few decades, and we have not the slightest idea whether it will ever happen again.
Yours getting sadder and sadder with each posting
Jim Carroll

PS Would be grateful if someone would be kind enough to explain how to do the blue clickies sometime -

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 03:26 AM

Guest Susan
"but are you the folk song collector Jim Carroll?"
Guilty as charged - ask away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 02:49 AM

Well, Mike, the primacy of conscience was covered quite extensively by Thomas Aquinas in the 1200s. It was in the Baltimore Catechism in the 1950s, and that was based on the Catechism of Trent from the 1570s.

Mind you, this is for assessing moral culpability. If a person does something in good conscience, then he is not morally culpable from a theological standpoint. And yes, I suppose that some of the judges of the Holy Inquisition, did what they did in good conscience - even though they were wrong from an objective standpoint. And no, the judges of the Spanish Inquisition of the 1490s did not respect the primacy of conscience, and certainly wouldn't give a damn if Cervantes and others believed that what they were doing was right. The inquisitors were far more interested in political expediency.

And no, I won't defend the Inquisition. Many people who faced the Inquisition, were later named saints.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 02:34 AM

'standard Catholic teaching tells people that a rule does not apply when it leads people to do wrong. As always, conscience is the final arbiter'.
.,,.
When did this 'always' begin, Joe; and this 'standard' become standard? Did the 'rule ... not apply', then to the Holy Office in C16 Spain? Or were they doing no 'wrong' in condemning 'hertics' to the auto-da-fe even tho many of these might have pleaded their 'conscience'? Did the judges consult their consciences? To what effect?

Just asking.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 01:17 AM

Hi, gnu -

The short answer is that the bigger and older an organization is, the slower it moves. I suppose you could say that there's an advantage in that the Catholic Church doesn't get lost in shallow fads....

Actually, there can be advantages to a strong reliance on tradition. It can help us to appreciate the wisdom of the past, and not get hung up on the ephemeral.

The trick, however, is not to let the past rule without question. Many of our best teachers from the past, are our mistakes. No need to repeat them. I love my Catholic religion and its traditions. I find the structure and doctrine and rules necessary to carry on those traditions, but I can't imagine why a person would follow rules that just aren't right. And standard Catholic teaching tells people that a rule does not apply when it leads people to do wrong. As always, conscience is the final arbiter.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 12:51 AM

BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 12:47 AM

I don't mean to change the subject, but are you the folk song collector Jim Carroll? If so, I have a question about a song.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 10:40 PM

Sweet JAYSUS! Who gives a shit about the OP, Steve? NOBODY. I just said that fer fuck sake! I had moved on to the second screwing over of the Op-er and I am the OPer whose OP was ignored in Spades... big tine... buried under piles of shite until NOBODY could see it... not even me. Keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:50 PM

Well it's like this you see. I do vaguely recall the OP, but I'm not going to keep going back to it because if I have to go to the start of a thread of any length, then want to respond, the whole bloody thing takes so long to load up that I give up the will to live. So I just click on that little d. In terms of thread drift, the inordinately long loading time of threads on this site have a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:35 PM

Since NObody really addressed the OP but only addressed themselves...

Did I get your attention? Can we simply get back to the task at hand? Can you all take your minds off yourselves and help me do something I feel is important to me and to a lot of other people in this world?

In the OP, I asked a question. Some 140 or so posts later, I stated I had gleaned my answer. Nobody asked me what it was... no problem for me.

Then I asked for youse to join me in answering another question (as I alluded to in the OP). VERY few posts into that, it was ignored and I am not pleased... as you can see.

Oh, fuck it. I dunno why I bother. I vacate the floor. The discussion is yours. If a suitable chairman is acceptable to all I may consider rejoining the Bs as a participant in subsequent discussions. For now, I just can't deal with the childlike crap. I wished for a proper discussion... apparently, one can only have such in Rome.

Now... yees all think about THAT before you shit on the Catholic Church again.

>;-)

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:30 PM

You mean that American constitution that permits any Tom, Dick or Harry to carry lethal weapons around in his pocket?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:21 PM

"The offender should be arrested, tried, and sent to prison."

As I said to Songwronger on another thread, if that's the way it's gonna be, why have a trial? Not all accusations are true. A certain teachers' association with which I am intimately familiar will defend any teacher for anything, period. No teachers' association of which I am aware will fund an appeal. One is innocent until otherwise proven. I think British law is the best that's ever been written. Except of course the American Constitution which is presently being redrafted.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:14 PM

Hmmmm... where did that post go? Did I dream that?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:01 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu - PM
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.


ARE YOU FUCKING LISTENING????????????????????????

CAN WE CETRALIZE THE DISCUSSION? CAN WE HAVE SOME DECORUM?

JESUS HIMSELF WOYULDN'T PUT UP WITH THAT SHIT!

GOOGLE BRAINSTORMING DEFINITION FER FUCK SAKE! Or just get some manners and READ THE DAMN THREAD!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:56 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu - PM
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu - PM
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu - PM
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:11 PM

I am not sure why the Catholic church should be worried about the shame of having a priest, or thousands, who are child molesters. They made them and made their parents who made them. It is systemic. And probably for that reason they don't seem particularly ashamed..sure good at hiding it if they are..or it just melts into their general shame about sex between consenting adults..some of them cant tell the difference..all equally bad. If you hit someone on the arm long enough and hard enough, their arm is going to be deformed. Same same.