BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:00 PM

For once, I agree with mg. Priests who molest should not be punished by the Catholic Church. They should not be laicized or "defrocked" - the Catholic Church should have to live with the shame of having a priest who is a child molester.
The offender should be arrested, tried, and sent to prison. And yes, they should be suspended from ministry while awaiting trial and forever after conviction.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:30 PM

For the record I do not call for priests to be laicized and especially not excommunicated. I don't think excommunication is valid in the first place, or what is baptims. Also, it is used as a threat over peoples' heads. So if they are Catholic that is what they/we are and we will have to adjust. I think laicized is the same thing. Also, for those who might be reasonably safe if they were in chains and locked to a pillar perhaps, we are going to need all hands on deck in case of natural disaster, or more likely, war. Some will have to be taken out of mothballs. There will be mass casualties.

What I call for is for children and vulnerable adults to be absolutely safe from them, whether that means jail, electronic devices
, essentially imprisonment in isolated monastaries etc. Also I am for brain operatios in the violent cases...voluntary taking chemicals to reduce urges are too fallible.

I am sympathatic to the people who are the abusers. What a wretched life they must live to not be able to control this..no one would wish it on them. But they have to be stopped either medically or electronically or by banishment. After that, I do not care if they are excommunicated or laicized. I think they should not be.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:29 PM

And, yet another:

"A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." Emo Philips quote

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:23 PM

Here you go, gnu, a light one:

""When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.""
Emo Philips quote

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:41 PM

Hmmmm... okay... I suppose there is at least one rule to a Bs session. The resulting discussions are not supposed to start until the Bs session is completed, at least to a reasonable degree. It is always open to perusal and tweaking but it has to be at least given a chance to be considered carefully first. Once a consensus is had about moving to the discussion phase... we go for the debates and analyses and such.

If you put the cart before the horse, the cart cannot be steered. It goes hither and yon and... well, things can get fucked up pretty quick like.

Hahahhaa... I just had a thought. If the lads in Rome blowin smoke as I type didn't follow a reasonable progression of BS and careful analyses and consideration as they do, they would end up with the cart before the horse as well. I hope I do not offend... just strikes me funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:23 PM

Gee, it looks like I stirred up a can of worms. I worked as a government investigator for thirty years - so I take crime seriously, but don't tend to get excited about it. I'm sorry if you view my dispassionate response as uncaring. I really am concerned about the sexual molestation scandal in the Catholic Church, and I want it to be resolved.

Still, my thirty years as an investigator compels me to work from the facts, and from a view of what is and what is not an effective response.

Much is made of the story of Fr. Lawrence Murphy of St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. The evidence indicates that Murphy molested as many as 200 deaf students at the school from 1952 until he was removed from active ministry in 1974 (Murphy died in 1998). There's no question about this - this is a horrific crime. It appears the crime wasn't prosecuted, but it doesn't appear that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee did anything to interfere with criminal prosecution. The flap about the Murphy case, was that the Cardinal Ratzinger failed to laicize Murphy. Murphy was not allowed to function as a priest, but many forces would not be satisfied until Murphy would no longer be a priest. Laicisation, which is a theological process usually based on elements that made the ordination invalid from the time it took place, is commonly known as "defrocking"; although it seems to me that removal of the function of priesthood would be a more apt thing to label "defrocking." When you're removed from your job as a baker, you're no longer a baker - but you still have the degree you earned at culinary school. So, since the guy wasn't functioning as a priest for the last 20 years of his life, it seems to me that he was functionally defrocked. I can't understand why he wasn't prosecuted in criminal court, however. Still, the criminal conduct ended in 1977.

The bishops of the United States put their most recent and most stringent measures against child molestation into effect in 2002, but they began taking measures in the mid-1960s. Yeah, there still are dioceses that are reluctant to release personnel files. As an investigator, I fought companies and government agencies about the release of records for thirty years. Companies have reasons to protect their records, and investigators have reasons to demand them. That's just the way it works. If an organization refuses an investigator, that's one thing. If that organization releases a court order for release of records, that's another. And yeah, you could pick on the Vatican's diplomatic immunity as a cover for releasing records - but the originals of most of those records are stored in the country of origin and available there if requested by court order. As an investigator, I did my best to obtain records from the originator, not the recipient.

There's no question that government officials and church officials in Ireland were in collusion in the industrial schools and in the Magdelene Laundries, and both sides are trying to protect their own asses and blame the other side. Once again, though, remember that the laundries and schools were closed by the 1990s, thus ending the abuse that took place there.

The child molestation crisis in the U.S. was mostly sorted out in 2002-2003. It is moving toward conclusion in Ireland, and I think the rest of Europe is a year or two behind. I'm sure that child molestation took place in the Catholic Church in Africa, Asia, and South America - but I don't know much about the state of things in those continents.

As a security specialist, I can tell you that the measures taken by the U.S. bishops are quite good - and Ireland and Continental Europe appear to be adopting similar measures. ALL employees and volunteers are screened and trained; and those working directly with children go through stricter training and screening, including fingerprints and criminal records checks.

If you look at the statistics, you will find a dramatic drop in the molestation of children by priests since about 2000. Offenses are now quite rare, and no bishop in his right mind would allow such offenses to continue or to go unprosecuted - the penalty is now too severe. What is happening now, worldwide, is the process of assessing blame and distributing compensation. It's a complicated process, and it's being carried out mostly by lawyers, not bishops. It's messy, and it's not good for public relations, but it's a process that must be done.

I understand the outrage. I guess I'm past the outraged stage because I knew about much of this in the 1970s, and I have been working toward the elimination of child molestation since then.

When there are facts available, I will seek verification - that's my nature as an investigator. I may question information that seems overblown, but I have never been one to deny verified information. I do try to put things into context and proportion and I realize that can be annoying to those who are in full-blown outrage - but it is only through facts and understanding that we can resolve problems such as this. I fully acknowledge that the child molestation scandal and subsequent coverup in the Catholic Church was widespread, and it was truly an abomination.

There are those of you who think I'm unqualified to comment on Catholic affairs outside of Wisconsin and California, but I assure you that I have worked hard to have a global perspective. I have close friends who have worked as priests and nuns in all the continents except Antarctica, and many were born in the countries where they worked. I'm an investigator with a theology degree who has worked and taught in the Catholic Church, and I've traveled extensively and can communicate in several languages. So, yeah, I think I'm quite well qualified to give objective information about happenings in the Catholic Church - and I try very hard to be objective and factual. And yes, I think that people who haven't set foot in a Catholic church for twenty years, are a bit less able to comment knowledgeably about the current state of affairs.

Oh, and let me assure you that as a rule, I don't like bishops and I don't trust them - with a few exceptions.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:22 PM

"1. Married Priests: YES! but irrelevant to abuse" Not so fast. The frustration of an unnatural celibacy can cause a warped idea of sex. (Original sin).

2. Nuns should be allowed to marry whom they choose.

3. The ordination of women in a paternalistic religion runs counter to its stated purpose. Catholicism is run by men.

4. The word "abortion" (a pejorative) should be changed to "terminate unwanted pregnancy".

8. I agree with this entirely. Get the church out of bedrooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:38 PM

Ed... to shine light on things... the major focus of the sexual abuse scandals.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:35 PM

""1. Marriage of priests.
2. Marriage of nuns.
3. Ordainment of women.
4. Punishment within the church of sexual abusers.
5. Birth control.
6. Abortion.
7. ""

Bs

1. Married Priests: YES! but irrelevant to abuse

2. Not sure about this. It would be necessary, not only to ask "Should they marry?", but also "Should they marry priests?".

3. Ordain women: Emphatically yes. They have much to offer and the presence of women would do much to assist in making very necessary changes in relation to contraception and abortion

4. Punishment of abusers: It should be made clear to all clergy that abusers will be handed over to the police for prosecution, and conviction will mean instant dismissal and excommunication.

Senior clergy should be told that any who attempt to cover up abuse will suffer the same action exactly.

5. and 6. Birth Control and Abortion: See above.

7. Education. adults and children should have full access to education about birth control, and women should have absolute right to choose whether to terminate up to the point of viability.

8. ALL the many and various churches, religions, or sects should be told that they must stick to saving souls and leave the bodies to secular law and justice. In other words "Render unto Caesar", failing which, they will lose charitable status and pay taxes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:26 PM

Note that I tried to "lighten" content by removing the "c".

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:23 PM

Does ""lighten things up" mean add humour, effervescence, take away weight, or remove ontent gnu, (as in "Light" meals or "Light" Ice cream or confectionaries", or "You light-up my life")?.

Just a humourous thought:)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:13 PM

Again, the Catholic Church hierarchy is analogous to a mafia run organization.
No wonder there is a connection historically.

Why aren't the Catholic laity leaving in droves? What keeps them hanging on?

Possible answer: an appeal to authoritarianism. Parental guidance with an iron hand or fist.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:54 PM

I thought about that but figured I'd lighten things up.

There's another one for yas. Yer welcome.

Say...

4. Punishment of sexual abusers.
a. Punishment within the church.
b. Disclosure of suspected sexual abuse(rs) for investigation by secular authorities.

Thereto...

1. Marriage of priests.

2. Marriage of nuns.

3. Ordainment of women.

4. Punishment of sexual abusers.
a. Punishment within the church.
b. Disclosure of suspected sexual abuse(rs) for investigation by secular authorities.

5. Birth control.

6. Abortion.

7.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:51 PM

I suspect that most RC faithful, as good people, would know what should be done, or at least come up with it and work it out among themselves if they were allowed to have a greater say (and, I am not talking about the local parish stuff often thrown about as examples of real local empowerment).

That is not to say that everyone would agree, differences would likely emerge as some regional differences are met (as does with governments). Some may even leave if they do not have their way with change (like with the Anglican discussions. But, doing the right thing always carries some risk, as "not doing the right thing" also carries risk.

So, my suggesting is broad -a change in organizational structure to include more of the faithful in broader organizational decisions, versus the current "old guys network". To me this would inrease local input and impact real change to meet some of the deficiencies that are easy to see.

I realize that religion is not a democracy - but IMO, the RC church organization can do a better job of inclusion in decision making. Some "faithful" may say that is already happening - but, if so, it is not happening fast and broad enough, and the door of change is not wide enough.

Part of the slow reaction to the child sexual abuse issue was because of the current structure. Top folks saying they are sorry rings hollow, without breaking down the structure (and people) that caused it and the structure and folks that enabled it to continue for years. I remain unconvinced that potential abusers have not gone in hiding, only to emerg again, and to do a better job of hiding their sinful and harmful acts.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:35 PM

"Exposure of sexual abuse(rs) "
Poor choice of words in the circumstances, don't you think!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:23 PM

Sooooooooo... JohnP'... would you consider this acceptable during a Bs session?


4. Punishment of sexual abusers.
a. Punishment within the church.
b. Exposure of sexual abuse(rs) for investigation by secular authorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 01:57 PM

Sorry - that should read "punishable by at least a prison sentence and, in Britain anyway, an entry into the sexual offenders register."
Senior moment!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 01:37 PM

Great article on bishop accountability today..Shonborn's mother has spoken out and does not want him to be pope because he does not like dishonest people and also would not do well with the bitchiness of the Vatican. I still think he would be the best, but I am OK with Scola, Oullett. Horrified by Bertone and aspects of Turkson. Bertone is still coming up 3 or 4 in gambling sites.

What I want to know is am I the only one horrified by D from New York? He strikes me as totally brutish and dishonest but am I misjudging him? I think he would be the worst pope in my lifetime and he is seriously being mentioned. I get the creepiest feeling whenever I see his picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM

Damn!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM

Steve, I'm not aware of anyone saying that marriage for priests will take care of sexual abuse.
I agree that they are separate issues. It's just that letting priests marry frequently pops up in the abuse context as if it would provide the solution (or part of it).

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 10:09 AM

"Punishment within the church of sexual abusers."
We are talking about the sexual abuse of children - child rape - a serious crime, punishable by, at least and, in Britain anyway, and an entry into the sexual offenders register.
Would anybody here suggest that a paedophile teacher should be punished by a stiff talking to by the headmaster, are are the clergy above national laws?
I've yet to read a case of a judge sending a serious criminal back to his family or community and allowing them to deal with it.
The behaviour of the hierarchy makes them accomplices in serious crimes, from obstruction of justice to placing criminals of the worst type in positions where they can continue their 'little weaknesses'.
In these circumstances, in any other environment they too would be facing serious criminal charges.
Why should the church be allowed to investigate, try and punish(!!!) child rapists or be immune from prosecution for assisting them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John P
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:49 AM

Steve, I'm not aware of anyone saying that marriage for priests will take care of sexual abuse. They seem like two separate issues to me. Sexual abuse is a crime and ought to be treated as such, no matter who does it, married people, priests, or otherwise.

Keeping priests from getting married and not ordaining women just seems stupid. Well, and illegal anywhere that there are laws against sex-based employment tests.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John P
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:43 AM

Brainstorm:

4. Punishment within the church of sexual abusers.

As in, immediately turn them and all records associated with them over to the secular authorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:04 AM

Well I'm not a member of the Catholic church any more so it's not really my business...but I do have an issue with this business of letting priests and nuns get married. Don't get me wrong - I'd be all for it - but it seems odd to me to suggest that this would be the panacea to end child abuse. If it's being suggested that there's some simple correlation between sexual frustration and the propensity to harm children, I'm very suspicious. First, many married people are abusers anyway. Second, the vast majority of celibate people do not abuse children. Third, sexual abuse of children is a serious criminal issue. To suggest that a man who has been allowed to marry might otherwise have become an abuser is a little bit pat for my liking. There is surely something fundamental in the psyche of that bloke that must be pushing him in that perverted direction, married or not. The worry is that seriously flawed human beings are being allowed into the priesthood, and letting them marry is not the point. I suppose you could argue that the marriage prospect might attract a better sort of bloke. But I still think that the perception that you can probably get away with your abuse is the big issue that needs addressing first. It's complicated. Just saying we should have married priests in order to address the abuse issue is a bit simplistic, desirable though it may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
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 - 08:07 AM

134 posts... I think I have gleaned the answer to my question.

Question #2 requires a list of the issues. Please join me in brainstorming a list. I'll start it. If anyone is not sure how to brainstorm, search "brainstorm def" first and then expand as required or simply watch the process... it ain't rocket science. It can be enlightening and FUN! So please join in and remember the most important rule of brainstorming... there ain't no rules... so blurt out whatever thought comes to your mind.

1. Marriage of priests.
2. Marriage of nuns.
3. Ordainment of women.
4. Punishment within the church of sexual abusers.
5. Birth control.
6. Abortion.
7.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:00 AM

Good points Steve Shaw.

Joe O:
What is unfortunate is the reaction of many "practicing" RC's to legitimate criticism, some of which RC s tend to agree with,at least to some degree.

Rather than participating in a dialogue and considering different viewpoints, the tendancy of many Rc s is to "circling the wagons", turning outwards and ignoring or vilanize those with constructive ideas,which while they may differ from theirs, are no less logical. A more positive approach would be to openly consider genuine concern for the future plight of the RC church and ideas for change.

What you see is negativity. What I see are victims,former RC's and other Christians wanting a more open, accountable, caring and safe RC church, not the end of the church. Would that also not be the same goal for those who care for the future of the church from the inside?
I do not see people calling for the end of the RC church, but an end of practices they see as hurtful to persons and society and many that they see as uncaring and even "unchristian".

If the RC church ended tomorrow, it would be a sad thing for the many people in society who hold it close to their hearts. IMO, it would also be a sad thing for society in general. But, it is also a sad thing if in today's enlightened society this organization cannot make changes that a child could see as needed.

It is honourable to "stay the course" and try to make change from inside. But,I see no reason why it is less honourable to depart from an organization, one that you have lost trust in, and try to impact change from the outside, as many victims and concerned folks have chosen to do. Do I detect a degree of disdain for those who have chosen to leave?

My last comment is your frequent reference to your experience in the RC church. Joe, you should re-read some of your comments through the lens of a person who holds a different perspective on some related issues. Your experience is just that and does not necessarily reflect what is happening around the world with the RC church. (I am puzzled that you downplay the experiences of others in the RC church as "non-representative" at the same time as you promote your experience as "representative").I will not accuse this approach as being intentionally condescending, as I observe you to be above that word.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 07:43 AM

"Yes, sorry for the thread-drift! "
No need for apology Bonnie - I brought up the subject and I certainly don't believe it to be 'thread drift'.
The reason I did so is that I believe the mixture of religion (any religion) and politics(any politics) is a toxic one and the worst of this mixture has surfaced when the church's power has been unassailable.
Despite all that has been revealed over the last decade, and despite the fact that the power and respect of the church has declined enormously in the eyes of the people (here at least), it seems that as far as the State is concerned, the voice of the church on such issues such as the ending of pregnancies for whatever reason, contraception, homosexuality, single-sex marriages ..... still rings loud and above all others.
Until the role of the church is confined totally to spiritual matters and is totally the business of the believers and their personal and uninterfered-with choice of church - certainly completely removed from any role in education other than it being taught as a philosophy, these problems will re-occur.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 07:17 AM

Sigh. Well there may have one or two "negative" remarks about the Church on this thread, but as far as I can see most of the remarks in question have been critical, not negative.

In recent years the Church itself (not its critics) has shown itself to be fundamentally institutionally flawed. The errors we see arising are not sporadic or piecemeal. They propagate all the more because of lies and denials and protection of perpetrators. That is what's so sad. I don't see anyone here condemning two thousand years of Catholicism because of a few maverick priests and nuns, but I do see an institution that is rotten almost to its core. The institution, not Catholics. You're going to need more than a John XXIII. Every cardinal now in the ring is a product of a rotten setup, don't forget. Only a time-serving insider is going to get the job. Don't you think that sounds a bit hopeless?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 07:03 AM

Mark me down as agreeing absolutely with Bonnie and Ed. I have already described elsewhere the treatment I and my schoolmates received from "God's Stormtroopers", the Jesuit Brothers who taught at my grammar school.

There are other ways for children to be abused than sexual abuse, and the Catholic Church (the institution, not the faithful) has tried most of them at one time or another, usually on the faithful.

In my case it was verbal, psychological and physical abuse, in about equal portions.

As they would say in the Southern States, "It's a control thang!"

I consider myself fortunate to have shrugged off that control and am much the better for it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:59 AM

Before I get pulled up for saying "defending" the abuses and bans: What's being defended is a core belief-system, in the face of repercussions over some of its evil behaviour.

So delete "defended" in my last post; but there's no single other word to put in its place which really says it all - minimising, rationalising, isolating in the past, excluding on some arbitrary grounds… take your pick.

I don't think for a nanosecond that Joe defends the sexual abuse (at least those instances of it that he'll admit to recognising) or any other atrocities. But he dishonours the very real - and ongoing - suffering of its victims* by this fantasy-reframing technique.



*Including those who have killed themselves over their experiences and now can't speak up. I worked on a suicide helpline in Cork and spoke to some of them on the phones, others in person; but this was somehow not convincing, didn't count as evidence unless I could "prove" it IIRC. Of course I couldn't prove it, so voila! It never happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:13 AM

Yes, sorry for the thread-drift! Ed T wrote:

> ""As far as I can tell from this thread, there is only one practicing Catholic among the persons who have made negative comments in this thread about the Catholic Church""

> Good try Joe. But, that is an old and "tired" technique to minimize the opinion of others in a discussion, that is oft' used by politician, and PR types.

> That minimizes the direct personal experience of those who were abused inside the RC church noted here by mudcat posters in one form or another. Minimizing and demononizing the suffering of those victims (most often the impact follows them through their life, which is now, not long ago) seems commonplace among some in the RC church.


Ed has put it better than I could. In fact, I think there's a pretty clear reason why there aren't more practicing Catholics defending the abuses and the bans.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:04 AM

"The baby's heartbeat stopped on the Wednesday."
Bonnie - please don't get this extremely unpleasant limpet-like troll involved in this thread unless you wish to see it disappear without trace.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:01 AM

Actually the date of heartbeat-cessation is something of a side issue (and yes, I know I was the one who brought it up!) because the real question is: if a pregnancy - i.e. a living fetus - endangers the life of the mother, it should be terminated. IMO.

She was found to be miscarrying - which sounds like the child was never going to be born anyway. And what shape would it have been in if it had been?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:53 AM

I was going by the BBC:

The baby's heartbeat stopped on the Wednesday. "I got a call on Wednesday night that Savita's heart rate had really gone up and that they had moved her to ICU," Mr Halappanavar said. "Things just kept on getting worse and on Friday they told me that she was critically ill." Some of Savita's organs stopped functioning and she died on Sunday 28 October.

So it depends on *when* the heart was beating, which initially it was. The hospital used that as their reason for refusing, though why they continued to refuse isn't clear. All they would speak about was the heartbeat, but they didn't mention anything about the time-frame.

I just Wiki'd it, and it sez:

The death of Savita Halappanavar on 28 October 2012, at University Hospital Galway in Ireland, led to nationwide protests . . . Halappanavar, a Hindu of Indian origin, was suffering from a miscarriage when she was some 17 weeks pregnant, and she sought medical attention and treatment at University Hospital Galway. Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said that the hospital told them the foetus was not viable, but they could not perform an abortion under Irish Law as the foetus heart was still beating. During the next several days, Halappanavar was diagnosed with septicemia which lead to multiple organ failure and her death.

I think the "during the next several days" is the key. But it's not totally clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:53 AM

""As far as I can tell from this thread, there is only one practicing Catholic among the persons who have made negative comments in this thread about the Catholic Church""

Giood try Joe. But, that is an old and "tired" technique to minimize the opinion of others in a discussion, that is oft' used by politician, and PR types.

That minimizes the direct personal experience of those who were abused inside the RC church noted here by mudcat posters in one form or another. Minimizing and demononizing the suffering of those victims (most often the impact follows them through their life, which is now, not long ago) seems commonplace among some in the RC church.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:40 AM

I was going by Guardian, 17th November.
"The 31-year-old dentist died of blood poisoning on 27 October (Tuesday)in University Hospital Galway despite asking repeatedly to terminate her 17-week-long pregnancy. Staff refused to carry out an abortion because her husband said they had detected a foetal heartbeat even though the couple were told the baby would not survive."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:32 AM

No, that stopped on the Wednesday. It took her until the following Sunday to die.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:21 AM

To be accurate, there was a foetal heartbeat.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:17 AM

The pregnancy had already terminated *itself*. That fetus' heart had stopped three days before and it was DEAD. So it was no longer really an abortion.

A similar thing happened to my mother when I was very small. What would have been a very-much-wanted child (as was the case with Savita Halappanavar) died. So, nearly, did my mother, of the same internal poisoning. When the baby-to-be is already deceased, it really does move the goal posts.

Fortunately for my mother (and me), the hospital acted on medical principles rather than personal beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:01 AM

Some time ago a woman in Ireland died because she was refused a termination to her pregnancy; she was told by hospital staff "this is a Catholic country".
In July, after nationwide pressure, the Government will present proposals of changes to the law regarding terminations in certain circumstances.
Pro-life (sic) organisations are on the streets in their thousands and will circulate leaflets by post to every household in Ireland demanding that things should remain as they are.
God moves in a mysterious way - doesn't he just?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:59 AM

> What upsets me personally is that it is somebody I have grown to respect and like is supporting this by reducing its importance to a few criminals a long time ago.

Yeah. That upsets me too. Because I too both like and respect you, Joe. A lot. In so many ways you represent the best of Christian ideals. (And yes, I do know priests about whom I can say the same.) That's why this willful blindness is so disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:48 AM

> Polls show that in the U.S. 98% of Catholics ignore the prohibition against birth control.

Oh well, that's all right then. As long as it's OK where you are. And of course "polls" include absolutely every single Catholic out there.


When I was a kid in Wisconsin, there were three large families in our Catholic school

THREE WHOLE FAMILIES in the local school. Well, that proves the case. If "it doesn't happen in Catholic families nowadays" - i.e. those within your eyesight - then of course it doesn't happen anywhere.


Joe, you haven't a clue about what goes on beyond your back door. None. It doesn't even seem to concern you. You don't realise what a massive insult that is to the rest of the world. No wonder Americans get accused of insularity and ignorance. [I've just refreshed the thread and seen MGM's post. He's right, Joe. Living abroad does give you a whole other perspective.]

You've also managed to dismiss the views of non-practicing Catholics, though they're as relevant and valid as your own. There will be *reasons* why those people no longer practice their faith. But they're inconvenient. Easier not to look at them. Practicing Catholics are of course free to jump into this conversation. It's not like they've been barred from joining in.

Exclude, rationalise away, deny, accuse anyone you disagree with of exaggeration. "It's not the usual experience" / "it doesn't happen any more" / "it's only a handful".

Classic techniques for protecting yourself from ugly realities.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:47 AM

"What's upsetting, Jim? "
Your latest response to the crimes of the church, which you have reduced to a "handful of bad apples" and "happened long ago" - will do for a start.
Nowhere to you acknowledge or, as far as I can see, even refer to the guilt of the Church as a whole in this affair.
Don't you find it at all important that the leadership of the world's most powerful religious body colluded in perpetuating the widespread, probably worldwide sexual abuse of children under its influence and often in its care?
Is it of no concern to you that the church - right up to the Vatican - fought tooth and nail to keep these offences hidden for as long as they could, hiding and denying access to evidence - still very much a feature of all this?
Doesn't it outrage you to learn that the retired pope lied about his knowledge of these scandals?
Is the involvement of the church as a body, from top to bottom not even worth a mention?
That the surviving victims of these crimes had to demand, often to the point of humiliating themselves, to have their cases aired, never mind acknowledged and dealt with, is bad enough. That any church member should write it off as "a few bad apples a long time ago" after the church leadership has offered little more than lip-service expressions of sympathy is what I find most offensive.
These go far beyond crimes of the individual - they are offences committed against the faithful by a church that still remains uncaring and unrepentant beyond the effect that it has on its own well-being.
They bring into question the role of the church its responsibility to its followers and its role in the world.
It has shown it cannot be trusted - if I were a Catholic, it is that fact that would be uppermost in my mind.
What upsets me personally is that it is somebody I have grown to respect and like who is supporting this by reducing its importance to a few criminals a long time ago.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:10 AM

Joe's of 10:44 last night affords a prime example of how some Americans, even ones as intelligent as Joe, think that Wisconsin is The World and the US is The Universe, and extrapolate their arguments on that basis. The comparative "then'n'now" birth-rates among RC populations of Wisconsin & California, benignly neglectful as they may be of some aspects of the Church's official teaching, are really not relevant to the worldwide {& esp the Catholic 3rd World} picture, Joe.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:48 AM

You can have different eras Joe. You can have different geography too.

The Catholic culture a couple of hundred miles North of me in Scotland or to the west in Ireland is a much greater distance than between your childhood and your present.

Yet Scotland and Ireland are far more sectarian than where I came from and Catholics were and still are never branded as such. Branded as supporters of a football team or whether they drink in pubs or working mens clubs, ,branded by occupation or hair colour but never really by religion.

Perhaps that is why I remain bemused by religious leaders pontificating and adherents apologising for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 02:19 AM

MG, I think you're exaggerating. And whatever the case, it sure doesn't happen in Catholic families nowaways.

Steve Shaw, I acknowledge that there have been Catholic institutions like the one you describe and entire Catholic dioceses that have been oppressive. Even in the more balanced dioceses, there are oppressive regimes in certain parishes - but I wonder why anybody bothers to take part in such travesties when there are alternatives available.

In general, the negative comments in this thread seem to me to describe the extreme, not the usual Catholic experience. I don't deny the existence of the extremes people describe. But I have a broad spectrum of experience in the Catholic Church, both in the U.S. and internationally - and what people describe in this thread is not the reality I have experienced. It's far from perfect, but it's certainly not anywhere near as bad as what's described in so many messages here.

As far as I can tell from this thread, there is only one practicing Catholic among the persons who have made negative comments in this thread about the Catholic Church. That's mg, and her perspective is different from that of any participating Catholic I've known in this day and age. What she talks of, seems to be another era.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: mg
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:32 AM

we didn't consider 6 to be large families..had several of that or more on my block. large seemed to start at 7 or 8 and went up to 21.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 10:44 PM

Yeah, Jack, I gotta agree with you. I was surprised that the Catholic bishops would get their hackles up over gay marriages. It's not like they're being required to perform gay marriages in church, is it? I was also surprised that the U.S. bishops made such a stink about contraceptives being covered by health insurance, since nobody was being forced to practice birth control.

I have a theory on that. There has been a rebirth of conservatism in the Catholic Church in recent years, and conservatives are feeling their oats. They are making issues out of matters that have long been forgotten - and they're having some success at it, since the rules were on the books. They start with little things like the wording of songs, and then move to bigger issues.

And their success does have me worried. We need another John XXIII to be elected this week, and we need him bad.

---

So, Bonnie, about this birth control ruling and its effect. I can count.

When I was a kid in Wisconsin, there were three large families in our Catholic school - the Vanderhoofs (17 kids - seemed every parish had one like that), the Kivlins (6 kids), and the Offers (5 kids). All the other families in the parish were smaller. The Vandehoofs seemed to get along quite well, and certainly didn't seem to be suffering. The Kivlins and the Offers were well off, and both seemed to be quite happy families. The Offers had 8 grandchildren, so you can see the next generation had smaller families. Don't know about the Vanderhoofs and the Kivlins. But note that all the other families in the Catholic school were smaller - mostly three or four childrens - in the late 1950s.

In my current parish in California, there are a couple of families with six kids, and they are very conservative. There are two other large families, but their children are mostly adopted.

Yes, here and there you see a suffering, unhappy Catholic woman with more kids than she can handle - and oftentimes, it seems the husband doesn't go to church with her and she's stuck taking care of all the kids. Whether those kids are a result of Humanae Vitae or not, is another question.

Polls show that in the U.S., 98% of Catholics ignore the prohibition against birth control. That about fits with my experience.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 08:45 PM

here's a link to Humanae Vitae, the document that prohibited birth control - (click). Again, while it's on the books, it's really not talked about all that much. And neither is homosexuality. Therefore, it seems to me that it is not what I would call a central teaching, the core part of the Catholic faith.

That's not how Keith "Bigot of the Year" O'Brien saw it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9121424/We-cannot-afford-to-indulge-this-madness.html

Keith O'Brien has more on his conscience than simply abusing his authority to pressure young men into having sex with him. Here he was doing an Irish-style coverup of a child abuser:

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/cardinal-o-brien-blackmail-threat-to-abuse-victim-1-2820121