BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too

Subject: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 May 12 - 10:31 AM

Historically anti-democracy, pro-fascist, driven by greed for temporal riches and notoriously contemptuous of children, that tiny handful of bad apples in the Catholic church have truly excelled themselves in Spain, according to this BBC documentary, with their role in a depraved trade in stolen babies. Very many thousands of babies if the BBC is to be believed. No wonder Pope Jean Paul II promoted fascist-supporting priests to sainthood in their hundreds.

Follow the link for details about repeat broadcasts or to catch it on the internet (next seven days only, possibly UK only).

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 19 May 12 - 11:06 AM

Google "ninos rabados" and make up your own minds bearing in mind that a similar progrom was carried out by other churches too in the US and other countries against the native indigineous peoples.
This an insdious problem which is not wholly peculiar to the RC church and is probably the tip of an iceberg again for ALL churches who prefer "policy and pragmatism" to basic Christian beliefs and basic human rights.
The problem is state backing by churches and church backing by states which in the 20/21 century is oroving to be an embarrassment for both and has produced some very sinister bedfellows not only in dictatorships but in many democracies.
As in previous scandals the perpretators should be prosecuted and in the Spanish case "enabling" laws repealed and basic reasonable human
rights respected
Kenny B

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 12 - 11:24 AM

'Appalling' has become almost banal. Unbelievable. Heartbreaking.

One can only assume that the officials felt sure that the long term good was on their side. This points out forcefully the dangers of being too sure of oneself, too certain that one is right and that therefore those who disagree can be dismissed out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 12 - 12:06 PM

One could also point to the "Magdalene Laundry" scandal in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 12 - 01:55 PM

Notice how they scheme to ply their evil trade mainly in countries where the government needs vote from superstitious simple folk, hence the Catholic church can be above the law?

Spain, Ireland, Latin American countries....

I wonder if it is a coincidence that there are more criminals of the cloth there than more enlightened countries? Or am I being naive?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: olddude
Date: 19 May 12 - 02:18 PM

There seems to be two types of priests and nuns that I met. The majority were people of great faith and God's love and walked the walk. Others were nothing short of evil.

For both types of people the Church is a good place to practice. If you are of God what better place to be to do good works and dedicate yourself to others. If you are evil what better place to be as few would suspect a priest or nun. What people need to understand is one needs to follow God not any leader of any church. It is always a mistake.

Thankfully the evil ones after so many years of cover up seem to be exposed. Too many decades such were simply transferred like you said to countries where they had free reign. Appalling is not strong enough word. However, I am grateful to those that truly follow Christ in the deeds not words.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 19 May 12 - 04:16 PM

"From: olddude
Date: 19 May 12 - 02:18 PM
There seems to be two types of priests and nuns that I met. The majority were people of great faith and God's love and walked the walk."

Indeed. Despite the rampant institutional corruption there yet remain (and have ever remained) the cornerstones of the Christian faith among the true believers who adhere to the Spiritual essence of Christ's message.

Unfortunately, irrespective of those decent souls who may for whatever reason cleave to the institution, the institution itself, remains rotten to the core.

I believe that the institution should be allowed to burn in the same hell that it has historically condemned so many others to. I would hope that those good folk who have cleaved unto that rotten institution, will find another, and better, way to collectively adhere to Christ's teachings.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 12 - 05:31 PM

"The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of priests."
                            -- St. John Chrysostom

Don't forget the purely secular traffic in children engaged in by Nicolae Cecascu in Romania, or what China is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 12 - 06:32 PM

The latest evidence of the state of the Catholic Church Hierarchy is the disclosure, earlier this week that heads of Catholic schools have been strongly urged to get their pupils to sign petitions against the legalisation of gay marriages.

It is not the place of the Church to involve itself in civil political debate, much less seek to teach children to become bigots.

It seems that it is not only the US right wing Christians (predominantly protestant), but also the Catholic Church bosses who want to bend young minds to their political ends.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 12 - 09:46 PM

Isn't there something about rendering unto Caesar and all that? They keep messing around with pollyticks and they're liable to get their tax exempt status revoked.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 12 - 07:29 AM

I wonder if I watched the same BBC program. I followed the link Peter K provided, and the program I watched seemed to place the blame for the baby-trafficking on the Franco regime and on individual doctors. Now, it's true that most of the people responsible were Catholic, and no doubt many were members of the ultraconservative Opus Dei sect and were motivated by Opus Dei philosophy, which was closely allied with Franco Fascism. And yes, it does appear that some of this activity took place in Catholic hospitals, and that some of those involved were nuns and priests. Still, it doesn't seem to be an action of the Catholic Church or of any Catholic religious order.

Could it be, Peter, that perhaps you added a bit of "spin" to the thread title and your interpretation of the news story? Could a more honest title for the thread be "Stolen Babies in Spain" or maybe "Stolen Babies in Fascist Spain"? Yes, it's said that priests and nuns were involved (although little specific information is given on this) - but can you honestly say this was an action of the Catholic Church? I think I'd place the blame on the culture and twisted ethics and philosophy of the Franco regime.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 May 12 - 09:19 AM

Catholic church, Franco regime... it's a fine line, Joe.

Blaming all this on Opus Dei is a bit feeble, though I expect some of its members where among the criminals. (I can see that it suits your argument to describe Opus Dei misleadingly as a sect, this term implying separation and even heresy. Safer to call it a prelature of the Catholic church, which is what it is.)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 20 May 12 - 09:30 AM

That's what we call a ' sect '

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: MartinRyan
Date: 20 May 12 - 09:38 AM

Notice how they scheme to ply their evil trade mainly in countries where the government needs vote from superstitious simple folk, hence the Catholic church can be above the law?

Spain, Ireland, Latin American countries....

I wonder if it is a coincidence that there are more criminals of the cloth there than more enlightened countries? Or am I being naive?

Words fail me! :>(>

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 May 12 - 09:48 AM

I wonder what the uptake has been from this invitation published in the Washington Post:

It's time to quit the Catholic church

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 12 - 11:43 AM

They failed me too, hence noting the fact that countries where the Catholic faith has a stranglehold on the judiciary and government are the ones where the issues such as this strike up the most.

A conclusion can be drawn, and it isn't pretty. it also echoes the irish Prime Minister when he mused the exact same thought when the Irish pedophiles under Vatican protection were exposed.

Statistics bear it out, and in the absence of self serving conclusions, statistics tend to enlighten.

If my words failed you, that's sad, but so is the situation under debate.

It must be awful for those who follow religions when such things are exposed, but many organised religions get complacent to the activities under their name as historically they have been above any suspicion. Now, as many have pointed out, Father Ted is less of a comedy and more of a fly on the wall documentary....

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: MartinRyan
Date: 20 May 12 - 06:57 PM

With respect, Ian - you misunderstand me. What deprived me (temporarily) of words was the all-embracing arrogance of your language. Colonel Blimp lives! Must be forty years since I heard such over-weening, earnest illiberalism.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 May 12 - 07:26 PM

This was first reported in the UK last year:

Mail Online, 16 Oct 2011

What are the new developments?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 21 May 12 - 02:53 AM

Of course Col Blimp lives. This is a website for spouting off, not reality!

In a real debate, I can sound as empathetic and woolly as the next Guardian reader of limited intelligence in an ethnic skirt. But in order to debate with the time lapse of posts, you have to stir the pot to encourage such debate. Hence The Godwin Principle is so widespread.

I have travelled extensively in the areas of the world I have thrown a pot of paint at and when we drop the niceties I am comfortable with what I wrote. It is a factor, and my language reflects the unfortunate fact that when your prose is not that of an Oxford Don, you may find it useful to be blunt and outrageous in order to introduce a valid dimension to that debate.

If I hid behind a nickname I am sure I would be even less Ian Mather.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 12 - 08:27 AM

I think that basically, this is not a religious issue. It appears that in this case, arrogant and powerful people did a terrible injustice to the babies and families involved. I suppose that the injustice may be partially supported by the twisted religious views of those responsible. In the eyes of most people (including most religious people), something like this is criminal and should be prosecuted - even if the laws of the country enabled such conduct.

What I object to, is the oft-repeated implication that criminal conduct is somehow the responsibility of the religious group the criminals may belong to - even though the vast majority of members of that group would never approve of such activity. Lots of religious people are actually quite rational and civilized - it's unfair to lump them with the perverse conduct of a few.

-Joe Offer, who is actually very nice and not a crazed religious extremist-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 21 May 12 - 09:35 AM

I know Joe, but the issue is how religions, the Catholic church being a prime example, love to claim credit for good works, stating they are examples of how wonderful their flock are because of their belief. But when a church's reputation is at stake for bad examples, they back pedal so fast the chain comes off.

If the churches wants to take responsibility for good, they have to face up to the bad. To date, I see no fundamental examples of this, just some doctrine saying the chief executive of the Catholic faith is infallible.

Not a good way to deal with reality.

And not, in my opinion, a reflection on you or any other of the millions of good people who profess a faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 May 12 - 09:51 AM

"...arrogant and powerful people did a terrible injustice to the babies and families involved." I've no problem with that, so long as we also acknowledge that Catholic priests wield (or wielded) extraordinary power, particularly in the situations identified by Ian Mather, and the Catholic hierarchy is as arrogant as any institution on the planet.

This Spanish outrage is yet another classic example of priests and nuns behaving towards babies and families in a way that is not just criminal but is diametrically at odds with their trumpeted values. To pretend that their church is an innocent party when it nurtures and virtually breeds these monsters is frankly pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 May 12 - 11:41 AM

The analogy is this, who determines political policy in the U.S.? Who determines
religious policy in the R.C.? A country is only as good as the leaders they elect.
The religion is only as benign as the leaders that are unelected.

Something about "by their works shall they be judged" in that book so widely accepted applies.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 May 12 - 02:03 PM

While the vast majority of Roman Catholics are decent human beings who do harm to none, the organisation and management of the Church is little better than some of the World's current tin pot dictators.

When an organisation becomes so concerned with its "GOOD NAME", that it can cover up and tacitly condone atrocities in order to protect its reputation, it has gone beyond the possibility of recovery, without a thorough rooting out of every single official who had knowledge of those atrocities and suppressed it.

That would include offending priests, priests who were aware of others committing offences, bishops, cardinals and yes, the Pope himself, if they knew and did nothing.

Only then could the Roman Catholic Church claim to have redeemed itself in the eyes of God and Man.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 12 - 04:33 PM

Ian, do you have some evidence for your statement, "...how religions, the Catholic church being a prime example, love to claim credit for good works..."

I think there's more rhetoric than fact in that statement. Usually, the people who do the actual good works don't have time to claim credit for what they've done. And those same people who serve the needy, are usually the first to speak out against injustices committed by church hierarchy. Those of us who work with people in need, don't do it for credit - we do it for the satisfaction that comes from serving others. All other endeavors can never satisfy us completely. They always leave us wanting more. But there is profound satisfaction in serving others - and I mean true, humble service; not the paternalistic, self-serving "charity" one sees from people who are not really involved with the people they serve.

Yeah, there are lots of "churchy" people who are a royal pain in the ass - or worse. Those of us who do the actual work in the Catholic Church, are exasperated with them, too. But so many of you paint all believers with the same brush, and seem to say that the rest of church people are all the same - or are at least guilty because we're in the same room as the pain-in-the ass folks. I'm sorry, but I'm too busy to deal with the pain-in-the-ass people, and I feel no need to take any responsibility for them because they're never going to change. I'm best off, just staying away from them and ignoring them as best I can. But hey, don't blame me for them.

So, yeah, the Catholic Church is full of assholes - and many of those assholes are particularly pretentious, arrogant assholes. Does that make you happy to hear me say that?

Look around - you'll see that you're all surrounded by assholes, no matter who you are or what you do or what organization you're associated with.

And yes, Don, you might say that the potentates in the Catholic Church are dictators, although I think they are more widely ignored and far less powerful than you might think. After all, what power do they actually have to compel anyone do anything?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 May 12 - 06:43 PM

They seem to have had the power to silence witnesses and victims of abuse by implicitly threatening excommunication if they spoke out Joe.

To a true believer that must be more powerful than the threat of prison, wouldn't you say?

I blame nobody but those I have mentioned and you are correct in saying that it is not your responsibility to deal with them, but it must be somebody's responsibility and that would appear to be all those honest and upright priests who neither participated in, nor had knowledge of either the offences or the coverup.

Unless and until they act in a concerted cleanup operation, the Church will carry an indelible stain on its reputation, which only a tiny fraction actually deserves.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 May 12 - 08:20 AM

...and Don, I'll agree with you if you're talking about the child molestation/abuse scandal. The current thread is about baby trafficking, and Fionn has failed to establish any significant responsibility of the Catholic Church in this matter. The problem happened in Spain, and there are a lot of Catholics in Spain; so to Fionn's mind, this is yet another atrocity committed by the Catholic Church.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 May 12 - 10:48 AM

I'm primarily concerned with the hierarchy turning a blind eye and then actively covering up and defending those who transgress, in whatever manner, purely to present the Church as the model of perfection it should be, but rarely is.

Some of those Franco era priests will by now be bishops, or even Cardinals and be forming a part of that hierarchy.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 May 12 - 02:29 PM

Covering up misbehavior for the "good of the organization" isn't limited to the RC church.....witness the Penn State scandal, and several police brutality cover-ups. And just try to get a doctor to "rat out" a colleague who screws up.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 May 12 - 03:57 PM

Sad but true Dick!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 May 12 - 08:35 PM

Joe, what's your basis for saying "...to Fionn's mind, this is yet another atrocity committed by the Catholic Church."?

If I may speak for myself, I am saying this was indeed an atrocity, and Catholic nuns and priests were in it up to their armpits. That to me is noteworthy. The contrast between such rampant criminality and the message of Christ's love that these people profess to evangelise, is breathtaking.

If you can't see a connection between the institution and the excesses of its hierarchy, it's because you're looking the other way. I don't think it's overstating it to say that the Catholic church, in claiming supernatural power for its clergy and using such power to exploit and manipulate the gullible, has been a nestbed of corruption over many centuries. And the loyalty of people like you, who have enough intelligence and education to know better, has helped it to flourish unchecked, destroying many thousands of lives along the way.

In all probability, Joe, you would be inspired to do your good work without the incentive of a place on the right side of the line on judgement day. Certainly there are many others of no faith who do good work around the world, often at great risk to themselves. But many of the world's worst atrocities are, and have been, inspired or facilitated by faith in a higher order, and not least by the One True Faith, as yours arrogantly styles itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 24 May 12 - 12:40 PM

Joe,

Come on, you know it doesn't make me feel good if you say many believers are arrogant assholes. For starters, I'd call them arseholes...

But to be serious, you accuse me of stereotyping yet you say it by stating "so many of you paint all believers..." Slightly ironic? especially as that is not and never has been my position. Many family and friends are believers and I don't think any worse of them for it, as I am sure they (with one exception...) don't have a problem with my disdain for the influence of superstition in a modern society. Let alone my frustration that there is a part to play for clergy in the moral conscience aspect, but they spoil it by wanting to treat women, gays and others as second class. Not a good start if you want to wield influence.

I don't have evidence of catholics wanting to claim credit for good work. The catholic faith can provide all the evidence you need without me digging it up. As with most religions, claiming credit for the good whilst blaming the art of moving in mysterious ways for the bad is part and parcel of most christian faiths. Oh, and on this point I can end that sentence with "in my experience." (Not often I can say that.)

As a child I recall school assembly (the nearest I got to a religious indoctrination) learning the words to "All things Bright and Beautiful." That alone answers the point I suppose. Added to that, I live about a mile or so from where Charles Wesley was born and raised, and the words of his many hymns are on plaques all over here, so yes, I have read them, and what a surprise, the christian faith is about thanking the ethereal leader for all that is good, and asking that his servants can do his good work.

Who did the bad work? Beelzebub? Satan? The traffickers? Those who looked the other way?

There are many good people and a few bad ones around. Some profess a faith, some don't. Totally irrelevant Joe, I'm sorry to say. This is about what leaders of a faith enjoy the reflected kudos of, till it isn't what they thought it was, then bury it, hide it and deny it rather than face it. Not the same thing, and what's more, has no bearing on peoples' opinion of your good self or the many good works I hear you strive to achieve.

it is your earnest defence of your faith which is, in my humble opinion, the issue some posters have with your position. And even then, only on the basis of lending credibility to a structure made from a pack of cards that is wobbling, and unless they reform, then a big crash becomes inevitable. 2,000 years is a long time, but childs play against many ancient belief systems that are no longer relevant to anybody other than historians and archeologists.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 12 - 07:48 PM

Who did the bad work? Well, you know, I don't think it was people who were convincingly preaching a gospel of love. It was people more interested in their own concerns, making use of religion to further their own interests. They took something good and perverted it.

That doesn't mean that what they perverted, wasn't good. It also doesn't mean that those who stick to the good, are perverted.

If they preach a message and then betray that message, that means they are hypocrites. It doesn't mean the message is evil, or that others that preach that message are evil or that others have responsibility for their hypocrisy.

As I've said before, most of those here who post messages critical of religion, do so from a fundamentalist perspective. They see things in absolutes, just as fundamentalist religious people do. They understand religion only in fundamentalist terms. They refuse to allow for imagination, uncertainty, doubt, intelligence, diversity of opinion, or failures on the part of religious people. They are practicing argumentum ad adsurdum to an absurd degree, and it seems impossible to carry on any semblance of a rational discussion with them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 25 May 12 - 02:53 AM

When I first read your description of those who spout opinions such as mine as being "fundamentalists" I bristled somewhat. However. On reflection I suppose I am comfortable with that title.

It is my fundamental belief the , if we have to use such terms, that as all religion is a man made concept, that religious organisations are the sum total of the people who are associated with it.

So to my fundamentalist perspective, disassociating with the bad is no different to the bad associating with the good. Examples include the Vatican offering a home to those Anglican UK vicars who refuse to accept women as equals. I'd be very unhappy being associated with the medieval attitudes being portrayed there. But does that make The Holy See evil?   You don't need to point to hypocrites in order to see actions taken in the name of what you hold dear that have no place on a modern society and certainly no right to put themselves up as a moral compass for others.

Now I am happy being a fundamentalist I might ponder on a fundamentalist what ?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 25 May 12 - 09:25 AM

So Joe would be unhappy about mediaeval attitudes in the Vatican. But what about latter-day behaviour such as the sheltering of Cardinal Law and Bishop Marcinkus from juducial scrutiny? If Joe was in membership of a golf club or antiquarian society that behaved like that, I guess he'd be happy to keep on paying his subs.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 May 12 - 01:40 PM

Interesting piece from the New York Review of Books about the Vatican and the nuns in the US. Joe's Catholicism versus HQ.

Bullying the Nuns by Garry Wills

Could a religious order under such circumstances secede? Obviously the Pope thinks that CofE congregations are quite entitled to in the inwards direction. And that Levebre's lot can come back in after doing so.

The idea that the bishops are the fount of correct belief after the recent history seems, to an outsider, somewhat questionable.

Stumbling blocks and millstones come to mind.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 12 - 02:50 PM

""Look around - you'll see that you're all surrounded by assholes, no matter who you are or what you do or what organization you're associated with.""

On assholes and such:

If a person who does something bad happens to be an asshole then it is proper to call him an asshole, not a RC asshole.

However, if an organization, such as the RC church, claiming to be based on a "non asshole cause", knowlingly allows many "asshole things" to happen that are under its control - I suspect, to many (but not all), the "asshole" handle could legitimately be hung very closly by the organization and its leadership (but, not it's many "non asshole" individual members, or course) .

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 May 12 - 07:05 PM

Pretty well put Ed T!

The point being this. When everybody is aware that the management of an organisation is screwing things up by covering up the fact that a tiny number of its employees have committed crimes which the organisation itself considers among the most heinous offences, and when, further to that, the organisation threatens the victims and witnesses of those offences with expulsion, should they report to the law enforcement authorities, who should be taking action against that management and removing those responsible?

I am just curious to know whether any mechanism exists for self regulation, other than moving the miscreants to pastures new with a fresh supply of victims.

Are those in the upper echelons above both God's Law and Mans'?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 12 - 07:08 PM

I think, Ed, that you are assuming a much higher level of control in the Catholic Church, than what actually exists. In the Catholic Church, as in most organizations, situations evolve rather than being the result things being controlled from the top. There is also a far greater level of local parish autonomy than you might suspect.

Fionn brings up Cardinal Law and Archbishop Marcinkus as examples. Vatican Bank President Marcincus was removed from office in 1989 (23 years ago) and placed in sinecure positions. Law suffered the same fate in 2002 (ten years ago). Unfortunately, this discipline did not meet the specifications set out by Fionn. I wonder if Fionn might be able to come up with more recent examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 26 May 12 - 07:45 PM

Well, Joe, there are many examples of Vatican shortcomings that, had they been committed by a golf club, would have provoked the resignations of decent-minded members, and they have been well rehearsed in threads to which they are more directly relevant. One that comes to mind which is unrelated to those we have discussed at length, is a claim from the Vatican (in the person of Alfonso Lopez Trujillo) that the Aids virus could pass through the "net mesh" of condoms. That claim, driven no doubt by the Vatican obsession that sex should never be about pleasure, was condemned out of hand by the World Health Organisation along with many other respected science-based institutions.

It is indeed ten years since Law resigned (at figurative gunpoint), but the point behind my reference was that he was then taken into the bosom of the Holy See - leaving (some said "fleeing") his Boston prelature, just before or just after being subpoenaed.

By the way, should should not let your experience in the church sour you against all large organisations. I have worked for three large organisations (each of 200,000-plus employees) along with three smaller ones, yet I never found myself "surrounded by assholes," as you apparently have done in your church.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 12 - 08:02 PM

Yeah, Peter, the Pope himself said that condoms could be effective in the prevention of AIDS. But yeah, I'm sure you can find some fuddy-duddy cardinal who said something otherwise - at least, until the Pope said something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 May 12 - 08:35 PM

Joe,

You're clearly in de Nile about the open conspiracy between Catholicism (you can't hide behind "individual interpretion" on this) and American Conservatism to deny support to organisations that supplied birth and disease control.

You have to make a stand somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 May 12 - 09:16 AM

"Fuddy duddy" no doubt, Joe, and yet he was your church's appointed authority on the subject. And his deceitful pronouncements made a big contribution to the damage and misery that your church has caused to many people for no reason other than to further an insanely misguided philosophy on sex. Misguided and grotesquely hypocritical, in that at the same time as preaching it your church was encouraging nuns and clergy to facilitate the buggering of little boys wherever their colleagues felt so inclined.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 12 - 10:38 AM

""I think, Ed, that you are assuming a much higher level of control in the Catholic Church, than what actually exists.""


I am not talking about who does (or does not) have effective control within this organization - I am refering the lack of action, even cover-up, from those at the top of the organization. Whether any actions were effective or not "in gaining control of the wrongdoing" is another matter. It is the role of the RC leadership to initiate this action, not you, your local congregation, nor the local priests or bishops that are at the center of this responsibility.

All organization have those at top in positions of authority, whether it's a car company, a bank or a church. When these folks have knowledge of serious wrongdoing and do not act, or act inappropriately - they are held responsible for failure to initate reasonable actions to stop a wrongdoing. Whether the actions were effective or not is clearly another matter.

Saying "they did not know", "they did nothing because they had no control over the folks involved in the wrongdoing", "that was a different time with a different view to the crime", or "that other organizations do the same, also" does not limit this responsibility -no matter how often a variety of defensive approaches are put forward from the inside - I suspect mostly to confort the faithful, as few outside buy into it. (Who said, "you can't shine shit").

The story is simple, not complex. Recent popes, and those around them in authority, have, through their lack of leadership on these issues, turned this formerly Christian organization into what many see as an "asshole organization" (I would normally use a more diplomatic word). If you (and many of the faithful) cannot see (nor do not want to see) this does not change its simplicity.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: BrendanB
Date: 27 May 12 - 11:56 AM

I am a practising Catholic and I have been following this thread with interest. I find myself in sympathy with much of what has been said about the failure of the Catholic hierarchy to address the wickedness of some clergy in several dioceses. However, I am aware that many Catholics such as me continue in spite of that hierarchy rather than because of it. I cannot defend (nor would I wish to) the myriad failings of bishops, cardinals and popes but I can see and appreciate the wonderful work that many of my co-religionists do - not for praise or recognition but from a desire to follow the Gospel and thereby combat evil by doing good.
There can be no doubt that the cloak of the church has been drawn over dark matters, but whenever that happens it is a perversion of the Catholic faith, undertaken by those of evil intent - it is also a betrayal of millions of Catholics.
On the original subject of this thread it is true that Catholic institutions were involved in this vile trade, some may have believed they were doing right, some would certainly have known they were doing wrong and other may not even have cared. But they were working and living in an oppressive, fascist society in which the church had, wrongly, allowed itself to be largely subsumed and perverted by the state. One can perhaps condemn the leaders of the Spanish Church for this but not all Catholics. Joe is, I believe, right when he says that the state bore primary responsibility.
It is my experience that Catholics of my acquaintance (and I include clergy, even senior clergy) are striving for the light. Of course the Catholic Church sometimes fails, but is the beating heart of much that is good in many communities around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 27 May 12 - 01:01 PM

I suppose the dilemma of remaining in an organisation you hold dear to your heart when the cracks start appearing to the naked eye is not a nice one to be in. Despite everything, I can and do have some sympathy with Joe's position. Not that Joe wants sympathy I suppose, but it is something to give, not receive, so I'll give it anyway.

You see, I recall a Gay friend of mine who had a letter pushed through his door last year telling him he isn't welcome in the local RC church. it wasn't signed, but as it was hate mail, the police made it clear they were looking for the criminal, which focussed the minds of the priest and his local committee.

My friend said something rather interesting when I enquired how he could still attend the place. His said that he sent a copy of the hate letter to every member of the committee and pointed out the bit about "we don't want "puffs" (sic) in our church." He stated that he didn't want homophobic bigots in his church for that matter.

All very interesting but still the point made above by various people stands that an organisation cannot just keep dismissing bad things done in it's name without recognising that by covering them up, they become just as bad, just as guilty and just as culpable. Here in The UK, we have a charge called corporate manslaughter. it's where the leaders of an organisation could have avoided a death on their watch but failed to do so. The rationale for the crime's existence draws parallels here.

In any event, to an outsider, we are led to believe that the Pope is classed as being without sin and infallible. One look at his past and you realise however much he may be a good guy, making him infallible shows how much these men in the Vatican fail to orbit the same planet as the rest of us?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 12 - 01:07 PM

I don't believe folks here have any lack of respect for the good works of the faithful RC's and those who have done (and continue to do) good works from inside the RC faith - those who have adhered to the good intents of Christianity (and, the good direction that should guide).

Organizations that operate multi-nationally, as with the RC church, surely have faced (and face) challenging situations from local situations -many associated with being local governments. What is puzzling is how the RC leadership could have sat "in quiet" and allowed (and even participated in) situations where the good intents of Christianity and the RC faith were "set aside" to facilitate clear wrongs - many that are affront to what guides Christianity, and many religions - and even an affront to good works and viewpoints of those with no religious views at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: BrendanB
Date: 27 May 12 - 01:41 PM

Just as a point of information, the pope is not believed to be without sin. He is deemed to be infallible only when speaking 'ex cathedra' on matters of church doctrine. (I'm still uncomfortable with that).
All government organisations, local, national or supra-national have the potential to be suborned and corrupted, by those with or without a faith. All individuals have the potential for wrongdoing, whether they are religious or non-religious - and we are all capable of self-delusion.
Perhaps the greatest protection, as has been said before, is constant vigilance and a determination to bring into the light that which others would wish to keep hidden. It is also necessary, I believe, to look very carefully at what the evidence shows and not rush to judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 12 - 04:44 PM

""All government organisations, local, national or supra-national have the potential to be suborned and corrupted, by those with or without a faith. All individuals have the potential for wrongdoing, whether they are religious or non-religious - and we are all capable of self-delusion.""

Few wouuld agrue against such general statements-some would likely take it much farther than that. A question-what does this relate to specifically?

The litmus test of caring individuals and organizations is not only anticipating and detecting the corruption and wrongdoing, but actions taken to have such actions end and to promote healing of the victims.

""Perhaps the greatest protection, as has been said before, is constant vigilance and a determination to bring into the light that which others would wish to keep hidden.""

I agree - but, with the ""perhaps"" removed.


""It is also necessary, I believe, to look very carefully at what the evidence shows and not rush to judgement"".

Kinda of a general statement - with much wiggle room for broad interpretation. Can you give specifics as to what aspect of this discussion you refer to in that statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: BrendanB
Date: 27 May 12 - 05:24 PM

Ed, my comment regarding all forms of government referred to your comment regarding Catholics and local government. While I felt that your point had merit I do not feel that creed should be seen as the only determinant of behaviour or that Catholics should be singled out for particular opprobrium. Probity should be a given (or would be in a perfect world!). There may be an argument that no successful politician can achieve power without compromising their principles.
My statement regarding evidence and judgement referred back to the original posts on this thread where the Spanish state seemed to be seen by some posters as synonymous with The Catholic church - I, like Joe, would take issue with that and therefore with the conclusions at which they arrived. Note the thread title.
Sorry for not making myself clear in my earlier post.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 May 12 - 05:33 PM

Allow me to let you in on a little secret - I'm an American. Not only that, I'm proud to be an American and I think I live in a wonderful country with wonderful people. "American" is an important part of who I am.
For almost all of my life, my country has elected leaders that I have not trusted. Not only that, my country has done many things that I consider horribly wrong, and it has often supported dictators and other tyrants. American soldiers regularly commit atrocities that are completely abhorrent to me.
With all the horrible things my country has done and all the horrible people who have led it, I should be ashamed of my country, but I'm not sure I have reason to feel shame for being an American. After all, I have consistently opposed my country's actions when I thought they were wrong. I served my country as a soldier and as a civilian employee for 33 years, so I think I've earned the right to call myself a loyal American, even though I abhor many of the things my country has done, and I don't share the ideology of the conservatives who think of themselves as the only true Americans.

Now, take that statement and substitute "Catholic" for "American" and "church" for "country."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 May 12 - 05:43 PM

""In any event, to an outsider, we are led to believe that the Pope is classed as being without sin and infallible.""

Infallible only in matters of doctrine and dogma!! Nothing else. As to being without sin, that can only apply as long as he commits no sin (of commission or of omission).

Given the lack of response, it would seem that the upper echelons are indeed above and beyond the reach of both law and justice, a frightening admission.

"Quis custodes custodiet?"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 12 - 06:06 PM

BrendanB

OK, Now I understand your comment.

To be clear, when I use the term RC organization, I refer to the RC organization (the pope and his associates based in Rome-not the RC faithful - you refer to as Catholics.

Your are surely correct that creed (or lack of one) is not the only determinant of bad behavour. Bad behaviour crosses all human and religious boundaries.

However, I do feel the RC church has singled itself out among Christian religions for consideration in this area considering
its size, influence and global scope (what other church -of any type- has a seat at the United Nations)
the centralized structure of the RC church,
the claim of direct linkages to Christ (through Peter to the pope),
the level of influence it has had on (and still does) on its followers
the scale of publicized wrongdoings among it's staff (many proven in legal proceedings)
and its failure over many generations to do the right thing to halt the wrongdoing, legally and for its victims

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 12 - 07:35 PM

""...take that statement and substitute "Catholic" for "American" and "church" for "country.""

I understand what you are attempting to put forward and the analogy of your feelings toward your country and towards your religion.

But,IMO, Christian principles and obligations of any secular nation, (for example the USA), are not in any way inter-changeable. I am surprised you would not see that and would make such a comparison in such a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 28 May 12 - 11:03 AM

Joe, I hear that but fail to see the comparison?

I'm a UK citizen and have the stain of Empire and Th*tcher to keep me awake if I let it. What's more, it would be a bit of a bugger not to be British All the forms to fill in. (Mind you, I still have right of residency in The USA, not that I have ever taken it up.)

Yet my "I'm not a Methodist" is very simple. I just don't. If I ever get to feeling that they or any other religious organisation could represent my feelings and give me purpose, I would start being part of them on that day, and if I felt otherwise, I would say so and walk away there and then.

Not the same thing.

I use Methodist as my eldest brother informs me I was christened a methodist. A person I know reckons once you have been baptised you are a Christian and there is nothing you can do about it. As he is a doctor of divinity, a Canon in The CofE and assumes a position of trust in the community, his position of trust is not the only assumption he makes.... Children cannot be Christians, just raised in a Christian home. You are not a member of anything till you make that decision as a conscious adult.

Joe made that decision many years ago and good luck to him. But by engaging in this debate AS a Catholic, don't get too precious my friend when others associate your membership with the Catholic church, which, as this thread suggests, have questions to answer regarding taking their members' good name in vain when stood accused of frankly despicable acts. How can anybody remain associated with the corrupt buggers? I know it a faith, but talk about testing it....

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 May 12 - 01:26 PM

'what other church - of any type - has a seat on the United Nations?'

I do not think that any church, including the Catholic church, has a seat on the United Nations. According to the UN the Vatican is not a member.

I understand and identify with Joe's analogy. Faith is very much more than just being a member of an organisation. It is a complex relationship from which I cannot simply walk away. I recognise the anger that the failings of the Catholic church have engendered in many people and I feel that same anger - but I do not blame the religion, I blame individuals who have chosen to corrupt and devalue that religion to further their own desires. As far as I can see the essential Christian message has not changed, but the church has had to weather many storms caused by individuals who have abused it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 May 12 - 02:56 PM

Why be proud of being an American Joe, when the fact of you're being an American is a matter in which you had no say? (Not the same reason you're a Catholic, by any chance? By which I mean that if you happen to be a product of Catholic parents it might be worth wondering whether you would still have been a Catholic if your parents had been, say, Jews.)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 12 - 04:08 PM

""...I do not blame the religion.I blame individuals who have chosen to corrupt and devalue that religion to further their own desires. As far as I can see the essential Christian message has not changed, but the church has had to weather many storms caused by individuals who have abused it.""

Of course it is not religion, or the message that is the root of the problem.

Why be silant? Why do RCs, many who feel like you, come out and demand information and accountability forom so those who are hiding and enabling others to do so? Why retreat to the local church building and congregation, and allow others to do wrong, and others cover it up> Why let these individuals have their way with the corruption and devaluation of the RC church organization.

To me, the any church organization is not the message that you speak of - but one means to deliver and celebrate that message and good deeds with yourself and with others. The RC church is not the property of the pope, the cardinals and the bishops, nor the priests? So, why not stand up and demand accountability, transparency and a say to minimize the evil crap forom within that has been going on for much too long.
Brendan B:
As to it's International status (the Holy See and the RC Church is basically the same thing). Check out the experp below, from Wiki:

""The Holy See is a member of various International organizations and groups including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Telecommunication Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Holy See is also a permanent observer in various international organizations, including the United Nations General Assembly, the Council of Europe, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).""

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 12 - 04:38 PM

BrendanB
I believe if you look objectively, many main stream religions have very similar messages at their core. But,humans and history have provided different of interpreting and putting into practice those (mostly good) messages from the religious deity - the human factor. Maybe the message is similar, because they are from the same source - with humans putting a different spin on it:)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 12 - 05:56 PM

BrendanB
I mean no disrespect for your perspective on how you relate to your religious organization (not your religious beliefs) - that's your business.
Years ago I made the informed decision to shed my association with the RC church organization because of concern about the handling of some of the issues at the forefront still today -that worked for me. You have made a different choice, and that seems ok for you.

What puzzles me is why those who say thay care for the RC organization and how important it is to them let those in positions of power get away with participating and allowing wrongdoing, without accountability (from inside and possibly outside) for it - and my gut tells me it most likely continues (though, likely at a reduced rate).
Are the the good Christian RC messages not intended for all to follow?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 May 12 - 05:56 PM

Ed, I know this sounds a bit pedantic but the Holy See does not have a seat on the United Nations, it has observer status, which gives it limited voting rights. It can address the assembly but it cannot vote on substantive resolutions. It's membership of the other organisations places it in the company of hundreds of organisations and pressure groups and I would suggest that it's membership poses no threat. In fact, the wider the membership of these organisations the less likely it is that one member can enjoy any significant power.
I agree with your observations about the purpose of most religions - although I would exclude cults, secretive sects and all forms of fundamentalism.
Many Catholics do speak out against the abuses of their religion by members of the Catholic hierarchy, but there is frequently a dichotomy of purpose - one wants to be heard but not do unnecessary damage to the church. We do feel protective of what we perceive as the essence of the Catholic faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 28 May 12 - 06:40 PM

Is Democracy the answer? this can only be achieved by the people who care standing up and being counted, is that a step too far?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 12 - 08:28 PM

""the Holy See does not have a seat on the United Nations, it has observer status, which gives it limited voting rights. It can address the assembly but it cannot vote on substantive resolutions....and I would suggest that it's membership poses no threat""

OK, you win on a technocality. But, as to my point, what other major religious group has that status (for example-Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Protestant, Orthadox Catholic, Anglican)? And, I don't recall making any case that this was a threat, just that it sets the RC church aside, among religious groups.

""Many Catholics do speak out against the abuses of their religion by members of the Catholic hierarchy, but there is frequently a dichotomy of purpose - one wants to be heard but not do unnecessary damage to the church. We do feel protective of what we perceive as the essence of the Catholic faith""

Maybe to protect the RC Church - but the extenal perception differs. It is seen as putting "blinders on" when it comes to the wrongful actions of those inside the RC church organization (club).

What I have seen is agressive attempts to persuade those outside (and possibly inside) that all has been taken care of and the real victim is the faithful, not those wronged -check the internet. (There are also denial attempts, that the actions are statistically insignificant).

I have seen little outward compassionate and outreach to help victims-who were innocent RC youth-members-volunteers. In fact,I have seen RC attempts to blame the victims-by drawing attention to the large settlements and the impact on the local faithful. IMO, It was not the sexual abuse victims that were the cause of this - it was the actions of those inflicting the sexual abuse and the RC church organization that did not deal with it over decades, and enabled it to spread.

Can you consider a broader perspective and consider the interpretation of these actions from those on the outside of the RC church? Protective and failure to admit to and address the source of the wrongs = Coverup.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 12 - 08:38 PM

Joe Offer is right; it is not in any wise a religious issue. It is an organizational issue. An organization that engages in criminal practicers is, unfortunately a criminal organization, and there is a liit to how often you can disassociate the acts of its constituents and management from the organization as a whole. It is my sense that this limit has been reached a good while back, and the evidence for this is readily locatable in Ireland, Spain, or Boston or Buenos Aires.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 12 - 09:47 PM

""if you happen to be a product of Catholic parents it might be worth wondering whether you would still have been a Catholic if your parents had been, say, Jews""

A good point. I was born into a Christian family. Regardless of my logical reasoning, (I am open to and an sympathetic to many perspectives on religious issues), Christianity remains an embedded part of my life -though I am not feel it necessary to ally with any organized Christian religion, as the Christian messages alone are important to me.

Good or bad, it seems that religious life is much like the pligh of a salmon, programed by the stream it is hatched and raised in to return to the stream to complete it's life processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 12 - 08:11 AM

Until they day a couple of salmon look at the journey ahead and say, "Sod this, let's just masturbate."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 12 - 08:19 AM

So, that's why the Atlantic salmon stocks are declining - they are playing with themselves:)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 12 - 01:24 PM

Ok, "the" day.

Perhaps another thread, but my new iMac has the predictive typing enabled and whilst I shall turn it off, I am giving it a chance.

You do have to check what you have typed before posting, but something rather wonderful, I reckon many of the mistakes and assumptions are Freudian to say the least...

OR... is my iMac performing divine intervention????

Naw... Computers may be dogs walking on their hind legs, but unlike divine intervention, it can happen.

On that subject, (a nice 2009 Pinotage talking by now, you understand. Good year on The Cape.) My dog cannot get on his hind legs due to being a greyhound. In fact, sitting like a normal dog is all but impossible. So... if you ever come to our village, don't leave wondering if you spotted a black kangaroo in North Lincolnshire. It was just my greyhound Rio having a shit.

(Relevance? Some of the crimes of men of the cloth, in their position of assumed authority, are too awful to debate, so I thought iMacs and awkward squatting greyhounds to be far nicer posting material.)

Be good.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 29 May 12 - 05:09 PM

Pity u didnt own a bull! that would not have been a thead creep

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: ollaimh
Date: 30 May 12 - 01:21 PM

than you kenny b for your acknowledging the issues of the native genocide, before this discussion got side tracked by joe and his endless apologetics for the worst eveils as well as otheres.

if it wasn't clear enough that the catholic church was instrumental in the spanish babies marketing, then look at the native genocide. it was open policy of the catholic and many prostestanty denominations to deprive the residential schoiols chioldren of proper nutrition and health care and to eliminate their culture. in addition they seized as many children as possible from their families on the flimiest of pretexts and gave them to white families often thousands of miles away and even in the next country.

this was not the act of some bad apples. the church knew about this at the highrest levels. as afr back a 1907 the medical supervisor dr bryce told all the church that what they were doing was criminal. hw was ignored and drummed out of the civil service then drummed out of the mediacl profession. these church continue to destroy evidence when they can of these atrocities.
again its no accident that the catholic church issued passports to excaping nazi war criminals and no accident they hid the fnch nazi paul touvier for decades after he was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity and its no accident that cardinal bernard law is given haven by the vativan from an american aharge fo obstruction of justice in his long term cover up of child rape by catholic priests.

these guys do not care about human values. they probabl;y believe they are obeying god's law but theor interpretation of godsaw rivals that of hitler for perversity violence and injustice

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 12 - 01:35 PM

I saw a crapping bull today whilst out walking and it did not resemble any marsupial I know of. Not in the same way a defecating greyhound does anyway...

Papal Bull and all that, but the allegations ollaimh sets out paint an awful picture, even if the truth is less sordid, it still isn't pretty.

Hence the mental image of my Rio concentrating on his impression is a far nicer image to end the day on than hardwired trust in criminals in positions of authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: BrendanB
Date: 30 May 12 - 03:53 PM

Just for the record, I can find no evidence in any of Joe's postings in which he seeks to defend the evils that have been undertaken in the name of religion. I believe that he, like me, wishes to do all he can to challenge wrongdoers while differentiating between people and the Catholic faith.
I recognise the hideous ways in which Catholicism has been perverted, that does not destroy the Gospel message. There are those in the Catholic church who work tirelessly to heal rather than to harm.
Ollaimh, have you ever stopped to wonder about your personal animus towards Joe Offer? Misrepresenting his position does nothing to advance your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 30 May 12 - 08:30 PM

BrendanB

I am curious, in your last post when you write "the Gospel message"? Would it be the Holy Scriptures (the Word of God), or those found in Scriptures, combines with sacred tradition and doctrines of the magisterium? As I suspect you are aware "the Gospel message" can mean different things to different perspectives.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: BrendanB
Date: 31 May 12 - 10:47 AM

When I refer to the Gospel message I mean literally the teachings of Christ as presented in the New Testament. As I am not a very good Catholic (or a good anything else for that matter) I am not comfortable with the concept of the magisterium and I do not wish to have what I take from the Gospels mediated by anyone else. I call myself a Catholic because that is the church in which I was brought up and within which I worship but I do not believe that I was given a mind so that I could keep it closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 May 12 - 04:35 PM

For several centuries from the early middle ages onwards, the hierarchy was at pains to keep the gospels beyond the laity's reach, sometimes burning vernacular translations. Innocent III considered that even some priests were too uneducated to be trusted with the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 31 May 12 - 05:28 PM

BrendanB
I was felt it was likely you meant that (but had to ask to make sure). To me the bad part of the history of the RC church came from the power the Center once had over peoples lives and religious thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:07 AM

I think that is a fair point, but it is true that many people draw comfort from guidance and a reassurance from the fact that there are people in charge who can show the way. This places an enormous burden of responsibility on those who are in such leadership positions and the tragedy is that for some the cliche that power corrupts has become a reality.
That sounds like I am being superior, I am not. I am just trying to understand and express that understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:46 AM

""many people draw comfort from guidance and a reassurance from the fact that there are people in charge who can show the way"".

Is that what really gives them comfort in the rc church, or is it something else?

From what I understand what Joe has often said when folks question the popes statements, few rc's actually adhere to what the RC pope says anyway?


So, If one sets aside the directives of magisterium from of the RC church, what makes it any different than any other Chriatian church that adheres to the teachings of Christ as presented in the New Testament?

Many people in the UK seem to feel comfort that the Monarchy exists, with the Queen "kinda" in charge of "showing the way" But, she has little actual role in governing or giving direction and I suspect few people pay much attention to what she, or her family says on issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: BrendanB
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 08:27 AM

I can only talk from my own experience but that suggests to me that a lot of Catholics like the idea of the papacy and look to it for leadership. It is true that there are also many who choose to think more independently and they are perhaps more vocal in that they may feel the need to challenge some of the positions taken by the magisterium.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religious traffic babies too
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 09:11 AM

""I can only talk from my own experience but that suggests to me that a lot of Catholics like the idea of the papacy and look to it for leadership""

That has also been my experience (and, I can also only speak to that). However, I raise the point, as there are some who tend to downnplay the impact of statements made by the pope (and his associates) on opinions and actions of "the rc faithful" and others around the world, for example in some areas of Africa.