More big problems for Church

[PetraG]

It’s not the crime. It’s the cover-up.

Well, yes and no. If there is a crime committed by someone in a position of trust but with no cover-up by others, it is still a very serious betrayal of trust.

It isn’t nearly as bad, but it is still very serious.

Apparently thousands of priests and bishops knew that this man seduced seminarians, and remained silent.

Where did the “thousands” figure come from? There are only 5100 Roman Catholic bishops on the entire planet. A typical diocese has…what? 150 priests? No clergy who knew ever said anything? They were truly silent? Or was no one who said anything ever believed? I don’t see how the “thousands” figure is “apparent” at all.

 

[laylow]

It’s not a lie. It’s how you’re coming across.

Lying would be saying “I actually know you in real life”. That’s a lie, and a violation of the commandment.

It’s not “thou shalt not speculate based on responses”.

Slander is not lying?

 

[Pup7]

Actually, I have a few priests that I am very good friends with.

Which really doesn’t mean much as I know racists with non-white friends.

However, I’ll take that at face value. Your previous responses seemed to indicate otherwise.

That fact alone should tell you why I don’t regard the whole Church as a waste.

 

[laylow]

Which really doesn’t mean much as I know racists with non-white friends.

You thought it meant something according to your previous post.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

Which really doesn’t mean much as I know racists with non-white friends.

You thought it meant something according to your previous post.

You could quote it over just making a response. Which post? Because I actually don’t think it means much since the whole Church isn’t peopled with pedophiles and their protectors, and I know that.

 

[laylow]

I’m impressed. I would’ve thought any priest would do, known perpetrator or not.

…

 

[wkj_123]

Historical documentary evidence. What evidence are you looking for, or would accept, from antiquity?

More than just religious text I can assure you. How are we supposed to use eyewitness testimony in deciding religious claims when there are conflicting religious texts with witness testimony? There is no way to distinguish if the Bible or Quran is telling the truth. No way.

We might hope that our leaders, being exemplars of the things we hold dear, are “head and shoulders” above us in their conduct. Unfortunately, that rarely happens – in business, in government, in our families. Why should the Church be different?

I have a sincere question for you. Have you ever pondered how God always acts just like he did if he didn’t exist? What real world difference would there be in “there is a God” vs “there is no God but people think there is”. None not one difference. The practical applications are the same. It’s not like God floats around the Earth for all to see so there is no denying him. It’s so amazing that we’re talking about the almighty all powerful creator of the universe and the best we have are “eye witness” testimony from 2000 years ago. If you continue to assert the Bible as proof of God then you logically must also believe the Hindu and Muslim’s claims. They have texts. They have miracles. They have visions. They have followers. They have eye witnesses. They have historical documentation. They have martyrs. There is no way around it.

 

[laylow]

I have a sincere question for you. Have you ever pondered how God always acts just like he did if he didn’t exist? What real world difference would there be in “there is a God” vs “there is no God but people think there is”. None not one difference. The practical applications are the same. It’s ot like God floats around the Earth like the moon so there is no denying him. It’s so amazing that we’re talking about the almighty all powerful creator of the universe and the best we have are “eye witness” testimony from 2000 years ago. If you continue to assert the Bible as proof of God then you logically must also believe the Hindu and Muslim’s claims. They have texts. They have miracles. They have visions. They have followers. They have eye witnesses. They have historical documentation. They have martyrs. There is no way around it.

Apologetics can explain anything away. There are no limits.

 

[PetraG]

Easier? Apparently not, since so many have gotten away with it.

Well, actually, yes. Child molesters are more likely to be married, which is easier to do than to become a priest. Many are active in youth sports, which is also easier to do than to become a priest. Boy scout troop leader? Easier than becoming a priest. Yes, I’d say that objectively speaking most of the ways to gain a position of trust from which to sexually abuse a child are far easier than becoming a priest.

This is especially true now, because there are rules in place that deny sexual predators the access to children that they had in the past. Lay people have been taught how to spot predators and they know they have a duty to report behavior that violates the rules put in place to protect children and young people. For right now, becoming a priest is not a good way to gain access to molestation victims.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

I’m impressed. I would’ve thought any priest would do, known perpetrator or not.

…

That has nothing to do with whether you have priests who are friends or not. I’m surprised you wouldn’t take a pop at any priest just based on the fact that they’re a Catholic and therefore must have been complicit in the abuse scandal. As I said, I know racists with non-white (or for that matter, not-of-their-race-or-ethnicity) friends. Doesn’t change the fact that they’re still racists.

Those two posts have little to do with each other in reality.

Slander is not lying?

Slander is stating something that isn’t true with no basis in fact.

Your posts certainly seem to be reducing to Catholic potshots over discussion in many instances. That’s not slander. That’s a conclusion.

If I said that based on what seems to be a dislike/disregard for Catholicism you are also a raving neo-Nazi, that would be more slanderous, as I have no evidence, no matter how small, to back that assertion.

(No, I don’t think you are. Again - another example.)

 

[wkj_123]

Apologetics can explain anything away. There are no limits.

I believe you are correct sir. My last post has always been my biggest hang up. It’s like people seem to forget the God they are discussing. He is all powerful yet all we get is an old book and an image now and again. It’s crazy to think about it but think about how much larger an impact the sun has had on the world vs God. The sun 100% is responsible for sustaining life on this planet. It does immesurably more for us and we can detect it all the time. It really seems that worshiping the sun makes way more sense than the religions we have today.

 

[deMontfort]

Funny how atheists who are ex-Catholics always seem to be the most spiteful haters out there

 

[wkj_123]

Funny how atheists who are ex-Catholics always seem to be the most spiteful haters out there

Are they the most spiteful? Or maybe they are just very familiar with the religion so you actually need to back up your claims?

 

[Pup7]

They were truly silent? Or was no one who said anything ever believed?

From what I’ve read they were silenced. Plenty said plenty, but it was squelched when they tried to take it up the chain of command, as we say.

 

[Pup7]

Are they the most spiteful? Or maybe they are just very familiar with the religion so you actually need to back up your claims?

Are you suggesting that every Catholic is oblivious, or just deMontfort?

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

I don’t think most people actually research the faith before leaving. Catholic eduacation isn’t that great in most places.

 

[JanetF]

Are they the most spiteful? Or maybe they are just very familiar with the religion so you actually need to back up your claims?

If they were very familiar with what the religion really teaches they wouldn’t walk away.

 

[Pup7]

I believe you are correct sir. My last post has always been my biggest hang up. It’s like people seem to forget the God they are discussing. He is all powerful yet all we get is an old book and an image now and again. It’s crazy to think about it but think about how much larger an impact the sun has had on the world vs God. The sun 100% is responsible for sustaining life on this planet. It does immesurably more for us and we can detect it all the time. It really seems that worshiping the sun makes way more sense than the religions we have today.

Where did the sun come from?

With definitive proof, if you don’t mind my asking. Irrefutable, concrete proof.

 

[wkj_123]

Are you suggesting that every Catholic is oblivious, or just deMontfort

Niethier. Just pointing out it’s a lot different to debate an athiest with no knowledge of the church vs one who grew up with it and to borrow a phrase, weighed it on the scales and found it wanting.

 

[wkj_123]

If they were very familiar with what the religion really teaches they wouldn’t walk away.

Oh I beg to differ.