I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts
Sometimes when sitting flicking though the channels at night I end up with those hateful religious evangelicals venting their biblical bile from the screen reminding us of all the horrors that await us if we don’t share their opinion. It reminds me of zombie movies, although nowhere near as viewable, where the lead zombie works the stupefied mob into a torpid trance. There is a collective lip movement accompanied by unintelligible mumbling and then they all go off to hate happily ever after: their pockets lighter and the wallets of their preachers bulging. I find few things in life as genuinely phoney as evangelicals professing to be brimming with something called Christian love. Love and televangelism seem a chalk and cheese combination. Ted Haggard and Christian love? Nah, Ted Haggard and boy love has a more authentic ring to it.
Whatever motivates the shower of hate blusterers it is not love. Although I think they are much more representative of their god than the other sickly sweet lot who run around with false faces and ersatz smiles, blessing people with the sign of the cross and offering forgiveness. The evangelical lot seem more at one with a god that hates with a perfect hate, the only type of god that could exist given the hatred he seems to inspire. As has been said, you always know god is on your side when he hates the same people you do. To people like me, the idea of a god of love is incomprehensible. It would make more sense if believers were to tell me ‘god exists and he hates us all; he is the god of hunger, hate, war, poverty, natural disaster, child rape and genocide.’ I could sort of make sense of that without conceding the existence of a deity. But when they tell me he loves me and he will burn me in hell if I don’t love him, I tend not to get it.
The hate is howled and the venom spat while I sit scorning them. Whatever the bible bashing merchants of Hate TV believe in I have no interest in listening to them spout it so the channels are flicked through rapidly. Money features a lot, with their buckets bigger than bibles. As George Carlin was fond of saying, the one thing god can’t manage is money; always a dollar or two short and forever in need of a little top up. No loaves and fishes equivalent there.
Last night my five year old son asked if I was watching ‘the mad’ again. He likes to watch ‘the mad’ probably because he enjoys my reaction to them, and would on occasion ask me to turn the mad channel on. I asked him if he liked ‘the mad.’ He replied ‘they are always shouting.’ At home here we still laugh from the time when he said to his mother ‘mammy, daddy is watching the bastards.’ Can’t blame a five year old for copying what he hears shouted at the television whenever the holy creeps appear.
At least I can honestly claim to have given him a good start.
Your wee ones are of to a flying start Anthony,thoese kids will be able to face the world without the superstitious millstone of religon on their backs,mind you when I,m at a loose end and bored I get a laugh watching those pros work, the old saying there,s one born every minute sure works for them nothing like a good living for a good living,as for the bible with all that begatting its a wonder they had any time to worship any god.
ReplyDeleteAM-
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed that
Televangelism- first time i heard
this word- one of yours
Can't have those divine who just
want people to contribute to their
pious pockets
But im amazed when i see the numbers at those events- im religious but i can see why a lot of people in Ireland are not
i never believed in the god fearing
who think they are god or that god is speaking to them
when some-one recovers from a accident or illness you hear
" thank god " but when some-one dies you dont hear " thank god "
Marty made a comment that his wife
was named at the pulpit- lord knows
how much that priest was paid-
30 piece's of young ones
There was a cardinal once who loved
the brits but opposed the ra- he is
dead now but i have always thought of him as 1 of the bought.
Televangalists were the subject of some Frank Zappa's best satirical songs, he was conducting a one man crusade against them long before many of the scandals broke.
ReplyDeleteThese cranks populate pre-dawn 5 TV over here on the commercial channels, who other than insomniacs actually watchs them is beyond me. And how they are actually allowed on air is another thing. One of the more famous ones Kenneth Copeland, was taken off air for homophobic remarks last year.
My personal 'favorite' is Benny Hinn who runs a 'faith healing' type bullshit fest that attracts thousands (all donating no doubt) and runs an industry in miracle junk like sand from the holy land and holy water. Hilarious, even more so when you realize the meek actually belief it.
He's also one of the charlatans who are preaching a sort of wealth theology, god says it's ok to be rich, give me your prayer donation and I'll pray to him to make you rich too...
One of them is actually named Rev Dollar!!!!
These arseholes unfortunately hold huge political influence too.
Hope this piece makes people realize you hold all forms of religious quackery on an equal level and you're not just indulging solely in pope bashing, not that there's anything wrong with that!
ReplyDeleteAs a practicing, if not very strict catholic, I always felt that religion was a matter of personal conviction.
ReplyDeleteIt is not something to profit from (a quick skim through any of the gosples would quickly support this thesis).
I don't find it hard to reconcile the fact that I am a catholic and a communist, neither does my confessor, but some men of the cloth I meet do. F** them and the horse they rode in on too.
Rory
A very interesting and thought provoking article. I have often wondered why there is so much hate within and among religions. One conclusion I have reached is that it is only where people love much, that hatred becomes an option. If it is real hatred, of course, then it is an aberration but often it is not hatred at all. Sometimes it is the inability of people to fully express themselves which leads to their views being labelled as ‘hate speech’.
ReplyDeleteYour example of 'tele-evangelists' is one that I concur with as I sometimes turn them on myself for similar amusement. Maybe you might like to tune in to EWTN sometime, to see another side of religious broadcasting.
It seems, however, that it isn't just in religion that such feelings are aroused as, for example, Irish Republicanism seems to give rise to similar passions. Where it no longer does this there is a ‘couldn’t-care-less’ attitude, that I would say is more harmful. That is the situation we are in today.
So it would seem to be part of the human condition. Things that matter tend to provoke strong reactions. The real worry though is when people just don’t care anymore. There is no hate because there is no passion. Nothing is important, no body would kill for anything, nor would they die for it. Often these people see themselves as morally superior and condemn those who care about things. I dissent from such a view.
michaelhenry when Gerry Adams dies many will say 'thank God' especially Liam maybe??
ReplyDeleteJesus je knows me michaelhenry he know my name.
you're right about those evangelical events in the states, like wembley filled full a airheads.
As if there is not enough rubbish on the telly watching those religious grifters ripping off the desperate should be outlawed. I did try and watch a few of those swindle shows but had the common sense to click the off button and just wonder why people would actually believe these criminals are messengers of god, the only god that fits that bill would be Loki the Norse god of mischief. I might be wrong on that it has been a few years since I have read Norse mythology but in the end he gets his comeuppance hopefully the same will apply to the great religious swindlers.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I see those clowns on TV this is what immediately comes to mind.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpdkRU-rhE&feature=related
blogs.reuters.com
ReplyDeleteNov 23, 2010
Hungary’s last communist leader János Kádár met a priest at his own request shortly before he died, former Hungarian Prime Minister Miklós Németh revealed on Tuesday, two decades after Kadar’s death.
“Aunt Mariska (Kádár’s wife) called me: ‘My husband wants a priest’ she said,” Németh, who headed the country’s last Communist-era government in 1988-1990, told Reuters.
“I still remember the Catholic priest whom I found, he was a short man called Bíró, I think,” he added.
This kind of thing goes back as far as Martin Luther and the reformation, 'indulgences' it was called.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteBy calling yourself "a Real/Continuity Catholic" on a previous thread, I think you implied that you support the armed struggle of the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. (Apologies if I'm wrong.) Just out of curiousity, what do you make of the Catholic Church's consistent condemnation of armed republicanism? How do you reconcile your politics with your church's teaching?
Alfie,
ReplyDelete“By calling yourself "a Real/Continuity Catholic" on a previous thread, I think you implied that you support the armed struggle of the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA.”
No comment, (you never know who might be reading;).
I would add though that there is a Catholic television internet site, called ‘Real Catholic’ TV. It has no connection, at all, with Irish politics.
“Just out of curiousity, what do you make of the Catholic Church's consistent condemnation of armed republicanism How do you reconcile your politics with your church's teaching?”
The executed leaders of 1916 are who inspire me. I regard the Easter Rising as a ‘baptism’ of Irish Republicanism. In my view those among the clergy who condemn the ‘struggle’ do not represent true Catholic moral teaching on this.
I believe an excellent case for Irish freedom can be made on the basis of its ‘Just War’ teachings.
I was once told by a good French priest that Ireland needs a Joan of Arc. I agree with him.
PS, Sorry I didn’t get back to you on the other thread. For some reason I was frozen out of my account for a few days.
I wonder how the young fella's lexicon expands when Liverpool is on the pitch... :)
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify the above post about Hungary’s last communist leader János Kádár was in response to the statement by michaelhenry "when some-one dies you dont hear 'thank god'"...the latest in a long line of high profile public figures of self confessed atheists that regain faith near to death.
ReplyDeleteJames Connelly wrote in letter to John Carstairs Matheson, 30 January 1908 "though I have usually posed as a Catholic, I have not done my duty for 15 years, and have not the slightest tincture of faith left," but the personal recollections of Father Aloysius claim shortly before facing the firing squad he "Heard Connolly's confession and gave him Holy Communion."
Evangelicalism is a Protestant movement which began in Britain in the 1730s, hopefully Anglicanorum Coetibus will finally lay to waste the wrongs of the reformation.
If the Christian Democrats hadn't beat the Italian Communists in the 40's the official line of the Catholic Church regarding the Republican struggle could've been very different indeed with the Vatican sitting in Armagh.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeletecame across this by chance when looking at something else
'Five years ago the Vatican implicitly linked homosexuality and paedophilia when, following the child abuse scandals in the US, it banned men from studying for the priesthood if they "showed deeply rooted homosexual tendencies".
But the connection was questioned last year in the preliminary version of a report commissioned by the American Catholic bishops, which is due to be published in December. They said the data they had studied so far did not support a link between a homosexual identity and a higher probability of sexual abuse.
Santiago was not an ideal venue for the cardinal's remarks given that one of the Chilean church's highest-profile paedophile cases involves a priest having sex with young girls. Despite multiple complaints the church hierarchy kept Father José Andres Aguirre, known to parishoners as Father Tato, serving at several Catholic girls' schools in the capital.'
The link is below
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/13/vatican-homosexuality-paedophilia-claim-condemned
Marty,
ReplyDeletethey are protected from that type of thing. He has never seen the inside of a church. She was in one once when we were at John Kelly's funeral. Nosiness made her want to go in and she stayed 5 minutes and couldn't stick it. She came out and told Tommy Gorman a man with a purple dress was talking to everybody. If religion ever comes up she just says 'I don't believe any of that.' Kids don't need religion. None of us do.
Michaelhenry,
no, it is not my word. I would like it to have been! It is in frequent use now I think.
Alfie, you wrote "I understand that the author of the second piece, Nick Matzke, puts forward a model for the evolution of flagella and, if I remember correctly, gives some ways in which it can be disproved or confirmed. So far, I think the emerging evidence has favoured his hypothesis, with more homologies being discovered between the various parts of flagella and other parts of bacterial cells" back in November.
ReplyDeleteTonight I read a chapter in my book by Jonathan Witt and he stresses that the type three secretory apparutus we discussed in relation to flagellum only accounts for 10 proteins and thus flagellum consisting of 40+ but the interesting bit is he states that these are not found in any other living system thus diminshing the co-option pathway theory.
Got anything contary to this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStefan,
ReplyDeleteDifferent species of bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins. Also, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in others; the Salmonella flagellum, for example, has 22 additional proteins which some other bacteria lack in their flagella. But homologies linking flagellar components to the rest of the biological universe have been detected. My understanding is that of the 23 proteins thought to be indispensable in all modern flagella, only two are "unique", ie. have no known homologs. It's plausible that homologies for these will be discovered in the future - at least more plausible to me than the idea that God designed several thousand varieties of flagella in different bacteria species in order to help them inflict terrible diseases on mankind, such as syphilis and cystitis.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum-evolu.html
I bought Leon Podles book Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, though I probably won't get to read it straight through for a while. (I've just started Afterlives as well as Mark Pallen's A Rough Guide to Evolution.) I have, however, dipped into it and I must say that, though I disagree with some of his analysis, Podles's book is factually reliable and seems a worthwhile study of clerical sexual abuse. At the very least, he shows that Pope John Paul II was far from a saint. JPII appointed Hans Hermann Groer as archibishop of Vienna despite accusations of abuse against him. He subsequently made Groer a cardinal. Worse still, when Groer died, JPII wrote that he had served "with great love for Christ and his Church", though by that stage, it was accepted by many Austrian bishops that the allegations against Groer were true. There is more. JPII publicly honoured the notorious abuser Marcial Maciel, whose dodgy reputation must have been known to the Vatican. JPII also made it more difficult for convicted abuser priests to be defrocked; indeed, as Podles concludes in a post on his blog, "John Paul’s blindness to the damage that he was doing by allowing convicted child molesters to remain in the priesthood is a severe stain on his papacy." Some fucking saint.
ReplyDeleteCarried over from No Disgrace In Embrace
ReplyDeleteJohn
‘Homosexuality is, of course, always a crime against God and against nature.’
It is a crime against the belief of some who also believe there is a god. So in normal law where gods should have no place it can’t be regarded as a crime.
How is it a crime against nature?
‘The Catholic Church only teaches that the Pope is infallible in strict circumstances.’
When he speaks ex cathedra but as the last Pope John said he would never speak ex cathedra. Papal infallibility – who do they think they are conning? This very fallible man claiming infallibility would be seen as a joke were matters not otherwise so serious.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteMaciel was well known about. I have to say while not an admirer of popes I at one time had a certain regard for the charisma of the Pole especially after reading about him blessing Mehmet Ali Agca immediately on being shot by him. We were on the Blanket at the time and which the no wash was over and we had access to papers we could not see any TV so just rad about it. But in recent year I have just come to regard him as another gangster, the same way I would regard John Gotti, for what he has done.
Stefan
ReplyDelete'According to John G.West
Is Darwinian Evolution Compatible with Religion?
Quote -
On a taxpayer-funded website that the NCSE helped design, teachers and students are directed to a list of statements by religious groups endorsing evolution, and Eugenie Scott, the group’s executive director, encourages biology teachers to spend class time having students read statements by religious leaders supporting evolution. Scott even suggests that students be assigned to interview local ministers about their views on evolution—but not if the community is “conservative Christian,” because then the lesson that “Evolution is OK!” may not come through.'
unfortunately I can't find the source of this no matter what I try. I can find what West says she said but nothing that she said herself. Can you? If she did say it in the way you think there is certainly a case for taking her to task on it. I just can't find it and would like to because I have no more time for the atheists who would mislead us than I do for those from the hill billy school of science.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff Alfie.
ReplyDeleteBoiling it down to allow for my bad math's 40 proteins listed. Jonathan Witt stresses that the type three secretory apparutus we discussed in relation to flagellum only accounts for 10 proteins (25%) thus leaving 75% unaccounted for as homologous.Pallen and Matzke, 2006 say total number “unique” (no known homologs) is 15 (36%).
Implications of the findings according to Pandas thumb author/s...
Heck, none of these guys bothered to get on the web and check their basic facts.
No one else in the ID movement, either leaders or fans, ever bothered to check their facts and correct these guys publicly or privately.
Apparently, everyone in the ID movement just mindlessly copies everyone else’s talking points.
None of these folks have a friggin’ clue what they are blathering about when it comes to flagellum evolution.
I hope I've proved all three assumptions wrong and what I'd immediately draw attention too is, hoping I've understood all the data correctly, is although there is a discrepancy of 39% the issue of no known homologs.
Anthony, heres the NCSE's religious resource stuff.
http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion
I quote from Pope John Paul II
Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences straight off that website
October 22, 1996
"Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises."
Eugenie Scott
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Scott2.html
"The survey-of-ministers approach may not work if the community is religiously homogeneous, especially if that homogeneity is conservative Christian, but it is something that some teachers might consider as a way of getting students' fingers out of their ears. "
That was brilliantly written. Loved it ahaha cracked me up bigtime as it be so scarily accurate. Wished i could write like that about it all. 'Torpid trance' was a corker ahaha I cannot bear to watch or hear the spin in realville or on TV - it is all a horror show of monumental proportions and still masses throng to it The God Pimps floorshow. As a believer in God it revolts me. The floorshow is so obviously rigged to control minds & solicit money. It is a form of prostitution - the God Pimps. And man do they work the pimp backhander in your face if you tell them they are Pharisees. Their antics have nothing to do with spirituality or Jesus teachings.
ReplyDeleteWhat the diff between hawk your fork and a God pimp? Let me tell u. An atheist friend who was extremely wealthy from working half her life as a sex worker in a high class brothel in her dying years told me she watched all the tele-evangelists on tv thru the nite into the morn. Said it fascinated her. I was gobsmacked TIL i thought it through. All she was seeing was spiritual whoring. Must have been familiar sights and ring to it all - spruiking, money for honey stuff, windups, con artists and desperate clientele. Gimme some money and i will give u pseudo spiritual honey... Sexwork has more dignity and reality as it be upfront. U get what u paid for at least. I have never u/stood religion and roaring preachers. Never will. It is freaking hard enough living by the scriptures never mind roaring them at ppl.
I think kids minds should be protected. There is no need for a barrage of madness about God on young minds. Later they can choose what to believe or not believe. A diet of tele evangalists would sour the sweetest kid ahaha
@ John McGirr two words liberation theology - but ask urself who banned it... ---> 'Exploding in fire. We hear the questions rise In terrible flame like the whistle of a crazy dog Like the acid vomit of the fire of Hell Who and Who and WHO (+) who who ^ Whoooo' From Amiri Baraka poem Somebody blew up America O and they tried to censor him too. A brilliant searing long poem worthy of a read. It relays much.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"But the connection was questioned last year in the preliminary version of a report commissioned by the American Catholic bishops, which is due to be published in December."
Much of the American Church has long since drifted away from orthodox teaching. Having said that, it would be interesting to see what they think accounts for the scandals.
Antoin Mac C
ReplyDeletePope Adrian IV gave Henry authority to invade Ireland as a means of ensuring reform by bringing the Irish Church more directly under the control of the Holy See just as Pope Alexander II sponsered the Norman Conquest of England 100 years earlier.
Stefan,
ReplyDeletethanks for the link. Have not got to read it yet but I simply failed to get it no matter what I did. Good job.
Bad maths! My own problem exactly. Something I could never get to grips with.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete“I bought Leon Podles book Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, …and I must say that, though I disagree with some of his analysis, Podles's book is factually reliable and seems a worthwhile study of clerical sexual abuse.”
From what I have read about it, since you mentioned it before, it would seem to be essential reading on the subject.
I understand he has a section on the notorious Paul Shanley.
Wikimedea states:
“Shanley first gained notoriety during 1970s as a "street priest" and icon of the Progressive movement whose writings included "Changing Norms of Sexuality" During the 1980s, Shanley served as pastor of St. John the Evangelist in Newton. In 1990, he was transferred to St. Anne's in San Bernardino, California. While there he and another priest, John J. White, co-owned "a bed-and-breakfast for gay customers 50 miles away in Palm Springs".
Father Shanley had earned "the nickname the hippie priest for his long hair and outspoken views, including his public rejection of the church's condemnation of homosexuality." He attended the meeting at which NAMBLA, the male homosexual pedophile organisation, was formed.”
In this he seems to represent perfectly the total rejection of Catholic teaching that has led to such evil. Of course, this is only one case and I would be interested to see how representative with the others in the book.
To be honest I don’t know if I will get the book anytime soon as the reading I have done on the subject so far revolts me so much I don’t know if I could cope with it in the near future.
“Podles concludes in a post on his blog, "John Paul’s blindness to the damage that he was doing by allowing convicted child molesters to remain in the priesthood is a severe stain on his papacy." Some fucking saint.”
JohnPaul II certainly seems to have more of a case to answer than Benedict XVI.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete“It (homosexuality) is a crime against the belief of some who also believe there is a god.”
But as we are speaking about priests within the Catholic Church then presumably they do believe in God and should recognise it as sinful.
“How is it a crime against nature?”
Because it impedes the primary purpose of sexuality and is therefore unnatural.
Saint?MaryHedgehog,
ReplyDelete“@ John McGirr two words liberation theology - but ask urself who banned it...”
I don’t believe there is any need to evoke liberation theology with its Marxist leanings. There is ample justification in light of the Crusades, and ‘Just War’ teachings to give the people of Ireland and elsewhere the right to freedom.
Ratzinger’s analysis is very interesting on the subject:
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm
I did go back and re-read Amiri Baraka’s poem, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It certainly conveys a lot of truth and exposes injustice.
At times it reminded me of the opening of Mel Gibson’s ‘Conspiracy Theory,’ ( a number of which theories I have some sympathy for myself).
John
ReplyDelete'But as we are speaking about priests within the Catholic Church then presumably they do believe in God and should recognise it as sinful.
But only against some who believe in god, not all.
It is a crime against nature 'because it impedes the primary purpose of sexuality and is therefore unnatural.'
Which is what?
Carried over from Fiery Terry
ReplyDeleteStefan,
‘I went back and listened to the interviews I have with Crocker and I think she gives a fair representation of her argument in that she taught one class in the twenty five critiquing Darwin, hardly biased teaching in favour of ID.’
It matters not if it was 1 in 25 or 1 in 55. An astronomy course of 25 lessons can hardly claim in the interests of balance to have 1 in astrology. A medical course of 25 lessons should not for the same reasons have a course in miracles. A religious critique of science has no place in the science class. Was it part of the course? Did she teach what had been peer reviewed? Did she teach what had been the fruit of a research programme? Or did she just decide that she would take her religious beliefs into the science class and present them as the alternative? She could have easily taken in theories of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and taught that. The response would still be the same.
‘there is an ever growing list of dissenting scientists from Darwinian theory. ‘
Project Steve shows how inconsequential it is in the overall scheme of things.
‘You cannot teach a contentious theory without critique and I think Crocker was right in her approach to do what she did.’
The critique has to be part of the curriculum not any old rubbish or prejudice that comes to hand.
In the Reiss case he never advocated that a supernatural view be taught but that it be addressed if students raise it. A very different matter and one I have sympathy with him for.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI said that homosexulaity
"is a crime against nature 'because it impedes the primary purpose of sexuality and is therefore unnatural."
to which you replied;
'Which is what?'
I would distinguish between the function of sex and its use. The sole purpose of the sexual function is the procreation of children and the preservation of the race.
The use of the function is accompanied by pleasure which is to ensure that the first aim is accomplished and to form a marital bond between a man and a woman which will keep them together in a stable family relationship.
All sexual gratification outside of a marital union of one man and one woman is contrary to nature and morally wrong.
John
ReplyDeletedoes celibacy not 'impede the primary purpose of sexuality?'
I think celibacy is more unnatural than homosexuality. But for those who choose that for themselves I am not going to say it is immoral.
'The sole purpose of the sexual function is the procreation of children and the preservation of the race.'
I think that is a very one dimensional view of the sexual function. Who has deemed it as such? Why can sex not be multifunctional?
'The use of the function is accompanied by pleasure which is to ensure that the first aim is accomplished and to form a marital bond between a man and a woman which will keep them together in a stable family relationship.'
This is all religious opinion. Nothing else. Those who want that opinion to shape how they themselves live can do so but they can't tell others how to live.
'All sexual gratification outside of a marital union of one man and one woman is contrary to nature and morally wrong.'
Why is sex with a girl friend contrary to nature? What natural law can come into play if a man shags his girl the night before he marries her? It is a religious law John. Nothing natural about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStefan,
ReplyDeleteMany ID advocates, such as Casey Luskin, were claiming that of the 42 so-called standard flagellar proteins in Escherichia coli/Salmonella, about two-thirds have no known homologs (some even claimed that it was as high as three-quarters). Nick Matzke showed this claim to be false: only 15 proteins (36%) have no known homologs, yet "all but 2 of those proteins are not even universally required in functioning bacterial flagella. They are reducible parts, not irreducible parts (and this is probably why their homologs are hard to find; if the parts aren’t even evolutionarily conserved within flagella, the probabilities are low they will be conserved for even more distantly-related proteins outside of flagella). Some of these “parts” don’t even give a detectable mutant phenotype when they are experimentally knocked out of the genome."
I should also say that detailed study of flagellum evolution has occurred only in the last 15 years or so; virtually all of the homologies have been discovered in this period. Given time, I think it is likely that more will be discovered.
John-
ReplyDeletesex and love is all about what two
consenting adult's want- nobody else's business nor is it a matter
for our creator
When Jesus started his final journey as a human 12 disciple's
were to accompany him-
Most of those 12 were married with
children including one who would become the first pope
Jesus did not care that the married
men who were with him had deserted
their wife's or wee ones
nothing stable about their family
relationship or marital bond and
God supported this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteJohn,
There is no question of you supporting child rape or having the slightest sympathy for it. The difficulty generated amongst some posting comments is that you seem to force complicity and culpability down the levels of hierarchy in a bid to shield the uppermost levels. That always suggests the DNA of a cover up or some element of self denial.
I think the issue is not about how the sexual abuse in the communes compared with the rampant abuse in the Church but whether it and whatever else lobby groups were doing at the time amounted to a theorization of paedophilia as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,
Stefan
‘natural law … is a law that is immanent in nature, ie can be discovered or found via human conscience but not created.’
But this tells us very little. Human conscience is not the same in every one and things get interpreted in different ways.
‘I can draw from the Encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII.’
Right or wrong – and we know for certain that all popes are fallible - it is a human interpretation of natural law. So it is not an infallible or irrefutable interpretation of it. We remain none the wiser as to how natural law is immanent or given.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete“does celibacy not 'impede the primary purpose of sexuality?'”
There is a collective obligation on mankind to procreate but not individually. Everyone has the right to marry, but not the duty. Any individual can be forced by circumstances or take it upon himself not to exercise that right.
“I think celibacy is more unnatural than homosexuality. But for those who choose that for themselves I am not going to say it is immoral.”
Celibacy is giving up a good thing for the sake of something higher. It is not against the good of society, unless it became contagious.
“'The sole purpose of the sexual function is the procreation of children and the preservation of the race.'"
"I think that is a very one dimensional view of the sexual function. Who has deemed it as such?"
It is only ‘one-dimensional’ if not taken with what I wrote in the next paragraph abut the use of the function being accompanied by pleasure, and its reasons “which is to ensure that the first aim is accomplished and to form a marital bond between a man and a woman which will keep them together in a stable family relationship."
“This is all religious opinion. Nothing else. Those who want that opinion to shape how they themselves live can do so but they can't tell others how to live.”
I would maintain it is an ethical examination of these issues, in conformity with, but not reliant upon any religious law. Therein lies the harm that afflicts society when it is no longer the consensus. This harm can today be seen inside every society, where there is a terrible harvest being reaped for the, comparatively recent, rejection of natural law.
“Why is sex with a girl friend contrary to nature?”
Because as marriage is designed for those who are in a position to have and rear children it would go against nature to risk having a child but not be in a position to care for it. As rational beings we should be guided by reason rather than instinct.
“It is a religious law John. Nothing natural about it.”
There are religious laws which address the same issues, but I am looking at the question from a standpoint of ethics as opposed to religion.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete“sex and love is all about what two
consenting adult's want- nobody else's business nor is it a matter
for our creator.”
This may be a growing consensus in the decadent west, but it could be what leads to its destruction.
"Jesus did not care that the married men who were with him had deserted their wife's or wee ones"
When some of the early Christians decided to give up everything, including their wives, as counselled by Jesus, I am certain that it would have been done by mutual agreement and that no one would have been left orphaned or harmed. I can't prove that, but can't imagine it could be otherwise.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete“The difficulty … is that you seem to force complicity and culpability down the levels of hierarchy in a bid to shield the uppermost levels.”
I have no problem heaping blame on the highest level of the Church, but would need to see evidence of such complicity. In the case of Benedict XVI I have repeatedly asked for evidence against him and I am still waiting for anything substantial. In the case of John Paul II, Alfie has earlier quoted the words of Leon Podles and mentioned a couple of instances that bear looking into. But, without seeing that evidence, it is still, ‘he must have known’. That might satisfy a ‘Diplock court’ but I want real, substantial evidence.
If the evidence is there, let us have it. (I do still mean to read that book you mentioned which raises a case against the current Pope.) But, imagine that such evidence is produced and that it is absolutely compelling. In this case we would have to judge that one or more Popes acted imprudently, rashly, and maybe, but I doubt it, immorally or criminally. Then what, have we not had instances of such Popes in the past? I suppose it would be an interesting question as to how Catholics would react, but we are not anywhere near that.
“I think the issue is not about how the sexual abuse in the communes compared with the rampant abuse in the Church but whether it and whatever else lobby groups were doing at the time amounted to a theorization of paedophilia as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.”
If people were putting that idea forward, they were theorizing it. I think you are reading way to strong an interpretation into his remarks. But again, the most can be said here is that he could have had a better choice of words. But then for those who have a different agenda, whatever he says will be twisted and turned, to portray them as if they are saying the opposite of what they are.
the pope who authorised the English to take Ireland was the only ever English pope.
ReplyDeleteWatched a movie tonight called 'song for a raggedy boy'.
Had tears in me eyes. John i recommend you get it out if you've not already seen it.
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteJohn,
Institutional cover up – ‘I believe the reason for this was the collapse of traditional Catholic moral teaching and practices following the Vatican Council II’.
It long predated that.
What are ‘false psychological views.’?
‘I would imagine that many bishops did not believe their priests had
acted as they did and when it was impossible to deny they adopted the
wrong views of their age.’
That is a mild sheen to put on it. They adopted the typical position of institutions – cover up, lie and where a hit has to be taken ensure it is as afar away from the top as possible. Deflect all flak to the margins and away from the centre.
‘Often psychological "experts" had assured bishops,(in line with the
thinking of the time), that the priests in question had been treated
successfully, and they presented no further danger.’
Lovely little cop out and arrogant abdication of responsibility on their part. How often? They were also told the dangers were high of the offenders re-offending yet they once again placed them near children. There were repeat offenders trafficked endlessly because of their behaviour. Were they repeatedly cured?
‘The biggest failure of the hierarchy in the post Vatican II era, was to
abandon its stringent regulations and adopt those of the world.’
The biggest failure of the hierarchy after Vatican II was to persist in its pre Vatican I behaviour of Church before children. A peculiar religious mindset allowed it to think that somehow it was above the law the rest of society were subject to.
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDelete‘the attempts to attack the Pope on this are often motivated by ulterior motives.’
Any more so than the attempts to defend him?
Paisley is hardly a typical sample of those who have criticised Ratzinger. If Paisley was really interested in protecting children he would delve a bit more into some of his Free P colleagues.
Why is Dawkins just being anti-Catholic? I thought he was OTT but hardly anti-Catholic. If the person in charge of a global institution which in your view has globally institutionalised child rape why would you not attack him? Read Geoffrey Robertson on the role of Ratzinger. Is it evidence against him? Very much so. Is it conclusive? I don’t know. I think at the very least he has a case to answer.
‘To use the undoubted and criminal tragedies of so many as a stick to beat the Catholic Church with is contemptible.’
This sounds so much ‘poor me.’ It has the ring of the ‘securocrat’ conspiracy.
Larry made the following comment and I sat back and reflected on it. It is so much easier to believe than the alternative. I would feel I was fooling myself if I were to believe the opposite.
'The catholic 'house' church shielded and facilitated child rape for
decades, in full knowledge of all the gory details. GUILTY AS CHARGED, there's no place to hide!! Those at the top are evil, unashamed, unremorseful and should be in jail.'
Rembert Weakland - 'His attempt to try to blame others is nothing short of
reprehensible.'
But this is what we feel about the pope.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDelete'Watched a movie tonight called 'song for a raggedy boy'.
Had tears in me eyes. John i recommend you get it out if you've not already seen it.'
Had been thinking of that film as well, superb. Also The Magdelene Sisters from a few years back
John,
ReplyDeleteIn this he seems to represent perfectly the total rejection of Catholic teaching that has led to such evil. Of course, this is only one case and I would be interested to see how representative with the others in the book.
I appreciate why you would think that; however, Podles claims that abuse and its concealment was quite common before the 1960s, and he accepts Tom Doyle and Richard Sipe's contention that the concealment of abuse dates back to at least the 1700s. On the other hand, Podles would argue that there was a big spike in reported abuse during the 1960s and 1970s (though it was mostly reported much later), and that permissive strands in psychology and Catholic theology at that time could have provided a justification for some homosexual priests to abuse teenage boys. However, I don't think any psychologist or theologian ever advocated rape or abuse, though some had questionable attitudes to child sexuality. Furthermore, the spike and subsequent decline in sexual abuse by Catholic clergy parallels the trend for sexual crimes in wider society (in the USA at least). My own hunch is that a combination of increased reporting of such crimes and increased incarceration of the perpetrators explains the rise and fall to a large extent. There are probably many other social factors, but to blame it all on Vatican II and sexual liberation seems a little facile to me (and to his credit, Podles does not). I mean, Americans didn't become less liberal during the 1990s yet the incidence of all crimes decreased dramatically over the course of that decade.
JohnPaul II certainly seems to have more of a case to answer than Benedict XVI.
You are right, but Benedict XVI has questions to answer too. He promoted bishops with poor track records in handling abuse - for example, William Levada. Furthermore, when he was archbishop of Munich and Freising, he did not properly handle the case of abusive priest Peter Hullermann; he simply turned it over to a subordinate and didn't check up on it. He clearly didn't insist Hullermann be reported to the police. Finally, he inexplicably halted the investigation into Marcial Maciel in 1999, though he did resume the investigation in the waning days of Pope John Paul II's pontificate. So, though Benedict XVI is not as stained by the scandal as John Paul II, he is not whiter than white.
Carried Over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteStefan,
‘whilst I draw resources from DI I must stress they aren't the sole protagonists in the concept.’
But they are the main driving force behind ID.
‘Even whilst most associated with DI seem to be for the most part right wing Christian evangelicals’
That much we can agree on.
‘utilising elements of their argument isn't a prerequisite for full subscription to their political aims.’
True. But it is worthwhile taking into account how their political aims shape their ID arguments. They started out with a political project which they sought to recruit scientists to.
I found the work of the liberation theologians uplifting although I was never impressed with the constant need to go back to scripture as Gutierrez did quite often in his book. It galls that Pinochet got more support from Ratzinger than the theologians did.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete'sex and love is all about what two
consenting adult's want- nobody else's business'
Sums it up for most people I would think. No Catholics that I know of wait to the wedding night before sex. And as we see even the priests don't wait until they are married. Just think how ludicrous it is to be standing waiting on a priest to give the go ahead. It is the business of no one else if adults want to have sex. It is the business of everyone if adults rape children yet as we have seen those who like to tell us we sin if we have consensual sex tried to tell us mind our business that canon law had it in hand.
Religion is hung up with sex. It i so far removed from what people think or do, it helps undermine its own credibility.
John,
ReplyDelete‘I agree that to put the reputation of the Church before the protection
of children was, if proven, short-sighted, and scandalous.’
I think this has been well proven at this point. What has yet to be proven conclusively is a widespread belief that it went right up to the top of the tree but thee grounds exist for believing that it did.
‘Many who told us how to live ethically were not involved in any way with these scandals.’
Their silence on the scandal might constitute non involvement but to many people it is the sin/crime of omission. It seems unfathomable that they knew nothing about either the rape or the cover up. The screws in the jail to a man knew about the brutality. Many of them would never have lifted a hand. But they remained silent. The anonymous pressure of the group is a powerful disincentive to speak out. But it does invite the question of degrees of culpability.
‘Just as not everyone in Sinn Féin had a part in their scandals.’
But it is hard not to think that many in Sinn Fein know their leader has a case to answer, as strong as any bishop. Are we to seriously entertain the notion that he did not know the man he believed to be a chid rapist was being trafficked throughout the party?
In these matters John the person on the street works on the balance of probability not the legal minimum required.
A.M.
ReplyDeleteRC chuch and it's apologists know the leadership worked it's way up during decades of child rape and brutality. Any proper investigation is an investigation into themselves. They wont do it because they can't do it. No sense giving them credit by even discussing the issue with them.
SF.
The members of SF know geraldo has been protecting paedo Liam for decades. Look how fast they were to visit an x-blanket-man in the N. West when they feared he would reveal a version of events contrary to their own. But Liam was invisible in W. Belfast? Really?
Some-one should research the kneecappings post Liams outting to Gerry. The volunteers should be asked how they feel about the maimings they were ordered to commit while Liam roamed untouched. How many volunteers were jailed doing punishment shootings after Gerry knew about Liam?
Brian Cowan has admitted playing golf with Sean Fitzpatric of AIB infamy whilst the shit was hitting the fan, but they never discussed AIB! Another example of leadership contempt for the inteligence of joe soap.
Where do these bankers, politicians and clergy get their schooling in chancery and brass-neckery. They must all attend the same cunt-academy.
The thought of Adams prolonging the Hunger strike whilst Thatcher was trying to end it seems bazzar. But Thatcher was the perfect foil for Adams intentions, deaths for votes. The country/world were convinced Thatcher was the evil one, her persona lent itself to the role perfectly.
The brits dont need Fitt the brit any more. Mi5 marty and Gerry burnt everthing and everyone for Fitt and Humes jobs. How pathetic is that?
Carried Over From No Disgrace in Embrace
ReplyDelete‘But there is a serious lack of evidence in trying to implicate the Pope.’
I don’t agree. I think the case may be made that there is a lack of serious evidence rather than a serious lack of evidence. The evidence currently there might ultimately not prove conclusive. But that is what happens in the world. The issue will only be settled firmly if all the documentation is retrieved from the Church and Canon Law is not allowed to intervene. Every CDF file that dealt with sex abuse should be handed over. Until that happens it seems the cloud of suspicion will hang over the pope.
‘My major problem is that many who call for action are more interested in scalping a Pope than in justice.’
Always a danger when a figurehead is involved. Perhaps it is at play here too. But if justice requires that a pope be scalped so be it.
‘They would like to pursue the Pope with ‘British Justice’, no jury, no
evidence and a swift conviction.’
An appeal to our nationalist sentiment!
Of course I don’t believe in divine institutions or miracles. Many are tempted to call their survival miraculous. By the same logic you could tell us Gerry Adams is a saint given the scandals he has survived!
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"Their silence on the scandal might constitute non involvement but to many people it is the sin/crime of omission."
No matter what has happened in practice, it can't be doubted that the official teaching Church has always said that such things are evil. We can argue forever about whether various bishops practiced what they preached. It seems many did not, whether the perverted miscreants abusing or the weak and treacherous prelates who covered for them. That however is part of the human condition, where people live as sinners and hypocrites and are hopefully exposed and punished. It is by no means confined to members of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has always condemned sex outside of marriage, let alone with minors. The fact that people have not lived up to this is shameful, but does not negate the teaching of the Church, which they have broken, to the scandal of many.
One point I would make is that the Catholic Church is reducing in number and influence in the western world. For those who are really interested in defending children from predatory clerics and others I believe they should be looking to what is happening in Islam. A religion which has always had strong paedophile links, dating back to its founder and still flourishing throughout the Muslim world.
You have had a topic, 'Fiery Terry' and the cartoon at the top of this topic mocking the same individual and yet all the focus is on those within the Catholic Church who have not kept to its moral laws rather than on the 'fastest growing religion' in the world which condones such abuse.
Your attacks on Terry Jones, (a fundamentalist protestant, with whom I would have many disagreements, seems to totally ignore his warnings about the evils of Islam, most notably its acceptance of paedophilia which, in my view, is somewhat a 'sin of omission' in itself.
gosabres30309,
ReplyDeletehe is barred from the living room when Liverpool play. X rated due to bad language.
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteJohn
‘It is true that some bishops have mishandled and mismanaged sexual
abuse cases. In fact, I think the charge of intentional cover-up is
even warranted in some rare cases. Where there is real evidence of this
I would fully support any actions taken against them, whether canonical
or civil.’
I disagree. I think the cover up was extensive but layered. Canon law doesn’t count in civil society. It can exist but as I have often argued should have no more status than the rules of any other club.
‘In the case of Pope Benedict XVI the whole media smear campaign
involves three things …’
Firstly I don’t agree that it is a mere smear campaign although there are elements of that there too.
The reason that Ratzinger should face trial (a fair trial) in the International Criminal Court for crimes Against Humanity is because of his role in the CDF (arguably even more so than his in his role as pontiff) not because he organised rapes or approved them. The Geoffrey Robertson book sets out the case very well. Now, it may well prove that the ICC could find in his favour. But I think there is a case to answer which cannot be reduced to a smear campaign against him.
It is strange how things are viewed entirely differently depending on where we sit. Of the evidence against the pope you claim 'this seems the stuff Diplock courts are made of. More like Kangaroo courts, convicting with no evidence!
Yet to me that is exactly how the Canon Law ensemble looks. Despite all the evidence presented to them the result was not rapists being hauled before the courts but put on the paedophile traffic circuit. It reminded me of those Diplock courts that found the cops not guilty during the shoot to kill trials of the 1980s.
John
ReplyDelete‘I know the facts don't interest those who want to lynch the Pope, but here are a few:
FACT #1
‘The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that sexual abuse of minors is a damnable sin, of the worst kind, in which Jesus Christ himself said it would be better for someone who does this to tie a millstone around his neck and be thrown into the deepest part of the sea.’
But they practice not what they preach. They hid them in the depths of the Holy See. The US government preach human rights but …
FACT #2
‘The total number of all priests accused of sexual abuse of minors is less than 5% of all Catholic clergy. That means more than 95% of
Catholic clergy have never been accused and are doing their jobs
correctly, living quiet and holy lives in service to their parishes.’
Living quiet when many of them knew what was going on? Holy maybe but hardly honourable. It is inconceivable that many if not most did not know that rapists were being trafficked from one part of the Church to another.
FACT #3
‘Statistically speaking, being a celibate man in the Catholic priesthood actually REDUCES your odds of sexually abusing minors. That's just a matter of statistical FACT.’
It depends on what statistics you work with. There are some estimates that reckon the percentage of clerical rapists could rise to around 10 if the investigation is extended to the Third World where priests are even freer to rape than they are elsewhere. I think Alfie has also raised the interesting question of how were so many raped by so few?
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteJohn,
continied
FACT #4
In the overwhelming vast majority of cases (more than 80%), the alleged victim was a male between the ages of 11 and 17. Victims younger than 11 were almost never reported, and sexual abuse of females was also rare. This is not the clinical definition of paedophilia. It is however
a type of predatory homosexuality that seeks to take advantage of
underage young men.
‘Therefore the term "pedophile priests" is a misnomer and not based on hard statistical data. A more accurate term should be "predatory homosexual priests."
This is neither a fact nor a faction; merely an issue of definition. The real fact is they were rapists who found sanctuary in the Church and were not handed over to the authorities like other rapists. In that sense they were privileged rapists whose privilege existed solely as a result of their membership of the priesthood.
FACT #5
‘Homosexual men are not allowed to become priests in the Catholic
Church.’
‘But why were they not thrown out of it once it was discovered that all these homosexuals were raping children?
FACT #6
‘Sexual abuse of minors is slightly higher in Protestant churches according to data released by insurance agencies that underwrite them.’
Men of god nonetheless. Catholics can hardly chant 'our rapists are better than yours.'
FACT #7
‘Sexual abuse of minors is significantly higher in non-religious institutions that deal with children, particularly public schools, where according to a U.S. government report, a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church.’
Molested by who? Their peers or their teachers? Were those guilty covered for by any institution akin to the CDF? Were they trafficked from place to place so that they would be free to abuse again?
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteJohn the last part of that response,
FACT #8
‘The reforms implemented in the US Catholic Church after the sex-abuse
scandal of 2002-2003 have been hailed by child protective services as the most comprehensive ever seen in a public institution and have been cited as a model for other institutions to follow.’
The area of the Church conservative Catholics claim has deviated most from the ‘good’ values. Is there a directive ordering priests, on pain of excommunication, to immediately report abuse to the authorities, without regard to canon law?
FACT #9
‘No other person in the Vatican has done more to defrock abusive priests and curb sexual abuse in general than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). He was a hawk on clerical discipline and hunting
down predators. When he became pope he instituted a zero tolerance
policy not only against abusive clerics but against homosexual priests in general. So it's ironic that this pope would find himself under media scrutiny for this reason.’
No other priest arguably has done more to cover for it in his role as head of CDF. Most of the above are not facts John but interpretations that have to first contest in order to be accepted as accurate. They are assertions.
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteLarry,
‘castrate and burn em at the stake. The scumbags should relate to that.’
You rally are going religious on us now. And John agrees with you for that reason!
Alfie
‘Shakeshaft's estimates of US teachers who abuse range from
0.04% to 5%, while estimates of the number of US priests that abuse
range from 2% (Phillip Jenkins) to 6% (Richard Sipe).’
Sort of begs you to look behind the stats.
Interesting stuff on Podles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDelete(From 'No Disgrace in Embrace')
I said:
"'This is compounded with your accusations elsewhere of ‘the church’s disgusting stance during the war.’"
You replied;
"Which it did have. That Pius X11 managed to get on the sainthood track leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many."
I thought this might be of interest, as it is the recent work of a Jewish scholar about Pius XII.
"The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis is a book written by American historian Rabbi David G. Dalin and published in 2005 by Regnery Publishing.
Rabbi Dalin first documents how popes through history have defended the Jews, and refuted attacks like the blood libel.
Then he gets to the main part of the book: defending the reputation of the late Pope Pius XII by presenting extensive documentation culled from Church and State archives throughout Europe. Rabbi Dalin suggests that Yad Vashem should honor Pope Pius XII as a "Righteous Gentile", and documents that Pius was praised by all the leading Jews of his day for his role in saving more Jews than Schindler. Pius's admirers included Chief Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog of the Palestinian Mandate and Israel, Israeli Prime Ministers Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett, and Israel's first president Chaim Weizmann.
Dalin writes:
"anti-papal polemics of ex-seminarians like Garry Wills and John Cornwell (author of Hitler's Pope), of ex-priests like James Carroll, and or other lapsed or angry liberal Catholics exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today."
Finally, Dalin argues that there really was a "Hitler's cleric", Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent the war with Hitler, was a friend of Adolf Eichmann, and later became the mentor of Yasser Arafat."
This may be of interest in regard to clerical abuse as it shows that the number of abuses among priests have been seriously and fraudulently overstated, (by up to 50%), and offers evidence to back this up.
ReplyDeleteI always suspected this to be the case, but even if 50% are fabricated, the situation is still bad.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/01/02/wheres-media-la-atty-declares-many-abuse-accusations-against-catholic-p#ixzz1A5tVdG5L
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteSort of begs you to look behind the stats.
Indeed. But the data behind the stats isn't available online (at least not to my knowledge). Moreover, I don't know if the estimates quoted by Charol Shakeshaft distinguish between sexual harassment and physical sexual abuse; however, Richard Sipe's estimate relates to actual sexual contact between US priests and minors. Leon Podles thinks that "probably 7-10% of priests have had sexual contact with minors". Shakeshaft does argue that sexual abuse and its concealment is a big problem in the US public school system; whether it is as bad as in the Catholic Church is another matter.
PS. Sociologist David Finkelhor believes that much of the rise in child sexual abuse from the 1960s can be explained by increased reporting and increased awareness. He thinks that there was a real decline in abuse during the 1990s and that there were multiple factors causing this, such as increased economic prosperity, better policing and social intervention, and increased use of psychiatric pharmacology. He contends that the cultural revolution of the 1960s and its supposed dissipation in the following decades are not fully satisfying explanations for the rise and fall of reported child sexual abuse, though he accepts that 1960s cultural change may have been a factor in the increase in crime in the 1970s. Finkelhor argues that such explanations of the rise and fall might be expected to produce differing trends for differing cohorts of men; for example, older men who were products of the sexual revolution would be expected to offend at a relatively high rate compared to younger men unaffected by that culture. This should be true even after accounting for the fact that deviant behaviour tends to decline with age. But that is not what the pattern looks like: abuse by younger and older cohorts seems to have declined in equal measure. He also notes that when the decline occurred, it was dramatic; however, behaviours and attitudes influenced by generational and cultural change tend to be slower to shift.
Antoin
ReplyDeletethink the clergy go with 'up the bum no harm done'. what's another wee boys life destroyed? the church institutions are of primary concern. Now, use all your education to put a veneer on that.
Antoin Mac C, the Invasion by William the Conquerer was succesfull due to natures assistance as much as Papal support waiting for the right winds to sail the English Channel led to a Northern attack on King Harold by King Harald Hardråda and Tostig Godwinson at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.With the correct conditions William sailed and Harold had the dissadvantage of having to hot foot down to be beaten at Hastings.
ReplyDeleteAlfie, "I should also say that detailed study of flagellum evolution has occurred only in the last 15 years or so; virtually all of the homologies have been discovered in this period. Given time, I think it is likely that more will be discovered."...
Its sounded like the missing peices of the fossil record to me.ID has been criticised as just offering negative critics of Darwin concentrating on what science can't explain thus the phrase 'God of the Gaps' attributed to it but for one ID doesn't infer a God just Intellegence behind the design and secondly quoting Jonathan Wells "design inferences are not arguments from ignorance.No sane person argues, 'I don't know what caused X, therefore it must be designed.'We infer design in our daily lives when X resembles things that we know are produced by intellegence" and he goes on to say "if anything has to retreat in the face of scientific advances it's Darwinism."
Anthony, on project Steve...Quote a Discovery Institute spokesperson "if Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies - that fact was never in question. The more interesting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalistic conception of evolution"
On points raised on sexuality and morality.
Michaelhenry said sex and love is all about what two consenting adult's want- nobody else's business and Anthony confirmed this with "Sums it up for most people I would think." Where it becomes somebody elses business is in cases like the Catholic Children's Rescue Service.Back in 2007 its directors said they have been forced to stop recruiting, assessing or approving couples who want to adopt children because of new legislation which means they cannot follow their religious beliefs by turning away homosexual couples.The latest is here...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/19/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-parents
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteJohn,
‘Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
I wonder about the use such statistics are put to. How many priests are there in comparison to teachers? I never thought much about there being a greater likelihood of being abused by priests than by others until this discussion came up here. It has led me to think that there may be a case for arguing that there is a greater likelihood of being abused by a priest and I base it solely on the way the statistics seem to have been used. It is as if they are being massaged to make a point they don’t really support.
‘I believe he was referring to the roots of child pornography and sex-tourism and the sexualisation of children in broader society, after having spoken about evils within the clergy. I do not see that he was referring to priestly abuse with those words, but rather looking at the ‘signs of the times’ in general.’
This does not strike me as convincing. His comments only make sense as an analytical statement rather than a scapegoating one if there was evidence of a general shift in thinking rather than pointing to the isolated discourses and practices of the paedophile left.
‘But the Pope wasn’t saying it was main stream.’
Then the value of saying it drops immediately. Why bother with marginalia?
'Take an example, there are those today who theorize about incest being acceptable, (in Switzerland and in a few court cases). They are an extreme minority, but they are there. I don't think the Pope meant more than that.'
I don’t accept that John. I think what the pope very deliberately done was to try to suggest that there was a zeitgeist that made paedophilia more likely to be prevalent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs Antoin Mac C implying everybody and anybody from here to Rome brought negative imports to Ireland.
ReplyDeleteI think the truth lies in Ireland being a smaller entity to Britain and thus once the bigger fell the smaller less well defended was an inevitabililty for falling too.
An inevitable fact of empirical expansion, nowt to do with fortune or 'ow you pronounce things
The recent discussion at the Pensive Quill, which for my part, was prompted by an article called ‘No Disgrace in Embrace’ has prompted me to obtain the article of Father Owen O’Sullivan to which it was referring.
ReplyDeleteIn it he says:
‘Throughout history, and across the globe, as art, history and literature testify, same-sex attraction and acts have been a consistent feature of human life. In that sense, they cannot be called unnatural or abnormal. Same-sex attraction is simply a facet of the human condition.’
But the same could be said for paedophilia, incest, sado-masochism and any other sexual perversion under the sun, not to mention ‘normal’ sins such as adultery.
He goes on to say:
‘If God is love, and if sex is loving, then sex between two people of different or the same gender can only be looked upon lovingly by God. The real sin would be to live without ever having had this contact with another human being.’
This sounds to me like a clarion call of a sexual libertine or a charter for the predatory homosexual priest. Isn’t that exactly the perverted pre-disposition of every abusive priest over the last number of years?
Having read this, I can only conclude that the CDF acted in a very proper manner in banning further writings, without prior approval, from this degenerate priest. Our children must be protected from such an apologist of abuse!
John,
ReplyDeleteThis may be of interest in regard to clerical abuse as it shows that the number of abuses among priests have been seriously and fraudulently overstated, (by up to 50%), and offers evidence to back this up.
No, it doesn't. It offers the opinion of a lawyer representing a group of priests from the Los Angeles archidiocese who have been accused of abuse. I think the lawyer in question, Donald Steier, is currently trying to prevent the release of archdiocesan personnel files and psychological records of priests accused of sexual misconduct. His basis for the 50% figure is just the opinion of one of his colleagues. If the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had reason to believe that over half of the abuse allegations against its priests were false, why did the head of the archidiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahony, decide to settle over 500 cases without going to trial in any of them?
An interesting point of reference which fits this topic was His Holiness praying at the first Patron Saint of Englands Tomb on his recent visit to Westminister Abbey.Preceding Harold II and an architect in the success of William the Conquerers invasion, Edward the Confesser made a poignant prophecy on his death bed of the ills of the Protestant Reformation and subsequent rettachment to the 'Green Tree' or Catholic Church - "But at last this same tree, through the compassionate mercy of God, and without any national (governmental) assistance, shall return to its original root, reflourish and bear abundant fruit."
ReplyDeleteAnglicanorum Coetibus instantly comes to mind and this weeks news that up to 50 Anglican clergy could convert to Catholicism by Easter under the new scheme.
Incidently St Edward the Confesser had strong Irish links trading in slaves with his wife Edith a fluent Gaeilgeoir.
The prophecy of St Malachy ties in here nicely thus predicting Irelands oppression at the hands of England but "that she would preserve her fidelity to God and to His Church amidst all her trials...and Catholic Ireland would be instrumental in bringing back the British nation to that Divine Faith which Protestant England had, during three hundred years, so rudely endeavoured to wrest from her."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDelete"What are ‘false psychological views.’?"
I just found this link which addresses this.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1110-samra
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteMea culpa, I should have said:
"This may be of interest in regard to clerical abuse as it CLAIMS that the number of abuses among SOME priests may have been seriously and fraudulently overstated, (by up to 50%)."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/01/02/wheres-media-la-atty-declares-many-abuse-accusations-against-catholic-p#ixzz1A5tVdG5L
John,
ReplyDeleteOur children must be protected from such an apologist of abuse!
Where exactly did O'Sullivan advocate or excuse sexual abuse? He was writing about sexual relations between adult men, for fuck's sake. Recognising loving same-sex unions is not the same thing as advocating the rape of boys. It's the old slippery slope again, John - like arguing that legalising the morning-afer pill will lead eventually to legalised killing of new-born babies and even children.
Don't miss out these Antoin -
ReplyDeleteA fine import from my home turf....Seán Mac Stíofáin, born Leytonstone 1928 was a guest of honour at centenery celebrations of Conradh na Gaeilge held in Dublin’s O'Connell Street in 1993 and remained a member of the Coiste Gnó until his death.He learned his first few words in Irish from Cathal Goulding and later became fluent in the language, which he spoke with an English accent.A devout Catholic, was infuriated by an article in the United Irishman, by Roy Johnston condemning the reciting of the Rosary at republican commemorations as "sectarian". For refusing to distribute the newspaper, he was suspended from the republican movement for six months.
Don't suppose you've ever heard of John Pridmore, his book 'From Gangland to Promised Land' was a contributing factor in my conversion.A proud export from my humble origins now residing in Ireland.
http://johnpridmore.yolasite.com/about-me.php
Alfie, interesting reveiw of this paper here...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/bio-complexity_paper_shows_man042611.html
Doug Axe of Biologic Institute has a new peer-reviewed scientific paper in the journal BIO-Complexity titled "The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations." The purpose of this paper is to mathematically determine just how long it takes to evolve traits that require multiple mutations before any adaptive benefit is conferred on the organism.
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteStefan,
'In response to your question, Anthony, as has been asked so often and not answered with any degree of substance is why should believers worry in the slightest about evolution, I would like to submit some quotes starting with Darwin himself...'
Darwin - "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."
In that statement Darwin rejected an interventionist god. Many people believe in a creator but not one that is interventionist. And while Darwin was an atheist his statement could easily be made by a person believing in god. Not all believers subscribe to magic and miracles.
'University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne... "True there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers, but this does not mean that faith and science are compatible...It is like
saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married
people are adulterers."
An opinion challenged by so many other opinions. Believers have considered opinions like Coyne's over the years and are their faith is evidence of their lack of concern about such opinions.
Casey Luskin on Science journalist Chris Mooney...
"Like any good political strategist, atheists in the NCSE backed evolution lobby court the middle ground - in this case religious moderates - in hopes of increasing their base support" he says of Mooney on the subject " he simply realized that linking Atheism with Darwin could be dangerous to public opinion and public evolution education".
All this tell us is that Mooney had a strategy, nothing about substantive concerns. This is the mirror image of the ID movement telling its adherents and advocates not to go round bible thumping like religious fanatics. It is part of the cultural war.
'In my opinion Theism corrupted by Darwin becomes Deism with the overall goal of Atheism.'
I see your perspective but I think belief is much more safe than that. So, with all the answers we are left with no degree of substance to them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
ReplyDelete‘Where exactly did O'Sullivan advocate or excuse sexual abuse?’
He says;
“Throughout history, and across the globe, as art, history and literature testify, same-sex attraction and acts have been a consistent feature of human life. In that sense, they cannot be called unnatural or abnormal. Same-sex attraction is simply a facet of the human condition.”
His argument is that because ‘same-sex attraction is a consistent feature of human life then it cannot be called unnatural. Why does that not apply to any other perversion? If you substitute the word ‘pederasty’ for ‘same-sex attraction and acts’ we have all seen where this can lead.
At the moment I am wading through Engel’s ‘Rite of Sodomy.’ There are accounts of hundreds of similar justifications of sodomy in it from liberal priests and once they accept homosexuality in theory it isn’t long before they accept it in practice.
‘Recognising loving same-sex unions is not the same thing as advocating the rape of boys.’
Now there is a rare breed, ‘homosexual monogamists’ with a fairytale ending. Only a ‘celibate’ male with ‘rosy-tinted spectacles’ could conceive of such an entity.
As far as the victim’s age goes there is a fair and balanced account at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm
which notes that;
“If the age of consent for homosexual activity were lowered to the age of 16, as it is in many countries, most of the criminal acts would disappear.”
It is revolting to read a priest saying;
“If God is love, and if sex is loving, then sex between two people of different or the same gender can only be looked upon lovingly by God. The real sin would be to live without ever having had this contact with another human being.”
Given that all the evidence points to the abuse within the clergy as being overwhelmingly homosexual it is extremely irresponsible to be encouraging such action. We need clergy who keep to their vows, not who feel that it is a sin to keep there hands off other males.
The real crime is that wayward clerics with ideas like that are still allowed to remain priests in good standing. Until the highest authorities in the Catholic Church, including the Pope, eject such apologists of perversion, I have to agree with you, they are blameworthy.
In Engel’s words;
“…there will be many more generations of clerical homosexuals and pederasts to follow unless Rome acts to disinherit the heirs of perversion from the Catholic priesthood and religious life.”
When hermits in the Egyptian desert in the 2nd century led the way to a rustic minimal existence, whilst worshipping Christ, Christian faith had some credibility. They led the way and places like Skellig Michael were set up around Europe.
ReplyDeleteBut like everything else, slimeballs saw a profit to be made, so a 'racket was set up.
Henry the VIII had the right idea when he disolved the monasteries. Absolutely no doubt the RC church assets should be taken to help the poor. What is all that land and property doing? Waiting for the second coming?
Page 11, Irish News, tucked away on the inside pages, another 'Priest' story.
ReplyDeleteA U.S.A. lawyer is suing an Irish priest and a diocese here for sending the priest on a merry-go-round of therapy for sexual issues; basically raping the kiddies he was preparing for communion.
This priest was returned to the Monaghan area three times over a couple of decades after complaints and Garda attention on a number of ocassions, then sent to England and finally to the USA. The church continued to help the priest and retained him in the church, knowing he was a sexual predator who would always remain a danger to children. God Bless the Catholic church for trying SO HARD to help this poor man and so many like him.
Charity it would seem begins and ends at home.
Hope it costs the church zillions.
As it happens Antoin I am interested in Gaelic culture and the book interests me particularly as a former Communist Party member I always have one eye on Korea.I've ordered it from Litríocht.I read this week Evo Morales of Bolivia is changing education policy that means even private Catholic schools must use Goverment designed Curriculum that stipulates a more 'general' spirituality!
ReplyDeleteAnthony, the substance is in 'Theism corrupted by Darwin becomes Deism with the overall goal of Atheism.'
I'm glad you see my perspective cause that Deism destroys all the deposits of Catholic faith and if you give validity to the historical documentation of Gods interaction with humankind as written in the many books that go under the one Title of the Bible, as I do then Deism isn't a compatible concept.
That is why atheists in the NCSE back Theistic Evolutionists cause it inserts the thin edge of the wedge to split Theism.
Pulled over from Papal Bull thread...
A religious believer armed with evolutionary beliefs possesses nothing more than an acid which "eats through just about every traditional concept," to quote philosopher Daniel Dennett.To coin another phrase from William Provine "Evolution is the greatest engine of Atheism ever invented,"
Theistic Evolution is simply an attempt to promote Darwin to the religious faithfull.
All the talk around in circles about this 'ism' and that 'ism' and the other 'ism' leading to yet another 'ism' merely gives me the zzzzzzzzz-ism.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDelete‘The Catholic Church has always condemned sex outside of marriage, let alone with minors. The fact that people have not lived up to this is shameful, but does not negate the teaching of the Church, which they have broken, to the scandal of many.’
Teaching means nothing if bad practice is enabled rather than restricted. The Church preaches the ‘truth’ but who thinks it follows it?
I think my view of all religion is well established. At The Blanket we were involved in a battle with an Islamic view which – rather like yourself John in respect of Sullivan – wanted censorship of something they found offensive to their religious opinion.
‘the fastest growing religion' in the world which condones such
abuse.’
I don’t know of Islam per se condoning clerical rape.
‘Your attacks on Terry Jones, (a fundamentalist protestant, with whom I would have many disagreements, seems to totally ignore his warnings about the evils of Islam’
This is just my invisible man is more relevant than your invisible man. I think I was writing about Islam before Terry Jones was heard of in our part of the world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnthony
ReplyDelete“I don’t know of Islam per se condoning clerical rape.”
The reason I brought up the topic of Islamic abuse is that whilst the Catholic Church was being attacked, although it condemns abuse, Islam is not being subjected to the same scrutiny, although it condones abuse. You had previously mentioned ‘sins/crimes of omission.’
“Pedophilia is permitted in the Qur'an, was practiced by Muhammad and his companions, and some Muslims today continue to commit the crime, following their prophet's example.”
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia
Those who abuse in the Catholic Church do it by rejecting the teachings of their Founder and their Faith, those in Islam do it in imitation of their founder and it is sanctioned by their teachings.
If there had not been two ongoing threads denouncing someone bringing this to the world’s attention then silence on it is understandable. But to ignore Islamic sanctioned child abuse and denounce a Church that opposes abuse is in my view a ‘sin of omission’
Now we have the answer, send paedo priests to islamic countries where they will be 'acceptable'.
ReplyDeleteAntoin
given irelands haste to violent recourse on many issues, the absence of attacks on dirty child rapist priests bemuses me.
your daughter is safe, it's wee boys they like, it's mutual male 'attraction' aparrently.
Antoin, being carefull not send Larry to sleep with more 'isms, it was the teachings of Marxism that led me to make a thorough analysis of the progression of mankind and end up where I am now.Pridmore met with a Marxist along his path, helping the homeless if I remember rightly.
ReplyDeleteIn an attempt to offer some perspective on early Gaelic law, Queen Boudica commited Genocide on London, St Albans and Colchester not long after God had, through Christ, established the new covenant with mankind.Previous to this, in Christ's blood line, King David had already been forsaken the role building the House of God because of his warring ways thus remaining in the Tabernacle till Solomon built the first Temple 960 BCE.Thus the Kingdom of Israel was being steered away from the sword nearly 1000 years before Boudica's exacted revenge on the Romans.
The timeline gives some perspective on emerging civilisation and the distance from it of the Celtic people. As a technical comparison Biblical Hebrew was flourishing 6th cen BC when the bulk of the Torah was drafted.The Celts were still on limited Ogham characters and Gaeilge Ársa.
Important to remember the Cultural overlap aswell of the Celt and Christian with the quarrel between Saint Finian and Colm Cille resulting in the Battle of Cúl Dreimhne in 561 AD.
The Brecbennoch by way of the Monymusk Reliquary was carried to Bannockburn and can be argued assisted their victory in the face of overwhelming odds
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteStefan
‘but it is your blog that is the blessing being the vessel for the well represented non partisan debate you allow.’
Thanks for that.
The Tatchell interview was indeed interesting. Although it was a far cry from what the pope was describing in the 70s and even further from what the paedophile left of Germany were doing.
Tatchell was right to defend the issue of free speech. These things in the book ‘Boy-Love’ or any other book need to be read to be either confronted or considered. I think AC Grayling makes a brilliant case for free speech and addresses the very limited circumstance when it might be violated.
Tatchell - ‘I was opposing calls for censorship generated by this book. I was not in any way condoning paedophilia.’
Fine.
Hitchens - ‘Personally, I think he went a bit further than that.’
Fine.
Tatchell - ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual
relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my
friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.’
This I think is the problem.
‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’
Because while the above statement is partly true (based on say where a 17 year old has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, it is not unwanted by either ) I think society has no choice but to hold that it is not permissible and while it may not be intentionally abusive it cannot be considered harmless. And that position is based on the knowledge society currently has. I think most of us started younger than was legally permissible but the same applies to alcohol use. So because we may think at 14 we know it is alright society has to take a different view.
Hitchens - ‘What he said in 1997 remains deeply shocking to almost all of us.’
But does it? Or was Peter Hitchens trying to make us feel it is shocking? I found what Daniel Cohn Bendit said deeply shocking but not what Tatchell said. I would like to hear John McGirr’s take on this, given that he provided us with the link to the Der Spiegel article which was shocking in the extreme.
John,
ReplyDelete‘Having read this, I can only conclude that the CDF acted in a very proper manner in banning further writings, without prior approval, from this degenerate priest. Our children must be protected from such an apologist of abuse!’
This sounds so hate filled that it merely reinforces me in my view about a theology of hate pervading religion. It i not just found in Islam which you seem to hate. Children need protection from people like your pope and his predecessor who is now on the fast track to sainthood.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDeleteYou quote my words:
‘Having read this, I can only conclude that the CDF acted in a very proper manner in banning further writings, without prior approval, from this degenerate priest. Our children must be protected from such an apologist of abuse!’
And replied:
'This sounds so hate filled that it merely reinforces me in my view about a theology of hate pervading religion.'
I believe there is a DIRECT relationship between the views of priests like Father Owen O'Sullivan and the tragic stories of abuse which have stained the Church over the last number of decades. Do I hate this? Yes. If I did not I would not be normal.
Of course there are nuances, ('hate the sin, love the sinner') etc, but these are mouthed on a regular basis by a liberal and often effeminate clergy who are a large part of the problem.
I have seen the priesthood ravaged by the liberal views of such wayward clerics. They bare a heavy responsibility for all that has happened.
‘It i not just found in Islam which you seem to hate.’
I believe anyone who reads the life of Mohammed, the Koran and their other writings can form no other opinion of it. But again it is Islam that I hate, because of the evils which it teaches, but I do not hate Moslems who are trapped in this system.
Many here hate the Catholic Church which does not preach evil. A good Catholic is a Saint, while a good Moslem is far more immoral than the worst of all the most treacherous priests. If you doubt this I can provide ample examples from the life of Mohammed down to the present day.
I think it was Larry who suggested sending guilty priests to Moslem States. I think that is an interesting suggestion.
‘Children need protection from people like your pope and his predecessor who is now on the fast track to sainthood.’
I have several times asked for evidence against Benedict XVI, I have seen nothing yet, although I am going to read that book you mentioned in the near future. As for John Paul II being beatified, I agree that it is premature.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete“Hitchens - ‘What he said in 1997 remains deeply shocking to almost all of us.’”
“But does it? Or was Peter Hitchens trying to make us feel it is shocking? I found what Daniel Cohn Bendit said deeply shocking but not what Tatchell said. I would like to hear John McGirr’s take on this, given that he provided us with the link to the Der Spiegel article which was shocking in the extreme.”
I agree that what Daniel Cohn Bendit advocated was more deeply shocking. However I feel that Peter Tatchell’s views were more insidious and probably more influential in their long term effects. I am always very suspicious of those who seek to lower the age of consent, as quite often they have sinister motives. (I am not saying that Tatchell does).
I wouldn’t advocate criminalising a 15 and 17 year old. There is an underlying moral issue here that needs to be addressed, and the courtroom is probably the wrong place, but those seeking lowering the age are not always doing it for altruistic motives.
If I had said what Tatchell said, I would think twice before attacking the Pope. Indeed, if someone could produce a transcript of Benedict XVI or John Paul II saying what Tatchell said I would tie the noose for the former and it would certainly block the beatification of the latter.
John,
ReplyDeleteHis argument is that because same-sex attraction is a consistent feature of human life then it cannot be called unnatural. Why does that not apply to any other perversion? If you substitute the word ‘pederasty’ for ‘same-sex attraction and acts’ we have all seen where this can lead.
Homosexuality is indeed a consistent feature of human (and animal) life, so it is a bit silly to call it "unnatural". It is true that some immoral human behaviours, such as murder and rape, could be deemed "natural" as well, in the strict sense that they are consistent aspects of the human condition. However, I would argue that homosexual activity between consenting adults is not immoral because no-one is really harmed by it. If anything, most people who engage in homosexual relationships are enriched by them.
Now there is a rare breed, ‘homosexual monogamists’ with a fairytale ending. Only a ‘celibate’ male with ‘rosy-tinted spectacles’ could conceive of such an entity.
There is evidence to suggest that about 50-60% of long-term male homosexual unions are not completely monogamous, in that both parties negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders; however, this is mostly because males are generally less monogamous in their sexual activities than females. Open relationships can be loving and stable as long as both parties are honest with each other. I believe that such relationships are preferable to infidelity.
“If the age of consent for homosexual activity were lowered to the age of 16, as it is in many countries, most of the criminal acts would disappear.”
In my view, there would still be a problem. My understanding is that most victims of clerical sexual abuse contend vociferously that they were coerced or manipulated into sexual activity with priests. That would constitute abuse or harassment even if the age of consent were lower.
Given that all the evidence points to the abuse within the clergy as being overwhelmingly homosexual it is extremely irresponsible to be encouraging such action. We need clergy who keep to their vows, not who feel that it is a sin to keep there hands off other males.
The problem is, for the most part, coercive and abusive pederasty. I don't see anything wrong with priests condoning loving, age-appropriate homosexual activity.
In Engel’s words;
“…there will be many more generations of clerical homosexuals and pederasts to follow unless Rome acts to disinherit the heirs of perversion from the Catholic priesthood and religious life.”
But Leon Podles argues that young priests are more likely to be homosexual and more likely to be orthodox than priests in the 1960s and 1970s, yet abuse seems to have declined. Thus, homosexuality per se is not the issue. I have argued that the problem was caused by a combination of a higher proportion of pederasts in the clergy than in wider society and a tendency among bishops to conceal and in some ways facilitate sexual abuse by such priests. Podles would argue that the abuse was homosexual in nature since most of the victims were sexually mature, but given that psychological research shows that men who have sex with minors are not usually attracted to adults of either gender, I would not agree with him.
Wether or not Marx understood the hatred is here no there considering his theory was internationalist and the measure of the effectiveness of his theory is in the results.
ReplyDeleteFriedrich Engels, on the other hand had more compassion for the Fenian cause through Mary and Lizzie Burns and in 1869 they went to Ireland , with Eleanor Marx, thirteen years after he had been there with Mary beforehand allowing an assessing of the depopulation of the countryside and the extreme poverty of Englands first colony tying in with the socio-economic theory Marx and him was collaborating to produce.Incidently his visit coincided with the demand for Amnesty for fenians in British jails with 30,000 turing out in Limerick and 200,000 in Dublin.
Engels planned to, but never did, write an extensive social history of Ireland, the four parts consisting of Natural Conditions, Ancient Ireland, English conquest and English domination.This was picked up later in a Marxist format by T.A Jackson in 'Ireland Her Own', under similar headings.
John Green documents in 'Engels;A Revolutionary Life' that Lizzie Burns helped Engels understand her deep religiosity and her hatred for the English 'even if he is not able to share much of it'.
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteStefan
‘If Le Fanu's work isn't rated highly by the scientific community then it's not through his lack of credentials.’
Definitely not. But that is hardly the contention to begin with. They all have credentials (I refer here to the ID crowd in general), some of them brilliant credentials in fact. And many of them use those credentials for the purposes of bamboozling their audience. It is part of the Wedge strategy. If we look at a few examples we see that credentials per is not the issue but credentials in the relevant field.
Michael Behe is extremely well qualified but is not an evolutionary biologist where his concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ is supposed to have challenged the fact of evolution. Because of a lack of credentials in the associated field (not a lack of credentials per se) his views according to Forrest & Gross ‘serve as something of a joke among evolutionary biologists and other scientists.’
John Catalano on his website Behe’s Empty Box made the observation:
‘Yes Michael Behe is a scientist. But is Intelligent Design science? If so it will be the first science established without a single technical paper published for peer review, including zero by Behe himself. For some reason he has completely decided to by pass professional review and go directly to a Darwinian doubting public.’
Catalano went on to outline hundreds of scientific publications tackling Behe’s claim that no papers or books existed showing details of the ‘evolution of complex biochemical systems.’
Behe might not have agreed with the findings of those publications but not to know of their existence suggests serious deficiencies in his credentials in the field.
It seems to me that Behe’s work is not held in high regard because of his lack of credentials but because he lacks them in the field where his work is supposed to matter.
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteStefan,
Paul Chien, a paleobiologist, carried out what was according to the ID movement a serious study pertaining to the Chengjiang Cambrian fossils. Apart from the fact that his personal integrity was called into account when he claimed he could not remember what was described by a participant at a conference in China as ‘the most spirited episode of the whole meeting’ (when the ID crowd were caught at their lark again), his relationship with Chinese paleontologists was called into question. Kevin Padian, the curator of the Museum of Paleontology and professor of paleontology and evolutionary biology at the University of California-Berkeley said: ‘Dr Chien admits he has no expertise or training in paleontology. He admits in interviews he came into this issue believing that evolution is not true.’
Dr David Bottjer, professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Southern California said of Chien, ‘from my interactions with him in China, I can say that Chien knows nothing about the science.’ Chien himself later described it as his hobby not his science.
These are the reasons that people fail to win the regard of their peers in the scientific community.
I think this is what increases the suspicion that ID is fraudulent; quackery aimed at restoring power to people who want to interfere in the lives of others. And as I keep saying, they have as much right to do that as any golf club. For those that want to live by the rules of the club they join, it is a matter for themselves. They cannot be allowed to tell the rest of us that we too must abide by their rules.
Stefan,
ReplyDeleteI had a look at the two papers by Douglas Axe to which you referred. I must admit that I lack the scientific expertise to fully understand and evaluate the claims he makes, and now that I'm starting some courses in the Open University, I won't be able to devote as much time to further investigation. However, I will say that the journal in which Axe's papers are published, Bio-Complexity, is peer-reviewed only in the sense that Fox News is fair and balanced. That is how Bio-Complexity describes itself, but no one other than its devotees believes it. It is edited by Behe, Dembski, and their cronies, who presumably review the papers as well.
PS. With regard to protein folding, there is properly peer-reviewed evidence that all biologically-relevant proteins (at least all of those in the Protein Data Bank) are structurally closely-related, and that the vast majority of them (98%) can be derived from any of the others by just 7 changes or less:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15690.full.pdf+html
Thus, life or proto-life does not have to have sampled to a significant extent all possible proteins; it could have found one useful protein, and derived the rest from that. Now I don't pretend to understand all of this paper, but the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is certainly a lot more credible than Bio-Complexity.
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteStefan,
‘might I suggest he has been ostracised by the same community simply
because he criticises Darwin.’
I don’t know of Le Fanu being ostracised. I know that many claim ostracism and discrimination when their work is not acknowledged as duly scientific by their peers. If generally they only publish through theological outlets and refrain from going for peer reviewed scientific journals of the wider scientific community their work is not going to achieve the status they seek for it. When they do go for peer review they get a much better response. My problem with Le Fanu is as it is with all censors. He sought to censor Amanda Gefter’s critique of him. It was pretty much an innocuous critique which he should have laughed off. There was really nothing new or brilliant in it. Yet the urge to censor proved overwhelming for him. It reminded me of AC Graylings words:
‘give any government, any security service, any policing authority, any special interest group such as a religious organisation or a political party, any prude or moraliser, any zealot of any kind, the power to shut someone else up, and they will leap at it with alacrity.’
‘The arrogant closing remarks of the review of his latest book by Amanda
Gefter’
It was her review that prompted me to order his book.
‘show how anything outside of the Darwinian framework of evolution is simply discredited’
But it doesn’t. It shows that weak claims to be a science are discredited. There have been harsher criticisms of works within the Darwinian framework than that levelled against Le Fanu. There are also non Darwinian accounts of evolution that get a good hearing.
I think the issue can be summed up simply. Creationists can’t abide by evolution.
WOW. This has been one of the most interesting and intellectual debates on religion I've come across in a long time. An excellent contribution by all regardless of viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteAM: I totally agree with your observation of “Hate TV” and "televangelism” Here in the states those programs are quite prevalent and a new Evangelist is born every new season on TV. Just goes to show you how financially lucrative the profession must be that more and more people are getting into that specific “calling”.
Michaelhenry: For the first time in years, I can actually agree with you on something:
“Sex and love is all about what two consenting adult's want- nobody else's business”.
John McGirr: You and AM make excellent arguments regarding the Catholic Church whether defending it or addressing its shortcomings. I am a Catholic and I believe in God, but I would not defend any priest, rabbi, minister, or any person for that matter, who sexually assaults children or women. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church needs to expose who these priests are and turn them over to the authorities for prosecution. Transferring them from parish to parish, hoping for the best, is not the answer. They need to be defrocked and the Pope needs to be held accountable if he doesn’t clean house.
One question for those who do believe in God? Why do people blame God for what men do? We all have a free will. Where that takes us has nothing to do with God.
science+religion?
ReplyDeleteneither ever paid my rent. Helen..pagans had a better idea about God, one for every human emotion and natural element. In modern times chancers+oportunists have steered human frailties and suspicions toward a profit machine.
Sleep well, dont annoy/anoint yerself.
i cudnt give a bollox about high falouting debate...is fuking a child intelectually correct or intellectually disgusting? fuk the 'intelectuals' who even debate it, closet pervs+sicko's.
Helen,
ReplyDeleteOne question for those who do believe in God? Why do people blame God for what men do? We all have a free will. Where that takes us has nothing to do with God.
I don't believe in God, but when I did, I never found the everyone-has-free-will answer to the problem of evil very satisfying. I mean, if God exists, then presumably he has free will himself, or else he wouldn't be omnipotent. Also, he is supposed to be omnibenevolent as well. So why couldn't he create beings truly in his image and likeness? That is, why couldn't he create beings who have free will and are subject to temptations, but who also have his strength to always choose to do good? To me, there is no logical contradiction in both having free will and being totally good. If there is, then Jesus Christ is logically impossible too.
Also, if you're going to stick a few billion weak, imperfect and in some cases downright evil people on a giant rock with disease and natural disasters thrown in for good measure, then you cannot protest your innocence when everything turns to shit. Especially when you're supposed to be om-fucking-nipotent. That's like putting a convicted paedophile in a locked room with a bunch of five-year-olds and tut-tutting while he rapes them.
ReplyDelete"i cudnt give a bollox about high falouting debate...is fuking a child intelectually correct or intellectually disgusting? fuk the 'intelectuals' who even debate it, closet pervs+sicko's."
ReplyDeleteSHAME on you!
You have consistently misrepresented what I have been saying.
I am putting forward a case against those who did it, not for them.
"I am a Catholic and I believe in God, but I would not defend any priest, rabbi, minister, or any person for that matter, who sexually assaults children or women. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church needs to expose who these priests are and turn them over to the authorities for prosecution. Transferring them from parish to parish, hoping for the best, is not the answer. They need to be defrocked and the Pope needs to be held accountable if he doesn’t clean house."
ReplyDeleteI agree with every word you have written here, Helen.
At no time have I sought to defend those who did this. The most I have done is ask for evidence against the Pope, which doesn't seem to be available.
I thought that was the minimum requirement in any civillised society.
Apparently not for some on here, the PQ 'yes-men' who act like clapping seals and yet admitt that they don't read my posts, but come up now and then to call me a pervert!
there is no 'God' but evil sure as fuck runs about out there. Manipulators and scumbags, but enough about family. There's even worse than family out there.
ReplyDeleteno god, but the devil live-eth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlfie, my answer to your question,'why couldn't he create beings truly in his image and likeness?' would be that then we wouldn't have the richness of diversity that is present in creation.The essence of free will has to be the option of turning away from God.To be subject to temptations, but always choose to do good thus eliminates the temptation.
ReplyDeleteThanx for the study on proteins, will have a look at that.It will tie in nicely with the Genome research that I'm looking at presently showing the advances of our knowledge in this feild running parrellel with the evidence for common ancestry decreasing.
Anthony, Le Fanu's contributions to the Telegraph, The New Statesman, Spectator, GQ, The British Medical Journal and Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine hardly warrents the accusation of only publishing through 'theological outlets and refraining from going for peer reviewed scientific journals of the wider scientific community'.
Your suspicions of ID being 'fraudulent, quackery aimed at restoring power to people who want to interfere in the lives of others' must be aimed at the Discovery Institute rather than Intellegent Design as one is a concept and by that nature can't have an accusation as such posed to it, the other an institution which can but I think is still unwarranted for reasons of generalisation based on a few to the whole.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Helen Re -'One question for those who do believe in God? Why do people blame God for what men do? We all have a free will. Where that takes us has nothing to do with God.'
ReplyDeleteHelen before i put me gumboots on again and wade into the God stuff :-) i agree with you - it is great reading not just this article but all of the entries & input from others - me eyeballs bleed & me brain explodes from all of it but it pushes one into really analyzing stuff... Thank God for atheism i say because it challenges and tosses stuff up that imo cannot be brushed aside with platitudes, homilies, rhetoric and often misuse of scriptures. Even better it has succeeded in rattling the cages of religion - outing the offenders who think they r gonna get away with no justice or challenge be they pedo priests/nuns/tele evangalists and the like. The misuse of scriptures is oft to shut one up when one asks pertinent questions or challenges doctrines AND crimes of the Vatican of which there r numerous ones. (i am EX catholic but still believe in the Christ/Jesus)I need to clarify that - i rant, rage and seek solace in the God called Jesus! & have no desire to preach at nor convert others. It is hard enough believing without being a total pain to others All ppl should be free to believe what they wish without some religious arsewipe trying to con/manipulate them into seeing things their way. Live it and shut your gob is my spirituality... I have seen the glare of religion shining in the orbs of those obsessed with converting others all me life and flee it. My eyeballs shine with cynicism largely and occasionally a flicker of pure hate at Catholicism and what it served me and others up as kids.
The question u ask is imo a kind of trick question. Are we to just dumb down our rage and questions by saying "God gave us free will" and then sit back and think secretly "What sort of God would allow so much suffering on planet earth and sanction it with an answer such as -- well God gave 'em free will" It does not compute and just coughs up over and over again WHY? I dont think the fault is with the scriptures but is with Christians - those professing to believe. They just do not want to navigate through territory that causes them doubt.So they quickly concoct a soothing rhetoric, snappily adapt selected scriptures which is largely to reassure themselves imo because anything is better than facing into the void and thinking SHIT how can this be? All the suffering and all because God decided i will gave 'em free whilst knowing all the suffering that would result...
I wade on into the void because how u can have faith without swimming thru the sea of doubt/questions. How can one settle for unsatisfactory answers and pretend they r enough. That is false solace/self deception and the hallmark of a gutless wonder imo. That is my answer - the answer that is no answer but at least it be riddled with reality/honesty.
Stefan,
ReplyDeletewould be that then we wouldn't have the richness of diversity that is present in creation.
What do you mean by "richness of diversity"? Homosexuality? Transvestism? Do Catholics consider them good now? And you cannot mean that things like rape and murder add a little bit of spice to life. So how can the propensity of humans to do evil be a good thing?
The essence of free will has to be the option of turning away from God.To be subject to temptations, but always choose to do good thus eliminates the temptation.
But didn't Jesus have free will? Wasn't he subject to intense temptation on his fast in the desert and while praying in the garden of Gethsemane? He had the strength to always choose to do good, but that didn't eliminate the temptation. There is no logical contradiction in having free will and always choosing good. So why did God chose to make a few billion fuck-ups and put them to the test? It might make for a rich, diverse soap opera for him to watch, but it's hardly moral behaviour.
PS. I don't believe that Jesus was perfect or is divine, but the Christian idea of him is an example of a being who has the capacity to do evil but who always chooses to do good.
"and you have the brass neck to say that larry should be ashamed..."
ReplyDeleteAnyone should be ashamed if they make unfounded and scandalous accusations against other posters.
This is not the first time that I have been refferred to as a 'perv' and a 'sicko' by Larry Hughes.
I think it lowers the tone when all people can do is resort to unfounded allegations that they wouldn't have the courage to say in person to me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteFirst Larry calls you a danger to kids and now Antoin threatens you with "the tinkers course". Gee, John, you really bring out the worst in people!
mise eire,
ReplyDeleteDo you offer a reduced rate for friends?
Stefan,
ReplyDeleteI was referring to the ID crowd as distinct to Le Fanu, hence my comment 'But that is hardly the contention to begin with. They all have credentials (I refer here to the ID crowd in general), some of them brilliant credentials in fact.'
My problem with Le Fanu his was urge to censor. Although articles in the Telegraph, Spectator account for little. Where is peer reviewing there? I have written for lots of outlets like that. Makes me an authority on nothing! Anyone can write an op ed piece. Have done it myself. Writing in the British Medical Journal, which is a peer reviewed journal, is a bit like the credentials argument. Has he written anything there that challenges evolution and was it peer reviewed by evolutionary biologists? I don't know. But if he has not then citing BMJ doesn't amount to much.
The Intelligent Design Movement, as you know, is inextricably linked to the Discovery Institute. Intelligent Design as a concept, not the term, is as old as man believing in gods. But Intelligent Design as a term is associated with the DI and the right wing agenda it pursues. And if those you rely on to support your views are from the ID Movement and not merely people who believe in Intelligent Design, then the attempts to distance your position from the right wing conservatives becomes harder.
Moreover, to characterise the ID Movement as reactionary is not to over generalise from the few. The Movement is a right wing conservative one. This is so well documented elsewhere, that I hardly need to argue it. That does not mean all who believe in the concept intelligent design are right wing conservatives. Liberation theologians believe in intelligent design. All believers do I imagine.
Mise Eire,
ReplyDeleteyou are starting to spam. Post the gibberish somewhere else.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete"First Larry calls you a danger to kids and now Antoin threatens you with "the tinkers course". Gee, John, you really bring out the worst in people!"
I guess I have to work on my people skills! :)
Alfie,
ReplyDelete“Homosexuality is indeed a consistent feature of human (and animal) life, so it is a bit silly to call it "unnatural".”
Part of the confusion here is that Father Owen O’Sullivan doesn’t seem well acquainted with the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition that takes 'natural law' to be an abbreviation of 'natural moral law.' I take 'natural' or 'unnatural' to be short for ‘in conformity with’, or ‘against’ the 'natural moral law', thus implying its fitting the purpose for which it is intended.
The anatomical structure and the physiological function of the male organ is intended for the female organ, as the two are complimentary and have a purpose arrived at together. Sin é.
“However, I would argue that homosexual activity between consenting adults is not immoral because no-one is really harmed by it.”
There I disagree. At least among males, homosexual acts have many associated illnesses and, I would argue, are the cause of many psychological problems.
To quote Engels;
‘…homosexuals…. are , clinically speaking, walking “Typhoid Marys” and are a serious public health hazard to themselves and others. The human body was simply not made to be used the way homosexuals use it. Mother Nature is not indifferent to what orifice is used for sex by humans ….’ (p406).
“In my view, there would still be a problem. My understanding is that most victims of clerical sexual abuse contend vociferously that they were coerced or manipulated into sexual activity with priests. That would constitute abuse or harassment even if the age of consent were lower.”
I absolutely agree.
“The problem is, for the most part, coercive and abusive pederasty. I don't see anything wrong with priests condoning loving, age-appropriate homosexual activity.”
But from what I have read most homosexuals desire younger and younger victims/partners. Due, partly, to their desire to avoid diseases.
“But Leon Podles argues that young priests are more likely to be homosexual and more likely to be orthodox than priests in the 1960s and 1970s, yet abuse seems to have declined. Thus, homosexuality per se is not the issue.”
I am interested in that as I find it worrying. I wonder if this is just the standard run of the mill priests, I cannot imagine that traditional Catholic priests, who adhere to the Latin Mass and traditional morality are included. I guess I will have to fork out and get the book.
“I have argued that the problem was caused by a combination of a higher proportion of pederasts in the clergy than in wider society and a tendency among bishops to conceal and in some ways facilitate sexual abuse by such priests.”
The first part I grant, the second part I have reservations, but in the main I agree, although I think most did not have criminal intent. Does that absolve them, no!
“Podles would argue that the abuse was homosexual in nature since most of the victims were sexually mature…”
I am with him on this, but my view is not set in stone. I must get that book.
john
ReplyDeleteyou consitently refuse to accept vatican complicity and asked for proof.
'Would you believe' on RTE1 this evening provided it in spades. About several in the Vatican including Ratzinger. You can access the programe on rte realplayer.
Anyone defending the institution of the RC church and blaming individual priests is dodgy in my opinion.
I slipped up last night and disgraced myself in drink. What's your excuse? Especially for your sorry consistency on the subject of kiddie papists and the Church protecting them?
Watch the programe John and PLEASE let us know your position without a 'scenic rout' endless article full of statistics on homosexuality.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, why don't you delete your comments on the Michaela thread, and I will mine?
Meanwhile I will listen to this programme if I can find it, and respond tomorrow.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteI can't find that programme. Do you have a link or further details to locate it?
Have you considered deleting your comments pn the 'Loss' thread? I will, mine.
We can debate the GAA another day.
Saint?MaryHedgehog:
ReplyDeleteYou make excellent points here and I myself, although I do not practice my faith to the degree that I’ve been taught, I also believe in Jesus Christ but I have always strived to be more of a humanitarian than to get hung up on the bible and scriptures. I didn’t mean for my question to be a “trick question”. It is how I honestly think. I find it ironic that those who profess to believe in god are willing to accept all his good graces when everything is going good, yet when the shit hits the fan they are the first to blame him for it. I never understood that? As for religion in general, I respect everyone’s right to believe in what works for them. What helps them get through life, especially through the tough times. I believe there is one god and everyone pays homage to him in different ways and that he is okay with that. It is all these different religious teachings that claim "they are the one true religion” and that is why we have the religious wars we have. A current example of that is the Muslim religion. I think what society needs as a whole are more humanitarians and less religious fanatics. What a better world we would all live in if that were the case.
John
ReplyDeletemy attack on the GAA was missjudged and in bad taste on that article page. You being determined to portray it as a personal attack isn't important to me. I left myself open to it and you took up the oportunity with zeal.
I will be interested to hear you assessment of the programe. Documents with the present pope's signature were shown as were those of other present vatican top dogs; the consistent line was that bishops must protect their priests as sons. In no circumstances report them to civil authorities.
They were aware of the horrors going on.
I don't know how you missed the programe, maybe you don't get RTE in the UK?
Larry, "In modern times chancers+oportunists have steered human frailties and suspicions toward a profit machine.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. However, I find it intriguing that so many people are willing to give them their last dollar in order to find peace and salvation. I believe there are so many more of them than those who are non-religious. Do you ever wonder why?
"i cudnt give a bollox about high falouting debate...is fuking a child intelectually correct or intellectually disgusting? fuk the 'intelectuals' who even debate it, closet pervs+sicko's".
I don't consider myself an "intellect" I just have opinions on things and express them as I see the need to. Nothing wrong with debating the issue, as long as the outcome resolves the no god, but the devil live-ethproblem/issues at hand. Agreed they are closet pervs.
Larry,
"no god, but the devil live-eth"
How can you believe in one and not the other?
Helen,
ReplyDelete"i cudnt give a bollox about high falouting debate...is fuking a child intelectually correct or intellectually disgusting? fuk the 'intelectuals' who even debate it, closet pervs+sicko's".
'...Agreed they are closet pervs.'
I believe the words of Larry you quoted were directed against me, as I pointed out in a post to you.
If Larry did not mean me, perhaps he might clarify.
Meanwhile could you tell us WHO you are agreeing are 'closet pervs?'
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteStefan,
‘The facts are that scientific evidence shows Darwinian evolutionary theory as contestable’.
All theories are contestable Stefan. Scientific claims must be contested otherwise we have a new dogma. The problem for those who claim we just magically appeared as fully developed human beings with absolutely no biological history - a la the great Cambrian explosion - is that evolution is the fact of our time not the theory. Even were I not to like it I am nevertheless confronted with it. I am not a Darwinist in any strict sense. I hold little brief for the man at all in the sense that it matters not to me how we evolved. It just makes so much more sense to me that we did. I can comprehend the notion of something beginning very small and growing big. I find it incomprehensible that something starts big and fully formed. What exists including intelligence had to be assembled by natural processes, many of them currently beyond our understanding. They evolved. A bottom up view makes sense to me in a way that a top down view does not.
Show us the pathways of intelligent design or a history of them being uncovered. Show us Le Fanu’s soul. Notions like irreducible complexity are self serving and self defeating. It seems to follow that if something is irreducibly complex and for that reason must therefore have been created, the notion of an irreducibly complex uncreated god makes no sense.
John,
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php ?id=10&catname=7
Read this but found it more an argument for a return to orthodoxy rather than anything else although the power of his critique of the monsters was palpable. Was also interested in how he phrased it a national paedophile problem although he may have been using the language of the day rather than searching for exactitude.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete'It's plausible that homologies for these will be discovered in the future.’
This is always the case with science. It is incomplete. And we must say that at some point science might discover a god. But up until now it hasn’t.
‘at least more plausible to me than the idea that God designed several thousand varieties of flagella in different bacteria species in order to help them inflict terrible diseases on mankind, such as syphilis and cystitis.'
Sort of trashes the case for intelligent design. If we knew nothing else about the origins of life the questions that comment beg alone would turn us away from the notion of a creator.
‘JPII also made it more difficult for convicted abuser priests to be defrocked; indeed, as Podles concludes in a post on his blog, "John Paul’s blindness to the damage that he was doing by allowing convicted child molesters to remain in the priesthood is a severe stain on his papacy." Some fucking saint.’
Agreed. The arrogance is breath taking
Larry,
ReplyDelete'my attack on the GAA was missjudged and in bad taste on that article page.'
Agreed. Although it was not limited to an attack on the GAA.
'You being determined to portray it as a personal attack isn't important to me.'
Not in the least personal to me. Just outrageous in regard to the Harte family and others.
My offer to delete my comments was soley because they repeat what you said, so if you decided to delete them, I would not leave them up in my replies.
'I will be interested to hear you assessment of the programe.'
If I can get to see it, I will be happy to respond.
'...maybe you don't get RTE in the UK?'
Is that a joke? Do you really see Tyrone as being the UK??
Helen
ReplyDeletemy cynicism towards the existence or otherwise of an almighty 'being' is due to an agreement with a blogger here who questioned why an omnipotent God would put us all on this earth and watch the mess that is planet earth continue unabated. [ or something along those lines ] we wait eternity for so called miracles but evil is ever present. Even at the top of the RC church itself. Just my observation. Absolutely no reflection upon you or your own personal faith.
John
once more you refuse to meaningfully address the issue of child rape by the clergy. That beast of Ballymun sat in front of the altar during mass celebrated by a number of other priests and celebrated mass himself continually whilst his fellow priests and the RC hierarchy in the Vatican protected him from civil authorities. It was endemic worldwide. Kiddies/victims were not even mentioned in vatican/clergy correspondences.
As for tyrone John, as i said to michaelhenry , whats your post code and international dialing code? Are you geographically blinded as well as clerically?
No need to remove your posts, they show your double standards and bile more than my own reflect my anti GAA stance i can assure you. GAA? i hope we get a thread started on them soon. I've seen their thuggery on field and experienced it off field personally. surrounded by 3 six foot+ neanderthals in fancy sweaters in a pub car park and practically hospitalised. 3 of? any one of them could have done the job im 5ft 4'. three of em+ one a county player with croke park heroics behind him. The fact my special needs son was the club mascot meant zero to these heros. I couldnt bring myself to tell my kid his heros did it to me, would have broke his wee heart.
no john, you keep your posts up there because they are just a bileful oportunist attack on my disgust for your protection of 'the filth in the church' [your popes own words], the hypocrite, no shortages of them john eh? I'll keep my views on the GAA, the organisation who wish to keep Ireland in the 'stone age' and who valued drinks licences over dying hungerstrikers. There are plenty of nationalists who dont like the taig orange order [ GAA ] as there are many protestants who dont support the 'order'. Get out more John, or drink in places other than your local GAA shebeen.
i wont look up the rte real player link for you, dont be so downright lazy, you disgrace, the programe would only be wasted on ye im certain of that.
Helen
ReplyDeletemy views on evil being everywhere whilst God is debatable to say the least would stem from views similar to the blogger asking why an 'omnipotent' God would put us all in this perpetual mess. Absolutely no reflection upon you or your religion.
John
once again you're off on your merry go round of avoidance where priestly bull roots are concearned. Look up rte realplayer yourself, as if your interested, the programe would be wasted on you if it were even possible to force you to view it.
keep your posts where they are, they are a tribute to you. Anything not pro RC clergy or GAA is a problem to you.
I'm ok with my anti GAA stance. ive seen their thuggery on and off the pitch and was practically hospitalised by 3 6ft+ GAA neanderthals in fancy sweaters in a pub car park. 3 of them! Any one of em could have done the job, im only 5ft 4'. my special needs son bein their club mascot meant zero to these heros, one of whom played at croker for the county. couldnt tell my kid his hero's did it, his wee heart would have been broke.
Hope we get a thread on the RC Orange order GAA soon, maybe you'll find just how many dont love em. Apart from doin all it can to keep Ireland in the stone age, the GAA valued drinks licences more than it did dying hungerstrikers.
If you check your BT address postcode and international dialing code you'll see you are in the UK. Maybe youre just as geographically blinded as you are clerically blinded. Your Ireland belongs in the garbage can of history, its one of priviledge and cronyism.
John McGirr,
ReplyDeleteI agreed with Larry's comment "closet pervs/sickos" because I thought he was referring to the priests who sexually abuse children. In no way was that aimed at you or anyone else on this site. I also assumed, when Larry said "i cudn't give a bollox about high falouting debate... I thought he was referring in general to everyone on here who was debating the issue, Stefan, Alfie, AM, yourself, etc. John, whether I agree with you or not, I would simply state so and not resort to vulgar language to any individual and I certainly wouldn't
resort to character assassination unless I could prove it. I hope this clears the matter up between us.
John and Larry,
ReplyDeleteI live in England and can get RTÉ player and can veiw most stuff but some content is reserved for Republic veiwing only.Is í iomanaíocht an spórt is fearr liom agus
the coveridge of GAA Craobh na hÉireann last year was subject to the same problems much to my fustration.
Antoin,
I wasn't suggesting ignorance of the Celt by my timeline. I was simply trying to offer a perspective on technical cultural advancements.As always, modern scientific dating is contestable but early civilisations and the spread of civilisations can be compared to each other as yardstick and Celtic society especially in Ireland is attributed to the latter rather than the former as in the Hebrews with the migration of the Celts from Europe being caused by pressure from Germanic tribes around 400-500 BC.Bearing this date in mind being roughly the time of the coming of the Tuatha de Danann to Ireland compared to the established Hebrew society under King Solomon around 960 BCE and the technical acheivements attributed to both I think speaks for itself.
Granted, oideachais has its own merits but you can't contest the enrichment of Gaelic knowledge from Christian era writings such as the the 15th centuary Leabhar Buidhe Lecain, the 14th centuary Leabhar Bhaile an Mhóta, the 12th centuary Leabhar Laighneach or 11th centuary Leabhar Gabhála na hÉireann.
Incidently I went to to see the 9th centuary Mac Durnan Gospels last year when they was on show in London.
Alfie,
To answer your questions, yes, Jesus had free will.Yes he was subject to intense temptation on his fast in the desert and while praying in the garden of Gethsemane but Jesus was God incarnate to show a standard for mankind.
The richness of diversity inevitably includes the wrong aswell as the right path.Without that conscious choice in taking the correct way of righteousness we cannot be full and accountable souls for our actions.
Helen
ReplyDeletemy reference to 'people' in the 'abstract' who like to discuss homosexuality, men on men attraction and paedophilia, being potential closet pervs and sickos, was meant as you took it. it's my view, like in a lot of cases people obsessed with such subjects have a sometimes a less than honourable interest in it. People reading about abuse and getting 'off' on it is not uncommon. Access to jobs involving kids+ vulnerable people are known to attract pervs, same point.
If anyone felt the finger pointed at them,nothing i can do.
What i will say about John, is that ive noticed his inability to countenance the Church being culpable. I find that disturbing.
I'm not a profiler, so bloggers here can make up their own minds on where any blogger is coming from on any issue.
I disagree with John's opinion on capital punishment for poverty level, 3rd world hotel workers, who have not had a trial yet but may very well be more guilty of manslaughter from sheer panic, than pre-meditated murder.
stefan
ReplyDeletei honestly have no idea if RTE is available in England. It is available in the N. Ireland, UK area. Also there's an RTE website with realplayer which runs programes people may have missed over the last week or two. Very easily accessible online.
I'm not going to the trouble of posting it for john because i dont believe he would watch it. He's inteligent enough to type RTE into google search.
Helen,
ReplyDelete'I agreed with Larry's comment "closet pervs/sickos" because I thought he was referring to the priests who sexually abuse children. In no way was that aimed at you or anyone else on this site.'
I didn't think that you meant them in that way, Helen, and I thank you for clarifying your view and I apologise for even raising it.
I believe that Larry's original comment was directed at me as he has called me that a few times whist misunderstanding or mirepresenting what I was saying.
If I am misinterpreting his words, he only has to say so. I won't hold my breath.
Larry,
ReplyDelete‘once again you're off on your merry go round of avoidance where priestly bull roots are concerned.’
Maybe I just don’t believe in guilt by ‘association’ which has wreaked havoc wherever it has been invoked, not least in this country, (how many did time here because of this fallacy).
By my reckoning if the estimate is approximately 3% of priests who have abused, that does not imply guilt to the other 97%. It is a simple maths calculation.
‘I'm ok with my anti GAA stance. ive seen their thuggery on and off the pitch and was practically hospitalised by 3 6ft+ GAA neanderthals’
We can all exchange anti-GAA stories, because they are made up of people, who come in all sorts. I was disgusted when the Tyrone team took the Sam Maguire into Stormont. Your tendency to make sweeping generalisations is blinding you to the good that they have done for this country.
‘If you check your BT address postcode and international dialing code you'll see you are in the UK.’
Oh yes, we are the United Kingdom, from Londonderry to the Mainland, Northern Ireland to Finchley, all united under the crown. Thank you for reminding me. Must go and check how Blackpool United are doing.
‘Your Ireland belongs in the garbage can of history, its one of privilege and cronyism.’
My Ireland is that of Pearse, MacSweenney, South and many thousands of Catholic heroes who have fought and died for what others sold. They might even make up 3% of the people of Ireland, but I will not make the mistake of thinking the other 97% are as worthy.
Larry,
ReplyDelete"my views on evil being everywhere whilst God is debatable to say the least would stem from views similar to the blogger asking why an 'omnipotent' God would put us all in this perpetual mess. Absolutely no reflection upon you or your religion".
\
And no offense taken.
'Read this but found it more an argument for a return to orthodoxy rather than anything else although the power of his critique of the monsters was palpable.'
ReplyDeleteBut that is precisely what I believe to be the root of the problem, viz, the slide from orthodoxy, which accelerated in the wake of Vatican II.
That is the reason that I am so 'in hate' with the likes of Hans Kung and Owen O'Sullivan, because I believe that they, spurred on by a mistaken notion of the good, developed and shaped a Church which has given rise to these evils.
In Bishop Sandborn's words:
'If Satan himself wrote a plan for the destruction of the Catholic Church, it would not be more efficacious than what Vatican II has done. This wretched Council has destroyed everything dear to us, and has brought Catholics and the world at large into the darkness of ignorance and into a putrid state of morality. Will the sting of this widespread loathsome behavior of clergy wake any one up? Will anyone take notice that the honor of the Catholic priest has been turned into shame?'
'As horrific as these news stories are, it is my hope that some greater good will come out of them. Certainly some will conclude that Vatican II has given us evil fruit. I hope and pray that some will finally see that the Vatican II religion has been the ruin of Catholicism, the 9/11 of the Catholic faith for millions of people, and that the only hope is to return to the unaltered Faith of all time.'
Larry,
ReplyDelete'my views on evil being everywhere whilst God is debatable to say the least would stem from views similar to the blogger asking why an 'omnipotent' God would put us all in this perpetual mess.'
In the words of St Augustine;
"Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil."
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDelete‘Moreover the new evidence I submitted highlights contradictions in Dover 'ethics' of "the science class is not being the place where religion should be," with Eugenie Scott’
I do need to read that but somehow I imagine it is not what West, once a director of the Centre for the Renewal of Science and Culture, tells us it is. That outfit tended to spin things well out of any context constructed by the person making the statements. So often that they have been accused of misrepresentation. But without having read it I must hold withhold judgement.
‘Natural law is a law that is immanent in nature, ie can be discovered or found via human conscience but not created.’
Who has discovered it? It strikes me as a concept that is indefinable and one that is hotly contested. I have my own view of what it should be but can hardly proclaim I have discovered its inner truth through my conscience. It would have no more merit than me claiming I had discovered I am Charley Chaplin.
John McGirr:
ReplyDelete“Maybe I just don’t believe in guilt by ‘association’ which has wreaked havoc wherever it has been invoked, not least in this country, (how many did time here because of this fallacy)".
I totally agree with this opinion John. In another article regarding this subject matter, I had posted that I was fortunate to have known some very good priest while growing up. And I too believe we cannot condemn every priest because of the actions of others. That said - the hierarchy of the church, for far too long, has shirked their responsibility in bringing to public justice those priests who have engaged in the sexual abuse of a child.
While the Pope may not be guilty of said crime himself, in my opinion he would be an accomplice to the crime if he did nothing to stop or resolve the ongoing abuse permanently and he continued to stand in the way of justice being served and public punishment being metered out to such abusers. By not turning them over to the authorities, he is guilty of being an accomplice to a crime.
Larry though I share your disdain for the GAA as an organization largely for the reasons you mentioned, it has to be said that they did suffer at the hands of the loyalist murder gangs and security forces. Also I think the GAA in the north has had it's hands tied by the governing body in the south if you look at the recent changes to it's constitution regarding allowing members of the brit security forces to join, all the northern counties voted against but it meant nothing as the numbers for in the south carried it easily. I belief it is to their shame that they did not come out more forcefully during the prison protest given that their own members were on the blanket protest and indeed dying on the hungerstrike, Big Doc and Joe McDonnell were GAA men and Kevin Lynch was a Derry hurler; would the northern county board have been held back from making any gestures by Dublin? Agree with you that the hostile attitude within elements of the GAA has been like that of the catholic church during the conflict, but there are many who do not hold those views.
ReplyDeletejohn wrote
ReplyDelete'When asked for evidence of any of this libellous BULLSHIT, what did you come up with, oh yes another insult. Well you clearly are not one to worry about facts, or even common decency'.
kettle and pot? watched any of the programes john? The facts are out there. Irefutable, in Vatican and Bishops documents. With signatures including the Popes.
The clergy knew from the top down as suspected, for decades, and protected, even to the extent of Bishops being told they must be willing to go to jail to protect paedophile priests from the civil authorities. Percentages are a none starter at this stage.
Doesn't matter how much you talk around it, it's fact. Your Vatican 11 is an irrelevance and a smokescreen and the present pope was up to his neck in it all. Until it's faced up to, as a lady said on last nights documentary, there will be no renewal until the issue is faced up to openly.
FACE UP TO IT JOHN...SEEK RENEWAL.
John,
ReplyDelete[Part 1]
"I take 'natural' or 'unnatural' to be short for ‘in conformity with’, or ‘against’ the 'natural moral law', thus implying its fitting the purpose for which it is intended.
The anatomical structure and the physiological function of the male organ is intended for the female organ, as the two are complimentary and have a purpose arrived at together. Sin é."
But by that logic, kissing would be off-limits. (So would oral sex, but you may have a moral objection to that as well as homosexuality.) Features of organisms can have multiple functions; I don't believe there is a divine intention behind any of them.
"There I disagree. At least among males, homosexual acts have many associated illnesses and, I would argue, are the cause of many psychological problems."
If homosexuals always have protected sex or limit any unprotected sex to a committed relationship, then there shouldn't be any physical or mental problems. It is true that, even with condoms, anal sex can cause rare complications, but not all gay men have anal sex regularly. Moreover, it is worth noting that many young women suffer regularly with kidney infections and cystitis due to vaginal intercourse.
John
ReplyDelete'My Ireland is that of Pearse, MacSweenney, South and many thousands of Catholic heroes who have fought and died for what others sold. They might even make up 3% of the people of Ireland, but I will not make the mistake of thinking the other 97% are as worthy.'
What about those Protestant heroes (and those of no faith) are they not as equally worthy? Let's not forget the forefathers of Irish Republicanism were not of the catholic faith.
Helen
ReplyDeleteperfectly put. Boy i was getting blue in the face waiting for some logic on that 'complicity' debate.
Martydownunder.
Can't argue with you. Unfortunately it was 'individuals' and as in gathering rubble after 1916 the GAA was very adept at looking after itself. I was just turned-off by them. Their wee drinking shebeens/social clubs are their priority.
Good for them, but i get pissed off listening to them talk about how they 'facilitated' both sides after the civil war get over it. I'm sure they'd have managed without a ball. But at least they cleared the rubble up, i'm surprised they're not in Iraq clearing up...maybe because it's still ongoing.
MartyDownUnder,
ReplyDelete'What about those Protestant heroes (and those of no faith) are they not as equally worthy? Let's not forget the forefathers of Irish Republicanism were not of the catholic faith.'
You are absolutely right, they mustn't be forgotten. In the end we will only achieve freedom when we unite.
John,
ReplyDelete[Part 2]
"But from what I have read most homosexuals desire younger and younger victims/partners. Due, partly, to their desire to avoid diseases."
I haven't seen any real evidence of this. Podles cites a 1978 study by Kinsey Institute researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg which he claims shows that "25% of homosexuals had sexual contact with males under the age of sixteen, when the homosexual was at least five years older." However, this figure was not based on a random, representative sample of the gay population in the US; the sample was taken in San Francisco in 1969-70 and nearly half of the participants were recruited in bars, bathhouses and sex clubs. Furthermore, the researchers stratified as "homosexual" everyone who rated between 2 (predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual) and 6 (exclusively homosexual) on the Kinsey scale. So even if the researchers had also taken a similarly-obtained sample of the heterosexual population in San Francisco at that time to compare with the homosexual population, they wouldn't be comparing like with like. Indeed, Bell and Weinberg argued that their study could not be used to make generalisations about gay people (even those in San Francisco):
"It should be pointed out that reaching any consensus about the number of homosexual men or women exhibiting this or that characteristic is not the aim of the present study. The non-representative nature of other investigators’ sample as well as our own precludes any generalization about the incidence of a particular phenomenon even to persons living in the locale where the interviews were conducted, much less to homosexuals in general. ... We cannot stress too much that ours is not a representative sample."
The Los Angeles Times survey which, among other things, indicates that younger priests in the US are more likely to be homosexual and more likely to be conservative than older priests does seem to be based on a random, representative sample of US clergy. It estimates that nearly a quarter of young US priests (23%) admit to being predominantly homosexually inclined, as opposed to about 15% of US priests in general. Richard Sipe thinks the percentage of gay priests is higher than that; he puts the figure at 30% at least. I think this is based on his own research, which is believed to be the longest-term, largest study on priests' sexuality, following 1000 priests for up to 25 years. Sipe found no tie between sexual abuse and homosexuality, and says gay priests were no more likely than straight priests to break vows of celibacy.
You should get Podles's book; his analysis of the problem of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church lies somewhere between your views and mine, though it probably leans more towards yours. Podles thinks that the sexual revolution of the 1960s may well have led to a spike in abuse, but that abuse and its concealment long predates Vatican II.
John,
ReplyDelete[Part 3]
PS. The Los Angeles Times survey states that 57% of liberal priests in the US claimed to have a completely heterosexual orientation, compared with 70% of moderate priests and 75% of conservatives. Priests aged between 31 and 40 are more likely to be liberal than younger or older cohorts, but are also more likely than priests aged between 21 and 30 to be completely heterosexual. Priests over 40 are the least likely of all cohorts to be predominantly homosexual, but are also just about as likely as very young (trainee?) priests to be liberal. There is no estimate of the proportion of young, conservative priests who are predominantly homosexual; nor is there one for young, liberal priests. I suppose there is also the question of whether conservative priests would be willing to admit their homosexuality to themselves, let alone to put it on paper. On this point, it might be worth noting that more conservative priests (6%) refused to answer the sexual orientation question in the survey than liberals/moderates (3%), though this difference is not statistically significant as the study has a margin of error of +/- 3%. If you've time, have a look at the survey and the analysis of it:
http://www.latimes.com/la-timespollpriests-471pa1an,0,41460.story
There's an awful lot of statistics in these posts about homosexuality in relation to priests and ordinary society. I just get the feeling that ordinary genuine homosexual people would be angry and incensed at them and their 'community' being compared to child rapist and disgusting perverts. Never mind used as a possible decoy to minimise the activities of those priests. maybe im wide of the mark here, but when i glance through all the statistics my eyes just glaze over.
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
ReplyDeleteCall me naive, but how are homosexual men ordained priests to begin with? Do they lie about their sexual preference when entering the priest hood? My belief was that men who became priests, like women who became nuns, had a “special calling from God”. It wouldn’t be a vocation for everyone and as I grew up I couldn’t conceive how a man or a woman could remain celebrate (especially after the 60’s) but it never crossed my mind that any of them would be gay. I always felt the Catholic Church should have allowed priests to marry, just like other religions do. However, unfortunately, marriage doesn’t ensure either person in that relationship is not going to turn out to be a sexual abuser either.
The news is full of more “straight” men and women who are teachers and who are sexually abusing their underage students as well as married men who are just plain decadent and seek out under aged boys and girls to molest. The internet is full of them. There is an organization called “NAMBLA” (North American May/Boy Love Association. Their sole purpose is to engage in sex with underage boys. Back in the late 90’s there were 1100 known members – I shudder to imagine what the memberships is it up to today?
The reason I point this out is because I feel the media can be a biased lot and only politically correct when it suits them or they know they are “safe” in targeting a person or organization. How many of you are even aware of NAMBLA? How much media coverage do you see about them? Yet they have no problem bashing the Catholic Church whenever they can. How many ministers and rabbi’s and Muslim clerics are pedophiles and pederasts, yet you don’t see any of these religious groups being “bashed” like you do the Catholics? Don’t get me wrong - whoever physically or sexually abuses a child, regardless of their status in life, should be castrated in my opinion. However, when you compare the percentage of known “deviant misfits” (pedophiles and pederasts) running around lose in society today; to the percentage of them in the Catholic church, the church has an easier job of weeding them out before society has the same opportunity.
Helen,
ReplyDelete‘While the Pope may not be guilty of said crime himself, in my opinion he would be an accomplice to the crime if he did nothing to stop or resolve the ongoing abuse permanently and he continued to stand in the way of justice being served and public punishment being metered out to such abusers. By not turning them over to the authorities, he is guilty of being an accomplice to a crime.’
Yes, but these are precisely the charges that have not been demonstrated. If they were to be so demonstrated, it seems most likely that they would affect John Paul II’s papacy, rather than the present one.
A Pope certainly has moral responsibility for what goes on in the Church, but he is very reliant on those below him providing the correct information to him.
I don’t know of any judicial authority who would be able to try a Pope who is also the head of a Sovereign State. But one step at a time, the first requirement is evidence.
Helen hon dont be so naive it is complusory to be gay to be a priest or a dickeydodger and if your a paedo well the worlds your oyster
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
ReplyDelete‘You should get Podles's book; his analysis of the problem of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church lies somewhere between your views and mine, though it probably leans more towards yours. Podles thinks that the sexual revolution of the 1960s may well have led to a spike in abuse, but that abuse and its concealment long predates Vatican II’
The fact that such abuse predates Vatican II is brought out forcefully by Randy Engels in her book. But I don’t think it was anything approaching the scale that it became after the Council.
I have been reading a number of items on Podle’s blog lately. He has some interesting comments that throw more light on the words;
‘In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.’
This can be read here;
http://www.podles.org/dialogue/the-pope-and-proportionalism-382.htm#more-382
There is also an interesting article on the proposed beatification of John Paul II and much else.
If you notice any reference to Engel’s book in Podle’s one, I would be very interested to know his opinion of it.
Thanks for the link, I shall look at it.
john
ReplyDeletetheres a ton of 'proof' signed by the present pope himself, who incidentally was called pope john paul 11 rotweiller. So he's even implicated in that era too. Several programes have been aired in recent months, i feel you are in for much angst in the near future.
I'm no theologian or profiler, but i think you need serious help, with your eyesight and closed mindedness. AT THE VERY LEAST.
‘theres a ton of 'proof' signed by the present pope himself, who incidentally was called pope john paul 11 rotweiller.’
ReplyDeleteI’m still waiting to see this ‘proof'.
So he's even implicated in that era too. ..., i feel you are in for much angst in the near future.
The world is full of anti-Catholic journalists ready to pounce on and twist the least thing. It is very rare that they give a balanced view in their attempts to implicate the Pope.
But, for the sake of argument, let me try to imagine that the proof is found that the present Pope had acted in any way improperly! What would that prove, other than a Pope had done wrong through deed or omission? You only need to open a history book to see that there are many instances, (often exaggerated by protestants), of Popes doing wrong. Yes it would be scandalous, but then we would move on.
Imagine worse, imagine a Pope had actually abused a child. What a sickening thought. Do I think it has happened? No. Do I think it is possible that it could ever happen? Yes, everything is possible.
If that were to happen, I imagine a process would be begun where Cardinals would demand he should quit, but this is pure fantasy.
I follow the Pope when he is teaching as Christ’s Vicar, on matters of Faith and Morals. I do not worship his shadow, believe he is sinless, or otherwise idolise him as a human being.
In fact, I believe we have had a series of rotten Popes since the death of Pius XII. I guess we get the Popes we deserve, the priests we deserve, the Republican leadership we deserve, the GAA we deserve.
All of these things indicate to me that we must be a pretty bad bunch all round both as Catholics, and patriots. If we want to get a holy Pope, holy priests, a fearless Republican leadership and a courageous GAA we need to improve ourselves and they will inevitably follow.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to cast any aspersions on homosexual people at all. Sorry if it came across that way. I was merely trying to persuade John McGirr firstly that there is no real evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse minors (John believes there is), and secondly, that a significant proportion (25%) of conservative priests admit to being homosexually inclined to some degree (John didn't seem to think this was possible). Unfortunately, those two points probably got lost in the reams of statistics I included in my posts, which were written in the wee small hours of the morning. I don't believe that homosexual priests were the main perpetrators of the abuse, for modern psychological research suggests that those who abuse children or adolescents are not usually sexually interested in adults of either sex. Nor do I believe Vatican II caused the abuse crisis in the church; it seems more likely to me that abuse was always there to a significant degree, but that increased awareness and reporting of sexual abuse (due to a more open attitude to sexuality in general) caused the apparent rise in sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church and in wider society from the 1960s onwards. I can imagine that ordinary gay men and women are incensed by being linked to the crimes of pederastic priests - they are right to be. I would feel the same way.
Anthony...
ReplyDelete‘Moreover the new evidence I submitted highlights contradictions in Dover 'ethics' of "the science class is not being the place where religion should be," with Eugenie Scott’
Eugenie Scotts own words...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Scott2.html
Although it is not the job of public school science teachers to teach theology, when students come to class with their fingers stuck into their ears and their eyes closed, it is necessary to figure out a way to get the fingers out and the eyes open.
Most Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations have accepted evolution as the way God brought the world about, and this is also true of the theology of all but the most conservative Jews. Although it would be inappropriate for a teacherto encourage students towards or against any religious view, it is appropriate to inform them, in a comparative sense, of the existence of more than one religious perspective on creation and evolution.
I said...
‘Natural law is a law that is immanent in nature, ie can be discovered or found via human conscience but not created.’
You said...
Who has discovered it? It strikes me as a concept that is indefinable and one that is hotly contested.
Brought over from other thread incase you missed...
Aristotle is said to be the father of natural law but this is due to the attention given to his works by Thomas Aquinas.Obviously this being the first documented human interpretations of a much older concept.
Stefan,
ReplyDeleteI got the Eugenie Scott article via an earlier link you sent. Didn't mean for you to send it again. I just haven't got around to reading the thing but I will.
I didn't miss the comment from the other post on Aristotle. But it still amounts to nothing other than his view of what natural law is or should be. Just As Wolfe Tone is said to be the father of Irish Republicanism. I think there is no such thing as natural law even though I have ideas on what I would like it to be. I think it is the same with all of us. Some of us try to claim that what we think is natural law actually is natural law. Quite by chance and unrelated to this discussion I was reading a barrister who commented on it and who said it was indefinable. That's where I borrowed that term from. Unless we mean by it physical law - such as we all die - it seems to be indefinable. But I think you mean it in the sense of a moral law. Or am I reading it wrong?
Carried over from Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteJohn,
‘I just don't see the beast to be the Catholic Church. If it were really that simple then there would not be similar problems outside of it.’
It is a particular form of beast. And it is in its peculiarity that we find so much hostility. This was the beast that pontificated to the rest of us on how to live ethical lives and it has been most unethical. If you look at the Iris Robison case her boy banging was not the cause of the ire she met but her insistence on telling others how to live when it was all too evident she had no intention of practicing what she preached.
‘I can honestly say that I never even heard of such things anywhere.’
Ok. But a group of people living such sheltered lives should have no input into a general ethics of society. What do they know of society and its ways if they do not know that clerical rape of children was rampant?
I don’t see Hans Kung as a hero. But he did what so many others should do – he asked repeatedly on what is authority based. How could any man claim to be infallible? He challenged the dictatorship of Catholicism. He may be wrong in so many things but he did the right thing there.
All priests should not be attacked. But they should all be questioned about the institution to which they belong.
John McGirr
ReplyDelete"A Pope certainly has moral responsibility for what goes on in the Church, but he is very reliant on those below him providing the correct information to him".
Not to be rude John, but that explanation will fly just so long.
I agree that just like our President, who relies on his cabinet members to keep him abreast of everything that is going on; the Pope relies on his bishops to do the same. However, the situation regarding priests who have been sexually abusing children didn't just happen on this Pope's watch. It's been ongoing for far too long. How could he not know about it?
The media plays it up every chance they get about pedophile priests and a good number have been prosecuted for it over the years. So unless this Pope and the Pope before him is blind, deaf and dumb...he had to know something "bad" was happening within the church and not just leave it to the Bishops or Cardinals to handle it? That's a cop-out.
Carried Over From the Papal Bull
ReplyDeleteStefan
‘If indeed the wedge strategy is the baby of the reactionary element’
Who else? Look at its origins and subsequent history.
‘Satan's dominion over the Earth concluded in between Vatican II
and the rise of Solidarnosc, 75 - 100 years post Pope Leo XIII's vision after Mass which is well documented in its relevance to the events.’
We may agree to differ on any of that. To me devils are fairies in the garden stuff.
‘I would refocus on Crocker’s case who simply initiated the belief
that a divine force is behind all the science which I don't view as any sort backdoor attempt in smuggling anything new into the curriculum.’
It is a religious opinion and has its place – in the religious class.
‘Encouraging biology teachers to spend class time having students read statements by religious leaders supporting evolution is in the curriculum so why can't Crocker do her thing?’
Because none of them should be doing their own thing. Anything that is taught in schools can’t be a matter of doing your own thing. In a theology class, it would be doing your own thing to come in and discuss fairies as a non material reality but does it have any place in the class or curriculum? Eugenie Scott should not be allowed to go into a science class and teach that miracles are a possible cure for cancer.
I apologise for not yet having read the piece you sent me. I asked you for it and appreciate that you provided it but I simply have not had a minute. I shall.
‘With regards to Darwinian evolutionary theory being in a theistic framework to the point of it becoming Deism and your question 'what could possibly be wrong with that from a religious perspective?', I can sum up as Deism falling short of explaining my own religious experiences thus for me it don't work.’
If it does not work for you fine. You are absolutely entitled to dissent from it. Evolution in biology works for me a lot easier than cosmological evolution. I go with it because I can think of nothing better. I have seen religion offer nothing to my understanding of the world.
Marty,
ReplyDeletenot quite sure if you are serious about some of this stuff, or is it just off the cuff nonsense.
It is 'compulsory for priests to be gay?'
How can anyone treat that as serious comment?
I don't know whether it is an insult to priests or to gay people, probably both.
Larry,
ReplyDelete'Watch the programe John and PLEASE let us know your position without a 'scenic rout' endless article full of statistics on homosexuality.'
I couldn't get to see the programme, you didn't even tell me what it was called, so it was hard to find.
I found a few newspaper reports, one in the Irish News and many online. I believe this link debunks it!
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/vatican-warned-bishops-not-to-report-child-abuse
Nuala no insult to gay people intended ,proud to say I have a few gay friends but if priests feel insulted well that makes my day after alL my youth days were filled with the insult to intelligence that they forced into innocent heads,yip it may be nonsense to you but I think the whole rotten edifice needs torn down and consigned to the dustbin of history.
ReplyDeleteAlfie
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. I'm just refering to the constant direction and websites being bandied about. I understand it's an in depth analysis but feel unsure gays deserve to be continually compared or related to in a subject so despicable. Mud sticks.
My frustration with John is that he makes doubting Thomas look like an extreme optomist. No evidence will be aknowledged or even considered. Its like trying to communicate with a deaf dumb blind mute. Or a politician, every question gets an official, irrelevant response.
If we even wanted an honourable, respectable RC church, GAA and politcal leadership, as i imagine John evisions it [1921] ? It's not going to happen with people like John stone walling all and sundry on issues as grave as paedo priest rapists and clerical cover-up. where's the change??
Rather than defending the church that hastens its demise. Not good.
Id like to see Ireland embrace modernity and think less inward. Possibly this recession and the disgrace of it and the politicos, will stop people abroad thinkin about the oul country and more of the 'cunt'they made of it. Ive family home from Australia after 50 yrs to die here, theyre desperately trying to get back to Perth. Says it all. So does the fact there are 3 million plus here and countless millions around the world. Those now leaving are going mostly to British Commonwealth nations, like Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Maybe we need to lose the mirror and look forward?
Marty
my mrs asked do priests 'have' to be homosexual in order to protect women? She also said that SF guy who got elected in donegal, if re-elected will be in the dail til he's 70. fair point that, av is 30+ years of 'service'. changes needed.
John
ReplyDeletei'll check rte real player if its there ill post the link. it was clled 'would you believe' and went out monday night round 10.30pm.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteReligious people are not the only people who fill children's heads.
I once listened to a lecturer in Queens rattling on about how he 'forbid' his daughter to be an angel in the Christmas play.
He was so fixated on proving his anti-religious stance, he actually sounded like a religious zealot only spewing the reverse, to be honest most of what he said sounded contrived and boring.
Not all Priests are perverts, nor are all religious people on a crusade to convert non-believers.
We are not robots, we can dismiss things we find illogical or irrational.
I don't think people should have to take flack for their beliefs or lack of them.
for anyone wanting to see 'would you believe' here is the site
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rte.ie/tv/wouldyoubelieve/av_index.html
article on rte website about the show.
Just when the Irish bishops were beginning to come to grips with how to deal with the clerical sexual abuse problem, Rome intervened and tried to enforce Vatican policy which put the interests of the priest, not the victim, first.
In a strictly confidential letter seen by WYB, the Vatican threatens the Irish bishops that if they follow their new child protection guidelines it would support the accused priest if he were to appeal to its authority.
The letter tells the Irish bishops that the Vatican has moral reservations about their policy of mandatory reporting and that their guidelines are contrary to canon law.
In 1999 the Irish bishops were called to a meeting at the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome and told by the Cardinal Prefect, Castrillon Hoyos, to be "fathers to your priests, not policemen!"
Vatican policy in relation to clerical abuse put the Irish Bishops in direct conflict with Rome. The Vatican has never acknowledged that it was a major part of the problem and that it obstructed bishops who were trying to deal with clerical abusers.
On at least two occasions the Vatican overturned decisions by Irish Ecclesiastical tribunals that recommended laicising abuser priests. Vatican policy put children at risk.
The programme cites the case of notorious paedophile priest, Tony Walsh. He was found guilty by an Irish Church court but appealed to Rome and while his case was being considered by the Vatican, he abused another child. In the programme the mother of that child blames the Vatican for the abuse of her son. The programme also cites another case where an Irish Archbishop threatened to resign after an alleged abuser priest's appeal was upheld by the Vatican.
Would You Believe? demonstrates that there was a culture within the Vatican that put the rights of abuser priests over and above the rights of victims and their families. Even the Pope himself and his Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, when they led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did exactly what the Irish Bishops are today being blamed for doing: they did not follow the long established norms of canon law, and they put the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal over the concerns for the victims.
But one senior Vatican official began to realise the gravity of the problem and the difficulties bishops were having with the culture within the Vatican. Since 2001, despite opposition from senior prelates, Cardinal Ratzinger has personally taken this issue and instituted significant changes in policy and canon law to tip the balance in favour of the victims. But has he done enough? The Vatican has yet to acknowledge its contribution in creating the problem in the first place.
The programme asks, as the Visitations are taking place in the Irish Church, can real and lasting renewal happen if the questions are not being asked about the Vatican's role in this sad, sorry saga?
Programme includes interviews with Bishop Michael Smith; Dr Marie Keenan; David Quinn; Fr. Aidan McGrath (Canon lawyer); Bryan Maguire (survivor) and Frank Rocca (Vatican Correspondent
Mackers
ReplyDeleteive sent the rte webpage for that documentary including the write up on the article. Ive sent it twice, each time my pc has frozen. I forwarded it by email too, maybe you can post it for me if you recieved it.? thank you.
January 17, 2011
ReplyDeleteThe Pope has blamed Irish bishops for their mishandling of "unspeakable crimes" by priests, but reporter Mick Peelo reveals how not only did the Vatican secretly block the bishop's efforts to improve child protection and bring abuser priests to justice, but were every bit as inept in their own handling of abuse.
Nuala as Mick Hall has said in another post a wee man in a dress says "jump" and millions of you say how high. your attitude about the activities of the catholic churchs well paid servants ,when did you last see a priest on a bike or when if ever they issue reciepts for monies recieved,I am reminded of how many Germans reacted to the death camps "oh we didnt know that was going on" kind of sounds familar "Idonk think people should take flack for their beliefs or lack of them" you may believe in whatever you like hon but maybe you.ll consider how non belivers feel everytime we go up and down our roads and are confronted by those figures on every roundabout.in your face,you could have walked out of that lecture, we dont have that choice.that applies to schooling and religious education our kids heads are filled with that shit on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDelete'for anyone wanting to see 'would you believe' here is the site'
http://www.rte.ie/tv/wouldyoubelieve/av_index.html
It isn't available in this part of the 'United Kingdom'.
However, I did post an article which deals with its claims.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/vatican-warned-bishops-not-to-report-child-abuse
Helen,
ReplyDelete'So unless this Pope and the Pope before him is blind, deaf and dumb...he had to know something "bad" was happening within the church....'
There is absolutely no evidence implicating the current Pope since he was elected. The more questionable period is that of John Paul II. Your discription of a failing pontiff would not be far off the mark for this period.
I have never said that resposibillity does not fall on people within the Church. There are many within the hierarchy I would like to see thrown out.
I would love to see the perpetrators castrated and burned at the stake. If anyone covered it up in a criminal way, I think they should be defrocked and gaoled, if without criminal intent, then defrocked.
But unless and until someone shows that Benedict XVI is in any of those categories, I shall not condemn him. He is the one person who has done more to combat this abuse than anyone else in the hierarchy. His record appears to be totally clear.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete‘I don’t see Hans Kung as a hero. But he did what so many others should do – he asked repeatedly on what is authority based. How could any man claim to be infallible? He challenged the dictatorship of Catholicism. He may be wrong in so many things but he did the right thing there.’
Is it possible that you could be mistaken on this?
Larry,
ReplyDeleteThis info I took from here...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2011/01/did_the_vatican_tell_irish_bis.html
The Vatican expert John Allen has offered an alternative reading of the letter: the letter, he says, "is certainly a public relations embarrassment. As a "smoking gun" proving a Vatican-orchestrated cover-up, however, the letter may fall short'. In coming to that assessment, he makes a clear distinction between reporting abuse and a policy of mandatory reporting. At no point in this letter are Irish bishops instructed to conceal abuse allegations.
The following is the section of the Murphy Report dealing with the 1997 letter:
Status of the Framework Document
7.11 The Framework Document was launched in January 1996 by the Irish Bishops‟ Conference and the Conference of Religious of Ireland. Meetings were held with priests and details of the document were circulated.
7.12 Training days took place during 1996. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission: "The personnel involved were at this time trying to learn about child sexual abuse and the process of response; at the same time, they were at the heart of responding to emerging complaints".
7.13 Monsignor Dolan went on to say that understanding behind the Framework Document, was that each diocese or religious institute would enact its own particular protocol for dealing with complaints. This in fact never took place because of the response of Rome to the Framework Document. According to Monsignor Stenson, Rome had reservations about its policy of reporting to the civil authorities. The basis of the reservation was that the making of a report put the reputation and good name of a priest at risk. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission that the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome had studied the document in detail and emphasised to the Irish bishops that it must conform to the canonical norms in force. The congregation indicated that "the text contains procedures and dispositions which are contrary to canonical discipline. In particular mandatory reporting' gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature".
John,
ReplyDelete‘One conclusion I have reached is that it is only where people love much, that hatred becomes an option.’
Love or fanaticism?
‘If it is real hatred, of course, then it is an aberration but often it is not hatred at all.’
How do you reconcile this with your hatred of homosexuality?
Sometimes it is ‘the inability of people to fully express themselves which leads to their views being labelled as ‘hate speech’.
Which also means sometimes it is not the inability of people to fully express themselves which leads to their views being labelled as ‘hate speech’.
The hatred that republicanism inspired was frequently negative. In fact I don’t think hatred is ever a positive emotion although we all hate something. I doubt we have reached the couldn’t care less attitude – more a case of if our neighbour is doing nothing other than offending our opinions then there is not much wrong with him and we won’t try to interfere in his life.
‘There is no hate because there is no passion.’
It is an interesting thought. I am not sure I agree with it or simply don’t want to agree with it.
‘Nothing is important, no body would kill for anything, nor would they die for it.’
People do not have to be motivated by hatred to die for something.
‘Often these people see themselves as morally superior and condemn those who care about things. I dissent from such a view.’
This happens – I dissent from your view that you are morally superior to gay people and I care about them.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteI live beside a monastry and don't seem to encounter all the things that you do, why?
Don't see too many people on bikes these days why apply it to priests?
I did actually walk out of the lecture, I paid alot of money for my degree and I was not interested in his religious fixation.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete“How do you reconcile this with your hatred of homosexuality?”
Usual distinction, ‘hate the sin, love the sinner.’
“People do not have to be motivated by hatred to die for something.”
The leaders of 1916 hated British oppression, and loved the idea of a free Ireland. The two are always together.
“...I dissent from your view that you are morally superior to gay people and I care about them.”
That is not my view. I do not consider myself morally superior to them. But I do maintain that if they are practising homosexuals, they are engaging in a lifestyle that is objectively wrong. How far they are responsible for that and their degree of subjective responsibility they have is not for me to say.
Does anyone on this blog think this is acceptable?
ReplyDeletewww.dailymail.co.uk
28th December 2010
"Elton John and his civil partner David Furnish have announced they are proud parents to a healthy baby boy.
Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John weighed 7lb 15oz and was 22 inches long at birth.
The couple have not said which of them is the biological father of the baby, who was born via a surrogate mother in California on Christmas Day."
Stefan,
ReplyDeleteI think it is acceptable. I am sure a majority on this blog do as well.
Nuala hon I know you have had a prob with the old mince pies but even you must have encountered the statues of the only virgin in the village on every roundabout from here to hell that the legion of Mary can plant one on,I know where you live and in those lovely homes lie in the shadow of the catholic church where neither sun nor rte can penetrate,and I notice you failed to answer my quiery re the issuing of reciepts for services by priests,would they be witholding that which is Caesar,s surely not!
ReplyDeleteStefan,
ReplyDelete'Does anyone on this blog think this is acceptable?'
Absolutely not.
A grave injustice has occurred, above all to the child who will be deprived of a mother: also to the mother who, without knowing her reasons, is deprived of her child: and to the two men, whom society is allowing to do this and think it normal.
It is a serious indictment of a civilization seemingly ‘bent’ on self-destruction!
On the Elton john baby issue, it doesn't sit well with me. I may attract politically correct ire but it makes me squeemish.
ReplyDeletePeople used to get pythons, monkeys and even lion cubs as pets, now it seems madona and wealthy rock stars are unfulfilled without a human child of their 'own'. I know Elton or his boyfriend contributed from their 'wanksock' but there's something rotten, 'not right' here somewhere.
I'm glad i never toddled into my parents bedroom at 3yrs of age and climed in beside Elton and boyfriend 'mammy'.
John 'A grave injustice has occured'
ReplyDeleteWhat is the grave injustice, the idea that the child will not be reared in the modern nuclear family?
Will it be bitten, burnt, stabbed or have his head bashed in against the bath like some of the poor unfortunes who live in the 'cornflake add' families?
I doubt it very much.
The two parents in question are as much entitled to have a family unit as those who adhere sometimes superfically to the required society norms.
The phenomenologist Edmund Leach once said that, 'Far from being the basis of the good society the nuclear family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets is infact the source of our discontent'
Could not agree more.
Antoin,
ReplyDeleteMy book you suggested arrived and I was a little concerned it would be out of my Gaeilge capabilities.Having glimpsed the first page tonight I can gladly say it is at my reading level posing a much needed challenge to my language foundation so I thank you for your recommendation.
Something PQ'ers may or may not find exciting is the news this week of new insights discovered into the history of the Bible.
"The study by Cambridge University researchers suggests that, contrary to long-accepted views, Jews continued to use a Greek version of the Bible in synagogues for centuries longer than previously thought. In some places, the practice continued almost until living memory." says www.pasthorizons.com.
Referring to the ancient Biblical manuscript the 'Cairo Genizah'... “The translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE is said to be one of the most lasting achievements of the Jewish civilization – without it, Christianity might not have spread as quickly and as successfully as it did,” explained Nicholas de Lange, Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, who led the three-year study to re-evaluate the story of the Greek Bible fragments.
John,
I agree with you absolutely but lets see what the online community have to say!