Tangram

I have kept quiet on the subject but I feel I have to speak.

I have kept this off Steve's thread as it is not fair to muddy the waters of his useful link

There was a comment regarding an incidence of certain types of crime and a flippant comment posted connected with Catholicism.

Firstly, noting that the comment had ruffled some feathers I suggested removing the post in question. Secondly, I feel reasonably free to make such a comment. Partly from doing a simple Google and seeing the number of news stories around the subject matter and partly due to the fact that I am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic.

I am not saying that the comment was as funny as say Chris Rock commenting on black people or Dave Allen commenting on Catholicism but in the same vein I feel every right to make such a comment. I see the RC church as a club with rules. If you don't like all the rules ( you want to get divorced, you want to sleep with more than one person in your lifetime, you want to use prophylactics etc ) you leave the club. You don't pick and choose which rules you like and which ones you don't - it's all or nothing and you either stay in the club or leave. After my schooling in a Roman Catholic Christian Brother run Grammar School I chose the latter.

In a similar way that you don't get on your high horse about religion and have a quote from Monty Python's Life of Brian in your signature line - it's a double standard that really does not fit well with a 'holier than thou' attitude, excuse the pun.I don't feel the comment infringed on any person's civil liberties or took away anyone's freedom. It was based on well documented incidents of people in a position of trust and responsibility who have abused that position. However, noting the delayed response, I did suggest it was removed ( infringing my ability to make a comment freely but acknowledging that I was willing to remove it to keep the peace ). I could have taken offense at the homosexual comment as a parent of mine falls in this category but I didn't.

If I were of a flouncing nature, perhaps this would be a time to do so, but I'm not, so I won't. I do feel a simple PM would have sufficed and I would have considered the matter and then more than likely removed to comment of my own free will.

Almost Canadian

I agree with all that you say.

I, too, am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic and went to church schools in England. We were taught by Fathers and nuns.

I, too, turned my back on it as I saw it as being way too hypocritical. I also believe that those that have any form of faith, should be secure enough to be able to not take offence when non-believers question their beliefs.

As I have said before, sticks and stones and all that.

Having said that, I am sure that there are those that will be offended by my post. I have just accepted that one cannont come close to pleasing all even part of the time.

triumphguy

I reacted to your post originally: not because it offended my religion - it's been through worse, but because I saw it as an unecessary slur on real people. I personally know priests who live in the north east of Calgary. Hard working, caring people who have devoted their life to serving people. Many are in their seventies, and though tired and exhausted from long years of work still carry on - and not for personal gain. Others are young men trying to make meaning of their life, while giving to their community, and trying to live alone with a vow of celibacy - who still won't turn to illicit sex to fill their needs.

Furthermore I worked as a Catholic Chaplain in Calgary Correctional Centre with sex offenders form four years. Only one of whom was clergy - an Anglican Minister. They were from all walks of life - most were parents who had abused their own children. Many had also abused their neices and nephews or neighbours' children. There was a Fire Captain, a car salesman, working class guys, engineers, white and aboriginal. All had been abused as kids by their own fathers - including the clergyman. Many had turned to alcohol and drugs to self medicate. Most would have opted for castration if it was available. Most were suicidal and had attempted suicide. All hated themselves to the depths of their souls.

I could only handle four years i that environment - I was exhausted by it all.

Tangram - I wasn't stopping your right to speak - I was exercising my own right to rebutt. My comments were examples of equivalent bulls!t that paints in broad strokes, but can wound deeply when they inadvertantly hit the unintended target. I apologize for the hurt they caused.

I can turn the other cheek on my own behalf- but am less apt to do so when others are being insulted. I would rather no-one knew of my religious beliefs (I've got better things to do during my day), but choose to get involved when members of my faith community are insulted. Why should I allow the untrue and heinous perception that all clergy are by implication pedos to continue without comment?

RE: hypocrisy. I think its a human trait, and not the sole preserve of the Catholic Church. It sucks wherever it's found.

What's this got to do with a site about moving to Canada? Nothing and everything. We are still real people when we move over here and have a lot of living left to do - none of which we may have planned for.

MikeUK

As an atheist
I find people that fixate on a religion enough to be a priest or spiritual leader, such that they have chosen dogma over reason, of such dubious intellect that they can be considered totally open season to such mockery as the public feels free to throw their way. My opinion!

I have no time or qualms about stepping aside or being apologetic for religions of any form, they have a historical record of doing more harm than the small number of their group that do good..
And in this case there may be many catholic priests that do well, but there have been enough that have abused their positions all over the world to merit the ridicule by stereotyping from the public
The public perception is that if they stood in a room full of catholic priests they’d be pretty sure that at least one of them has done something inappropriate to a boy in the choir, not all, but and it’s a big but the church has probably helped cover up the incident and in the eyes of the public the church itself is guilty of the crime by association

iaink

When a central tenet of your faith is the power of forgiveness and redemption, it would be very hypocritical of the church to cast the VERY SMALL MINORITY who have offended to the wolves without first offering them a chance of redemption within the church itself. Its not like the church gives a hearty slap on the back and a gold watch to known pedophiles!

Now, the PR effect of this is certainly a problem, and the church has not done well in this regard, and continues to do badly (just look at the recent holocaust denier scandal that would have been easily avoided with some forethought)

The problem with perceptions is that they are not always based in fact, a point which I think triumphguy has made quite eloquently in his defence.

I am also an aetheist, but Im married to a catholic, so see this from both sides. Many many very smart and decent people have faith, I dont, but they do and I see the benefit it makes in their life all the time, so who am I to question the benefit to them. Ultimatley though I am not a fan of blind dogma, but most of the catholics I know use there god given judgment to find a balance that suits them anyway...

MikeUK

Only if the church sees it self as above the law,
Which all churches I believe do
However in reality covering up a crime even if it’s disguised as forgiveness and redemption is still a crime in itself

The key to most religions is that they believe they are only answerable to their god of choice and not to the laws of the people (unless said law agrees with their religion) and that attitude has no place in a modern multicultural world

I would agree with you many decent people have faith, and even many smart people have faith, but I would find following dogma, having faith (a belief that is not based on proof) as a rational case to exclude very smart people.

iaink

You are right, ultimately a church answers to its God and only its God. If the RC church had decided (unlike the pentecostal church) that ALL laws should be blindly obeyed, Henry VIII would have wiped it off the UK map, wouldnt he? Meanwhile those bloody pentecostals think breaking the speed limit is a sin and slow me down no end on Sunday mornings.

My problems with religion come when they starts to get upity and impose their beliefs on those outside that particular doctrine. The covering up of the criminal actions of the pedophiles is a disgrace and hard to defend, but its not a particularly new area of controversy as presumably it came to light through the confessional, and that area is of special ambiguity when it comes to the church and criminal actions....the cardinal rule of confessional is that, like Vegas, what happens there stays there (with very few very specific exceptions), and as far as Im aware is legally protected, much the same as doctor or lawyer confidentiality is.

Oakvillian

I'm sure the rest of your post was interesting, but this part is so obviously not the case that I didn't read any further. Many of the most well-reasoned thinkers, philosophers, and intellectuals in general of the last 200 years have had that thought and philosophy rooted in religious faith: to dismiss their contributions as choosing dogma over reason is itself indicative of a remarkably "dubious intellect," to use your own phrase.

Most (mainstream) religious leaders, at least in the higher echelons of the world's organised religions, apply the rigours of intellectual thought and debate to the promulgation of their viewpoint - equally on matters of immediate theological import as on matters of broader moral or philosophical interest. While I wholeheartedly disagree, for example, with the position of the Catholic Church on contraception, there is no way in which that position can be dismissed as "dogma over reason" - it is a reasoned position which can be defended without reference to dogmatic argument (and certainly without recourse to violence - but that's typically the preserve of the Protestant fundamentalist rather than the Catholic hierarchy... a very different space on the intellectual plane).

BristolUK

What with your 'amen' comment earlier are you trying to set a record for religious puns?

Elaine B.

Sorry I just had to ask is your new avatar taken from the Exorcist?

MikeUK

Wouldn’t it be fair to say though?
That if a lawyer was found to have breached the law by another lawyer, confidentiality may hold but only because we would expect the profession to encourage the lawyer to step away from the profession and or dis-bar themselves
Same with a doctor he could be struck from the register or at least fellow doctors would attempt to stop him practising

The problem is the same internal control and discipline does not take place inside religions
And again this lies on the fallacy that they believe that everything is ultimately resolved by their god and through this they abdicate the responsibly for the behaviour of their fellows
I mean they’re fast enough to throw the confidentiality out the windows when it comes to heresy or blasphemy but not sexual abuse

Isn't it fair to say that religions and double standards have gone hand in hand through out time.

iaink

Double standards and humanity have gone hand in hand through out time, i dont see any need to single out religion. We live in a flawed world, religion is just one way some people try and make sense of it. Obviously you are not a big fan, but I say live and let live.

I dont know that its fair to say that at all. Doctors get sent for remedial training and retesting for example most of the time, or working with additional supervision, rather than being disbarred. Im not entirely sure what internal discipline in the church includes, but Im damned sure priests are removed from contact with parishioners in these circumstances. Nothing the church or anyone else can do will turn the clock back and unmake the crime. The church isnt interested in pleasing non church people is my guess.

Blasphemy/ Heresy are anti church, so you are booted out. Abhorrent behaviour is exactly the kind of thing the church would argue it exists to combat, so why kick out those it would seek to help?

Now, Im not even a catholic, let alone privy to the way the church makes these decisions, but I can see an argument from their perspective even if I dont particularly agree with it, thats just part of having an open mind on these things.

Oakvillian

no, I don't think this holds water. The two cases within the medical profession that spring to mind are of the medico-legal opinions of incompetent practitioners - one in Canada and one in the UK - that led to the imprisonment of parents on charges of infanticide, thus destroying families who had already been in the middle of enormous tragedy. In both cases there were enough criticisms of the individuals and of their opinions to provoke comment, but in both cases, as far as I can recall from news reports, nobody from the medical profession did anything except defend "their" man until wronged individuals brought cases before the courts. And I'm sure there have been many cases of bent lawyers being protected by colleagues - isn't the husband of some British cabinet minister involved in just that sort of thing at the moment, bunging sweeteners to Berlusconi in Italy? David Mills, or somebody... Again, only came to light because it came to court - he's not been disbarred (yet), I don't think.
I think the fallacy there is that religious organisations believe they are above the law. Sure, they have a parallel disciplinary process, in much the same way as the Bar Association or the GMC have for legal and medical practitioners. But when a (lay) crime has been committed, in general members of the clergy have been dealt with by the same criminal courts as everyone else. Sure, there have been one or two notable exceptions where a priest known to have offended was simply moved away rather than face justice, but the point is that these were notable exceptions, not the normal state of affairs.
Iain's answered this one. It's humanity, not religion, that is corrupt. I hold no particular candle for organised religion (I'm a weddings-and-funerals, Christmas-and-Easter Anglican, in case that makes a difference to how my views are perceived) but to single religion out for the contempt with which you obviously treat it is narrow-minded, I suggest.

MikeUK

I have to admit that reading yours and Iaink responses I agree

I have issues with the church even being allowed to think its above the law, let alone allowing it to operate this way as long as it’s not too embarrassing for the governments of the day, and I’m not so sure that they were exceptions, certainly in Ireland where the church has much more power criminal acts merely involved a move away


I agree that humanity is corrupt, but my issue is with the church taking the view and position that it’s divine or at least divinely inspired and thus it and its teaching cannot be corrupt even when its abundantly clear that it is

MikeUK

I wouldn’t dream of dismissing them, so many ideas started in the Victorian era as ways to glorify the beauty of gods earth, Darwin being a great example

But as a start in a modern world I have no issue with thoughts and philosophy rooted in religious faith, but huge issues with it being fertilized and nurtured by those instructing in those religious faiths today