The Apostolic Visitors

Dont know if they'll root out any would-be paedophiles, but you can bet your boots that by the time they leave, there wont be a 'liberal' left in any catholic institution in Ireland.

And why go to all this bother and all this expense to show that they are taking clergy abuse seriously when all they need to do is strip Cardinal Law of his privileged life-style in Rome and send him back to face the music in Boston? That would be a believable start.

Lock up your children!

The cunning of the paedophile priest knows no bounds, and rooting them out will be no easy task. Of course the inclusion of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as one of the apostolic visitors will raise some eyebrows. Here is an interesting piece written by the distinguished journalist Angus Stickler on the subject of the cardinal's handling of a case involving a paedophile priest (Michael Hill) in his former diocese of Arundel and Brighton. The victim was a disabled boy aged eight: "an easy target".

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_priests.shtml

romejellybeen,
rest assured, your "liberals" have nothing to fear from Tony Blair's patron Murphy-O'Connor or Ted Kennedy's eulogist O'Malley.

Any investigation or visitation by the RC Church will carry about as much credibility as an Israeli investigation into the circumstances of the Mavi Marmara Massacre. Ha.

#5

If it's alliterative I guess it must be true. It seems that at least some of your beliefs do not require evidence.


"As for me, *I* regard Truth to be holy. As such, the reaction it demands of me is to test it. Not to venerate it, but to seek to ensure that whatever is NOT true is ejected or at least properly understood to be false."


Aye. Right.

https://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vaticans-sex-abuse-prosecutor-says-church-must-amputate-heal?page=1&nocache=1

Thankfully, most people who posted on the NCR's blog dont see "visitations" as an answer to this problem. The Vatican and its feudal way of governing, Bishops who put their careers before victims, clericalism are all causes.

Many bloggers point to the continuing scandal of Cardinal Law's presence in Rome as the measure of how seriously the Pope is taking this issue. i.e. not at all.

Its interesting too that the last two Popes have rushed to Fatima to extol the virtues of Mary. (Marian piety, the rattling of rosary beads, seems to be a favourite religious hobby with their kind.)

She is promoted by them as almost a God, a perfect halo, a wielder of perfumed roses, a benign smile. They love to promote her "virginity" to back up their own warped attitude to sexuality.

They might like to remind themselves of the words attributed to her in the scriptures - that princes will be torn down from their thrones and that the lowly will be raised on high.

SG, what are you talking about? What have I said that is not true? Do YOU think a Vatican investigation has credibility? You would be in sparse company, old pal.

We might see a different investigation of this when the Peter Tatchell documentary of the Pope is aired on Channel 4. Anne Widdicombe thinks it might be hostile.

I bet Cameron is sad not to have Annie on his team. What a shame, what a loss of talent.

Indeed, A towering intellect lost tot he nation.

There was a fascinating interview this morning on Saturday Live (Radio 4). Fi Glover interviewed a former priest whose role was to "fix" cases of paedophile priests. He spoke of how as a member of a "sexual abuse response team" he would buy the silence of victims and how the paedophile priests were just moved on with a cover story (usually an alcohol problem). It does make me wonder about the credibility of these Apostolic Visitors.

The interview starts in the 35th minute.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sknjj

Fi has invited listeners to comment on the interview and comments will be read out in next week's edition of the programme.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/saturday-live/contact/

I suppose they would argue that god would not intervene to help a child being abused by a priest, because to do so would negate free will and subvert the redemptive cabbage of Christ. Sort of makes you wonder what god is *for*.

Helio: the way you talk about God it appears that you consider God to be external to the human person ( you will no doubt correct me if i misrepresent you!) re why doesn't god intervene from the outside in the case of abuse. If you can, imagine God is within you not outside you (suspend your disbelief for the exercise!) - then it is up to you whether you choose to align to God/co-create with God or you can choose to create independently from God, you can even deny the existence of God even though that God is still inside you. YOU have the power to choose - with God or without, with love or without love. So it is up to you (and all of us) to make manifest the love of God on earth or not as you/we choose. It is not up to other people or some external being/pixie - each of us has that responsibility. Through the process of growing up/religion/culture/education etc we get disconnected from that innermost love - we have hidden inner beliefs that we are bad, not good enough, unworthy, unlovable and more that plays out in our behaviours and experiences. It is our lack of love/care towards ourselves that then is also projected onto others and leads to man's inhumanity to man - we abuse ourselves and others and all of that has consequences in this life and beyond. As in we do not just have one life here but many - thus there are karmic consequences for all that we do, say and think - not as punishment but just the laws of cause and effect.
God is love but each of us has the responsibilty to express that love on earth in thought, word and deed - if we do that and meet another in that love then they too may come to know who they are in-truth and arise themselves out of the misery and suffering that plagues so many lives in all ways big and small. We can come to God through wisdom or woe - unfortunately for most people they choose (not consciously) the path of woe - of suffering, of illness and disease etc. If everyone knew who they are in-truth and lived from that truth/love then man's inhumanity to man would be abolished and we would have true brotherhood on earth. Of course - we are far far far away from that and it sounds utopian - but that is by our choices, by our choice to not choose God, to not choose love - it is our own lovelessness that is at the heart of all man's suffering.

RJB - do you have any last vestige of Catholic faith hidden in your liberal soul? Why start attacking Marian devotion in this thread?

As regards the visitation, I think some outsiders have a misconception about it - it's not being done for the State or civil society - it's not an audit of child protection policies. It's an internal matter for the Catholic Church.

I agree with No 4 - I fear liberals will have little to fear. My only hope is that, like many such reviews and investigations, the work has already been done, the ears have been bent, the letters have already been submitted and the visitation is window dressing before publication of something that will try to fix the main deficiencies, particularly Catholic education.

I know it's tedious to repeat this again and again. You mightn't like that he's on gardening leave in St Mary Majors. - but Cardinal Law faces no charges in Boston, is not on the run, is not in hiding, is not being protected from prosecution.

MCC

"Why attack Marian devotion on this thread?"

Do you mean it would be justified if I did it on another thread?

Criticism of mariolatry wasnt invented by me. I think you'll find that many Christians find it objectionable. And when she is attributed with words about "Princes being torn down from their thrones... the lowly raised on high...", I think it is extremely relevant to this thread.

The fact is, it is the so called princes of the church who should be being investigated.

Ratzinger thinks that forcing the Church to return to feudal rule, clericalism and the orthodoxy of fifty years ago will somehow put the Church on track. He couldnt be more wrong.

30 million catholics in America have now left the Church (the second largest religious group in the States.) They have left, not because the clergy happened to contain child abusers amongst their number, but because their Bishops, Cardinals and even their Popes, covered up for these wicked men.

They have left because for decades now, careerists, canon lawyers, and conservatives have been promoted to positions of power within our Church. Men (and women) of compassion, spirituality, service, pastoral excellence and devotion to the gospel have found themselves increasingly sidelined.

They have left because they can no longer stomach the clerical nonsense being presented to them as Christianity.

Cardinal Law IS wanted for questioning in the States, btw, but the US government will never push for his extradition. However, that is not the point. The point is that WE know what he did and didnt do regarding abuser priests and him remaining a voting Cardinal and archpriest of the second most prominent basilica in the catholic church, is hardly gardening leave.

The fact that, at the height of the abuse scandals in America and the shocking part he played in it, he was invited to be main celebrant at John Paul II's funeral Mass in St Peter's Square, tells you all you need to know. Gardening leave, my foot!

However, given what we now know about JPII's devotion to the wicked Marcel Maciel, that particular duty now seems incredibly apt.

It is concerning that the Vatican is claiming diplomatic immunity from prosecution in a number of lawsuits involving its paedophile priests. This story does not mention Cardinal Law, in fact it mentions no American priest by name, but claiming diplomatic immunity does seem contrary to the pronouncements from the Vatican on how best to bring about justice for the victims.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10164997.stm

Newlach

As you probably realise, the 'visitation' has very little to do with child abuse by clergy. It is about rooting out anyone who will question this authoritarian Pope and his henchmen.

https://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-vatican-campaign-to-clamp-down-on-liberal-opinion-2210401.html

Tragically, Ratzinger is attempting to recreate the priesthood and return it to the days of unquestioning adulation and obedience - the very state of affairs which allowed abusers to ply their evil trade.

The Bishops will conform, (really, just a more subtle version of cover up), some priests will speak out and will be sidelined or sacked and ordinary people will walk away after being ignored yet again.

What is happening is actually evil. There is no other word for it.

Newlach post # 17

They have fought every single lawsuit, they have attempted to discredit victims, they have fought changes in civil statute of limitations which would have allowed victims to get justice and they have imposed statutes of limitations in church law stopping victims being able to get justice within the church. (When the victims of Marcel Maciel attempted to bring him to justice on the grounds of him abusing boys THEN hearing their confessions - an offence which carries immediate excommunication - Ratzinger's response was to impose a statute of limitation on that offence as well!!)

Bishops and Cardinals have sat in the dock and pleaded the fifth, they have sat on incriminating evidence, they have refused to cooperate with open investigations and even placed obstacles in the way of the truth coming out. Their silence, cowardice and compliance with this nonsensical visitation is culpable.

Why anyone would believe a single word any of them say ever again, is beyond me.

I look forward to the clamp down on liberals - but I won't be holding my breath.

As for lawsuits - people keep saying these things should be decided by the courts, justice demands it etc, no hiding place. And everytime there is a legal case liberals expect bishops and the Pope simply to admit liability even when not guilty.

Newlach, the Vatican is not claiming diplomatic immunity - it's diplomats are not charged with anything. The issue is sovereign immunity, and the Obama administration supports the Holy See in the case.

Much of the following is taken from the book, PAPAL SIN, by GARY WILLS. I’ve also added a few relevant points of my own.

“The Pope is a freak of history, specifically, medieval history. His office does not date from the history of the early Christian community. Peter was not a Pope, or a Bishop or a priest – offices which did not exist in his lifetime.

Peter was not the leader of the Church either in Jerusalem or Rome – communities which were led by James and Clement, respectively.

Ratzinger has often said that doctrine is not set by “majority vote.” He is 100% wrong. That is precisely how creeds and doctrines were formulated. At the great Eastern Councils like Nicaea, Bishops from around the world VOTED on the deepest mysteries of our faith, namely the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. There was no Pope at any of these Councils.”

Priests and Bishops were ELECTED by the people, not imposed on them as they are now. (In the rite of ordination the words are spoken, “After enquiry amongst the people of God, this man has been found worthy…” No he hasn’t. The ordinary people are never consulted. They have retained the words, but dropped the practice of consultation.)

In the Middle Ages, the Pope became a monarch, ruling armies and running territories and wielding power just like their fellow feudal Kings. Even now the idea of the Pope as ruler of a Sovereign State is being invoked to help him avoid having to answer very serious questions regarding the behaviour of some of his Bishops and priests.

The Papacy has nearly always been opposed to social change, Pius the IX famously describing democracy as an evil and illegitimate form of government.

The Papacy has historically set itself against science, against the Enlightenment, against contextual criticism from the time of Erasmus and against cosmology and astronomy in the time of Galileo. It opposed the “liberalism” of Lammenais and others, and set itself against biology and geology in Darwin’s time. It rejected the psychology of Freud but then found it to be quite handy later on as it attempted to identify, root out and expel homosexuals in its training places for priests.

Even with its lamentable history of backing losers at practically every important development in human history, in the present day and age, true to form, it set itself AGAINST pre-natal scans, AGAINST IV fertilisation, AGAINST artificial insemination, AGAINST surrogate motherhood and AGAINST using condoms in the fight against HIV/Aids.

Its record on anti-semitism is second only to that of Adolf Hitler’s. It actively promoted the idea that the Jews committed Deicide and even contained a prayer in its solemn liturgy for “the pervidious Jews.” It now attempts to cover up the anti-semitism of Pius and confer upon him a sainthood he so richly does not deserve.

It has been opposed to anything and anyone who has challenged the notion that it alone has the sole right to define reality. The authority of the Pope, the Bishop and the priest being given far more importance than the authority of the Gospel, with the “Thou art Peter” being placed on a pedestal above every other supposed utterance of Jesus Christ, certainly way above, “Love one another as I have loved you” or “The greatest among you must be your servant.”

In the present day it has cowardly attempted to scapegoat anyone and everyone rather than itself for the evil of the physical and sexual abuse of children and for cover up, pointing its tentacles of blame at the parents, the police, the media, homosexuals, liberals, modernists, Vatican II Council, secularism, positivism, relativism, pluralism, or the “permissive culture” which it tells us pervades our society. It only as recently as last week decided that the problem might actually not be “out there somewhere” after all, but inside the Church. In fact the truth is, if it wants to apportion blame, it needn’t even look any further than the balcony in St Peter’s Square.

It continues to cling to the “myth” with blind ferocity that only celibate males can be priests and that such men are somehow more spiritual or more attuned to the mind of God than married men and women.

Its solution to all of these problems which cry out to the heavens for change, for metanoia, is to force an unwelcome return to Latin, to bully nuns back into their habits and promote the shallowness that somehow priests are better men when they wear black suits or fine vestments.

It continues to insult other Christian Churches labelling them “gravely deficient.” Children who are born in the same maternity wards and who go on to share swing parks and swimming pools are wrenched apart at the age of five and are not allowed to share each others company in the classroom. They are not even allowed to learn together the beautiful words, “Our Father….”

And at the other end of the age spectrum, lifelong friends and neighbours who have shared life’s joy and pain, tears and laughter, holidays and hardships are still told to attend separate places of worship on a Sunday, a crime against their natural and God given inclination to BE community and to share a common spirituality and faith in the love of Jesus Christ.

Even in its own denomination amongst its own people, it callously attacked the poor of Latin America. It denounced those who were attempting to form base communities and who were yearning for freedom and liberation from the murderous dictatorships of the rich and the powerful they were subjected to for so long. It abandoned the very people Jesus Christ would have stood with, shoulder to shoulder.

RJB,
Seems fairly accurate and unbiased history, only one small point in that you forgot to mention the strides they made in the development of instruments of torture during the inquisition, surely a jewel the crown of the Papacy.

Jellybaby, I presume you've formally left the Church at this stage so as to live a life of integrity and honesty. If you haven't there's https://www.countmeout.ie/. Give me a shout if you need a hand filling in the forms.

i think its sad too that many priests who have not done anything wrong might have to be punished and may feel uncomfortable around kids. My uncle is a priest and i remember as a kid going to visit him, having parties while we watched diana getting married, taking us to parks and out to dinner. Things that just an uncle would do. And he has done the same with my kids. He is always there if i need him. Has never said anything about me not being married, not going to church, being with someone who is not the same relgion as him - he is just a uncle.

I would have thought that if anyone believed that the RC church was the true faith and the path to god that the fact that they also believed that the officials of the church had acted in the ways mentioned above would have no effect on their membership. Even if the officials had erroneously tried to usurp the position of god it would not change the fact that it was the only true path to god as long as you ignored the teaching of the officials.

The counter argument would need to be that unless you agreed with everything the church has done which is claimed in gods name you should leave the church and go to hell.

The faith and the eejits running it are two different things.

I think Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, most labour governments have done really nasty and/or stupid things, it doesn't make me any less British.

By way of some support to the catholic church men carrying out these investigations, there are alternatives to kids being put in danger in their institutions.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/06/08/children-of-lesbian-couples-have-fewer-behaviour-problems/

Just trying to be of help to catholic adoption agencies.

Dave

"Faith and the eejits running it are two different things."

If that isnt a scripture quote.... it should be. Beautiful.

I thank you.

So we're agreed that this is a Gestapostolic Visitation then?

It is too late for the RCC. Ireland has changed.

Dave

I also loved your highlighting how illogical the Gestapo position is. They have always goose-stepped under the banner 'WE ARE ORTHODOX!'

I would have thought that an orthodox Christian would be someone who emulated closely the life and teachings of Christ. Love your neighbour, try and love your enemy, forgive - especially when it is difficult, be compassionate, have a care for the poor, dont chase after material wealth, be honest, never harm anyone (especially the vulnerable), and so forth. This is the tradition, these are the accepted norms.

The biggest lie of them all, and there are a few whoppers doing the rounds at the moment, is that Ratzinger and his devotees are 'orthodox'.

Helio - "Ve have vays ov making you not talk!!"

My favourite Jesus quotation is, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
Except he didn't say it cause he did not exist. Sorry.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It is also laughable that while the Vatican attempts to impose its strict control over the Church, it is presently fighting in an American court to say that the Roman Curia and the Pope do not have control over the Bishops and are therefore not liable with regard to abuser priests and cover up by Bishops.

Talk about wanting your cake and eating it!

https://www.pressherald.com/opinion/it-is-time-for-catholic-leaders-to-go_2010-06-09.html

An excellent article which names the real culprits regarding abuse, outlines what Ratzinger's real agenda is and has been for decades, and gives good advice on how the RC church can move on.

David #31

By all means object to Christianity (and this Christian will agree that there is much to object to) but don’t fall into the literalist trap so loved of Christian Fundamentalists.

Assuming that yours is a concern about the use of the word ‘hate’, it bewilders me that such objections do not take account of literary style, context, culture, purpose, author, broader themes and so on. Contrary to the often used put down ‘goat herds’, the bible like most lasting literature is a tad more complex and sophisticated than some imagine. (something the current OT course will confirm)

I’m more than happy to discuss themes, content and so on, but please do not expect Christians like Jonathan Boyd, Graham Veale or myself who do actually know something about the bible to allow weak interpretation to pass without a comment.

And I’ll leave our resident Middle Eastern specialist and atheist, Heliopolitan, to convince you of the existence of Jesus.

Regards

Peter

romejellybeen

I read the story to which you provided a link. The number of abuse victims is great, and the evidence compelling. If only the British Government put as much effort into investigating those implicated in priestly sexual abuse and those implicated in covering it up as it has into ensuring that the Pope enjoys his visit to the UK! What about the appointment of someone of Chris Patten's stature to oversee an investigation into role of the Vatican in the cover up?

David Kerr

https://www.jameshannam.com/christmyth.htm

GV

Good to see the Vatican is going after the root causes of it all.

Peter and GV

Thank you, a very enjoyable read.

I once read a huge book on the three major faiths by Karen Armstrong. The one sentence that disappointed me the most in this tomb was, (From memory) regrettably we know nothing about Jesus Christ.

Once again it is not about proving someone did not exist, but proving that he did. Show me the evidence.

Kind regards
DK

Oh btw what is all this hate that JC insists on?

Yes, RJB, the Portland Press Herald with it's finger on the pulse. Who'll you be quoting next, the Skibbereen Eagle?

It was a rubbish article, devoid of facts with a subhead that reads:

"The entire worldwide hierarchy of the Catholic Church is too compromised to continue in positions of authority."

The "entire worldwide hierarchy"? Methinks Slavick might have an agenda all of his own that matches the size of his ego.

Grotesx

Its amazing just how low these Godly people will stoop. Public apologies, 'tearful' meetings with selected victims of abuse - while opposing the removal of statutes of limitations which would give justice to victims and fighting victims every step of the way in court.

They claimed - amongst the many excuses they have come up with - that they didnt understand the problem in the past, they didnt know what to do. Yet, in the last ten years they have had the Ryan and Murphy reports and before that, from America, some of the most detailed psychological surveys and reports ever, on the subject.

Their response has been to completely ignore this knowledge and to use this issue as a smoke screen to take drachonian measures to implement their anti-Vatican II agenda.

One of the major contributing factors to clerical abuse - recognised by everyone except the religiously moronic - has been the pedestal priests have been allowed to be placed on. Ratzinger has completely ignored this fact and is now sending out his teams of hit men to create exactly the culture which gave rise to this problem in the first place, namely, immature, unquestioning, obedient, dogmatic clericalists.

MCC

You managed to totally ignore the many serious points and historical facts made in post # 21, opting instead to ridicule me. You then, true to form, attack the character of Mr Slavich.

However, I will take you up on the one point you do make regarding Slavich's article, namely that any Pope, Cardinal, Bishop or priest who is found to have abused or been involved in cover up, should be sacked.

Are you arguing that such a Pope, Cardinal, Bishop or priest should stay in power?

If they had been on pedestals they wouldn't have been molesting anyone.

Why do we have statutes of limitations? We have them because the passage of time can make it impossible to have a fair trial. If we remove them we should do so in the cold light of day, not in reaction and particularly not just in relation to clerical abuse cases which some US States have tried - how unjust is that?

mccamleyc,
What's wrong with the Portland Press Herald, just because you don't agree with what it says there is no need to look down your nose at it.

Portland itself is a very nice place, pretty and vibrant with really nice people. I can recommend the floating Restaurant down by the Wharf.

It would seem to me, from many things I have read, that the majority of opinion outside the Catholic church (and not an insignificant proportion within it), agree with the main thrust of the article. It is only those who blame everything that has happened on everyone else who seem to want to take the institution inwards and backwards.

It is almost as if the church fears the outside world and cannot cope with what it has strived to control for so long. I have long maintained that the purpose of religion is social engineering and control and what we are seeing now a the death throws of dictators losing control of how people think and retreating into what seemed to work in the past - authoritarian control and suppression of free thinking and expression.

Your comment on cracking down on the liberals supports this view.

The church needs to get off it's High horse. To most of the people in the world they are irrelevant, and even for many of their followers, the time has passed where they will hold the institution in such reverence that they will bow and scrape to it.

The World is not ruled from the Vatican

MCC

"The passage of time can make it impossible to have a fair trial."

Complaints were originally made about Marcel Maciel in the 1950s!
Further complaints were made against him in the 80's and 90's. They were ignored/delayed by Ratzinger (under pressure from JPII.)

In the late 90's they were told - by Ratzinger - that the case was closed, that his hands were tied due to the statute of limitations in Canon Law.

The victims came back at him in 1999, this time accusing Maciel of not only abusing children, but of then hearing their confessions (thus imposing silence upon them.) As you know, this offence carries the canonical penalty of immediate excommunication.

Ratzinger's response was to impose a statute of limitations on that offence too!! (He did this in 2001.)

The Vatican finally acknowledged that the saintly Maciel was in fact an extremely evil man.... a matter of weeks ago. Sixty years it took them, not to decide this, but to ADMIT it.

And why was he protected all that time.... money. "The church of Rome is a whore who will open her legs to the highest bidder", as someone once said. I might not want that to be true, but it demonstrably IS true in this case and others.

Statutes of limitations are there, not to serve justice, but to protect the interests of those who have something to hide.

MCC, on other threads I enjoy reading the debates on subjects like the authorship of Shakespeare, for example. I like seeing the arguments presented and challenged.

Outside the 'young earth' silliness, this is probably the most one sided debate on this site. You simply do not have a leg to stand on. Our hierarchy have behaved in the most despicable and cynical way - and are still doing it - and you support them with no other argument than "God bless the Pope, the great, the good."

You express ridicule that Slavick calls for wholesale sackings in the hierarchy to show they are serious about abuse. "As if?" you seem to titter. Let me spell it out then. Sack Law, sack Brady, sack Castrillon Hoyos, sack Sodano, sack Bertone, sack Levada, sack the 24 US Bishops who have been found to have covered up. And when Ratzinger has done all this, he should apologise and step down, begging forgiveness from the Catholic people for the damage and hurt he has caused them.

(Jeez, Cormac Murphy O'Connor moved pedophile 'Fr' Hill, knowing what he had done, and Ratzinger appoints O'Connor to lecture the people of Ireland and tell them to get back to confession???!!)

David

I presume you are not RC and so wouldnt quite get some of what Slavick has written. It is actually a very good piece of writing, not just the main thrust.

He hits almost every nail on the head. At one point he refers to the church ignoring the plight of nearly a third of the catholic population of the world who do not have ready access to the eucharist.

This was a reference to the congress of Bishops in Rome in 2005. Hundreds of Bishops gathered in Rome with the specific remit of finding ways to allow such people to receive the eucharist more frequently.

The meeting should have been looking at the possibility of married clergy, the role of women in the church, lay ministers of the eucharist, etc.. Under the nose of Ratzinger, they discussed none of these things.

The week ended with a vote for the status quo with the proposal that the church might like to look at the idea of re-opening junior seminaries!!

They all then marched off to the great hall in the Vatican where they were served a sumptuous meal with three different types of wine to accompany each course. Lashings of G and T's beforehand, the most expensive of Brandies afterwards.

Ratzinger should have balled them out for their dereliction of duty. Instead, he made a speech stating, "It wasnt by accident that the Good Lord used the image of a banquet as presaging Heaven..."

If you reference another site or an article on this blog, it usually helps if it adds to the debate, not merely repeats your own unsubstantiated opinion. I was impressed by the arrogance of the Portland Herald in calling for the resignation of all the bishops of the world.

Who has the Holy Father blamed for the situation? Not outsiders, but sinners within the Church. Who else can you blame for sin but those who commit them and support them. And among the supporters are those who think sex with teenagers is fine, who think homosexual sin is fine, who think priests should not consider themselves bound by celibacy.

Where is all the anger and reaction about the hundreds of children revealed to have died in the care of the State?

The visitation of seminaries should be interesting!
Personally, I think, at the very least, there should be a radical overhaul of seminaries, but even better would be to scrap the all-male environment altogether, and make seminarians do their academic courses at secular universities, and also work/live in parishes should be a much bigger part of their overall formation. It would then expose seminarians to the real world much more than is the case presently.

Jackanory, jackanory.

Today children we hear the fairy tale of how the Catholic Church was going to introduce women priests, married priests and, what, non-priest priests? How this was planned by the Pope because only he can call a Synod of Bishops but then the wicked Pope changed his mind and decided the Synod would follow on naturally from the encyclical letter on the eucharist, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and discuss, you know, Catholic things instead of heretical nonsense.

Tomorrow children read the fairy tale of how the Catholic Church adopted the beliefs and practices of the US episcopalian church and begins to flourish, like they have. Well it is a fairy tale.

And now a new documentary series on the obvious. Tonight we look at how people in Italy drink wine.

MCC

Are you writing Charlie's speeches for him?

David K #39

As I noted in my earlier comments there are sufficient atheists in the world who might be able to convince you of the existence of an historical figure called Jesus of Nazareth and I am happy to leave you in their capable hands.

I’m not sure that this is the correct thread for a discussion of the biblical text and so I will post my reply about the verse you quoted on the “Is Anything Holy?” thread, pretty much anything is going there.

MCC,
The Holy Father (even that makes me cringe) and his mouthpieces have blamed secularisation of society, liberalism in society, acceptance of homosexuality and gay rights, people turning away from the church, Jews, demons, falling marriage rates, fornication, adultery and foreign lawmakers, you cannot have missed the press reports.

Even internally they manage to miss the point, when in S.America the Popes 2nd in command told the masses that the fault lay with Homosexuals in the church preying on children, the Bishops in the UK and Ireland had to come out and state that this was rubbish and that he had wantonly manipulated statistics to create a tissue of lies to deflect blame onto others.

RJB, you are right I am not RC, though some of my best friends are lol, and I have some experience of the RC stuff as I was in a relationship with one for 8 years. My experience of RC's is that they tend not to be so rabidly dogmatic as their church, (or for that matter as off the wall as their evangelical counterparts). There are exceptions who believe everything they are told and give blind allegiance (MCC you may fit that, do you?). The events you describe in the Vatican RJB, do not surprise me in the least. I say quite often, if all the religions sold their churches and artefacts, they could end world poverty, do they do it, no they buy more art.

MCC, Jackanory is a set of stories fit for innocent children, the same sort of children the catholic church has, and has allowed to be, violated. Trying to say that the state institutions may have done it as well is a sad and cynical attempt to shift the attention (you learn well) and avoid accepting responsibility. If they have they will be dealt with. Back to the case in hand.

More empty words and fine robes.

https://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/11/vatican.pope.abuse/

The best bit though is where Ratzinger asks the Lord to "protect" priests. The Lord doesnt need to, the hierarchy has been doing that for decades.

It's the same martyr complex nonsense that we hear from their fellow travellers the Caleban. They claim to speak for "Christianity", and any criticism is perceived and painted as persecution, and persecution is perceived and painted as vindication. They are jumped-up, they are arrogant, they are dishonest, and they are devious. No, I don't think they will regain their position of malign power over the Irish population. The RC faction of Christianity will undoubtedly survive - but who cares? The question is what shape the "mainstream" will evolve, as Catholics continue to leave to other denominations or none at all. Perhaps we will see chapels getting converted to Unitarian churches before too long. That would be interesting.

Helio

The way I see it there are two ways it can go. It can continue this North Korean style of tyranny (thats maybe being a bit unkind to North Korea) or it can call a new council, reform according to Vatican II and get back to the principles of the Gospel.

The first way, as you say, will result in the Catholic Church becoming a small cult made up of Opus Dei, The Legionaires of Christ and Pius Xth movements and the gullible.

Its only chance of survival is the second.

RJB, agreed, but why is survival necessarily a good thing?

Helio

Because I would like to see a world where nobody suffers needlessly. And I think the church could be a real power towards that end if it really followed gospel principles and encouraged everyone to live in that way.

But I have also seen how warped it is and often wonder if the planet would be a better place without it altogether.

However, I'm glad that the words supposedly uttered by the guy called Jesus are there in black and white. Outside the way they have been hijacked by the rich and powerful, they have been a force for good amongst the poor, sometimes.

I've been complaining for a while now about the Popes actions not exactly emulating his words. The following article sums up why. The Pope gives an eloquent sermon to priests about abuse, while standing beside him at the altar is..... Cardinal Sodano! It just doesnt work.

https://web.me.com/virginiajones/Compsassionate_Gathering/The_Garden_of_Roses/Entries/2010/6/11_Thoughts_on_Forgiveness.html

Depending on who you want to believe, between nine and fifteen thousand priests turned up in Rome to celebrate the end of the year of the priest. (One third were reckoned to be Italian clergy and, at any given time, there are thousands of priests in Rome anyway.)

Approximately 96% of clergy stayed away.

From Ratzinger's sermon we are to believe that all the decades of abuse and cover up was the work of the devil attempting to destroy the year of the priest.

The following article describes the Pope's sermon, but more interesting are the comments of bloggers afterwards. 'Outrage' would be an accurate description.

https://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pope-sees-devil-behind-timing-sex-abuse-crisis

I'm sure that this has been pointed out before, but the concept of "the devil" is in complete opposition to the wee notion of the God of Classical Theism, and as soon as some buckaroo like Al Plantinga or Ricky Swinburne starts brassicating about "necessary beings" and ontological groundedness etc, just slap Satan on 'im and watch an entertaining display of goalpost moving while they shift their high-falutin' (but fatally flawed) philosophical justification for their *deistic* GOCT into a question-beggin' toe-tappin' whip-crackin' sin-hatin' worship-lovin' *theistic* godlet who reifies disobedience and has to have a wee man who is responsible for the enaction thereof. Face it, ladies, all this "philosophy of religion" malarkey is chaff and wrapping to protect the rotting core of classical theism. Theists behave in precisely the way they *would* behave if they were trying not to find the truth, but to shore up a series of silly preconceptions AND to make everyone else responsible for their own shortcomings.

So the "devil" is responsible for priestly paedophilia, and is doing it to destroy the goodness that is priestliness. Atheists are responsible for creationists. Homosexuality is responsible for shortcomings in the churches. Secularism is responsible for a lack of moral focus in the clergy. Yeah right. And Rosa Parks was responsible for white supremacy.

RJB, you may be right - the faction that is the RCC could change, but the changes required are vast. They could start with dropping the whole "god" thing and working from there. Not that that is likely to please Chris, but hey. We can't all get what we want.

Helio

I am not at the stage of - And God disappeared in a puff of logic - yet. However, God's representative's are certainly the best adverts for atheism.

My problem is an intellectual one not a spiritual one.

"Here is what YOU tell me Christ said. So why are you doing the exact opposite?!!"

Over the last thirty years, one man has been dictating to millions what they are allowed to read. What thoughts they are allowed to think. Banned/defrocked/sacked/excommunicated are the likes of Boff, Dupuis, Curran, Rahner, Sobrino, Kung, Balasuriya, De Mello, Schillibeckx...
When dealing with these guys, Ratzinger didnt seem to think that "it would be imprudent to proceed with this case at this time", as he did with child rapists. They were out the door within weeks of their "crime."

They were silenced and their books were removed from seminary library shelves. These guys were writing about the theology of real life, not spouting meaningless clap-trap as Rat did yesterday (again.)

Ricky Gervais talks about the moment he became an atheist. He was reading the bible in his house as a kid when his older brother walked in and said, "What are you reading THAT for?!" Their mother reprimanded the brother immediately, "You leave him alone." Gervais says, "In that moment I knew my brother was trying to say something honest, and my mother was trying to hide something."

And so with me and this phenomenon, Ratzinger. What is he so terrified of?

England 0 USA 6

Fabio Cappello at the post match Press Conference.

"Satan attacked us, he stopped us passing the ball, he blinded our eyes, he made us forget for a moment that we are England....."

No one would wear it from Cappello. And we wont wear it from Ratz either.

Hi RJB, that's OK, I can respect that. I think you perhaps *are* at the stage where *religion* disappears in a puff of logic, and would even venture to suggest that you recognise that any god that might conceivably exist would not hold anyone's atheism against them. Indeed, god is perhaps the most cogent refutation of a simplistic "belief-based" Christianity.

Jebus is going to have a lot of goats.

Helio

Your post # 62 is still awaiting moderation so I do not know its contents. But I can guess.

It is a full apology to all the deists on here, a retraction of all your statements denying the existence of God and and affirmation that you are now a believer.

Coz after last night's goal, their definitely IS a God!

I have been away on retreat and am feeling serene despite the serenity sapping stuff one reads here.

Jellybaby - you have said many ludicrous things over the years but the "96% of priests chose to stay away" remark takes the biscuit. In my serenity I will try not to ascribe wicked motives to your foolishness - would that you might do the same to the Holy Father.

I cannot fathom why mentioning the devil enrages people. To say that child abuse is truly evil and the work of Satan is hardly an attempt to excuse it. That's why the Pope said on way to Fatima the greatest threat to the Church was the evil within.

No one has blamed homosexuals as a group as if they were something outside the body of the Church or the clergy. But it remains a fact, whether you like it or not, not an allegation, but a statistical fact, that the great majority of abuse is male priests abusing teenage boys. It's clearly not heterosexual. It's not paedophilia. It's not bestiality.

Jellybaby, you will never get the Church you want, this side of eternity. It will always include sinners. You expect tolerance for certain types of sinner, from theological heretics to contraceptors, aborters to attempted priestesses, but show no tolerance, no forgiveness for the sinners you don't like - Law, Sodano etc - where's your love, your forgiveness? What would Jesus say to them? Your fired?

MCC

The Vatican reported the figure of 15000 priests from 91 countries, 4% of priests on the planet. Do the maths. National Catholic Reporter did:

https://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/priests-rally-defend-pope-pope-defends-celibacy

Glad you got some pleasant feelings on your retreat though, that should keep you locked tight into denial and delusion, and shielded from reality for another year.

"No one has blamed homosexuals as a group as if they were something outside the body of the Church or the clergy. But it remains a fact, whether you like it or not, not an allegation, but a statistical fact, that the great majority of abuse is male priests abusing teenage boys. It's clearly not heterosexual. It's not paedophilia. It's not bestiality."

Yes they have, and the fact is (whether you like it or not) that the vast majority of male rape cases may be described as same sex sex, but that is not homosexuality. There were very few cases where the priest involved was identified as Homosexual in fact they quite clearly identified as heterosexual. These actions were about power and control, not attraction.

Same sex sex and homosexuality are not the same thing. It might be nice for you to think that its the abominations who sneaked into the priesthood who are guilty of bringing the church into disrepute but unfortunately for you, it wont wash. I leave the final word to the Bishops of England and Wales who have had to rebut just the kind of ill informed nonsense which you are spouting (Why even mention bestiality, I think that says more about your motives and prejudices, and people wonder why homosexuals find your views and attempted linkages offensive)

Father Marcus Stock, general secretary of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, said: "There is no empirical data which concludes that sexual orientation is connected to child sexual abuse.

"The consensus among researchers is that the sexual abuse of children is not a question of sexual 'orientation', whether heterosexual or homosexual, but of a disordered attraction or 'fixation'.

"Many abusers of children have never developed the capacity for mature adult relationships.

"Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or both.

"In the sexual abuse of children the issue is the sexual fixation of the abusers, and not their sexual orientation."

These statements were a direct response to comments which echo yours by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone in Chile. If they rebut his comments, then they rebut yours.

"I'm sure that this has been pointed out before, but the concept of "the devil" is in complete opposition to the wee notion of the God of Classical Theism, and as soon as some buckaroo like Al Plantinga or Ricky Swinburne starts brassicating about "necessary beings" and ontological groundedness etc, just slap Satan on 'im and watch an entertaining display of goalpost moving while they shift their high-falutin' (but fatally flawed) philosophical justification for their *deistic* GOCT into a question-beggin' toe-tappin' whip-crackin' sin-hatin' worship-lovin' *theistic* godlet who reifies disobedience and has to have a wee man who is responsible for the enaction thereof. Face it, ladies, all this "philosophy of religion" malarkey is chaff and wrapping to protect the rotting core of classical theism. Theists behave in precisely the way they *would* behave if they were trying not to find the truth, but to shore up a series of silly preconceptions AND to make everyone else responsible for their own shortcomings."

There may be a multiverse where that's accurate, or even an argument.

But it ain't this one!

(-;

To begin with, NEITHER Plantinga nor Swinburne would advocate a "Classical" description of God...

RJB
"Satan attacked us, he stopped us passing the ball, he blinded our eyes, he made us forget for a moment that we are England....."

Green's comments after the match came close...

Dave, I'm tempted to say "they would say that, wouldn't they". Just so long as we're clear here. Everyone is opposed to men having sex with teenage boys? Glad we clarified that. Better tell the UK government and stop the school sex ed programmes.

I don't think homosexuals are more prone to paedophilia than heterosexuals. I think it's different from either of those orientations. But post puberty is different and you can say it's same sex rather than homosexual. That's fine, suits me even better. Facts are most clerical abuse was not paedophilia, most was same sex abuse of youths. I won't try to draw any further conclusions beyond those facts.

Jellybaby - I wasn't disputing the 4% number - it was your ludicrous "96% chose to stay away". Apply that to any situation - you could have a million people protesting in London about something and turn it into 59 million chose to stay away.

MCC

Every priest on the planet was invited. 96% of them chose not to attend.

That is simple fact. I am not making any claims, simply noting a fact.

I once read that after people had been away for sustained periods of spiritual reflection that they found it difficult to readjust back to normal life again. Sometimes they might behave stupidly or say silly things.

Your posts #'s 64 and 70 havent done anything to make me reject that theory.

MCC,

Of course they would, it is an established fact (by Psychiatrists and Psychologists). I know it is unusual to find religion using facts produced by experts rather than their own.

by "Everyone is opposed to men having sex with teenage boys?" I assume you mean everyone is opposed to sex whilst one or both individuals are under the age of consent regardless of gender or orientation. The use of the term teenager is a bit clumsy here as teenagers of 13,14 and 15 would be covered by the statement but 16,17,18 and 19 would not, indeed they could be married or in a civil partnership.

I am not sure how the sex ed programme in UK schools is related to men having sex with teenage boys, perhaps you can enlighten us.

I think I agree with the rest of your statement in response to me.

RJB,

I was catching up on W&T for several weeks and read your comment on this thread a while ago:

"And why was he protected all that time.... money. "The church of Rome is a whore who will open her legs to the highest bidder", as someone once said. I might not want that to be true, but it demonstrably IS true in this case and others."

German newspaper Der Spiegel had a somewhat lengthy article (in the international, English language section) about the finances of the German Catholic church. It goes into the billions the Catholic church gets from the state to run social services, how there is no oversight, how people are forced to remain a member of the church and keep paying tithe etc. There was a another somewhat related page. You may find them worth reading.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,700513,00.html

https://www.concordatwatch.eu/topic-2901.843

That places mccamleyc's claims of the catholic church being the greatest charitable institution in the world in a rather different light. Money and power is what it's still all about. Makes you wonder if that will ever change.

Peter, I think you'll find the Catholic Church exists outside Africa, in places like, you know, Africa, where it does more work than liberals and atheists will ever do.

Meanwhile back in Germany, the tax laws apply to everyone, not just Catholics.

MCC,
"where it does more work than liberals and atheists will ever do"

How do you know, is fortune telling now part of the wonderful world of religion? It would also seem that you believe that the motivation of the catholic church is altruism, it is not, they wish to enslave people to their form of christianity in the race for souls.

It strikes me as supremely arrogant to make statements which put your own group above everyone else, especially when your group are under such detailed scrutiny as to what they actually get up to. There are many liberals and atheists working in many areas helping people, your statement is very insulting to them.

Whilst it may be true that the catholic church do a lot of work, it may also be true that there might be more people alive today if they hadn't bothered. Perhaps if they promoted the use of condoms to prevent HIV infections a few million more people might have been saved.

Perhaps if the catholic church sold off its obscene wealth and gave it to non religious NGO's (who you seem to dismiss as irrelevant) to provide non biased support in needy areas it might get more credibility.

peterk and dave

There's not much point in me agreeing with both your posts. But for what its worth, I will anyway.

MCC

When your children eventually untangle themselves from the religious quagmire you have and are entangling them with, I hope they will still love you as their dad, with all the many other good things you do for them.

Peter Morrow

Ages ago when I was really down you kinda tried to reassure me and help me. I felt isolated and lost and rejected and you were pretty understanding and welcomed me to this "on line community". Thanks for that, mate.

Helio

A part of my new job is chaplain to a very high end scientific uni. The president is a guy you will have heard of, specialist in physics and a catholic. You have raised loads of legitimate questions about sky pixies and cabbage. This guy actually has very good replies which go way beyond, "But the Bible says...." I shall entice him to sign up on here and respond to you. You will enjoy him.

Parrhasios

I am in a parish where there is intellect, respect for each other, compassion, mistakes are readily forgiven, support, maturity (yeh they are teaching me much in that department) and basic God given goodness. It is immense.

Guys, I will hopefully pop in from time to time and cast an opinion. Thanks for the last year.

RJB, don't leave us!! By all means encourage your friend to join our happy band - which catholic is he a specialist in? ;-)
Of course you could also leave some comments on the "Church of Jesus Christ Atheist" blog (that's what Graham and Peter do from time to time to wind me up). Good luck with the new job - applecarts exist in order to be upset. There's a teleology for you...

BW,
-H

I second Helios plea not to leave , RJB.

Thanks for posting here RJB. Hopefully we'll see you around.

RJB - St Paul (I nearly went all Anglican and said The holy Apostle Paul) tells us to rejoice with them that rejoice but I need no commandment to share in your joy. I am so pleased at your appointment and wish you every success in your new position.

There is some sadness that you will have less opportunity to post here; I will miss your honesty above all, your insight, incisiveness, courage, your anger and indignation, your voice upraised in defence of the poor, your faith. Do not desert us entirely though, even departed, you will always be a member of this little collection of saints.

I loved the way you said immense - I know at least something of what you mean. I am an associative thinker and I could not help but recollect Wesley: my prayer is that in this next phase of your life your heart may indeed be free.

RJB

Parrhasios, as ever, has said it better than I could, but may I add my good wishes.

I note too that he described our online community as "this little collection of saints" - the liberal in this conservative evangelical is inclined to agree. There is, from time to time, much talk on this blog about a God who needs to be believed in, but I very much doubt that this is the case. I think, rather, that we would be best to speak of generosity received, something you have helped me understand, and I have a suspicion that this God is big enough to include among his saints the most petulant (and humourous) of atheists!

I'm sure there must be some reason to explain why I'm thinking of Babette's Feast.

All the best.

RJB,
Congrats and take care,

Dave.

Where you off to Jellybaby? Who will I fight with with all the bitterness provided for by the propinquity paradox?

Anyway, I enjoyed (mostly) our time together and hope you're happy whatever you're up to.

My kids told me last week I was the world's best dad, and you know, they genuinely believe it.

Of course they love the Holy Father as well.