Abortion Referendum, will it pass

[Purple]

I see three things being conflated there: 1) is there a god who is the source of objective morality, 2) are some things objectively bad, 3) are there hypocrites in the RC church? Seems to me the answers to all three are somewhat independent of each other.

The first one is down to the beliefs of the individual. The fact that so few people are practicing Catholics suggests that the majority of people don't think that the RC Church is the conduit to that objective mortality, if they believe it exists at all.
The second is also down to the beliefs of the individual but the balance of the collective view is expressed through our laws.
The third is self evident as we are all hypocrites to a lesser or greater extent. We don't all set ourselves up as moral authorities.


I don't see any of the three being material to the point I was making as it was just an opinion as to why the RC Church has lost its appeal for so many people.

 

[dub_nerd]

I'd say the first and second are either objectively true or they are not, but it is fashionable to believe that they are not. I guess that's why the church has lost its appeal.

 

[Purple]

I'd say the first and second are either objectively true or they are not, but it is fashionable to believe that they are not. I guess that's why the church has lost its appeal.

I don't think that's why the Church has lost its appeal. I think that was mainly due to internal factors.

 

[dub_nerd]

I don't think that's why the Church has lost its appeal. I think that was mainly due to internal factors.

Nah, I tend to think that was a convenient excuse for most people. Those "internal factors" were certainly dire, but it turns out they were absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to. What's more, they were largely addressed many years ago, and ongoing monitoring is exemplary compared to some very shoddy practices I've seen in other public organisations. The church has been losing its appeal since I was a nipper 40+ years ago, before any of the "internal factors" came to light.

 

[Purple]

Nah, I tend to think that was a convenient excuse for most people. Those "internal factors" were certainly dire, but it turns out they were absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to. What's more, they were largely addressed many years ago, and ongoing monitoring is exemplary compared to some very shoddy practices I've seen in other public organisations. The church has been losing its appeal since I was a nipper 40+ years ago, before any of the "internal factors" came to light.

It was losing it's appeal for the last 40 years alright but why?
The internal factors include, but are not exclusively, the abuse scandals. The idea that they were "absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to" is laughable, especially considering that they took the guy who was at the heart of the cover-up and made him Pope (not this one, the last guy).
The other internal factor is the appallingly bad way in which they presented the Gospel, their totally inability to present Christian philosophy in any meaningful way to most members. Then there's their didactic and prescriptive control over how the Christian message was presented to those members. The damage was done more than 40 years ago. They lost their flock because people are not willing to be sheep anymore.

 

[dub_nerd]

The idea that they were "absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to" is laughable, especially considering that they took the guy who was at the heart of the cover-up and made him Pope (not this one, the last guy).

Completely crazy talk, but par for the course in the current climate.

The other internal factor is the appallingly bad way in which they presented the Gospel, their totally inability to present Christian philosophy in any meaningful way to most members. Then there's their didactic and prescriptive control over how the Christian message was presented to those members. They lost their flock because people are not willing to be sheep anymore.

Seems self-contradictory. If people weren't willing to be sheep, how come they didn't do their own research ... in which case it was up to them to discover the meaning in Christian philosophy. Why did they need to be spoon-fed? The fact of the matter is that most people were -- and still are -- cultural Catholics only. As for being sheep, well that hasn't changed either, as evidenced by the multitude of replacements for traditional spirituality. Came across this great one on Irish radio yesterday, where some guru was suggesting -- I kid you not -- "emotional freedom tapping" as the solution for school kids with exam anxiety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWu3rSEddZI ... you can shell out actual real money to become a "professional tapping practitioner" in Ireland. So it's not only the RC Church tapping people up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWu3rSEddZI

 

[Purple]

Completely crazy talk, but par for the course in the current climate.

We'll have to agree to differ on that.
I base my view on the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk. Nobody knew more about what was going on. Nobody did more to cover it up and in doing so nobody did more to facilitate and enable the abusers.
According to Irish Bishops they were told by the then cardinal to report all accusations of abuse to him and he would then decide if they were to be reported to civil authorities. In other words he instructed Irish citizens to give precedent to the laws and authority of a foreign power in the matter of child rape.
His position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a matter of public record, as is the role of that office in the handling of abuse allegations. The instruction he gave to the Irish Bishops is disputed but he lacks credibility.

Seems self-contradictory. If people weren't willing to be sheep, how come they didn't do their own research ... in which case it was up to them to discover the meaning in Christian philosophy.

The RC Church has a captive audience. They could have offered spiritual fulfillment instead of blind obedience. When people started thinking for themselves they realised that it was all just nonsense.

Why did they need to be spoon-fed? The fact of the matter is that most people were -- and still are -- cultural Catholics only.

Yes, thankfully that is true.

As for being sheep, well that hasn't changed either, as evidenced by the multitude of replacements for traditional spirituality. Came across this great one on Irish radio yesterday, where some guru was suggesting -- I kid you not -- "emotional freedom tapping" as the solution for school kids with exam anxiety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWu3rSEddZI ... you can shell out actual real money to become a "professional tapping practitioner" in Ireland. So it's not only the RC Church tapping people up.

In the end all religions are just different brands of crazy and there's no shortage of idiots.

 

[dub_nerd]

We'll have to agree to differ on that.
I base my view on the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk. Nobody knew more about what was going on. Nobody did more to cover it up and in doing so nobody did more to facilitate and enable the abusers.
According to Irish Bishops they were told by the then cardinal to report all accusations of abuse to him and he would then decide if they were to be reported to civil authorities. In other words he instructed Irish citizens to give precedent to the laws and authority of a foreign power in the matter of child rape.
His position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a matter of public record, as is the role of that office in the handling of abuse allegations. The instruction he gave to the Irish Bishops is disputed but he lacks credibility.

Don't know where you are getting this cock and bull. Your "matters of public record" are just plain wrong. Up to 2001 the power to deal with abuse cases lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. It moved to the CDF in 2001, four years before Benedict became pope. In that period the volume and speed with which the Catholic Church defrocked abuser priests went up, and Benedict "required bishops and religious superiors to forward all credible cases of abuse to Rome for review after determining that they were shuffling pedophile priests from diocese to diocese rather than subjecting them to church trials".

The RC Church has a captive audience. They could have offered spiritual fulfillment instead of blind obedience. When people started thinking for themselves they realised that it was all just nonsense... In the end all religions are just different brands of crazy and there's no shortage of idiots.

I can't reconcile your simultaneous notions -- that the RCC "could have offered spiritual fulfillment", and that all religion is crazy. You're blaming the RCC because it could have been good even though all religions are bad? That's a logical contradiction. Apart from that it lacks objectivity. The idea that the entire population suddenly woke from a zombie-like thrall to the RCC is a popular meme but a dumbed down and cartoonish one.

 

[Purple]

Don't know where you are getting this cock and bull. Your "matters of public record" are just plain wrong. Up to 2001 the power to deal with abuse cases lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. It moved to the CDF in 2001, four years before Benedict became pope. In that period the volume and speed with which the Catholic Church defrocked abuser priests went up, and Benedict "required bishops and religious superiors to forward all credible cases of abuse to Rome for review after determining that they were shuffling pedophile priests from diocese to diocese rather than subjecting them to church trials".

Right, so in the years between 2001 and 2013 when the then Ratzinger was handling the cases he defrocked all those priests because it was the right think to do?... or maybe it was because the tsunami of abuse cases was breaking over his head? I think The New Yorker covered this quite well.

I can't reconcile your simultaneous notions -- that the RCC "could have offered spiritual fulfillment", and that all religion is crazy. You're blaming the RCC because it could have been good even though all religions are bad? That's a logical contradiction.

It's only a logical contradiction if, as you do, one chooses to view it that way.

Apart from that it lacks objectivity. The idea that the entire population suddenly woke from a zombie-like thrall to the RCC is a popular meme but a dumbed down and cartoonish one.

Who said that "the entire population suddenly woke from a zombie-like thrall to the RCC"? Given that you agree that most Catholics weren't really Catholics at all, just "Cultural Catholics" it shoudn't be too much of a leap to see how quickly their shallow faith would crumble.
Once someone knows that the Emperor is naked it's hard to see the clothes any more.

 

[dub_nerd]

Right, so in the years between 2001 and 2013 when the then Ratzinger was handling the cases he defrocked all those priests because it was the right think to do?... or maybe it was because the tsunami of abuse cases was breaking over his head?

Yeah, maybe. Maybe pigs will fly. Maybe Prince Harry is the antichrist. Maybe it'll be 42°C on Dollymount Strand today.

It's only a logical contradiction if, as you do, one chooses to view it that way

So logic is subjective in your world? 'Nuff said.

 

[Purple]

Yeah, maybe. Maybe pigs will fly. Maybe Prince Harry is the antichrist. Maybe it'll be 42°C on Dollymount Strand today.

Right, so 2010, when all the abuse scandals broke, had nothing to do with it? You're putting the "Blind" into Blind faith. More info on this here, with details of his involvement in cover-ups dating back to 1985.

So logic is subjective in your world? 'Nuff said

No, not in mine.

 

[dub_nerd]

Right, so 2010, when all the abuse scandals broke, had nothing to do with it? You're putting the "Blind" into Blind faith. More info on this here, with details of his involvement in cover-ups dating back to 1985.

I don't put my faith in clerics. You seem to be living on a different planet. The abuse scandals didn't break in 2010. In Ireland they go back to the 80s and criminal cases to the 90s. Your reference makes the same factual mistake as you did about CDF oversight, and it presents two different opinions which it seems you only read one of. Maybe you're blind in one eye?

 

[Purple]

I don't put my faith in clerics. You seem to be living on a different planet. The abuse scandals didn't break in 2010. In Ireland they go back to the 80s and criminal cases to the 90s. Your reference makes the same factual mistake as you did about CDF oversight, and it presents two different opinions which it seems you only read one of. Maybe you're blind in one eye?

Bad wording on my part; 2010 was the year that so many abuse scandals broke. It was the lowest point to date and so the defrocking of priests around that time can reasonably be explained as a reaction to that wave of publicity.
The link I posted specifically states that "In 2001, he acted to give his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, jurisdiction over all sexual-abuse cases". What factual mistake are you talking about?
I said that Ratzinger was in charge of the CDF for 24 years before becoming Pope. Was that factually incorrect?

As one of the most powerful people in the Vatican he was involved in handling abuse cases before that. In 1988 JPII said that "The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way.".
Are you suggesting that child abuse didn't factor anywhere within it's functions before 2001?
Are you suggesting that the specific accusations of cover ups made against Ratzinger prior to 2001 are false and if so what evidence do you have to support that?
Are you suggesting that he didn't know about child abuse by priests before 2001?
Are you suggesting that he wasn't in a position of influence in this matter prior to 2001?

What are you saying?

 

[dub_nerd]

Bad wording on my part; 2010 was the year that so many abuse scandals broke. It was the lowest point to date and so the defrocking of priests around that time can reasonably be explained as a reaction to that wave of publicity

That might be the case if it were true. Show me your stats that show "defrocking of priests around that time", compared to before. I already showed you mine. It's true there was a spike in numbers, but there was also a spike in numbers reported to the Vatican by congregations around the world in response to Benedict's attempt to clean house and his demand for transparency. Are you suggesting the Vatican should have taken action on cases that hadn't been reported to it?

The link I posted specifically states that "In 2001, he acted to give his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, jurisdiction over all sexual-abuse cases". What factual mistake are you talking about? I said that Ratzinger was in charge of the CDF for 24 years before becoming Pope. Was that factually incorrect?

You said earlier that "Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk." That was factually wrong. Before 2001, as I said, that responsibility lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. Your own subsequent link bears that out.

In 1988 JPII said that "The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way."

The hint is in the name, as well as in JPII's statement -- the CDF's responsibility is doctrine. That does not mean playing policeman to misbehaving clerics. Do you have any idea what doctrine is, or what the CDF actually does? As one of the non-sheep who was never under the spell of Irish catholic priests the way you seem to think the rest of the population was, I read a fair bit of its output by way of the stuff that Ratzinger either wrote himself or co-wrote with JPII. I never came across anything like what you're talking about.

Are you suggesting that the specific accusations of cover ups made against Ratzinger prior to 2001 are false and if so what evidence do you have to support that?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? Nice try, but generally the burden of proof falls to the accuser.

 

[Purple]

That might be the case if it were true. Show me your stats that show "defrocking of priests around that time", compared to before. I already showed you mine. It's true there was a spike in numbers, but there was also a spike in numbers reported to the Vatican by congregations around the world in response to Benedict's attempt to clean house and his demand for transparency. Are you suggesting the Vatican should have taken action on cases that hadn't been reported to it?



You said earlier that "Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk." That was factually wrong. Before 2001, as I said, that responsibility lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. Your own subsequent link bears that out.


The hint is in the name, as well as in JPII's statement -- the CDF's responsibility is doctrine. That does not mean playing policeman to misbehaving clerics. Do you have any idea what doctrine is, or what the CDF actually does? As one of the non-sheep who was never under the spell of Irish catholic priests the way you seem to think the rest of the population was, I read a fair bit of its output by way of the stuff that Ratzinger either wrote himself or co-wrote with JPII. I never came across anything like what you're talking about.


Are you asking me to prove a negative? Nice try, but generally the burden of proof falls to the accuser.

Excellent selective answering there.

 

[Betsy Og]

Dub Nerd, on the subject of spoonfed, sure that was the way of the church. They would tell you what you needed to know and think.

For a long time they gargled away in Latin, then they played the same match every week... Not v engaging. When I was a kid, Popes visit &after, while the church was still strong, no-one I ever heard of (incl ourselves) ever opened a bible. You'd be told...end of.

So most people are just lazy (incl myself), hate being told what to do (incl myself) & then when it turns out the whole thing is riven with hypocrisy there's a secret delight in giving a guilt free two fingers to the whole cult (along with burning anger when we hear the horror stories).

So, getting back to the original point, when the tide went out on the institution we were left without any attachment to spirituality, scripture or anything that might sustain an attachment to the faith.

 

[Purple]

The hint is in the name, as well as in JPII's statement -- the CDF's responsibility is doctrine. That does not mean playing policeman to misbehaving clerics. Do you have any idea what doctrine is, or what the CDF actually does?

As one of the most powerful people in the Vatican he was involved in handling abuse cases before that. In 1988 JPII said that "The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way.".

"touching this matter in any way" includes crimes against the sixth commandment committed by clerics against persons under the age of 18. Do you have any idea what the CDF actually does and did before 2001?

As one of the non-sheep who was never under the spell of Irish catholic priests the way you seem to think the rest of the population was, I read a fair bit of its output by way of the stuff that Ratzinger either wrote himself or co-wrote with JPII. I never came across anything like what you're talking about.

So Ratzinger and JPII never wrote about covering up child abuse in official and doctrinal publications, is that what you are saying? If so are you surprised?
As for your defensive "sheep" comment; I was heavily involved in the RC Church when I was younger. My motivation for moving away from it was a lack of belief in God. I distinguish between the human institution of the Church and the message of the Bible and the theology of the RC Church. In my opinion the people most betrayed by the hierarchy of the Church are the priests and other clergy who gave their life to doing good and spreading the Christian message of love and compassion only to find that the institution they were part of was rotten to the core and utterly morally bankrupt. They are as much victims of these scandals and the children who were abused.

It's true there was a spike in numbers, but there was also a spike in numbers reported to the Vatican by congregations around the world in response to Benedict's attempt to clean house and his demand for transparency. Are you suggesting the Vatican should have taken action on cases that hadn't been reported to it?

I'm suggesting that their actions in defracking priests etc were in response to public anger against their actions and inaction's. I'm suggesting that it was a rearguard action borne of necessity rather that virtue and their primary motivator was to protect the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, the same motivation which led to generations of cover-up and facilitation of abuse. You seem to dismiss that idea, which is utterly bizarre.

You said earlier that "Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk." That was factually wrong. Before 2001, as I said, that responsibility lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. Your own subsequent link bears that out.

Fair point; every allegation globally only went across his desk for 12 or 13 years before he became Pope. Before that he would only have been aware of lots and lots of them. Does that change the substantive point being made?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? Nice try, but generally the burden of proof falls to the accuser.

I'm not accusing him; I'm point to accusations being made by others. I'm then asking you if you are dismissing those accusations and if so on what basis.

 

[cremeegg]

Great stuff guys, we in the ringside seats are certainly getting our moneys worth.

I think Purple is ahead on points at the moment. Despite the slip up on the 24 years at the CDF, he is more persuasive on Ratzingers culpability.


But dub-nerd has a very important point here

they (the Catholic Church) were absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to.

If there was any back up for this I missed it. Could shift the argument considerably if we were convinced.

 

[dub_nerd]

Dub Nerd, on the subject of spoonfed, sure that was the way of the church. They would tell you what you needed to know and think.

All I can say, from personal experience, is that some did their own research.

When I was a kid, Popes visit &after, while the church was still strong, no-one I ever heard of (incl ourselves) ever opened a bible. You'd be told...end of.

Again, my experience is completely different. I also know that around that exact time there were tens of thousands of Catholics involved in so-called charismatic renewal. That is admittedly a tiny minority, and it was a minority that were often looked on with suspicion and sometimes outright derision by "regular" Catholics. I think the term was "happy clappy". But they weren't a negligible number either and they read and studied the bible on a daily basis. Their remnants and offshoots are the only people I know today who are still strongly practicing, along with an increasing number of traditionalists. The "regular" Catholics, meanwhile, have largely disappeared.

So most people are just lazy (incl myself), hate being told what to do (incl myself) & then when it turns out the whole thing is riven with hypocrisy there's a secret delight in giving a guilt free two fingers to the whole cult (along with burning anger when we hear the horror stories).

I can't speak for anyone else. I have plenty of sympathy for your experience. Loads of Masses I've attended over the years were, and are, cloying insipid rubbish. I have no interest in hearing a priest's golf anecdotes, or other twee stories. If you want something different you have to seek it out. I can tell you that Catholics are equally angry about the horror stories, and additionally have to deal with their compatriots' suspicion that anyone still practicing must be a co-conspirator.

So, getting back to the original point, when the tide went out on the institution we were left without any attachment to spirituality, scripture or anything that might sustain an attachment to the faith.

Well, at least you have the humility to acknowledge your own laziness in the matter. You were probably not well served by the institutional church either. It is hardly a surprise that when the winds of cultural change blew the whole thing crumbled. Good riddance to it, it can't disappear fast enough. (By which I don't mean the church hierarchy, which is essential to orthodox catholicism; but the old clericalism we can do without).

 

[dub_nerd]

"touching this matter in any way" includes crimes against the sixth commandment committed by clerics against persons under the age of 18.

Being responsible for doctrine does not mean being the trial judge in every canonical case. Bishops are responsible for their own priests in general. See my note below on the situation prior to 2001.

I was heavily involved in the RC Church when I was younger. My motivation for moving away from it was a lack of belief in God. I distinguish between the human institution of the Church and the message of the Bible and the theology of the RC Church.

Why do you make such a distinction if you don't believe in God? The Bible was written by humans too.

I'm suggesting that their actions in defracking priests etc were in response to public anger against their actions and inaction's. I'm suggesting that it was a rearguard action borne of necessity rather that virtue and their primary motivator was to protect the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, the same motivation which led to generations of cover-up and facilitation of abuse. You seem to dismiss that idea, which is utterly bizarre.

I know that's what you're suggesting. And I believe some of it it true and some of it isn't. I don't believe there is serious evidence that Benedict was involved in some elaborate cover-up.

Fair point; every allegation globally only went across his desk for 12 or 13 years before he became Pope. Before that he would only have been aware of lots and lots of them. Does that change the substantive point being made?

The requirement for allegations to be conveyed to the Vatican started in 2001 with the change in role of the CDF, which occurred at Benedit's own request. Prior to that time the responsibility for both investigating and disciplining perpetrators in abuse cases rested with the dioceses. Benedict became Pope in 2005. That's four years -- during which time he made sweeping changes to the processes for clerical prosecutions and for fast-tracking them. So no, I don't think your point has any substance whatsoever.

I'm not accusing him; I'm point to accusations being made by others. I'm then asking you if you are dismissing those accusations and if so on what basis.

Fair enough. Then the burden of proof falls to those others. What's their evidence?