Abortion Referendum, will it pass

[Vanessa]

Surely this is an ecumenical matter

 

[Purple]

There's just you claiming the upper echelons of the RC church were in on the act all along. A simple reading is that nobody other than a handful of bishops who should have known better (but were either ignorant or misled about the recidivist nature of the crimes involved) knew the scale of the issue even at individual diocesan levels. When it started to become obvious in the late 90s that there was a hideous problem of world-wide proportions, the church took steps at the highest level to address it.

Just me?
Just a handful of Bishops?

Sure.

 

[dub_nerd]

Just me?
Just a handful of Bishops?
Sure.

Again, your argument from incredulity is not going anywhere without evidence. You previously referred to "bishops and priests, upon being promoted/ moved to Rome" ... you seem to be stuck with this impression of the Vatican as a concentration of senior managers who have "seen it all", having moved up through the ranks and been "promoted to Rome". It simply isn't like that. The various curial offices are staffed in large part by specialist academics in diverse subjects like law, and history. The organisation of the catholic church is incredibly flat, with bishops responsible for pretty much everything in their own dioceses.

You can look up the structure of the curia yourself -- it's not a secret. Ignoring the two new dicasteries and secretariat created by Francis in the last couple of years there are: 2 secretariats, 9 congregations, 3 tribunals, 5 pontifical councils, and 3 financial offices. That's it. It's a tiny organisation. These offices are headed up by a total of 20 bishops, more than half of whom are local Italians. And some of them -- like Benedict -- have little or no pastoral experience. Pastors of large dioceses like the scandalous cardinals Bernard Law of Boston or Roger Mahony of Los Angeles do not generally "come up through the ranks" to Vatican jobs. They already hold the highest ecclesiastical office in the RC church.

 

[Purple]

If nobody knew anything was going on then why the 1962 document?

I know two priests who have spent time in the Vatican during their career. Did none of the thousands of clergy talk to each other?

 

[cremeegg]

Did none of the thousands of clergy talk to each other?

Yes but only in Latin, so while they spoke to each other they didn't understand each other.

Seriously guys, you are counting angels on the head of a pin. The church did not deal well with the sexual abuse of children which was perpetrated by the clergy, what more needs to be said.

Except of course that the Irish people if they had any moral courage would demand that the church be excluded from any role in education.

 

[dub_nerd]

The church did not deal well with the sexual abuse of children which was perpetrated by the clergy, what more needs to be said.

Exactly right. It was horrendous. Now let's move on.

Except of course that the Irish people if they had any moral courage would demand that the church be excluded from any role in education.

Why so? Most of the country wouldn't have an education were it not for the church. Obviously there are an increasing number of people who don't want their children to have a religious education. But there are a surprising number who do. I personally find it a bit weird as there seems to be more of them than there are practicing Christians. Be that as it may, I'm in favour of the church getting out of the education business as it currently stands because I don't think they're achieving anything. The RC church should negotiate its exit in return for being allowed to operate Catholic schools for those who want them. With their current pariah status I think there's a risk that religious education will be banned altogether.

 

[Purple]

Exactly right. It was horrendous. Now let's move on.

That would be fine if accusations were not being that he is supporting clergy accused of child abuse.
I am of course talking about Bishop Barros in Chile.
When "Fifty Chilean lawmakers and priests, deacons and more than 1,000 laity in the Osorno diocese sign petitions protesting Bishop Barros’ appointment and urging Pope Francis revoke it" but he ignores it. That was after members of the Chilean Bishops Conference send a formal letter to the Pope outlining their concerns.
The Pope said he was unaware of the accusations but the Associated Press reported that Pope Francis received an eight-page letter in April 2015 that laid out in detail why abuse victim Juan Carlos Cruz thought Bishop Barros was unfit to lead a diocese.
The Pope also said that the accusations against Barros were "slander".

The notion that the those at the head of a Global organisation were unaware of widespread sex abuse spanning decades and even centuries is, to those not blinded by delusion, nonsense. The case in chile shows that not only is the Vatican aware of the allegations but they lie about knowing and they then ignore the evidence and concerns of the Church in Chile and go ahead and promote/move the person at the center of those allegations.

So maybe we shouldn't move on until the issue is resolved and children in poor countries are also safe from being raped by a priest.

 

[dub_nerd]

That would be fine if accusations were not being that he is supporting clergy accused of child abuse.
I am of course talking about Bishop Barros in Chile.

No argument from me there. The Pope has screwed up very badly in this case (although Bishop Barros has now resigned, no thanks to Francis). There's another case in which he reversed a decision made by Benedict and reinstated an Italian priest, only to have to sack him again after a civil conviction. I don't have much confidence in Francis.

 

[cremeegg]

Most of the country wouldn't have an education were it not for the church.

That was probably true for my grandparents. Nowadays it is more the case that most of the country cannot get a secular education because of the church

The RC church should negotiate its exit in return for being allowed to operate Catholic schools for those who want them. With their current pariah status I think there's a risk that religious education will be banned altogether.

I would certainly like to see religious education banned completely.

Its not ok to teach your children that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God and I (the priest rabbi, mullah, or indeed parent) have his teachings.

 

[dub_nerd]

I would certainly like to see religious education banned completely.

You're reinforcing the conviction I've had for some time -- that Irish secularists are more authoritarian than the church they love to hate.

Its not ok to teach your children that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God and I (the priest rabbi, mullah, or indeed parent) have his teachings.

Unless and until you install your own dictatorship, it is not only ok, it is an inalienable constitutional right.

The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children. (Bunreacht na hÉireann, Airt. 41.2).

 

[Purple]

You're reinforcing the conviction I've had for some time -- that Irish secularists are more authoritarian than the church they love to hate.

I don't think removing the teaching of religion in the context of a particular faith development is authoritarian, unless you regard the American Constitution authoritarian in nature.

Unless and until you install your own dictatorship, it is not only ok, it is an inalienable constitutional right.

The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children. (Bunreacht na hÉireann, Airt. 41.2).

I think a constitutional amendment would be a less dramatic path to take and would end up with the same result.

 

[dub_nerd]

I don't think removing the teaching of religion in the context of a particular faith development is authoritarian, unless you regard the American Constitution authoritarian in nature.

The US constitution says nothing about banning the teaching of religion, quite the opposite in fact.

I think a constitutional amendment would be a less dramatic path to take and would end up with the same result.

The fact that anyone can even imagine such a thing tells me our democratic principles are at an all time low. When the State starts telling you what your children may be taught, we will have full blown tyranny.

 

[Purple]

The US constitution says nothing about banning the teaching of religion, quite the opposite in fact.

They acknowledge that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. This State funded schools are not bound to any religion.

The fact that anyone can even imagine such a thing tells me our democratic principles are at an all time low. When the State starts telling you what your children may be taught, we will have full blown tyranny.

Sure, the idea that in a Republic people should have a real choice about what religion their children are taught or not taught; how tyrannical!

 

[dub_nerd]

I would certainly like to see religious education banned completely.

Sure, the idea that in a Republic people should have a real choice about what religion their children are taught or not taught; how tyrannical!

Ok. I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole with someone who can't tell the difference between freedom of choice and prohibition.

 

[Purple]

Ok. I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole with someone who can't tell the difference between freedom of choice and prohibition.

Fair enough. I took cremeegg's post to mean the banning of teaching religion, in the context of a particular religious ethos, in schools.

 

[dub_nerd]

I don't even understand what that means. Banning is banning. Freedom of choice is freedom of choice.

 

[cremeegg]

Its not ok to teach your children that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God and I (the priest rabbi, mullah, or indeed parent) have his teachings.

You're reinforcing the conviction I've had for some time -- that Irish secularists are more authoritarian than the church they love to hate.

Would it be authoritarian to say that its not ok to teach children that jews should be gassed.

Would it be authoritarian to say that its not ok to teach children that black people are inferior.

Would it be authoritarian to say that its not ok to teach children that female genital mutilation is a good idea.

Is it authoritarian to say that it is not ok to teach children that they are born with original sin.

It is authoritarian to say that, There is a truth proclaimed by an omnipotent God and I am its interpreter.

 

[dub_nerd]

Gawd. This is all very elementary but ...

Would it be authoritarian to say that its not ok to teach children that jews should be gassed.

Yes. That would be authoritarian.

Not the answer you were expecting? Any prescriptive list of rights and wrongs would be authoritarian, i.e. handed down by authority. You are onto a loser unless you are teaching an ethical framework that is logically consistent, not just a list of do's and don'ts. Eventually, your tutees are going to have to figure it out for themselves, not just take your word for it. It's like the rules of spelling and grammar -- you can construct words and sentences that you've never heard before because you learned the grammatical framework, not just a list of words and phrases by rote.

I don't believe secular humanism even has a consistent framework, but I'm open to discussion.

 

[cremeegg]

I don't believe secular humanism even has a consistent framework, but I'm open to discussion.

It was a great personal discovery to realise that life probably cannot accommodate a consistent ethical frame work. Having been brought up a catholic, to discover not just that certain teachings were wrong, but that the central question, "what is gods will" is absurd.

Most religions do not even try. That was the essence of Benedicts point about Islam which got him into so much trouble.

Catholicism used to try to reconcile faith and reason, that was what Aquinas was all about.

Many other Christian religions believe in the literal truth of the bible, with no effort at rationality.

Rationality is a worthy objective, but we have to learn to live until a rational worldview is uncovered.

Shakespeare clearly saw that justice and mercy are incompatible. The abortion question clearly shows that life does not admit consistent rational ethics. To destroy a potential human life is wrong, to force a woman to have a child against her will is wrong. If you can reconcile those for me you might convert me.

 

[dub_nerd]

The abortion question clearly shows that life does not admit consistent rational ethics. To destroy a potential human life is wrong, to force a woman to have a child against her will is wrong. If you can reconcile those for me you might convert me.

If you can't figure that one out, I doubt you want to be converted.

I like swinging my arms freely. Is it wrong to force me to only swing my fists where your nose happens not to be?

In order for certain rights to be exercised, certain other freedoms must be circumscribed. Therefore there has to be a hierarchy of rights. Your freedom to act ends where it would injure another. That simple concept is unobjectionable to most people, most of the time.