[Terez]

Darkwatch, on 14 April 2010 - 08:23 PM, said:

I should also mention that a lot of Catholics probably understand that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles.

Oh, that was incredibly lame.

But seriously...the entire basis for the sacraments is in the institution itself. It's a great lot of extra-Biblical whatever.

[stone monkey]

Like Protestants aren't equally guilty of the extra-Biblical stuff? It's merely different extra-Biblical stuff.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 14 April 2010 - 08:44 PM

[Darkwatch]

Terez, on 14 April 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

Darkwatch, on 14 April 2010 - 08:23 PM, said:

I should also mention that a lot of Catholics probably understand that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles.

Oh, that was incredibly lame.

But seriously...the entire basis for the sacraments is in the institution itself. It's a great lot of extra-Biblical whatever.

Actually meant it solely within the confines of the comment of why a good many Catholics, from what I've seen, don't think the Church has much bearing on their day to day lives. Since we were discussing reactions within the Catholic circle.

I didn't mean it as saying that all non Catholics think that every Catholic priest molests every child they come across.
I should have been more clear on that, my bad.

[Terez]

Thanks for clearing that up, DW.

stone monkey, on 14 April 2010 - 08:43 PM, said:

Like Protestants aren't equally guilty of the extra-Biblical stuff? It's merely different extra-Biblical stuff.

No, I don't think they are equally guilty. Protestants tend to have some wild interpretations of Biblical stuff, but nothing extra-Biblical like Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you could offer some examples?

As an aside...shouldn't this thread be in the religion forum?

[teholbeddict]

I think it should stay where it is. A large point of the discussion has been that this goes beyond religion. You can take religion out of the equation and the fact remains that the people involved either sexually abused children or were involved in the cover up of the abuse, and should be punished accordingly, regardless of who they are.

[MTS]

Terez, on 15 April 2010 - 05:09 AM, said:

Thanks for clearing that up, DW.

stone monkey, on 14 April 2010 - 08:43 PM, said:

Like Protestants aren't equally guilty of the extra-Biblical stuff? It's merely different extra-Biblical stuff.

No, I don't think they are equally guilty. Protestants tend to have some wild interpretations of Biblical stuff, but nothing extra-Biblical like Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you could offer some examples?

So you're saying all Protestant doctrine is completely faithful to the Bible? That's a very strong assertion. IIRC, Luther's 'faith alone' doctrine is extra-biblical.

This post has been edited by MTS: 15 April 2010 - 06:58 AM

[Terez]

MTS, on 15 April 2010 - 06:57 AM, said:

Terez, on 15 April 2010 - 05:09 AM, said:

stone monkey, on 14 April 2010 - 08:43 PM, said:

Like Protestants aren't equally guilty of the extra-Biblical stuff? It's merely different extra-Biblical stuff.

No, I don't think they are equally guilty. Protestants tend to have some wild interpretations of Biblical stuff, but nothing extra-Biblical like Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you could offer some examples?

So you're saying all Protestant doctrine is completely faithful to the Bible? That's a very strong assertion. IIRC, Luther's 'faith alone' doctrine is extra-biblical.

Nope.

Ephesians 2 said:

⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast.

As for 'completely faithful' to the Bible...that is and always will be debatable. But find me something in the Bible about saints, Purgatory, or praying to Mary and I'll give you a cookie.

This post has been edited by Terez: 15 April 2010 - 08:50 AM

[Cougar]

Terez, on 15 April 2010 - 08:47 AM, said:

find me something in the Bible about saints, Purgatory, or praying to Mary and I'll give you a cookie.

Tell me more about this cookie...

Anyway, this thread isn't a place to rehash the old arguments about the extra-biblicality of various religions guys. We've got plenty of places to do that, so if you have to either start a thread or take it to one of those hoary old haunts.

[detritus]

I'm with Richard 100%.

[MTS]

Terez, on 15 April 2010 - 08:47 AM, said:

MTS, on 15 April 2010 - 06:57 AM, said:

Terez, on 15 April 2010 - 05:09 AM, said:

stone monkey, on 14 April 2010 - 08:43 PM, said:

Like Protestants aren't equally guilty of the extra-Biblical stuff? It's merely different extra-Biblical stuff.

No, I don't think they are equally guilty. Protestants tend to have some wild interpretations of Biblical stuff, but nothing extra-Biblical like Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you could offer some examples?

So you're saying all Protestant doctrine is completely faithful to the Bible? That's a very strong assertion. IIRC, Luther's 'faith alone' doctrine is extra-biblical.

Nope.

Ephesians 2 said:

⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast.

As for 'completely faithful' to the Bible...that is and always will be debatable. But find me something in the Bible about saints, Purgatory, or praying to Mary and I'll give you a cookie.

Not only that, there's papal authority, civil politics, beads, icons, altars, transubstantiation, nuns, celibacy...it would be laughable to suggest the Roman Catholic Church is even a remote adherent to Biblical Christianity. However,

As for faith alone, point taken. I was basing it off these passages, which seemed to suggest a lack of Biblical precedent:

James 2:14-26 said:

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Matthew 7:21-23 said:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

But Cougar says stay on topic, so I'll leave it at that.

[tiam]

Personally this is just a cheap shot at the church for me. The precedent he cites is one that resulted in the suspect cancelling their journey. So hes essentially either hoping to catch the pope in Britain with a load of charges or claim a victory if the Pope cancels his trip. Either way its a cheap shot at the church.

As for the charges themselve, if he wasnt pope and was still regional bishop or whatever it was then im fairly certain he wouldnt cause this much fuss. Again just a cheap shot.

[Morgoth]

[Aptorian]

Poor Pope. Won't somebody please think of the Church!

[Terez]

Morgoth, on 17 April 2010 - 07:28 PM, said:

This.

[HoosierDaddy]

Let's draw an analogy for those of us who are basing their whole opinion on the fact that the purported "case" against the Pope and the Catholic Church is based around a diverging philosophical opinion.

Mr. P is the Chief Financial Officer for Corporation Inc. In said position, Mr. P is privy to the goings-on in accounting offices and the Certified Accountants that are being employed by Corporation Inc. Mr. A comes to find out that in Offices A, B, C, and D, the Certified Accountants, W, X, Y, and Z are all committing embezzlement and fraud.

Now, Mr. P, who is privy to the information that his employees are committing crimes, has three options for C.A. W, X, Y, and Z:

(1) Report the activities to the criminal authority for said crimes and fire them;
(2) Tell them to stop, and switch their Offices;
(3) Do nothing.

Option (1) would result in bad publicity for Corporation Inc. In fact, it's stock might tumble some due to the fact they will be under the microscope for a while do this activity. However, Corpration Inc. and Mr. A himself would have absolved themselves of the criminal activity, and cleared the name of Corporation Inc.

Option (2) is simply sweeping the whole affair under the rug; and hoping that C.A. W, X, Y, and Z do not do so again. Corporation Inc. and Mr. A are criminally responsible for the aiding and abetting, complicity, obstruction of justice, for hiding the original crimes and would be criminally liable for embezzlement and fraud if W, X, Y, and Z continued to act the same ways in their new offices.

Option (3) is to continue the illegal behavior knowingly, and all crimes would then be attached to the corporation as a whole.

Mr. P chooses option (2). Upon becoming CEO of Corporation Inc., Corporation Inc. is rocked by allegations of embezzlement, fraud, complicity, obstruction of justice, and the other crimes that have been discovered W, X, Y and Z were committing while Mr. P. were CFO of the company.

Is Mr. P. absolved of his criminal actions by being moved to CEO?

Is it a cheap shot to call an organization that willfully, intentionally, and deliberately aided and abetted embezzlement and fraud by it's employees W, X, Y and Z an organization that purposefully protects its employees from being brought to justice for their crimes?

[Illuyankas]

tiam, on 17 April 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

Personally this is just a cheap shot at the church for me. The precedent he cites is one that resulted in the suspect cancelling their journey. So hes essentially either hoping to catch the pope in Britain with a load of charges or claim a victory if the Pope cancels his trip. Either way its a cheap shot at the church.

As for the charges themselve, if he wasnt pope and was still regional bishop or whatever it was then im fairly certain he wouldnt cause this much fuss. Again just a cheap shot.

What is a statement made by someone who hasn't read the thread and considers child rape relatively unimportant compared to making a fuss, Alex?

[stone monkey]

tiam, on 17 April 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

Personally this is just a cheap shot at the church for me. The precedent he cites is one that resulted in the suspect cancelling their journey. So hes essentially either hoping to catch the pope in Britain with a load of charges or claim a victory if the Pope cancels his trip. Either way its a cheap shot at the church.

As for the charges themselve, if he wasnt pope and was still regional bishop or whatever it was then im fairly certain he wouldnt cause this much fuss. Again just a cheap shot.

Let's break this down shall we?

The Pope is head of the organisation that covered all these horrific crimes up and may have served to enable the perpetrators. When he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith his actions may have directly contributed to that cover-up. Whatever you think of the motivations of those concerned, you can't deny that he doesn't have a case to answer...

[tiam]

i havnt read the entire thread no.

I read the article and based my opinion not on any Catholic leanings or sympathy for the Pope (im an Atheist), but simply at the fact this just seems a bit cheap. I believe someone mentioned this earlier in thread. It just seems that if people believe the Pope should be held accountable thats fine but the simple fact that its Dawkins doing it(in my eyes anyway) to gain publicity. If it was a child protection agency then I would deem this perfectly reasonable and be far more sympathetic to the cause of ousting the Pope. I believe the idea in principle is a good one and the clergy is such an insular institution that incidents such as these should be brought to light. As for comparing the Pope to some sort of CEO I think this is somewhat problematic when it comes to faith.

Claiming that I believe child rape unimportant compared to makin a fuss is obviously false.I didnt realise me expressing my opinion of an atheist trying to belittle the Pope to increase his book sales would cause everyone to shit themselves with excitement.

[Illuyankas]

Don't post anything else until you read the rest of the thread. No, don't. Go read it. Just fucking do it.

[tiam]

Havnt got time unfortunately so i'll just stick to my original 'atheist kicking up a fuss arguement' thats got you so squeamish