Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!watmsg!sccowan From: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) Newsgroups: can.general Subject: Re: Catholic Church bashing!! Message-ID: <28407@watmath.waterloo.edu> Date: 16 Aug 89 15:44:10 GMT References: <3984@looking.on.ca> <1479@apss.apss.ab.ca> <28367@watmath.waterloo.edu> <2396@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> Sender: daemon@watmath.waterloo.edu Reply-To: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 148 In article <2396@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> schuck@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Mary Margaret Schuck) writes: >In article <28367@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: >>In article <1479@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >><> Bishop Murphy: Shocking about Father Jones, isn't it? [assorted debate . . .] >>The church specifically encourages the view that an individual is not >>responsable for their actions, so long as they seek forgiveness (via >>the church, of course). The church may not think so, but I hold them >>responsable. >The idea behind confession is that when *you* think you've done >something wrong, you can go to confession and get official confirmation >that you are still a worthwhile human being. [stuff about how some people actually take 'penance' seriously] >And if you aren't sorry for what you've done there is no point in going >to confession. How long ago was it that the RCs stopped selling 'indulgences' IN ADVANCE for sins that the purchaser was contemplating? [whining about how we shouldn't single out the RC church for being corrupt] >>Because the RC Church takes great pains to lecture the rest of society >>on proper moral conduct while protecting incredibly corrupt individuals, >>placed in a position of power and trust, within their organization >>while attempting to transfer blame to the victim. Not even Clifford >>Olsen tried to claim that his victims asked for it. >1) the RC Church does not lecture "the rest of society". It attempts to >provide guidance for those who follow its ways. Where do you read these >lectures? When the pope tells the third world that condoms are evil, sinful, and these incredibly poor, over-populated countries should continue to breed like rabbits. Or is it not the case that what the Pope says is gospel? >2) How do you see the church protecting these "incredibly corrupt" >individuals (of which there are probably some in your family given their >prevalence in society)? Because it zips them off and hands them a fresh parish to abuse in some place that's never heard of the perpetraitor. There was an article in the paper a few days ago about a priest installed in Toronto that had some sort of history of child abuse, and the higher-ups were 'keeping him under scrutiny.' My point is that it might be ok to treat these people and eventually let them out of jail, but it is NEVER ok to let them have such a position of trust and authority ever again. Would you let Richard Nixon back ito public office? >3) How do you figure that the church is "attempting to transfer blame to >the victim"? Every official pronouncement on the topic has expressed >regret, taken responsibility and extended sympathy to the victims. We are >discussing the church, right? I.e. official statements? Or is every >statement made by every member of the church to be taken as gospel if you >don't like it? Seems to me that the victims in Nfld. have been complaining for years that the church has been completely non-supportive. Every day I turn on the tube, and there's another abused teenager complaining that he's gotten ZERO support and care from the church. >><> Think about it. What other reason can there be? I mean 18 priests and >><> brothers in a province with 600,000 people? 18 gay, non-celibate, pedophile >><> RC priests & brothers? > >Where do "gay" and "pedophile" come together? A pedophile generally picks >whatever's handy, regardless of gender. Most altar servers are male so >most priest pedophiles abuse boys. In fact, the vast majority of all >pedophiles are heterosexual. That's why so many girls get it. > >>>>How about, excommunicate the priests responsible, turn them over to >>the police, hang them out to dry, and make sure they never get a >>chance to do it agian from a position of publicly recognized >>authority? Nah, better cover it up instead, wouldn't want the pleebs >>to clue in that we can make mistakes. > >If you'd start thinking and stop spouting erroneous misconceptions you >might get somewhere. > >1) Excommunication is for people who have deliberately turned their back on >God. Like Satanists. Regular people are allowed to make mistakes Like Galileo; he turned against God--he used his own brain. And in the 1970s, the RC church had the grace to 'forgive' him. Seems to me that the church is the one that should seek forgiveness. >2) Once again, do you hang your dirty laundry out to dry in public? >Everyone makes mistakes; publicizing them just makes it that much harder to >go on. (Are you one of those charming people who would never hire a >formerly convicted criminal because they're "not fit to be in society?" >How long must they wait to be readmitted to society? One year? Ten? Three >generations? What if it's your neighbor? When he gets home from jail will >you post signs in the neighborhood to warn everyone that he's an evil >being?) I'm one of those people who doesn't believe that you can ever reform a criminal. Like all people, they act out of self-interest; unfortunately their value system doesn't allow them to consider other people as being valuable, which civilized people do. I don't steal from my neighbour because I don't want him to steal from me. A thief figures he can get away with it, and so takes what he can get away with. Therefore, a convict can be allowed back into society, but without extensive evidence of change, can never be trusted. >>Unnacceptable thoughts are completely different from unacceptable >>actions. That's why civilized countries only have action-police (they >>bust you for bad things that you do) and the the RC church has >>thought-police (in the form of confessional priests) who make you feel >>guilty for having thoughts that the church finds 'unnacceptable', >>regardless of what the rest of society thinks of such thoughts, or the >>disgusting concept of thought-police. >Are you serious? Do you know *anything* about Catholicism? >Go spout your ignorant hatred elsewhere. Go check out your mindless loyalty to a corrupt institution. The Pope that having lustful _thoughts_ is sinful. Pardon me while I gag, thoughts alone should NEVER be considered 'sinful.' Let's see, what other lovely policy gems have we got here: Old ones: -burning heretics (def: anyone who dissagrees with you) -an esitmated 100 MILLION dead in the second millenia in the search for 'witches' (followers of the original pagan religion of Europe). -the 100 Years War -the Inquisition Current Ones: -women are unnaccepable as priests -gay people are unnaccepable as priests -sex if for pro-creation only, you're now allowed to enjoy it, especially if you're a woman -lusting after one's _wife_ is sinful Wouldn't it be nice if the Pope would walk on the ground and kiss women, instead of the other way around? > Mary Margaret. >____________________________________________________________________________ > My mailer hates everyone. Try to deceive it if possible. >schuck@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca {decvax,attcan,watmath...}!utzoo!dciem!schuck ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long