Sigh. You guys know I don't have time for this. Here's a nice run down to get the other side of the story. http://www.catholicvoteaction.org/americanpapist/index.php?p=6557
Yeah, I just got a pamphlet from the Vatican, "Defending Hitler." You're usually a more level headed poster than this. It's ok to make fun of Catholics though, so keep it up.
Wow. The "controversial" statement at the beginning of my post was a warning, not an endorsement. Personally, I think the comic goes overboard - but the point is relevant.
Actually it's not. What is relevant about that? The comic doesn't understand anything about the situation, nor does it seem to have done any research into what Benedict has actually done. A) It overextends the Pope's authority (the Church's claim to infallibility extends to only doctrine on faith and morals made from statements ex cathedra) B) It claims the Pope would not help a sex abuse victim (this is just ludicrous) C) It claims the Pope was taught ethics by Hitler. Really? So the only debatable claim is that the Pope tried to hide some of the pedophile priests away rather than deal with the problem. That's simply inaccurate. It's oversimplifying the problem to vilify and attempt to undermine the church's claims at authority. Fine I get it. But let's not act as if: A) the church is the only institute in which pedophiles have gotten into B) this is a problem pertaining to celibacy in the church (the amount of pedophile priests is minuscule, and is commensurate with other professions in which people have to deal with children. If anything, it's probably less). C) we've really dealt with straight shooting journalism on this one. I mean really, let's wait until after healthcare has passed and before Holy Week begins to make a giant attack piece on the Church and the Pope. It's a discredit to the millions who give their lives to this institution to make these claims and attacks on the despicable acts of a few. Even more liberal Catholics who often like to bash the Pope are able to see through the BS on this: http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis
I believe the pope, in the cartoon, is merely a symbol of the church. Thus the argument of relevance. I think it went too far with the goofy use of "hitler" and the current real pope's upbringing in that regard, and thus my statement about controversy (in fact, I originally intended to write "too much?" but decided a simple warning was more appropos). As it is, I do not defend the cartoon or endorse. Flame away if you must, but I believe that your anger should be directed at Matt Bors - not me.
That's fine, like I said you are usually quite level-headed. I fail to see how the cartoon is beneficial to the discussion, that's all.
At a minimum, I think it rather bluntly illustrates why some folks are so angry about the situation and the gross hypocrisy it entails. In hindsight, that's probably lousy rationale in this forum where most of us are rather well informed. More to the point, I think the comic can probably be misconstrued as an attempt to shift the argument from "be upset at those responsible" to "be upset at the church" - that was not my intent and I apologize in that vein.
I have never agreed with you more than I do right now. As a Catholic, I have know many very sincere, and selfless people in the Church. There have been scores that have sacrificed their time, their money, their ability to make a much better monetary living elsewhere in order to serve God through the Church. It is simply maddening that these good people have had their sacrifices besmirched by this scandal. All become suspect. What is really awful is that there have been many priests that have done a tremendous amount of good and have made a positive impact on lives. Now they are all looked at as though they were guilty. Another thing is that it is disgusting that somebody would use their moral and religious status and the trust of the parishioners in order to satiate their predatory urges. My anger over this is something that I struggle with.
i was raised catholic and was an altar boy at my church and i lol'ed at the cartoon. and considering the popes background, the hitler jab was especially humorous. at least more humorous than the vaticans recent attempt to compare the current charges against the pope to the holocaust.
Dude read the articles I posted instead of speculation by the N.Y. Times on what might have or have not happened. There's simply no other story here than the same story that was around awhile back about pedophile priests, which is definitely a problem, but is commensurate with the rest of the world. What the Times is writing is really just slander. Here are the sources so that you can get it straight when you post here. I would almost recommend you actually read them before posting again on the subject: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM= http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/opinion/29douthat.html?hp From a liberal: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html http://www.ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?blogposts_ID=942&blog_ID=2 Version with references (80+ pages on the PDF on the page of how the charges in the Times are wrong): http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm Shorter version: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0325.htm Weigel article with this gem if you are looking for stats, "Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft reports that 6-10 percent of public school students have been molested in recent years—some 290,000 between 1991 and 2000. According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests—a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members)." http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/03/scoundrel-times A good response on the mythos of pedophile priests: http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html Elizabeth Scalia gives a good breakdown of how the Times story takes real journalistic liberties: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2010/03/29/praying-for-the-pope-for-all/ John Allen again on the scandal, once again, he is a more liberal Catholic defending the Pope because he is actually looking at the facts and not just speculating (you'll notice all you have on your side is speculation, that's kind of been the latest theme of this attack on the Pope, evident in the thread title "Did Pope Benedict Know[?]": http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis For a European perspective: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...atzingers-pleas-to-pursue-sex-abuse-cardinal/ Just speak the truth glynch, no more speculation, especially not in the wake of this body of evidence. Slander is a bad bad thing. And so is scandal. BXVI had done more to clean up the problems in the church with respect to pedophile priests, and now has to deal with this same old tripe.
Look, twhy, I know you are a defender of the old pre-Vatican II Church and possibly Opus Dei. You and the church leaders have your head in the sand. You are not dishonest, just a yealot. This situation is not going away and appeal to the status quo and the "authority of the Church" will not cut it. Perhaps like the present pope you prefer a much smaller church if it is more conservative. I don't feel like reading 80 pps of material defending the status quo on pedophilia or the ridiculous current and theologically unnecessary celibacy, whose only justification is obedience to the present right wing pope. If the deck is not stacked in a political fashion by the president pope, when he dies, by carefully seleccting only allegedly "celibate" cardinals who prefer the current system, it is over most likely when he passes. There is no theological reason for it. Think of all the good priests that have been lost over this non sense. Virtually every priest I ever liked in high school and college quit over that bs. You of course would not consider them good priests because they were not obedient enough. I'm sorry but "celibates" just do not have the same feel for children or women, for that matter, that non-celibates do. Any corporation or entity the size of the Church can gin this defense up. Their pr department is well funded, but in this case being given a wrong mission. Yeah, twhy, everyone else is dishonest, wishes the Church ill and only you guys, the defenders of the status quo have the truth.
Look, I still feel quite justified in the cartoon's accusation of hypocritical non-christian attitudes being illustrated by the church. But I'm not a fan of trying to generalize the nasty parts of this saga to all catholics or to the church as an entity. I also somewhat agree with twhy that the "Hitler" reference was unnecessary. Anybody involved in the cover-up (and therefore involved in perpetuating abuse) should be held criminally liable. Period.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S3NbXftMm0A&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S3NbXftMm0A&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> It is just sad how the Catholic Church handles this. But what do you expect of an institution who forbids Millions of Africans to wear condoms, and just let them get AIDS.
Defender of Vatican II right here, my record shows it. But nice of you to go for personal attacks when you lack a substantive argument. Once again, you are making up arguments, but this really says a lot about your attacks on the church, and what the attacks really amount to, an attack on the church's authority. Not only do you fail to understand the proper extent of the church's authority, but you fail to understand the structure of the church. The church has not made the argument that their moral authority absolves the prudential decisions made by certain bishops to cover up the scandals when they first started breaking. But you and others who are attacking the church keep wanting to go to the head (the Pope) without understanding how a diocese works, or that a bishop can handle these problems internally without going to the Pope for his final decision. Now the Pope has decided to become more involved with the process, and has taken lots of steps to combat the problems, but you sir are the one with your head in the sand on that. So this is really about the Pope being conservative and not the abuse scandals. Thank you for confirming what I have suspected all along. Except that whole thing were Christ left the keys to Peter and then the Apostles set up the Church. Listen, it's becoming painfully obvious what this scandal is for you, liberal vs. conservative. You need to start thinking in terms of heterodox vs. orthodox; right teaching vs. wrong teaching. If you keep finding yourself in the heterodox category, maybe it's time to start rethinking your affiliation with the Church, because you obviously aren't holding any beliefs that it does. No one is forcing you to stay, and the Pope is doing what he believes best to protect the faith and get as many souls into heaven. If you think you can do it better maybe you can start your own splinter church. You like the disobedient ones? Was it not Lucifer who first rebelled by saying I will not serve? Once again, this isn't about the scandal for you, it's about pushing your own agenda. Now you are talking out of your arse. The Vatican operates at a budget 1/3 that of the operating budget of the University of Notre Dame (I think the numbers are $940 Million to like $340 Million operating budget). And what exactly is the case? Defending the Pope, how he wasn't involved based off of the facts you refuse to even look at that I posted above? And when did all these American writers and bloggers get on the payroll of the Vatican as members of their PR department? I want in on that for my posts on Clutchfans. Thank you for finally saying something sensible.
http://www.chron.com/disp/discuss.mpl/ap/world/6946180.html Good golly, now it's the anti-Catholic and/or pro-gay marriage group that's trying to slander the Pope? Is the Vatican serious? They're digging a deeper hole.
Read through some of the documents I posted above and then read glynch's posts and my response. It's not really about the scandal for a lot of folks. And be careful not to quote "the Vatican" when somebody who is a priest in the Vatican proper says something. There's obviously a wide difference of opinion on the subject.
It is about the scandal and reform for most folks. The Church's bizaare attitude toward marriage and sex is undoubtedly causing some of the problem. It is true that many Catholics hope that the Church will deal with the root problem and not just think it can cover it up through an appeal to be obedient and quiet ala the Middle Ages. Twhy, can you really think that the celibacy rule has not led overall to an unusual group (and not in a good way, though there are still good priests) setting the agenda for the Church? Are you anti-condom, anti-masturbation etc.?
