Gay marriage thread

[ahinton]

It is easy to criticise and become disillusioned with some officials within the Catholic Church. They are human and so are the laity. Well, I never ...

Indeed, scotty, I think we're all pretty confident that you never did any of the kinds of things for which the Church is now increasingly being held to account - but the Church is the Church, so even though those officials are human like the rest of us, what kind of example do they set as distinct from that with which they are supposedly charged with setting?

However, if the Church survived and then continued to thrive following the Reformation and the even greater abuses which preceded it there is little doubt it will rise above its current difficulties.

That is not to make light of some of the abuses by a tiny minority of individual clerics, merely to disappoint some here who appear to believe the Catholic Church is 'tottering' and about to collapse.

I don't think that it is quite "'tottering' and about to collapse" as such, but there can surely be little doubt that some of its foundations are getting to be in quite an alarmingly parlous state more suggestive of l'Aquila than Rome.

Laws civil and criminal and the societies for which they were designed have obviously changed immeasurably since pre-Reformation times and the Church's widespread transgressions of the past few decades or so have obviously to be witnessed and addressed in a 21st century environment in 21st century terms.

Your statement that you do not seek "to make light of some of the abuses by a tiny minority of individual clerics" probably does too little to convince some people who'll have read the bullish confidence in your previous paragraph with which you refer to the Church "rising above its current difficulties"; for one thing, you'd need to be armed with sufficient incontrovertible evidence to justify your 100% confidence as to how "tiny" that "minority" really is and, for another (and here I am minded to recall the widely reported UK music schools allegations) it's not just the abuse itself but the manner in which and the extent to which higher authorities than the abusers themselves cover it up.

[ahinton]

Well it would be better for you, at least.

Why only for MrGG?

[ahinton]

Nothing to do with me at all
but loosing the dreadful sexual guilt nonsense would be healthy imv

Of course; that and the absurdly inhuman celibacy nonsense and the profoundly impractical and insensitive anti-contraceptive stance together create a most unhealthy as well as unrealistic environment wilfully created by the Church within which it is supposed to be able to function as a Church. I am not a Christian but I had always understood one of the most fundamental and valuable tenets of the teachings of Christ to be human compassion; how can any such thing have any hope of manifesting itself successfully in such an artificial and anti-human hothouse?

[ahinton]

The media in general has been very fair in reporting all of these recent scandals not just those that some others solely and gleefully pounce upon as their particular objects of hate. The Mitchell and MacAlpine cases were other prime examples.

I have repeated ad nauseum the serious nature of child abuse. The majority of cases occur in secular homes and family members or 'friends' are responsible. Catholic priests who commit such crimes in direct contradiction of Church teaching will get no sympathy from me or any other lay Catholic. Such behaviour is not only evil it is a total betrayal of their Church. It is also true to repeat that the huge majority of the cases happened decades ago and things have moved on from people formerly considering child sexual abuse as "sad" rather than "criminal". It is also true to state (however unfashionable to state it here and elsewhere) that the huge majority of child-abuse cases involving Catholic priests were homosexual in nature involving youths and boys.

Your first four sentences here are very clear and fair. However, when you then go on the sweep at least some of the problem under a carpet of yours and others' making by seeking to persuade the rest of us that this kind of thing is merely historical and doesn't continue today because we've all "moved on", you reiterate the kinds of attempted defence (or rather damage limitation exercise that certain people put forward about the UK music schools that have been and continue be the subject of allegations of abuse and its concealment and in one case a formal police inquiry; it may be wholly or partially true (and it would be good to think that it is so if for no better reason that that it would demonstrate that lessons have been learned and that we have indeed "moved on") but, again, in order to make any such claim and make it stick, one has to have ample incontrovertible evidence that's sufficiently strong in all cases to constitute a full rebuttal of every allegation put forward. Do you have such evidence, scotty (about the Church, I mean - not about certain UK music schools)?

The Catholic Church does not 'preach' it merely interprets and teaches and acknowledges that each and every one of us (including the Pope) is a sinner.The charge of hypocrisy is a bit tame as we are all hypocrites to a greater or lesser degree.

I'm afraid that the first part of this does rather come across as the "get out of jail card" as which MrGG describes it!

When the same level of outrage and venom is hurled by members of this forum towards their very own untouchable "sacred cows" like the NHS, due to disastrously serious failures of management there, your rather subjective point about my posts might not seem quite so flimsy, Pab!

I am more than a little surprised and disturbed to find you, as a committed Catholic, appearing to equate certain of the more heinous the failings of the NHS and the Church in such as way as to suggest your evident belief that each is due solely to "disastrously serious failures of management"; I've never heard sexual abuse of adults or children described as mere "disastrously serious failures of management" and even the covering up of such abuse is hardly a mere issue of inadequate management, surely?

[Pabmusic]

No, I'm merely pointing out the double-standards that exist here and I regret to say that your post illustrates that admirably, Pab.

I'm not sure why you say this, since I've not commented at all on the two non-Catholic cases you mentioned. There are two possibilities. Either you mean that, since I have not mentioned them, I endorse them. That would be very offensive, but I should be very surprised if that's what you meant.

That leaves the other possibility, that you are seeking to excuse, or somehow to lessen the impact of, the worldwide Catholic scandal by using a logical fallacy - tu quoque - two wrongs cancel each other out. Well, I'm sorry but it doesn't wash.

I have repeated ad nauseum the serious nature of child abuse. The majority of cases occur in secular homes and family members or 'friends' are responsible.

What research are you referring to? Your allegation is not only that "the majority" of abuse occurs in homes, but in 'secular' (i.e.: non-religious - or was that a slip?) homes. What evidence do you have for this? And why should it matter, given that quite a lot of abuse occurs within the Church. Does it excuse the Church? Or lessen its responsibility?

Catholic priests who commit such crimes in direct contradiction of Church teaching will get no sympathy from me or any other lay Catholic. Such behaviour is not only evil it is a total betrayal of their Church.

I don't doubt it, Scotty. But I can't say the same about the non-lay members, can I, since there is mounting evidence worldwide that such offences have been systematically covered up by the Church. In both the US and Germany, for instance, the Church faces huge damages for the actions of senior clergy in covering this up.

It is also true to repeat that the huge majority of the cases happened decades ago and things have moved on from people formerly considering child sexual abuse as "sad" rather than "criminal".

I hope you are right, though I don't know how you are so sure..

It is also true to state (however unfashionable to state it here and elsewhere) that the huge majority of child-abuse cases involving Catholic priests were homosexual in nature involving youths and boys. Why are you accusing me of 'introducing' it to this discussion, when it is already a well-known fact?. Are you now suddenly in favour of "cover-ups" ... ?

My point was more about why you find it necessary to make the homosexual-heterosexual distinction. In a religion where women play such a small part (at least 'decades ago') it is hardly surprising that most of the abuse is homosexual (that is, if that is true).

The Catholic Church does not 'preach' it merely interprets and teaches and acknowledges that each and every one of us (including the Pope) is a sinner.The charge of hypocrisy is a bit tame as we are all hypocrites to a greater or lesser degree.

This is another version of the tu quoque fallacy and doesn't take us anywhere.

When the same level of outrage and venom is hurled by members of this forum towards their very own untouchable "sacred cows" like the NHS, due to disastrously serious failures of management there, your rather subjective point about my posts might not seem quite so flimsy, Pab!

A repeat of tu quoque, plus the ad hominem fallacy - attacking the other speaker on a personal level.

Never mind, though.

[umslopogaas]

#343 scottycelt, "The Catholic Church does not 'preach' ..." My dictionary defines "preach" thus: " v.i. to deliver a sermon; to discourse earnestly; to give advice in an offensive, tedious or obtrusive manner." "v.t. to set forth in religious discourses; to deliver, as a sermon; to proclaim or teach publicly; to render or put by preaching."

Well, I'm not a Catholic and only very doubtfully Christian, but from the outside looking in, that seems to me to define what the Catholic Church does pretty well.

[jean]

Here is the view of the Anglican Church:

Article XXVI: Of the unworthiness of the ministers, which hinders not the effect of the sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.

[MrGongGong]

Is there very much difference with the Catholic Church teaching its flock how it should behave and, in turn, a non-believer like Mr GG telling the Catholic Church how it should behave?

So I guess as I don't believe in your god that somehow I have no right to be outraged by the church condoning and covering up child abuse over many years not to mention the shocking ways in which the catholic church has treated women in Ireland etc etc etc ?

The church can teach what it likes BUT when it damages vulnerable people it should be stopped AND is unable to do so on it's own.
I'm reminded of the pope (I don't do Papal history so not sure which) who absolved those who were about to massacre the Cathars in advance of any "sins" they might commit. Not much seems to have changed ...........which is very sad as there are (as I have mentioned before) some good people in the organisation.

[Mandryka]

Some may be interested in this programme, broadcast on R4 yesterday, about the Islamic attitude to homosexuality and 'gay' marriage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qw8v1

All the contributors are interesting and none of them struck me as being illiberal. However, only the conservative spoke with any real authority and it is hard to escape the conclusion that to reconcile homosexuality (let alone 'gay' marriage) with any form of religious belief is akin to trying to an omelette with uncracked eggs.

[vinteuil]

I'm reminded of the pope (I don't do Papal history so not sure which) who absolved those who were about to massacre the Cathars in advance of any "sins" they might commit.

... sounds like the Massacre at Béziers -

The Cistercian Caesarius of Heisterbach relates this story about the massacre: -

"When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the Cistercian abbot-commander Arnaud “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain."

[french frank]

it is hard to escape the conclusion that to reconcile homosexuality (let alone 'gay' marriage) with any form of religious belief is akin to trying to [make] an omelette with uncracked eggs.

But see this.

However, also note:"Marriage is not a mere civil contract, but a religious act."

[scottycelt]

I'm not sure why you say this, since I've not commented at all on the two non-Catholic cases you mentioned. There are two possibilities. Either you mean that, since I have not mentioned them, I endorse them. That would be very offensive, but I should be very surprised if that's what you meant.

That leaves the other possibility, that you are seeking to excuse, or somehow to lessen the impact of, the worldwide Catholic scandal by using a logical fallacy - tu quoque - two wrongs cancel each other out. Well, I'm sorry but it doesn't wash.




What research are you referring to? Your allegation is not only that "the majority" of abuse occurs in homes, but in 'secular' (i.e.: non-religious - or was that a slip?) homes. What evidence do you have for this? And why should it matter, given that quite a lot of abuse occurs within the Church. Does it excuse the Church? Or lessen its responsibility?



I don't doubt it, Scotty. But I can't say the same about the non-lay members, can I, since there is mounting evidence worldwide that such offences have been systematically covered up by the Church. In both the US and Germany, for instance, the Church faces huge damages for the actions of senior clergy in covering this up.



I hope you are right, though I don't know how you are so sure..



My point was more about why you find it necessary to make the homosexual-heterosexual distinction. In a religion where women play such a small part (at least 'decades ago') it is hardly surprising that most of the abuse is homosexual (that is, if that is true).



This is another version of the tu quoque fallacy and doesn't take us anywhere.



A repeat of tu quoque, plus the ad hominem fallacy - attacking the other speaker on a personal level.

Never mind, though.

That is utterly absurd.

I've never taken an actual account of how many ad hominem attacks there are on this forum but I humbly suggest that I may have been subjected to rather more of these than the huge majority of members. I'm not complaining, it just makes me all the more determined to deal in FACTS ...

There is no 'fallacy' about facts. I would have thought one might have preferred to have access to some of them before one pronounces judgement on anything.

Suffice to say the number of official child-abuse cases concerning the Church are on record for anyone to examine. Of course there are similar child-abuse cases in other private and state institutions which are also on record for anyone to examine (though some members seem curiously reluctant to do so). That does not excuse child-abuse in either case. It is simply stating a fact. It is also a fact that the huge majority concerning the Catholic Church are of a homosexual nature and I'm surprised that you appear to be keen to brush aside this particular fact. I didn't make up this fact. It is simply a fact. It is also general knowledge (gleaned from official sources) that most child-abuse takes place in the home. I agree that this is a shocking fact but it still appears to be an actual fact.

Don't take my word for it, simply check out all these facts for yourself, Pab ...

[MrGongGong]

Scotty......you are an intelligent person
but you can't do the "a big boy did it and ran away" or even the "well everyone else does it" thing

this is very worrying indeed

Suffice to say the number of official child-abuse cases concerning the Church are on record for anyone to examine.

Do you REALLY believe that ?
That they are ALL "on record"
what about all the "unofficial ones " , I guess they don't count ?

Pointing the finger at other (equally fallible) organisations and individuals simply doesn't wash

[jean]

However, also note: "Marriage is not a mere civil contract, but a religious act."

A civil marriage is just that - it is not a religious act at all.

[ahinton]

Suffice to say the number of official child-abuse cases concerning the Church are on record for anyone to examine. Of course there are similar child-abuse cases in other private and state institutions which are also on record for anyone to examine (though some members seem curiously reluctant to do so). That does not excuse child-abuse in either case. It is simply stating a fact. It is also a fact that the huge majority concerning the Catholic Church are of a homosexual nature and I'm surprised that you appear to be keen to brush aside this particular fact. I didn't make up this fact. It is simply a fact. It is also general knowledge (gleaned from official sources) that most child-abuse takes place in the home. I agree that this is a shocking fact but it still appears to be an actual fact.

No, scotty - unless by "official child abuse cases" you mean those that have been admitted to by the Church after being discovered and prosecuted (and I shudder to imagine what else could be meant by this expression, since I do not believe that even the Roman Catholic Church carries out child abuse "officially"); at best, therefore, only those cases that have been revealed by the Church or via other official channels and admitted to by the Church and prosecuted by the relevant authorities "are on (Church) record(s) for anyone to examine" and, as has been pointed out several times already, the routine official covering up of some of these cases and of other allegations - not to mention the fear instilled in some victims by certain senior officials of the Church in order to discourage them from even reporting such instances - is in some senses as grave as the abuse itself, ye how many cases of such concealment by the Church are officially reported by the Church and available to be consulted by members of the public?