Well said Pepperlandgirl
There are two kinds of sin Ommision and Commision.
If you see somehing wrong and don’t fix it you have sinned.
And why isn’t the whole Catholic Church up in arms? I saw a Bishop on The news hours talking about this. He said they had a meeting planned for June.
Doesn’t that show how much importance the put on it?
Where do you see any hint of that in my post?
I asked a yes or no question. I did this without indicating my opinion on any part of this discussion. From my post, you have no way of knowing my religion, my beliefs, my opinions of the Catholic Church or the activities performed by people associated with said Church, or my thoughts on what Guin has written. All that was requested was a simple yes or no, or possibly some variation on “I don’t know”. Any answer at all would have been acceptable. Lack of an answer would have been acceptable.
Please save the defensiveness for the people who attack. Thanks.
I don’t agree. I think any person who is going to be trusted as a religious leader, and given the responsiblity a Catholic Priest is given should be checked on, whether you suspect something is wrong or not. So what if they should be trusted? The country gets up in arms if our politicians don’t disclose every little thing about their private lives, but people blissfully accept that the men directing their immortal souls can be trusted 100%? I think a lot of people were burying their heads in the sand because this is not a new problem. It’s not like priests starting molesting children ten years ago, and before that, it was an unheard of problem. And as long as this has been a problem, there has been people who could have stopped it, who should have stopped it, but for whatever reason, chose not to. There is a reason why this has reached some epidemic proportions…because the people have allowed it with their inaction.
Cite, please.
Couldn’t your own cite be interpreted that way?
Easily done! Why, I only needed to go to your own post:
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
You should attempt to comprehend what you are quoting before you post it. Otherwise you could look like an idiot.
Wrong. Although I sometimes disagree with what he says, unless he was acting as a moderator in that post he has just as much a right to express his opinion as you do, and face the backlash that results.
Loathsome and unpopular? Sure. Trollish? Nope.
May I ask what I’ve done to cause you anger and make you feel the need to insult me?
You asked for a cite.
Well, good thing he wasn’t moderating then.
And what, pray-tell (assuming manny wasn’t whooshing us), is wrong with assuming that a heirarchal organization like the Catholic church has a chain of responsibility for the actions of its members? And, actually, does the Catholic church have any chain of responsibility at all? Are you saying that a series of scandals does not reflect the state of Catholicism as it pertains to it’s organization?
Whether it was inflammatory or not, it raises a worthy point IMO.
Well, I think he was being a jerk, something that is not permitted of anyone here.
Holy SHIT this is a busy thread for the time! :eek:
Bullshit.
The VAST majority of Catholics worldwide had no idea this was going on until recently. Ignorance !=Guilt
The VAST majority of Catholics do not practice or condone these pervert’s behavior. The fact that the organization has some minority of evil people (though granted, in postions of authority) does not mean that all Catholics are evil via omission or commission. Seriously: what percentage of all Catholics do you think were involved in the cover-up? 1%? Maybe?
This is one of the more trollish things I’ve ever heard said. Orion*****Orion was banned, in part for saying similar things about Jews. I don’t think you should be banned since as far as I know, this is the only comment you’ve made like this, but this is an extrodinarily vile and bigoted statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.
By your “logic”, if every time a cop beats a confession out of a suspect and his superior officers try to cover it up, unless the President himself files a lawsuit, every person in the country is guilty of assault?
I repeat: Bullshit.
Erislover You wanna follow the chain UPward and say that the higher-ups shoulda known better what was going on? Fine. {b]Manhattan** implied…hell… SAID that it should be followed downward as well. Chain of command don’t work that way.
Fenris
Actually, he didn’t move it downward in my reading of it, but I suppose it could be argued the other way. I read it as making a comment on the church alone, not on the members.
This is why, as dorky as it seems, the whole “removing moderator hat” business is so useful. His name comes up as Manhattan, Moderator. While he is not a moderator specifically of The Pit, he can function as one. Unless he says that he is not speaking as a moderator, you must assume that he is. And, as a moderator and, thus, an unpaid member of the staff of the SDMB and the Chicago Reader, what he says reflects badly on the entire organization.
So, no, he gave up some of his right to free speech when he took the job.
Then how do you interpret this?
Ah. Please forgive me. I thought I would participate in a discussion. My error; I should have known that a discussion is not what would be happening in a thread about religion. I won’t bother to explain my logic, since logic clearly isn’t called for here, and I have no desire to join a shouting match. Please return to your regularly scheduled mudslinging.
It would be nice if the laity had some recourse themselves. The hierarchy has swept this stuff under the rug (as I’ve argued elsewhere, this may be criminal) for years as though they have had a right to do so. It comes from too much unquestioning obedience IMHO and no toleration of dissent. It’s not like the middle ages where the clergy was the only educated body within the boundries of Christendom. The U.S. has a highly educated lay population, and they should have significant responsibility. But to suggest that the primary purpose of the church is as a child sex cult is just way over the top. The church has an overall purpose of speading the word of God. If a number of individuals abuse the power entrusted to them to molest children, they should be prosecuted. If the church hierarchy in its arrogance doesn’t think that it must comply with the law and turn these rat bastards in, then they should be prosecuted.
Hah! It’s not so easy, buddy. You quoted the catechism and asked if Guin subscribed the it. The implication you made was the typical one of people unfamiliar with the true nature of papal infallibility: that everything he says is true and absolute. You thought you were hot squat by tripping her with the words of her own church, except you didn’t bother to read it thoroughly enough to understand it AND to realize that papal infallibility has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, even if it worked the way you thought it did. Now you come back all hurt because I hoisted you with your own petard? I was kind and explanatory in my first post on the topic, but I am now just laughing at you.
Seems to me that you have been slinging mud–or something–yourself. Demanding a citation for the facts of a statement that you had already posted would seem to indicate that you had not bothered to read what you posted. This would usually seem to indicate that you were simply papering the thread with meaningless comments, hardly looking to “participate in a discussion.” YMMV, of course.