Happy Heathen-bite my Catholic arse!

[Kirkland1244]

Marley,

You would seem less like a troll if you would state why you think the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility has anything to do with the pedophilia crisis. You posted a quote about the Pope committing sins, and then “countered” it with infalliblity, which from my perspective is you trying to attack the Church’s position on papal infallibility.

Which just shows how incredibly stupid you are, and how incapable you are of even reading the very passage you posted, which says nothing about the pope’s ability to sin.

In other words, you seem just like any other worthless, subhuman anti-Catholic troll. Christ, I wish we could hold another Inquisition.

Kirk

[yosemite]

1. Marley’s intent in posting the cite were overwhelmingly transparent. I find great irony with others finding the “cite” she requested in her own cite.

2. Manny, you’re kidding, right? If not, you have gone WAY over the top!

3. Hi Opal!

[Joyfulgirl]

*Originally posted by dropzone *
**
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. **

Well, since he obviously wasn’t performing any moderator functions in that post, I think we can all safely assume he was speaking as a poster. As such, I expect him to uphold all rules posters are supposed to. This means that he could be banned for being a jerk, if another moderator feels he was being one, but to say that his moderating priveleges should be revoked because he should be held to a higher standard even when he’s clearly not in moderating mode… that’s a bit much.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by dropzone *
**Then how do you interpret this?
**

The same way I would interpret it if someone said the American government is full of corrupt politicians: that America’s citizens need to become more vigilant, not that American citizens are corrupt. Really, I thought that was a common understanding that the organization reflected on the people who administrate the organization, not its members.

[Kirkland1244]

Anyone who has the word “Moderator” under their name, on any board, must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than “regular” posters, even in forums they do not moderate, because they carry the burden at all times of representing the leadership of the board.

This goes for all persons in authority: presidents, moderators, police men, teachers, and, of course, priests.

Kirk

[dropzone]

You think he could be banned as a poster for being a jerk, yet my suggesting that he lose an unpaid, overworked, and underappreciated job for the same thing is “a bit much?”

[jayjay]

It should also be noted that, unlike most Protestant denominations, the RCC laity does not have any power over hiring, firing or disposition of parish priests. Until the mid-60’s, the laity had no power whatsoever, really. Change has been slow, and is definitely not to the point where a change in the practice of shuffling pedophile priests to parishes where they aren’t known would have been effectible from the bottom up.

It’s rather akin to blaming the people of Brunei if the Sultan were to do something vile. There is no democracy in the RCC, therefore “the people” can’t be held responsible for what the Hierarchy does.

Also, realize that the extent of the shuffling wasn’t really realized until a few years ago. There’s no Freedom of Information Act in the Church. If you did know about a priest who’d been accused of touching altar boys in bad places in your parish, you’d probably only know that he was eventually gone, not necessarily where he’d been reassigned or even if he’d been reassigned. So why would you even suspect that it wasn’t an isolated incident, until the outlines of this scandal were brought to the surface?

jayjay

[dropzone]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Really, I thought that was a common understanding that the organization reflected on the people who administrate the organization, not its members. **

I do not believe that manhattan, by describing the church as a “child sex cult” and adding “and you are a member” intended it that way. A cult or a church or a company is the sum of its members. Just as the employees of Arthur Andersen protest being tarred with the same brush as those managers involved with Enron, Catholics have a right to protest being accused of being “child sex cultists” based on the actions of some of the managers, and you would not appreciate it, nor would it be accurate, if I were to call you a horse’s ass just because manhattan is one and you are a member of the SDMB.

[Tee]

*Originally posted by manhattan *
Sorry, Guin, but until the Pope himself specifically condemns, permanently excommunicates and turns over to the civil authorities the guilty and the collaborators, each and every one, the Catholic Church in the United States is a child sex cult, and you are a member.

Asshole, would you like to try to name ‘each and every’ guilty person and collaborator? You have no idea of the scope of it yet, and neither do we. Some allegations are going to be proven right, some proven wrong, and more are coming to light every day it seems. Now, why does he need to excommunicate these people - can’t they still believe in God? Can they be forgiven for this, after serving time? What to do with them afterwards? How did this manage to stay hidden for so long? These are all questions that are being addressed in meetings big and small in all the parishes, particularly this weekend, because everyone wants to know.

You haven’t the foggiest idea what a ‘child sex cult’ is, do you.

[Joyfulgirl]

*Originally posted by dropzone *
**You think he could be banned as a poster for being a jerk, yet my suggesting that he lose an unpaid, overworked, and underappreciated job for the same thing is “a bit much?” **

I’m saying that if the powers that be think he went too far, banning would be more appropriate, seeing as how he was acting as a poster, and not a moderator. And I do sympathize with the difficulties that come with being moderator, which is why I don’t think that on top of all the responsibilities they already have, their every word should be upheld to some higher standard no matter what.

Anyway, it isn’t even my decision in the first place, so I don’t see why I’m debating this. These pit threads. Oy.

[sup]And he might have been joking. Maybe? <crosses fingers>[/sup]

[dropzone]

*Originally posted by Joyfulgirl *
**[sup]And he might have been joking. Maybe? <crosses fingers>[/sup] **

Pulling someone’s leg with hate speech is frowned upon here. Had he hopped back in a couple hours ago with a “Hey! I was joking! Here’s a quarter; buy a sense of humor,” I’d’ve rolled my eyes but said nothing.

[emmy66]

*Originally posted by Joyfulgirl *
And he might have been joking. Maybe? <crosses fingers>

That’s what I thought when I first read it, several hours ago. I was amazed by the number of posts this thread has received since then.

[Joyfulgirl]

*Originally posted by dropzone *
**
Pulling someone’s leg with hate speech is frowned upon here. Had he hopped back in a couple hours ago with a “Hey! I was joking! Here’s a quarter; buy a sense of humor,” I’d’ve rolled my eyes but said nothing. **

Even though he’s a moderator?

[dropzone]

Even if he was a moderator. Of course, even then the thread would be nearly as long as it is. Like I said, hate speech, even said as a joke, goes over like a lead balloon here.

[emmy66]

*Originally posted by dropzone *
**
Pulling someone’s leg with hate speech is frowned upon here. Had he hopped back in a couple hours ago with a “Hey! I was joking! Here’s a quarter; buy a sense of humor,” I’d’ve rolled my eyes but said nothing. **

Well, just to cut him some slack…
It was 11:00 CST. Perhaps he is sleeping now…?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

Guinastasia Please take comfort in the fact that the** vast majority** of those who share your faith have nothing to do whatsoever with the recent scandals. Furthermore a large denomination such as you are a part of is not defined by a minority of the heirarchy, but rather the common faith of the members.

The RCC can certainly take pride as an institution that has been a leader in providing for charitable works. Certainly that does not generate much press, but the fact is that alone is far more representative of the character of Roman Catholicism in the last couple of centuries.

We don’t accuse Enron / Anderson employees with complicity in the coverups by senior executives.

[dropzone]

*Originally posted by emmy66 *
**Well, just to cut him some slack…
It was 11:00 CST. Perhaps he is sleeping now…? **

He should have posted the “I was joking” thing before he went to sleep. If he didn’t mean it, leaving it here to stir up trouble is trollish behavior.

[Briny_Deep]

Lucky HappyHeathen. This is like when 9/11 ended all media discussion of Gary Condit.

[Truth_Seeker]

Guinastasia
Don’t worry about being a member of a “child sex cult.” Guin IIRC, some poster, Joshie, I believe, categorically demonstrated that you are, in fact, actually an Anglican rather than a Catholic.

Manhattan
Whatever you may think of organized religion, hell, whatever you may think of organization, on reflection, you must admit that your comments are ridiculous and grossly unfair. I don’t see any of the Catholic laity condoning child molestation now that it’s out in the open and I have no idea how many and who in the Catholic heirarchy are complicit. It’s true that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, but you aren’t painting with broad brush, you’re throwing the paint can.

You’re American, I believe well, Sorry, Manhattan, but until the President himself specifically condemns, strips the citizenship from and turns over to the international authorities the guilty and the collaborators, each and every one who were responsible for aiding the Contras, the United States is a gang of murdering, torturing terrorists, and you are a member.

Whether you choose to fight from within or without is of course your choice, but it is a gang of murdering, torturing terrorists. Any citizen who doesn’t admit it as part of the fight against it is, in fact, condoning it.

What’s that you say? The United States makes horrible mistakes but it is much more than those mistakes? You say the United States, while riddled with human error and even evil as are all human institutions, stands for something that you’re proud to be a part of?

Well, guess what, bub, so does the Catholic Church.

Manhattan, confession is good for the soul. Apologize for getting a little bit carried away.

Penance is good for the soul, too. As a token of your contrition, you are hereby required to change your username to “Bronx” for the next week.

[Quasimodem]

…and I like and respect Manhattan. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, such as his computer crashed before he could let us know he was “tongue-in-cheekin’”.

I would like to say, however, that it might have been prudent to add a smilie, if he was being facetious.

It’s a very serious issue Guin is discussing, and I will be interested to see how this ends, for I too am a Catholic and do not consider myself part of a child-sex cult.

Thanks

Quasimodem