Paedophilia not criminal condition!

The pearly gate part comes from Revelation:

The part about Peter judging comes from Matthew:

It seems to me he’s saying that paedophiles shouldn’t be punished under certain circumstances. I think the Cardinal is a fuckwit(I borrowed that word from Dart Panada’s description of me)

Badly worded maybe on my part, but I never meant to suggested you were Christian or Catholic, although it may have appeared that way I’ll concede. The point I was making and I’m hoping you will agree is that people who continue to support the Catholic church regardless of the paedophilia problem are no better than the officers of the church who are directly responsible for protecting the paedophiles who have harmed children.

I wouldn’t say they’re as bad, not literally. But still pretty damn bad.

Unless they really believe in the Church and are actively working to try to fix the problem, at which point I wouldn’t say they’re bad at all, just stupid.

Agreed, I find within myself that I can no longer stand silent, the Church now, is doing more harm to themselves by not addressing the problem openly. The denials and the moving priests, the damage is done everyone knows, there’s nothing left to hide the right thing to do now is deal with it the right way. I’m a recent convert to atheism after trying several churches and religions, I have to conclude anyone who follows any religion blindly deserves whatever shit they get laid on them.

Apologies, I could have done a better job, my blood was boiling and the need to vent while trying to be civil, but that’s no excuse.

I’ve had two friends commit suicide after trying to get help from within the church for what had been done to them, it was a very long time ago and the person responsible is burning in hell now I would hope, that is if I was still to believe in such things.

I haven’t seen anything to suggest that anyone is trying to fix the problem that’s what originally drove me away from the church, there is no way to change it unless your right within the corridors of power and I don’t think we’re going to ever see that happen.

In the thread title, for one. The entire ostensible purpose of this thread is your outrage that the cardinal would say that being a pedophile is not a criminal act. And, as I stated above, it isn’t. You can’t be put on trial for a thought.

It’s not really hypocritical. You won’t hear the Catholic church saying that homosexuals should be thrown in jail, or tarred and feathered, or burned at the stake or what have you. I suspect that if the church’s problem was that priests were buggering adult men under their authority, the church’s response would be the same (and, in fact, that’s exactly what the scandal surrounding Cardinal O’Brien is - that he engaged in sex acts with adult priests within his diocese).

From the church’s view, what they’re doing isn’t “covering up for pedophiles”, it’s giving a sinner a chance to redeem himself by removing him from the situation and putting him somewhere new. The church has pretty much always believed in not subjugating itself to secular authority - the conflict between Henry II and Thomas Becket, all the way back in the 12th century, was about Becket refusing to let the king’s courts try priests accused of felonies, and the popes from 1871 to 1929 refused to leave the Apostolic Palace for fear that doing so would make them subject to the Italian crown. Are they enabling criminal activities? Yes, and to the extent that is possible the church needs to be taken to task for that and encouraged to stop those practices. Are they doing it out of some deep-seated hypocrisy or willingness to cover up for criminals? In my opinion, no - their intentions are good but sorely misguided.

It was my understanding that that verse is interpreted as being the justification for the authority of the Pope, as Peter was instructed to guide the church on Earth in Jesus’ absence. Not that it gave him any supernatural authority in the afterlife - only God can judge someone worthy of heaven.

You may well be right, however given the Churchs history in the way it has dealt with Paedophiles in the past, I have serious fucking doubts, I’d like to know more about the two priests he knows to find out whether or not they had actually committed a crime. Given the attitude the church has shown in the past what do you think is more likely?

Pope Blesses Ugandan Leader Who Wants To Execute Gays

Pope Blesses Ugandan Supporter of ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill’

I have never actually heard them say that homosexuals should be executed, but I’ve never heard them condemn anyone who would, it’s just semantics now, isn’t it?

I have no idea, I’m not up on the latest ins and outs of the RCC.

How many times does a priest need to be moved before the RCC gets the idea that he’s not going to stop? Or do you think their method has less recidivism than say prison.

Here’s where we might disagree, see I have no problem keeping the separation between a Church, and their need to be spiritual leaders, from the government being the secular authority. What I’m really starting to have a problem with is when the faithful aren’t screaming for something to be done. Why are the faithful not demanding action from their spiritual leaders. And if the church refuse to separate themselves from people who MUST commit horrid crimes against young children, the faithful must then be held accountable, you cannot let crimes of that nature go unpunished, eternally can we?

One argument I absolutely hate being used all the time to justify every thing is “Think of the children” but now I truly believe there is no possible way to ignore the fact that the RCC is a danger to children.

The impression I get from those two links is that the “blessing” of the Ugandan was in no way a direct endorsement of her or her politics - the pope blessed everyone who was there and she happened to be among them, and for political purposes is spinning it as receiving papal favor.

I don’t endorse the church’s method. As I said above, it’s criminal - but I understand their reasons for doing it, and it’s not out of an honest intent to “shelter pedophiles”.

I’d say there are plenty of Catholics who are doing just that. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and John Kerry are all Catholics (to name a handful of the Catholics in the US government), and I’ve never heard any indication that they want anything other than to see full accountability from the church on this issue.

In the long run, I see the election of Pope Francis as being a good sign. In the few days he’s been in office he’s already shattering expectations about the role of the papacy with his emphasis on austerity and humility, and if he continues to follow in the lead of his namesake I would expect to see him take action to the effect that the church cannot be trusted as a spiritual leader of the people if it betrays their trust by covering for predators in their midst.

It is, but it’s also the basis for the idea that Peter can open the gates to heaven, as it states he has the keys. What else would you do with keys?

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that it’s part of Catholic dogma that St. Peter is hanging out at the Pearly Gates, it’s not. I’m just saying that that verse inspired that particular idea. It’s more of a Sunday school, Bible story kind of thing.

What makes you think they’re not? I’m an ex, but my mother is still a devout Catholic, active in the church. She can’t drive anymore, I’m her driver, and so I see many of the other people she participates with. They are anything but silent on this issue. The bishop is quite familiar with their names, and probably cringes every day when he sees the mail arrive.

You obviously don’t know squat about what the faithful are doing or not doing.

Don’t all conservatives promise austerity and humility though? I’ve heard this line trotted out every time and it’s always bullshit so, if your hopeful good for you. I’ve heard though that this new guy isn’t really that different from the last guy but then I have less confidence in the RCCs ability to change. I’m more skeptical than you I guess and I tend to judge based on actions and not the shit that dribbles down their chins.

Not to be dismissive of this point but, good for you thinking a few American politicians can make a difference. I’m not from the USA and I don’t view the “World Police” as being the ones who should be the leaders in making the RCC clean up it’s image, that has got to be done by the faithful, the ones who are currently bleating about how it’s going to be soo much better under the new guy, the ones who blindly follow the church through scandal after scandal and continue to believe that the RCC can change. The RCC will not change until such time as the faithful lift the wool from their eyes and demand action, but it never ceases to amaze me how much people are will forgive their church. Actions matter, words are cheap. The RCC needs to fix it’s image problem with actions, not sound bites.

Absolutely correct point being made here, but unfortunately an incorrect factual example. There are two precepts of the Church being conflated:

[ul][li]To receive Communion during the Easter season[/li][li]To receive penance during the Lenten season (if there is mortal sin involved)[/li][/ul]

So you could have substituted “Easter,” for “Lent,” above and been right, or substituted “Penance,” for “Communion.”

Now I’ll let the rest of the thread continue with the relentless and eager Catholic bashing that somehow fails to be hate speech.

I’m sure that’s the way you see it, how many Pontiffs have you seen come and go, how often do you see the church change? I’m glad your mum is doing so much to rock the church, she must think as I do that something needs to change, that’s great but we’re still short nearly 1 billion people. It’s the 1 billion Catholics who will continually forgive them any transgression these are the people I’m aiming at. But unlike you, I’m not certain that your mums efforts are enough to get things changed. Don’t forget there is no necessity to be Catholic, one can still be a follower of Christ while deriding the RCC, the two positions aren’t mutually exclusive.

Really how many shattered lives are we honestly prepared to sacrifice in order to allow this “Golden cow” to continue to flourish?

Their efforts are obviously shaking the church to it’s core now aren’t they.

It’s not hate speech because it’s their words and actions that are being attacked, not some immutable characteristic.

You heard it here first, it’s OK to hate people for doing horrible things.

Did I not mention I’ve been a member of the Catholic Church nearly all my life and have finally come to the conclusion that the RCC is never going to change and have no intention of being an example of great moral leaders. Preach morals but not expected to set an examples? That’s hate?

Here’s hate, and I’m not going to ask if you’ve stopped bashing your wife, but I will ask has your church stopped the molestation of children by it’s leaders? What has wanting to prevent the molestation of children got to do with hate?

No, I don’t see it that way. “Hate speech” has virtually always been understood as including speech invidiously painting an entire religious faith – even though religious belief is not an immutable characteristic.

Do you contend that today, right now, the Church’s policies are ineffective with respect to stopping molestation of children by its leaders?

Because in my view, the answer is that they are not: the Church HAS taken necessary steps to stop molestation.

Pretty much. At least in First World countries.