It’s not the entire religion or its beliefs, though - just the organization of the Roman Catholic Church. Note the focus on the organization and its actions, not on the religeon or its religious beliefs.
The reason that this hatred isn’t thrust upon the Orthodox Catholic Church has nothing to do with the Filioque clause, I assure you.
Where is Bernard Law these days? :dubious: How about Roger Mahony?
I’d like to believe you know better than to claim child rape is part of the faith you profess.
The focus is on all persons who are currently Catholic:
That statement applied to people supporting the organization, it made no mention of whether those people actually hold Catholic religious beliefs.
I don’t see how it applies to all Catholics when it would clearly exclude all Orthodox Catholics (unless they happen to support the RCC) or Catholics who hate the current Church. It would, however, apply to atheists who support the church.
On that basis, I believe your statement to be false.
That said, however, I believe that if you look at my posts in this thread, youll see that I don’t support the point of view that you’re criticizing.
I see that.
But in responding to your first point, one of the precepts of the church is to contribute to the support of the church. There is, in other words, no way to believe in the religious truths of the church without supporting it in some way.
Yes, that is problematic. But rejection of that precept would not amount to apostasy - it would be heresy at most. And in the view of the Church, heretics don’t stop being Catholic - so folks who violate that dictate of support, are still Catholic and yet wouldn’t be subject to that particular vitriol.
Granted.
So let me amend my complaint:
The focus is on all persons who currently hold a specific Catholic religious belief:
I’ll grant that that’s overly broad - I certainly don’t share that view. But while you’ll find my view more nuanced, I doubt you’ll like it much better 
Ok, you’re an idiot. Where the fuck you get “conservative”, I’ll never understand. You are an idiot, instead. Ok, it’s the pit. But I can’t say what you deserve. You’re an idiot, who doesn’t understand the shit you’re railing against. OK. You’re demonstrably stupid. Do you have an actual point?
Look, I know the Church has had an abysmal response to these depredations, only addressed meaningfully in the last few years. I suspect I won’t like your view, but I probably won’t argue much against them, since I suspect they’ll be based on fact…and I don’t like the facts any more than you do.
So, if you adhere to the faith, you must support the institution. The institution supports child rape. Therefore … :dubious:
Well, one way *not *to support child rape would be adhere to a different faith and a different institution. There are many to choose from, most of whom do not have that little flaw. Why, then, would a person choose this one? Why, then, would a person who so chooses feel offended by having the consequences of that choice pointed out to him? Hate speech indeed.
I believe we’ve already gone over why that accusation is false.
The facts say otherwise. Their religious doctrine certainly does not condone it, no - but the *institution *supports it.
Thanks Bricker. I was almost worried you were going to set us straight.
ETA: Shit, nevermind.
Can you tell me how they are addressing the issue meaningfully today?
Because from outsider’s view, it’s ‘They address it meaningfully a few years after sitting on their hands about any one particular case and then, and only then, because the cat is already out of the bag’.
Can we see an example within the last couple of years of a priest being defrocked and the church aiding a prosecution after finding out said priest has committed a heinous crime against a child or children? And is anything less than that really meaningful?
And a question about criminal law…if you find out about a crime or have evidence that a crime has been committed, do you have any duty to report that crime? Does it change if the alleged criminal is in your employ?
I can appreciate, and repect, that, but I think people like you are in a position to do more by choosing to cast their loyalty to a better organization that holds the same fundamental beliefs. You may not be the problem ( and I really don’t think you are), but you can do a lot more to be the solution.
Y’know, I dropped out of active practice and participation in the RCC years ago – too many disagreements and it would have been bogus to just confess the same things week after week with no purpose of amends on my part – but ISTM a lot of people do not get that to the true faithful believer, changing churches is NOT something you can do as easily as changing what candidate you vote for or what insurance company you subscribe to. Absent some sort of road-to-Damascus moment, it’s a hard journey. The investment of self in it is not easily comprehensible to the more secularly minded.
As a general rule: No. There are specific cases in which you are required to, and those vary by jurisdiction.
Yes. These scandals that you’re hearing about now are ones where the underlying crimes were committed in the 1980s or 1990s. In the early 2000s, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted very stringent new reforms involving treating any accusation as credible until fully investigated, removing an accused priest from active ministry until any charges were investigated, and reporting charges to the police.
For example, Mark Stewart Bullock, formerly assigned as parochial vicar of Church of the Immaculate Conception in Towson, was immediately dismissed from his priestly duties and his faculties as a priest were removed by his bishop after being accused – not convicted, mind you, but accused – of exposing himself in an adult bookstore.
Rev. Uriel Ojeda, who had served as a parochial vicar in Redding for Our Lady of Mercy Church, was accused of abusing a 13-year-old. When informed of the allegations, the diocese contacted the police, suspended Ojeda’s priestly faculties, and – going farther than required by the USCCB’s guidelines – refused to post bail for the accused.
No, and no, as general principles, although some states are beginning to create such laws. But as a general rule, no.
There is no other organization that holds the same fundamental beliefs.
Christ said, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” That means something fundamental: that Christ intended to found a church, and that Peter was to serve as His Vicar on Earth, and that Church would be the true faith. There is no other organization.
Do you wish to claim that your adherence to that doctrine is not of your own choice? :dubious: