Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They may be, but that isn't the issue in my mind. The issue is that these scandals have brought such a bad light on the Roman Catholic Priesthood that I personally believe you are taking a risk allowing your child near them unobserved.


GG

edit..and to answer your question I don't know any. They may be perfectly fine fellows in public but in private who knows what they are like.

generalgrog wrote:They may be, but that isn't the issue in my mind. The issue is that these scandals have brought such a bad light on the Roman Catholic Priesthood that I personally believe you are taking a risk allowing your child near them unobserved.


GG

edit..and to answer your question I don't know any. They may be perfectly fine fellows in public but in private who knows what they are like.

The problem with these scandals is that they are made into gross generalizations by the media. Would the bad light they direct towards priests be as harsh if they would stick entirely to the facts? Probably not. The news stories you see and hear generally point this out as behaviour you can expect from any Catholic priest, which simply isn't the case.
You can tell a lot about the state of a person's interior life by observations about what they project to others. Example: Someone with a messy room is likely to be unorganized in their inner convictions and thoughts as well. It is very hard to lead a double life, and what your true thoughts are will leak out and be revealed whether you want them to or not. If a certain Catholic priest looks shifty to you, then by all means, don't hesitate to stay clear. But that can be said of all people, not just priests, and you're running the same risk of leaving your child with a priest you don't know as any other stranger, while leaving your child with a priest you know well will have the same likelihood of molestation as any friend you know as well.
Just wondering: why might it be necessary to leave your children with a priest anyway?

Oh I don't know...altar boys, confessionals, counseling. That's 3 I can think of.

I agree with your point about "how do you trust anyone". However I think the heart of the problem and what makes Roman Catholic priests a different class in my mind is the issue forcing celibacy on the priesthood. That is completly unnatural and, I believe, unbiblical.

Mark 10:6,7 (KJV) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife
Gen 2:18(KJV) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him
1Tim 3:1-4(KJV)(underlines mine)
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;


I think that this enforced celibacy can cause spiritual distress, opening the priest up to unnecesary temptations, who may have once had all the best intentions only to turn to evil because he has no outlet for his sexual desires. Also I think it may attract a certain type of individual who is unnatural to begin with. I.E. pedofiles


GG

ll the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.
EDIT: quoted from CCC.

What is CCC?

GG

Manchu wrote:I've been pondering my debate with sebster all morning and I (perhaps finally) see the point he's making. Suffice it to say that I don't think Robertsons's hope of piercing Ratzingers immunity, even if he did manage to construct a cogent legal claim (which I will continue to affirm that he cannot), will gain any traction outside of the narrow circle he travels in and that his motives for attempting as much seem professionally questionable .

Okay, cool, I think we pretty much agree. I agree that this is not going to end with the Pope being led away in handcuffs - even if it (impossibly) did result in a court rejecting his claimed immunity, all it would mean is the Pope would be unable to travel to certain countries. The result would be almost entirely PR.

The objective here, I believe, is to force the Church into greater transparency and police involvement. When the issue reaches such a scale that there is any talk at all of pursuing legal action against the Pope, then it becomes almost impossible to justify doing anything but hand the future allegations over to the police. Oh, and to challenge the special rights granted to the Church over other bodies.

Has anyone noticed that the atheists are not going jihad on the Pope yet?

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I concur entirely. But in doing so let us not fall into the trap of also saying because its a politically motivated bash on religion there is no case to answer.

People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Geoffrey Robertson are ensuring that the Church hierarchy--specifically, the Curia--feels totally confirmed in its antipathy about transparency and suspicion of the media so that no reforms are ever undertaken. Don't get me wrong, sexual abuse in the Church is over. But the causes of that abuse--or rather, the causes for why this remained under the raider within the various chanceries of the world will not be addressed. And that is really the only good thing that could come out of all this. So thanks a lot, Dawkins et al. You fething donkey-caves.

I would say the purpose would be to make the internal investigations that allowed for the secrecy and cover-ups to become politically non-viable. Which strikes me as a pretty good idea, and exactly how things are supposed to work - any organisation anywhere that is given trust and power that later goes on to abuse that trust should be challenged, and likely have that trust and power reduced.

Orlanth you know full well what i meant, even this thread refers to Dawkins 'arresting' the pope. I merely meant the whole 'full nelson on the Pope' spirit of the article and not the horrific assault on little boys. No need to be childish just cos were at different ends of the God spectrum is there? Its also rather laughable as clearly it is secular chaps like me who are looking out for the kids. Your lot are allowing your religious feelings to get in the way of your common sense and using this thread to slate an elderly biologist and not a man who was complicit in alerting the authorities to a man who tied up and raped a teenager!

mattyrm wrote:
Its also rather laughable as clearly it is secular chaps like me who are looking out for the kids.

Nope secular folks like you are not trying to help the kids. You called for the arrest of the Pope while we are both unclear on whether he had personally done wrong. Normally justice works by seeing if there is a case to answer first for then calling for specific people to be indited. You (plural) turn a very obvious blind eye to any civic involvement and collusion. You even accused ME of collusion in your earlier rant. Sorry that type of hysteria is dangerous.

Its other types secular and not who are trying to look out for the kids.

Orlanth wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Its also rather laughable as clearly it is secular chaps like me who are looking out for the kids.

Nope secular folks like you are not trying to help the kids. You called for the arrest of the Pope while we are both unclear on whether he had personally done wrong. Normally justice works by seeing if there is a case to answer first for then calling for specific people to be indited. You (plural) turn a very obvious blind eye to any civic involvement and collusion. You even accused ME of collusion in your earlier rant. Sorry that type of hysteria is dangerous.

Its other types secular and not who are trying to look out for the kids.

Okay what I've picked up so far from the religious types / or pro pope guys at least is this. You'd rather have him walk un-questioned while there is a chance that he did it, then actually test this fact in court.

Where as ANY other man who is suspect of this would immediately dragged of. Equals my ass.

Ratzinger? I happen to be reading a book at the moment about child molestation in the Catholic Church, and there are some truly nasty aspects to some of these cases. The Church of Rome has a few really, really sick secrets, but sincerely doubt whether Dawkins and his ivory-tower friends can do much about it. Still, good on them for trying at least. It's more than any of us have done.

Soladrin wrote:

Okay what I've picked up so far from the religious types / or pro pope guys at least is this. You'd rather have him walk un-questioned while there is a chance that he did it, then actually test this fact in court.

Where as ANY other man who is suspect of this would immediately dragged of. Equals my ass.

Well most of the other side are not pro-pope, or even catholic in many cases. We are not against arresting people in the church who colluded in child abuse, just want to be sure the right ones are arrested and until very recently it was unclear if the Pope was being targeted because her did something or because he happened to want to come to the UK and is big in the Catholic church. Other commentary on this issue is on whether we legally can due to international law.

Blair invited Robert Mugabe to the UK in 1998, a man on at least a moral par with the worst abusers mentioned in this thread. People tried to arrest him and failed.

Another good question would then be why invite these scum on state visits anyway? But that is a question to be directed at HM Government.

Best we can hope for is to try and force Ratzinger to resign and call on the College of Cardinals to elect a Pope who will reform the Church and do away with the abuse and collusion. This is about right as many have forgotten the focus of the thread is not primarly about kiddie fiddler priests themselves but those who cover up after them. Child abusers belong in prison, people in cover ups belong out of office. This is how it is with secular heirarchies and accountability so the bar should remain the same.
Now if Ratzinger is a child abuser , or is a direct accomplice to another priest doing so then by all means lock him up and throw away the key.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orky-Kowboy wrote:Ratzinger? I happen to be reading a book at the moment about child molestation in the Catholic Church, and there are some truly nasty aspects to some of these cases. The Church of Rome has a few really, really sick secrets, but sincerely doubt whether Dawkins and his ivory-tower friends can do much about it. Still, good on them for trying at least. It's more than any of us have done.

What I am getting worried about, especially when civic collusion is whitewashed out is that it becomes a beatstick to label and bash religion in general, and Dawkins et al are unlikely to stop at the Catholics. We are seeing the start of that here with the polarisation of belief with a blanket ideology spewed that religious equals closed ranks but secular equals helping hand. Dawkins is UK based and I can see legislation coming from this, and it normally starts with a dogma of blanket labelling, and this is especially dangerous if the civic collusion is masked from the public eye when the bills are passed. Like most of the draconian laws passed once our current government gets a scapegoat the knee jerks, and it jerks hard. I wonder how many church youth groups Catholic or otherwise mostly with very good reputations will be put under the thumb while our largely broken social services continues to faulter cloaked under a new mandate of being better purely because it is secular.

Soladrin wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Its also rather laughable as clearly it is secular chaps like me who are looking out for the kids.

Nope secular folks like you are not trying to help the kids. You called for the arrest of the Pope while we are both unclear on whether he had personally done wrong. Normally justice works by seeing if there is a case to answer first for then calling for specific people to be indited. You (plural) turn a very obvious blind eye to any civic involvement and collusion. You even accused ME of collusion in your earlier rant. Sorry that type of hysteria is dangerous.

Its other types secular and not who are trying to look out for the kids.

Okay what I've picked up so far from the religious types / or pro pope guys at least is this. You'd rather have him walk un-questioned while there is a chance that he did it, then actually test this fact in court.

Where as ANY other man who is suspect of this would immediately dragged of. Equals my ass.

Can you quote someone saying anything close to that?

Manchu put forward a brilliant case as to why Pope Benedict didn't do anything criminal in regard to the Fr. Murphy case, and those such as myself say that if there is anything to these charges that Richard Dawkins inserting himself into the issue just makes it look goofy. Equally sad is the fact that the misbehavior of a few despicable priests makes some people to think that they can paint billions of "religious" people with the same broad brush.

If Glenn Beck was involved in an attempt to arrest a head of state visiting the US it would be equally laughable. If there was probable cause for arrest and the legal authority to do so I imagine that in such a high profile case it would have already happened, or will happen regardless of Mr. Dawkins' involvement. I don't know how much experience everyone has with dealing with courts but this stuff takes a long time. And trying to rush only feths a case up.

Monster Rain wrote:
Manchu put forward a brilliant case as to why Pope Benedict didn't do anything criminal in regard to the Fr. Murphy case, and those such as myself say that if there is anything to these charges that Richard Dawkins inserting himself into the issue just makes it look goofy. Equally sad is the fact that the misbehavior of a few despicable priests makes some people to think that they can paint billions of "religious" people with the same broad brush.

Agreed but there is written evidence that the pope as a Cardinal did help contain the Kiesle case. However this is a resignation issue not an arrest issue. Ratzinger signed the letter, this shows failure of judgement and leadership and he ought to resign.

Orlanth wrote:Agreed but there is written evidence that the pope as a Cardinal did help contain the Kiesle case. However this is a resignation issue not an arrest issue. Ratzinger signed the letter, this shows failure of judgement and leadership and he ought to resign.

As with the FR. Murphy case, Orlanth, the actual story with Kiesle has not been well reported. The truth is that in the years following Vatican II, some thirty thousand Roman rite priests (or more) left religious life (note: they did not lose their faith; they simply did not wish to be priests anymore) and Pope Paul VI (r. 1963 - 1978) granted the dispensations allowing this. Conservatives (which is NOT me saying "bad guy") in the Curia believed this was a portent of crisis and wanted to restrain priests from leaving or at least slow down the rate at which priests were leaving. During the reign of John Paul II (1978 - 2005), it became much more difficult to obtain the dispensation required and nearly impossible for priests under forty years of age. At the time that Kiesle requested to be laicized (or, as the media have improperly called it, "defrocked"), he was 38--hence why Ratzinger mentions his "young age" in the letter you're talking about. So you see, the phrases "good of the universal Church," etc., have nothing at all to do with covering up child abuse but rather have to do with a complicated question of internal policy. But complicated questions of internal policy don't sell newspapers or commercial time, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want to know the real story of abuse and corruption in the Church and how the current pope has handled it, I would suggest you read up on the case of Marcel Maciel and the Legionnaires.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence-vatican

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Agreed but there is written evidence that the pope as a Cardinal did help contain the Kiesle case. However this is a resignation issue not an arrest issue. Ratzinger signed the letter, this shows failure of judgement and leadership and he ought to resign.

As with the FR. Murphy case, Orlanth, the actual story with Kiesle has not been well reported. The truth is that in the years following Vatican II, some thirty thousand Roman rite priests (or more) left religious life (note: they did not lose their faith; they simply did not wish to be priests anymore) and Pope Paul VI (r. 1963 - 1978) granted the dispensations allowing this. Conservatives (which is NOT me saying "bad guy") in the Curia believed this was a portent of crisis and wanted to restrain priests from leaving or at least slow down the rate at which priests were leaving. During the reign of John Paul II (1978 - 2005), it became much more difficult to obtain the dispensation required and nearly impossible for priests under forty years of age. At the time that Kiesle requested to be laicized (or, as the media have improperly called it, "defrocked"), he was 38--hence why Ratzinger mentions his "young age" in the letter you're talking about. So you see, the phrases "good of the universal Church," etc., have nothing at all to do with covering up child abuse but rather have to do with a complicated question of internal policy. But complicated questions of internal policy don't sell newspapers or commercial time, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want to know the real story of abuse and corruption in the Church and how the current pope has handled it, I would suggest you read up on the case of Marcel Maciel and the Legionnaires.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence-vatican

Then we need to see the full transcript of the letter then to be sure of what then Cardinal Ratzinger knew, but there is a world of difference in not releasing priests who would rather pursue alternative careers and retaining a sexual predator who ought never to be have been ordained to begin with.

Orlanth wrote:Then we need to see the full transcript of the letter then to be sure of what then Cardinal Ratzinger knew,

No, we don't. What Ratzinger knew regarding Kiesle's behavior is irrelevant to the question of the policy itself, namely that it had nothing to do with considerations of child molestation. Priests are not employees to be simply hired and fired.

but there is a world of difference in not releasing priests who would rather pursue alternative careers and retaining a sexual predator who ought never to be have been ordained to begin with.

No, there isn't with regard to the actual question: granting dispensations. Orlanth, you're going to have to look at this from the perspective of the Catholic hierarchy if you really want to understand it rather than your own, which is just not the correct frame of reference. What you're doing is something similar to what you often complain of atheists doing to you. I'm not even sure how to respond to the idea of "ought never to have been ordained to begin with."

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Then we need to see the full transcript of the letter then to be sure of what then Cardinal Ratzinger knew,

No, we don't. What Ratzinger knew regarding Kiesle's behavior is irrelevant to the question of the policy itself, namely that it had nothing to do with considerations of child molestation. Priests are not employees to be simply hired and fired.

Manchu, I respect your level opinions on this matter. some things can be hidden behind procedures, others shouldn't. Sexual abuse of children is one of the worst crimes you can commit, expediency and policy have to take second place when people like that are brought to the attention of authorities religious or secular.

Manchu wrote:
.... with regard to the actual question: granting dispensations. Orlanth, you're going to have to look at this from the perspective of the Catholic hierarchy if you really want to understand it rather than your own, which is just not the correct frame of reference.

The Catholic heirarchy must follow its rules to be consistent, but it has a higher duty.

Manchu wrote:
What you're doing is something similar to what you often complain of atheists doing to you.

My concern with some of the atheists is the blanket stereotyping of the church and the blatant willingness to selectively pursue wrongdoers depending on their religious status.

Manchu wrote:
I'm not even sure how to respond to the idea of "ought never to have been ordained to begin with."

I partly withdraw that comment. According to some reports on Kiesle, which are admittedly only from what we know of him from the press, there were warning signs about him from an early age. I will however concur that the details about his early life I saw are from biased sources (Hitchens and co) with a track record of misrepresenting these cases.

People who work with children should be vetted. Like any other organisation the Catholic church has a form of selection procedure and while it is unfair to berate them for failing to catch every bad applicant it is still not unfair to think that Kiesle should never have been a priest if he showed paedophilic tendencies from before he was ordained.

However modern ideas of vetting were not available in earlier decades nor are they much good at anything except stirring paranoia. Many of the 'warning signs' of paedophiles are spurious at best but are jumped on by over-reacting social services under the dogma that the ends justify the means and if it potentially stops one offender it is acceptable to falsely label any number of people. The Catholic church needs a clearn up but it needs that particular brand of clean up like a hole in the head. Too many warning signs of a potential predator such as talking to minors were considered innocent in the recent past, let alone back in the 70's and many of them are innocent, but try telling that to a PC witch hunt.

Orlanth wrote:
My concern with some of the atheists is the blanket stereotyping of the church and the blatant willingness to selectively pursue wrongdoers depending on their religious status

Orlanth, i havent blanket stereotyped people with theistic belief, of course no sensible person thinks that any human being is more likely to be a paeodophile if they are religious, if you have taken that from what i have said, then i sincerely apoligse. I do not wish to paint you as being less likely to be moral than anybody else due to your religious beliefs. Certainly in any subject not related to your Theistic beliefs ive found you to be a thoroughly agreeable chap, and i apologise if you took what i said as a personal attack.

Anyway, all i wanted to point out was that if there was a random guy in charge of a large organization or corporation (say Bill Gates for example) who had a guy on his board of executives that was accused of abusing boys in a mirror of this case. And the "head" Mr Gates decided to cover it up in this manner (maybe cos he thought it would make Apple look better or something), and there was a paper trail in this manner with him writing to another executive so you had visible evidence, then you guys would want him to have his fething entirely deserved retribution.

Be honest. You are a tiny bit biased towards that mean old man in the Vatican.

Frankly i think this whole thing is like taking Capone down for Tax Evasion, the man was guilty of cold blooded murder and they got him for Tax Evasion? The Pope has worse things in his CV than this thats for certain, maybe telling Africans that condoms increase the risk of aids?!

Anyway, on topic. As i said. Im not saying your lot arent moral, im saying you let your personal religious feelings cloud your judgement. And you absolutely most certainly do. This thread has been all about slagging Dawkins off and worse still, some folks sticking up for the Pope, and not actually pointing out that Dawkinsn just may have a case. I dont think i agree with him personally, but certainly it should be on the table.

If we were talking about an Atheist who ran a big company and he did the same thing, well, we all know that i wouldnt be defending him.

Maybe because a lack of belief not only lacks the holy books, traditions, practices, buildings and holidays that a Religion does, it doesnt make us feel we have anything in common with other non believers either.

mattyrm wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
My concern with some of the atheists is the blanket stereotyping of the church and the blatant willingness to selectively pursue wrongdoers depending on their religious status

Orlanth, i havent blanket stereotyped people with theistic belief, of course no sensible person thinks that any human being is more likely to be a paeodophile if they are religious, if you have taken that from what i have said, then i sincerely apoligse. I do not wish to paint you as being less likely to be moral than anybody else due to your religious beliefs. Certainly in any subject not related to your Theistic beliefs ive found you to be a thoroughly agreeable chap, and i apologise if you took what i said as a personal attack.

Thanks you that. I was a bit offended by your reaction to earlier comments. I don't consider you 'taliban' either, and if I ever did I would have used another term, after all you have seen real Taliban I have not. Apologises for any offense caused including for any mistaken inference that you find child molestation funny.

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, all i wanted to point out was that if there was a random guy in charge of a large organization or corporation (say Bill Gates for example) who had a guy on his board of executives that was accused of abusing boys in a mirror of this case. And the "head" Mr Gates decided to cover it up in this manner (maybe cos he thought it would make Apple look better or something), and there was a paper trail in this manner with him writing to another executive so you had visible evidence, then you guys would want him to have his fething entirely deserved retribution.

As more is coming out I have come to that conclusion too. Though political retribution is more the case. If a minster covers up a police beating and fails, the policeman is charged with assault and the minister hopefully resigns. The minister is not charged with assault. If the Pope has put his name to documents ordering a cover up and as a result more boys got abused then he should step down. I can imagine a greater good of a cover up if the priest was quietly dealt with and the victims aided, I could even condone that if the dirty washing was cleaned and the dodgy priest held to account quietly.

It pays for me to explain this one more fully:
It also helps victims too. I remember a courts martial in a base in Germany regarding a n issue of prolonged child abuse (I will not be any more specific than that). Some guys in Whitehall wanted a full Old Bailey trial, but the base commander and legal branch wanted to deal with this quietly. There was a public trial and the public could attend but the press were never told and public were asked politely not to turn up for the day when the girls gave their story, to make up for that we were encouraged to turn up for the defence to show that the accused had his full rights under law. It was a very ugly case and would have ran in the tabloids for weeks. justice was done the RMP didnt hold back when they first found out about it, the girls were looked after, the scum got a long sentence, the scum also got enough anonymity to survive his long sentence and the press did not get to drag the victims through the mud while gorging on the story.

Now some of the priests in Ireland were dealt with the same way I heard though a lot later and for different motives.

mattyrm wrote:
Be honest. You are a tiny bit biased towards that mean old man in the Vatican.....

I support the Catholic church as my Christian brothers, when it comes to Catholic doctrine we are poles apart. The trouble is the Protestant/Catholic divide is fraught with derision and histories of violence that I find sickening. Personally I never want to be part of that because it is a descent into madness. just look at the hatreds in Northern ireland. While actually tribal religion is the excuse use to keep the tribes apart, much good work had been done when individual Carths and Prods rise above the dogmas. So I took it on myself not to consider a Catholic as anything other than my 'brother or in Christ', and can find scriptures to back this up.

mattyrm wrote:
... As i said. Im not saying your lot arent moral, im saying you let your personal religious feelings cloud your judgement. And you absolutely most certainly do. This thread has been all about slagging Dawkins off and worse still, some folks sticking up for the Pope, and not actually pointing out that Dawkins just may have a case. I dont think i agree with him personally, but certainly it should be on the table.

Yes I must admit that I am biased towards the Papacy itself, I think less of individual Popes and hadn't given much thought to Pope Benedict. When there was nothing with Ratzingers name on it I was fully supportive because I have been aware of how nasty this issue gets from reports from Ireland and the Irish victim I met. The church is walking a tightrope and the Pope inherited a monstrous position, I have sympathies for that and his position of damage limitation, however sympathy and support are different things.
However all that can change if he is personally culpable regarding cases in Germany and was complicit in not only failing to acty on abuse but permitted sicrcumstances by which the priest re-offended.

mattyrm wrote:
Frankly i think this whole thing is like taking Capone down for Tax Evasion, the man was guilty of cold blooded murder and they got him for Tax Evasion? The Pope has worse things in his CV than this thats for certain, maybe telling Africans that condoms increase the risk of aids?!

Ok , two points you raise here.

The Dogmas: I dont understand the condom ban, well I do but I cannot find ANY scripture that supports a condom ban to which the Catholic church can found its doctrines, but can find references to scripture saying that sex for recreational purposes is acceptable and even encouraged. Its an old dogma that should have disappeared long ago but remains due to inertia. I think Monty Python had this one best, but now is not the time for jokes on that subject. Aids wasnt around then.

The Culprits: Your Capone analogy is interesting but if it is a case of getting Catholicism for what you can then you should also note that Aids denial is also a secular problem, so the trend we are seeing of condemn the priests, but largely ignore the connected secular offenders is echoed here. Many African governments have and some still are caught up in that inconsciable dogma. South Africa being the example most to mind and South Africa is not primarily a Catholic country, things are better now Thabo Mbeke is gone, but the policy though admittedly criticised by opposition leaders was largely changed through unrelated circumstances. Still condemning Catholicism is easy but condemning Nelson Mandela is a whole lot trickier.

mattyrm wrote:
If we were talking about an Atheist who ran a big company and he did the same thing, well, we all know that i wouldnt be defending him.
Maybe because a lack of belief not only lacks the holy books, traditions, practices, buildings and holidays that a Religion does, it doesnt make us feel we have anything in common with other non believers either.

I see this an an olive branch. Saying that there is no connecting culture within atheism for which we can draw an analogy.
Lets put it this way; if Dawkins was exposed for allegedly doing something nasty, would I have to hold a straight face? Most likely yes. Bias is inherent in man, morality comes from choosing to not act on your bias or choosing to act fairly in spite of it.

True enough old chap. Its a normal human thing to be a tad biased i suppose. I do try and remain level headed and mindful of my behaviour though, i mean, even though im a Middlesbrough fan, i dont have a predetermined dislike of the crass,brain-dead, drink-sodden borderline slowed thugs that make up the fanbase of Newcastle United. :-)

Nah, you are just seething with rage because you cant make decent beer.

generalgrog wrote:What is CCC?

GG

My apologies, should have explained. Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would have made a better answer but I was signing off then to leave for the night, and hoped you could decipher my points.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Orlanth: The ban isn't just on condoms, but on all such methods that inhibit procreation, or the other aspects of sex.
Basically, sex is seen as open to procreation, pleasurable, and unifying( and with your spouse).If any of the above factors are not present, then it's not right.
I don't know if you've read 1984 by George Orwell, but quite a bit of detail is given to sex, and in it, that sex is also immoral, because while it is open to procreation, the unifying aspect as well as the pleasure were not present.

Family Planning is permitted because it makes use of the natural occurrences in the menstrual cycle, not an artificial aid. It also teaches chastity, because people may have to hold back and not give in to temptation as often.
Hope that helped explain it.

Nightwatch wrote:
@ Orlanth: The ban isn't just on condoms, but on all such methods that inhibit procreation, or the other aspects of sex.
Basically, sex is seen as open to procreation, pleasurable, and unifying( and with your spouse).If any of the above factors are not present, then it's not right.
I don't know if you've read 1984 by George Orwell, but quite a bit of detail is given to sex, and in it, that sex is also immoral, because while it is open to procreation, the unifying aspect as well as the pleasure were not present.

Family Planning is permitted because it makes use of the natural occurrences in the menstrual cycle, not an artificial aid. It also teaches chastity, because people may have to hold back and not give in to temptation as often.
Hope that helped explain it.

Thankyou for that, it clears things up a little even though I disagree with it but I do understand why the Catholic church sticks to its rigid doctrines, some made centuries ago.

What I do not understand is why they chose some of them to begin with. The Bible the plain text contradicts the above concepts is a passage that is not is unclear or hard to interpret, and one most catholics should be familiar with. This makes the Churches position rather curious.

1 Corinthians 7 1-7
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

I chose the easier to read NIV version, it contains no textual corruption from the Catholic Bible, or the Greek, in this passage.

"Textual corruption"? I'd be insulted if we'd never talked of this before, Orlanth.

But as you know, we do not read the Bible in the same way as Evangelicals--and indeed think it is a great error to do so. Even so, I cannot see how that passage from Corinthians has anything to do with contraception. If anything, the message on its face seems to be about monogamy. It is not at all at odds with Catholic social teaching regarding contraception within marriage.

Nightwatch has very accurately if broadly summed up the parameters of Catholic understanding regarding marriage open to procreation being the proper context for sex. The truth is that the teaching regarding contraception (which is only about fifty years old or so) has not been well-received in the West. Africans and Latin Americans have been the most staunchly in favor of that proscription--contrary to mattyrm's implication that Africans might just do whatever the Church commanded, this was their own belief long before Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. In fact, the study commissioned by Paul VI to investigate birth control found it to be a perfectly acceptable practice. Although I am not very interested in this topic, and so do not know all the particulars, one worry about teaching that it was okay to use condoms was that Africans and Latin Americans would reject it. In any case, this particular teaching is certainly no infallible doctrine and will probably not survive forever. It has little to do with condoms themselves and more to do with the overarching morality that Nightwatch already summarized.

Manchu wrote:"Textual corruption"? I'd be insulted if we'd never talked of this before, Orlanth.

An entirely necessary caveat I am afraid. To address all readers: Some traditional churches insist on particular translations, notably the king James which is known to be very accurate. NIV (New International Version) modernises the English but does give rise to some small errors which is why some traditional churches will not accept it on principle. If parts are wrong it is not scripture to them. Most are not like that but still churches that use a traditional bible are aided if the NIV is checked first.
By and large this should not be a problem there are a handful of one word errors in the translation that do little to change the meaning the only one i remember is the passage in Revelations refering to the mark of the beast just before the 666 passage. The Greek and King James states the mark is in the hand the NIV states it is on the hand. Simple stuff that doesnt effect much. Most NIV Bibles include a notation at this and other points saying what other bibles translate as.
In some churches the NIV is jokingly refered to as the Nearly Infallible Version.

Manchu wrote:
But as you know, we do not read the Bible in the same way as Evangelicals--and indeed think it is a great error to do so. Even so, I cannot see how that passage from Corinthians has anything to do with contraception. If anything, the message on its face seems to be about monogamy. It is not at all at odds with Catholic social teaching regarding contraception within marriage.

Interpretation is good but interpretation also involves revelation. The main difference is that some denominations have scripture interpreted by a central committee others by individual interpretation. I can see some danger in the latter, but it is also open to 'God speaking through His word'. Meditation on scripture can reveal additional meanings, this requires Holy Spirit guidance and wisdom.

On to the passage. It strongly speaks on monogamy but also focuses on the encouragement of sexual recreation. Note how sexual relations need only to be interrupted in order to focus on God, otherwise it is actually unwise to hold back lest one seek comfort elsewhere. This is clearly about sexual pleasure not procreative sex. As the time for abstinence is laid out, prayer time, then unless one deliberately chooses to pray through a womans fertility pregnancy is as certain as biology allows. Had Paul indicated the scripture to mean must procreate incessently I am sure he would have said so. As (almost) unrestricted is to be encouraged, quite strongly in fact yet the early church were not swarming with children it is not unfair to suggest that contraception was acceptable. Were it not again Paul would have said something.

The only condemnation of contraceptive methods appears in the Book of Genesis and refers to the story of Tamar the daughter of Judah, whose successive husbands were struck dead by God for using the withdrawal method. There is more to the stroy than that, but that is the relevant gist. perhaps the Synod uses that to condemn contraception. However first the story is aetiological and is thus a form of parable for something else, a bit like most of Genesis really. Even if you wanted to take it literally the text states the crime in Gods eyes was not the withdrawal but the denial to give Tamar any children, as opposed to unlimited children. Thus again not condemning contraception per se.

Does this mean that if a wife was childless and wanted children and the husband refused to allow her to get pregnant then he is sinning, the reverse is not necessarily true. But in the ancient world contraception might not have been the womans choice anyway.

Anyway somehow out of all this the Synod worked out the need for a blanket cast condom ban. The logic chain to this conclusion is still missing links, things might be smoother if the mental workings that led to this conclusion were disclosed more fully. We still might not agree, but then at least we could appreciate the churches viewpoint.

Manchu wrote:
Nightwatch has very accurately if broadly summed up the parameters of Catholic understanding regarding marriage open to procreation being the proper context for sex. The truth is that the teaching regarding contraception (which is only about fifty years old or so) has not been well-received in the West. Africans and Latin Americans have been the most staunchly in favor of that proscription--contrary to mattyrm's implication that Africans might just do whatever the Church commanded, this was their own belief long before Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. In fact, the study commissioned by Paul VI to investigate birth control found it to be a perfectly acceptable practice. Although I am not very interested in this topic, and so do not know all the particulars, one worry about teaching that it was okay to use condoms was that Africans and Latin Americans would reject it. In any case, this particular teaching is certainly no infallible doctrine and will probably not survive forever. It has little to do with condoms themselves and more to do with the overarching morality that Nightwatch already summarized.

The population bomb is another reason to change viewpoints. Even if we take the divine mandate of 'go forth and multiply and fill the earth', can we now call the earth full and the task acomplished?

I think we could call it that decades ago.

As for Church being against contraception.... it's just simple stupidity, I really can't think of any other reason why someone would issue such a thing.

Soladrin wrote:

As for Church being against contraception.... it's just simple stupidity, I really can't think of any other reason why someone would issue such a thing.

That isnt fair. The Catholic church doesn't make doctrines at random, and the Synod is filled with smart people. When they do something you can be really certain there is a well thought out reason sometimes historical, sometimes expedient sometimes due to how they interpret scripture. One thing you can be sure of nothing like this happens by accident, the Vatican is a huge institutional monolith that didn't survive intact since the Dark Ages by being stupid.

What is this Synod?

Orlanth, I will reply to your post more thoroughly later on but need to be off to work atm. Suffice it to say for now that I think you're reading a lot of your own/this time period's ideas and values into the scripture, which is why private interpretation is not okay in the Catholic tradition. As for the teaching prohibiting artificial contraception being unbiblical, there is no need to ahistorically root every teaching into some particular passage of scripture or to imagine that scripture speaks to every conceivable human experience. (This is more of a Muslim belief, I'd say.) Your notion of the monolithic nature of the Vatican is also . . . mistaken. I would suggest reading a new book with the deceptively stupid sounding title "Jesus Wars" by John Philip Jenkins.