you have LOST ur mind correct? u didn't write that..i mean i've kinda been following this thread..left a funny (IMHO) post, came back and read this. Are u intentionaly trying to p*ss people off?
That seems to be what satori is all about. If you've read many of my most controversial posts about religion, I do not like it, and I do not participate. However, he's so offensive about it that I can't help but offer up opposition to his condemnation of Catholics or whatever group of people he chooses to hate each week. I argue with people enough here, but I don't go around saying things like, "Anyone who supports Bush is a mass murderer" even though I think it's dumb to support him. I don't think that it makes every person who doesn't line up with my way of thinking to be "evil."
The problem as I've observed before is that some people still act as full of hate as they did while in TWI. Unfortunately, I don't know of any real way around it. I myself have anger issues, probably related in part to growing up in TWI. I'm not sure what anyone else's excuse is, but it's expected to see people who still follow the doctrine of LCM when it comes to groups of people.
PMosh, it serves your purposes to accuse me of "attacking all Catholics." I have not done so.
There are policies written and un-written. I'm sure it was an unwritten policy which guided Bishops and Cardinals to transfer active pedophiles from one parish to the next, but policy it WAS, and it was carried out by policy makers. Any decent Catholic would be disgusted and indignant. Many are, as seen by the dramatic decrease in contributions. I can't speak for your wife. I think it is just as vile to aid and tacitly abet a pedophile as to be one. Apparently you don't. I wouldn't expect you to, honestly.
Consistent practice becomes virtual doctrine PMosh. If Catholics don't recognize that pedophilia (and other forms of abuse) are endemic to the Catholic church, then they are either ill-informed or to some degree complicit.
I don't hate Catholics, but I see Catholicism for what it is. The world's biggest cult. Catholics are forced to become hypocrites, by the very nature of the institution. Like TWI, Catholicism monopolizes intercession between man and God. Believing Catholics (& Wayfers) have no conscious alternative. So they participate in what they may well know is evil, many hoping it will somehow end in good, and many others not caring one way or the other.
Yeah, well I started the thread, so it IS my soap box. You've somehow arrived at the conclusion that I'm an apologist for Nazis. I'd expect that from PMosh, actually.
sharon, I think you're reading something into satori's words that isn't there. I say that as someone who does not agree with him regarding the topic of this thread.
Since I've decided to post to the thread, I may as well say what I think about the topic. I think that it demonstrated poor judgment and thoughlessness for Cardinal Law to be in the spotlight during such a public series of events. I have to allow, though, that the thoughtlessness is not necessarily indicative of heartlessness.
Regarding John Paul II, since incidence of sexual abuse by priests (or at least allegations of such) declined dramatically during his papacy, I can't lay blame for such abuse at his feet.
If the man has made life-long vows and has been ordained, then so long as he still teaches the doctrines of his church, what else should they do with him, but to put him back into another church?
jail comes to mind ;)-->
**
shar i think satori might have been making the opposite point
**
long gone, you tell me when a person who is in charge of the whole thing has no blame
excuse me i didn't say that right. he would not be able to control what his priests, bishops, cardinals, do. but he sure as hell could do something about it once he knows. i think you're kidding yourself
ex, did you read that study Mark posted a link to? It shows that the incidence of abuse peaked two years after John Paul II became pope, and then dropped dramatically. For the past several years, there have been very few incidents. Now I don't know exactly what policies were implemented, but Mark has previously said that they've been screening candidates for priesthood much more carefully for quite some time, which he says has resulted in better men, overall. I don't know anything about the new policies, because I haven't been a practicing Catholic for over 30 years, but if the numbers are reliable indicators, they seem to have addressed the problem pretty effectively, before all the stories in the news broke.
Could more have been done? Probably so. Could the Church have been more up front about it? Certainly. But, if what I've read is correct, the problems were being dealt with, before most people even knew they existed.
You asked about blame. I don't think John Paul II was to blame for a problem he inherited. He was responsible for it, though, and apparently addressed it more than we know.
The size of the Catholic Church is beyond most people's ability to comprehend. It's huge! A pope and ruling councils can set policy, but it would be impossible for them to directly administer it. That's up to cardinals, bishops, head priests of parishes, and those who run semenaries. Most seem to have done admirably, some less well, and some extremly poorly, to the point of being complicit in the abuse. In an organization that size it takes time to root out the problem priests and bishops, and they can never be completly eliminated. A few bad apples will get in and will cover up their crimes for a long time.
I'm not deceiving myself or giving anyone a pass. I'm also not judging the entire Catholic Church on my experiences, which were good. I was an altar boy and spent a lot of time with my local priests, who were good men and never, to my knowledge, behaved improperly. I'm judging by the number of abuse incidents, which began declining dramatically shortly after John Paul II became Pope and are now nearly as low as can practically be expected, given the size of the church and the fact that there will always be some sickos drawn to the ministry, a few of which will manage to get in.
I'm also aware that the very best of Popes or people in other important positions are imperfect human beings. Any judgment of them I temper with an appreciation of my own limitations. Imagine we gave you the papacy in late 1978, when the sexual abuse problem was at its worst. How long would it have taken you to clean up the mess? Would you have been as effective? (No fair saying you'd just dissolve the Church or drastically change basic doctrines. You couldn't.)
hi long gone. gosh i don't know. i don't think the mess has ever been or ever will be cleaned up.
i also think the vatican, pope and higher ups only got involved when things starting becoming too public to ignore. i also believe the pope and most heavy duty catholics care about "the church" (the entity, the tradition, the "thing" i don't even know what to call it) not the people, except maybe where people and buckaroos are matter.
and i don't know if i believe incidents have decreased. well maybe bishops, cardinals, priests, what have you, have been shaken up and realize they better watch it
but anyone i know who has "stopped" abusing in the church only did so when getting caught and in most cases that took years and years
as far as tempering judgment with your own limitations, well i have never considered my own limitations having anything to do with raping young children in the name of god
as you may guess, this is a very hurtful subject for me given my upbringing in the catholic church.
many parishes now have boards or committees of "lay" people evaluating the accusations of abused victims. but around here at least, they are catholic lay people, and i want to tell you firsthand what a terrible joke it is
i doubt the pope or anyone would have viewed the abuse as a crime. i know too many men high up in the organization that send their pedophiles away for a while.... and i don't mean behind bars
yes there will always be sickos - in my opinion more than a few - drawn to "the ministry" or priesthood but i think it goes way deeper and darker and has existed longer than people can imagaine.
i have no argument with you or anyone really. but i do feel strongly about this. and i am coming from an emotional place, i have to tell you.
i don't care for religion. seeing the hurt and destruction i've seen in the catholic church makes it oh so hard to think of the good
**
ps. this is not directed at you, long gone, it's just a general comment -- i never cared for how wierwille and definitely martindale put down the pope and the catholic church. their reasons for detesting them and making fun of them seemed wrong to me. and i didn't think it was in good taste.
Excathedra, I understand that this is a hurtful subject for you, and I’m trying to be sensitive to that.
quote:
as far as tempering judgment with your own limitations, well i have never considered my own limitations having anything to do with raping young children in the name of god
I didn’t mean regarding that. I’d favor life imprisonment, if not burning at the stake, for priests who molested and raped kids. What I was talking about is tempering my judgment of John Paul II. He did take over when the abuse was at its worst and reported incidents of abuse decreased dramatically shortly after that, if the study Mark cited is to be believed. If that means an actual decrease, then that is to John Paul’s credit. If it turns out that the Church has just been more effectively covering things up, then I’ll be right there with satori.
One thing here. That John Jay study was literally the ONLY study I've seen on the subject that used empirical methods, looking at the situation as a whole.
One thing about discussing the causes and what happened, though. Proposals were solicited for a study to look at a lot of the why's of this phenomenon. The grant is supposed to be awarded sometime this month; the "Causes and Context Study" should be completed and on the streets some months afterwards. The grantee will be given complete access to records, in a similar fashion as the John Jay study group was granted access. So the report should be fairly authoritative.
And, again, if somebody is aware of a good empirical study that either corroborates or challenges the John Jay study, please let me know. I'd be interested to read it.
My emphasis was supposed to be that JPII appears not to deserve the blame that some heaped on him. I was specifically replying to a question about tempering judgment. In my mind, the decline with no reversal, on his watch, is "to his credit" as opposed to being "to his blame." I seem to have expressed myself poorly.
LG, Understood. I just don't want somebody to think that I was giving JPII the credit for that change at the beginning of his papacy in my other post. It could simply be serendipity. Now I believe that there have been changes made that he should be credited with that will minimize the potential of recurrence, but, that's a different issue entirely.
But I appreciate what you're saying though and your ability to look at the facts.
Yeah, well I started the thread, so it IS my soap box. You've somehow arrived at the conclusion that I'm an apologist for Nazis. I'd expect that from PMosh, actually.
I have reread everything and I am embarrased because of my rants, I did exactly what u said and i am so sorry, please forgive me. I have deleted what i wrote and again apologize.
thank you long gone for your thoughtful response. i appreciate it.
and mark, your comment to long gone about his ability to look at the facts, rubs me the wrong way. but i'm guessing it wasn't personal in any way, just my whole "take" on the subject
this study.... i don't know.... first of all, what percentage of victims report abuse ????? do you know ? and what percent of perpetrators (sp?) cooperate with these studies ?
**
like i said, i'm coming at the subject from firsthand experience. the "facts" in these studies don't really impress me
that doesn't mean we should argue, nor does it mean i'm close minded
The Vatican blows white smoke up the world's foot, after however many days of black smoke (and eons of generic smoke), and joy, joy, a new Pope emerges. Hide the Vaseline, kids! You don't want to get annointed by these guys.
This guy is supposed to be a real bear on doctrine. A Catholic joke goes:
Ratzenberger (Pope Benedict) and two theologians die and go to Heaven.
The first theologian goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, he comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??"
The second theologian goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, he comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??"
Ratzenberger goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, God comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??"
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
17
6
6
Popular Days
Apr 14
23
Apr 13
21
Apr 15
11
Apr 12
6
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 13 posts
satori001 17 posts
mj412 6 posts
Mister P-Mosh 6 posts
Popular Days
Apr 14 2005
23 posts
Apr 13 2005
21 posts
Apr 15 2005
11 posts
Apr 12 2005
6 posts
Mister P-Mosh
That seems to be what satori is all about. If you've read many of my most controversial posts about religion, I do not like it, and I do not participate. However, he's so offensive about it that I can't help but offer up opposition to his condemnation of Catholics or whatever group of people he chooses to hate each week. I argue with people enough here, but I don't go around saying things like, "Anyone who supports Bush is a mass murderer" even though I think it's dumb to support him. I don't think that it makes every person who doesn't line up with my way of thinking to be "evil."
The problem as I've observed before is that some people still act as full of hate as they did while in TWI. Unfortunately, I don't know of any real way around it. I myself have anger issues, probably related in part to growing up in TWI. I'm not sure what anyone else's excuse is, but it's expected to see people who still follow the doctrine of LCM when it comes to groups of people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
oldsie..
until u answer my question...
i suggest u hush ur little mouth...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
sharon, you seem to have misinterpreted my question and remarks. Reading them in the context of my prior posts might clarify.
Speaking of burning flesh, were you ever in Emporia?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
PMosh, it serves your purposes to accuse me of "attacking all Catholics." I have not done so.
There are policies written and un-written. I'm sure it was an unwritten policy which guided Bishops and Cardinals to transfer active pedophiles from one parish to the next, but policy it WAS, and it was carried out by policy makers. Any decent Catholic would be disgusted and indignant. Many are, as seen by the dramatic decrease in contributions. I can't speak for your wife. I think it is just as vile to aid and tacitly abet a pedophile as to be one. Apparently you don't. I wouldn't expect you to, honestly.
Consistent practice becomes virtual doctrine PMosh. If Catholics don't recognize that pedophilia (and other forms of abuse) are endemic to the Catholic church, then they are either ill-informed or to some degree complicit.
I don't hate Catholics, but I see Catholicism for what it is. The world's biggest cult. Catholics are forced to become hypocrites, by the very nature of the institution. Like TWI, Catholicism monopolizes intercession between man and God. Believing Catholics (& Wayfers) have no conscious alternative. So they participate in what they may well know is evil, many hoping it will somehow end in good, and many others not caring one way or the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
sharon, you have misinterpreted me. But suit yourself. You have something to say and this is your soapbox, apparently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
nope. u don't see what i am saying?
and by the way if anyone should get off the soapbox i suggest it be u
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Yeah, well I started the thread, so it IS my soap box. You've somehow arrived at the conclusion that I'm an apologist for Nazis. I'd expect that from PMosh, actually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
sharon, I think you're reading something into satori's words that isn't there. I say that as someone who does not agree with him regarding the topic of this thread.
Since I've decided to post to the thread, I may as well say what I think about the topic. I think that it demonstrated poor judgment and thoughlessness for Cardinal Law to be in the spotlight during such a public series of events. I have to allow, though, that the thoughtlessness is not necessarily indicative of heartlessness.
Regarding John Paul II, since incidence of sexual abuse by priests (or at least allegations of such) declined dramatically during his papacy, I can't lay blame for such abuse at his feet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
galen, i only just noticed you wrote me:
jail comes to mind**
shar i think satori might have been making the opposite point
**
long gone, you tell me when a person who is in charge of the whole thing has no blame
excuse me i didn't say that right. he would not be able to control what his priests, bishops, cardinals, do. but he sure as hell could do something about it once he knows. i think you're kidding yourself
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
ex, did you read that study Mark posted a link to? It shows that the incidence of abuse peaked two years after John Paul II became pope, and then dropped dramatically. For the past several years, there have been very few incidents. Now I don't know exactly what policies were implemented, but Mark has previously said that they've been screening candidates for priesthood much more carefully for quite some time, which he says has resulted in better men, overall. I don't know anything about the new policies, because I haven't been a practicing Catholic for over 30 years, but if the numbers are reliable indicators, they seem to have addressed the problem pretty effectively, before all the stories in the news broke.
Could more have been done? Probably so. Could the Church have been more up front about it? Certainly. But, if what I've read is correct, the problems were being dealt with, before most people even knew they existed.
You asked about blame. I don't think John Paul II was to blame for a problem he inherited. He was responsible for it, though, and apparently addressed it more than we know.
The size of the Catholic Church is beyond most people's ability to comprehend. It's huge! A pope and ruling councils can set policy, but it would be impossible for them to directly administer it. That's up to cardinals, bishops, head priests of parishes, and those who run semenaries. Most seem to have done admirably, some less well, and some extremly poorly, to the point of being complicit in the abuse. In an organization that size it takes time to root out the problem priests and bishops, and they can never be completly eliminated. A few bad apples will get in and will cover up their crimes for a long time.
I'm not deceiving myself or giving anyone a pass. I'm also not judging the entire Catholic Church on my experiences, which were good. I was an altar boy and spent a lot of time with my local priests, who were good men and never, to my knowledge, behaved improperly. I'm judging by the number of abuse incidents, which began declining dramatically shortly after John Paul II became Pope and are now nearly as low as can practically be expected, given the size of the church and the fact that there will always be some sickos drawn to the ministry, a few of which will manage to get in.
I'm also aware that the very best of Popes or people in other important positions are imperfect human beings. Any judgment of them I temper with an appreciation of my own limitations. Imagine we gave you the papacy in late 1978, when the sexual abuse problem was at its worst. How long would it have taken you to clean up the mess? Would you have been as effective? (No fair saying you'd just dissolve the Church or drastically change basic doctrines. You couldn't.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hi long gone. gosh i don't know. i don't think the mess has ever been or ever will be cleaned up.
i also think the vatican, pope and higher ups only got involved when things starting becoming too public to ignore. i also believe the pope and most heavy duty catholics care about "the church" (the entity, the tradition, the "thing" i don't even know what to call it) not the people, except maybe where people and buckaroos are matter.
and i don't know if i believe incidents have decreased. well maybe bishops, cardinals, priests, what have you, have been shaken up and realize they better watch it
but anyone i know who has "stopped" abusing in the church only did so when getting caught and in most cases that took years and years
as far as tempering judgment with your own limitations, well i have never considered my own limitations having anything to do with raping young children in the name of god
as you may guess, this is a very hurtful subject for me given my upbringing in the catholic church.
many parishes now have boards or committees of "lay" people evaluating the accusations of abused victims. but around here at least, they are catholic lay people, and i want to tell you firsthand what a terrible joke it is
i doubt the pope or anyone would have viewed the abuse as a crime. i know too many men high up in the organization that send their pedophiles away for a while.... and i don't mean behind bars
yes there will always be sickos - in my opinion more than a few - drawn to "the ministry" or priesthood but i think it goes way deeper and darker and has existed longer than people can imagaine.
i have no argument with you or anyone really. but i do feel strongly about this. and i am coming from an emotional place, i have to tell you.
i don't care for religion. seeing the hurt and destruction i've seen in the catholic church makes it oh so hard to think of the good
**
ps. this is not directed at you, long gone, it's just a general comment -- i never cared for how wierwille and definitely martindale put down the pope and the catholic church. their reasons for detesting them and making fun of them seemed wrong to me. and i didn't think it was in good taste.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Excathedra, I understand that this is a hurtful subject for you, and I’m trying to be sensitive to that.
I didn’t mean regarding that. I’d favor life imprisonment, if not burning at the stake, for priests who molested and raped kids. What I was talking about is tempering my judgment of John Paul II. He did take over when the abuse was at its worst and reported incidents of abuse decreased dramatically shortly after that, if the study Mark cited is to be believed. If that means an actual decrease, then that is to John Paul’s credit. If it turns out that the Church has just been more effectively covering things up, then I’ll be right there with satori.Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Long Gone,
One thing here. That John Jay study was literally the ONLY study I've seen on the subject that used empirical methods, looking at the situation as a whole.
Also, I AM NOT giving credit to JPII for this. He had not been in the papacy long enough to effect that dramatic a change, starting in 1979. The only thing that he could do would be to appoint bishops and change canon law. Well, as I recall, canon law wasn't changed until 1983. And, I don't seem to recall a huge quantity of new bishop appointments in 1979. He did publish an "apostolic constitution" called in 1979 that dealt with ecclesiastical universities and faculties. While this document might have a role in the long term, I can't see how it would impact already-ordained clergy. So, I don't see anything that JPII did to warrant his being given credit for that dramatic drop that occurred starting in 1979. There may be something taht wasn't published that I'm not aware of, but...
One thing about discussing the causes and what happened, though. Proposals were solicited for a study to look at a lot of the why's of this phenomenon. The grant is supposed to be awarded sometime this month; the "Causes and Context Study" should be completed and on the streets some months afterwards. The grantee will be given complete access to records, in a similar fashion as the John Jay study group was granted access. So the report should be fairly authoritative.
And, again, if somebody is aware of a good empirical study that either corroborates or challenges the John Jay study, please let me know. I'd be interested to read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Mark,
My emphasis was supposed to be that JPII appears not to deserve the blame that some heaped on him. I was specifically replying to a question about tempering judgment. In my mind, the decline with no reversal, on his watch, is "to his credit" as opposed to being "to his blame." I seem to have expressed myself poorly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
LG, Understood. I just don't want somebody to think that I was giving JPII the credit for that change at the beginning of his papacy in my other post. It could simply be serendipity. Now I believe that there have been changes made that he should be credited with that will minimize the potential of recurrence, but, that's a different issue entirely.
But I appreciate what you're saying though and your ability to look at the facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
I have reread everything and I am embarrased because of my rants, I did exactly what u said and i am so sorry, please forgive me. I have deleted what i wrote and again apologize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
sharon, thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thank you long gone for your thoughtful response. i appreciate it.
and mark, your comment to long gone about his ability to look at the facts, rubs me the wrong way. but i'm guessing it wasn't personal in any way, just my whole "take" on the subject
this study.... i don't know.... first of all, what percentage of victims report abuse ????? do you know ? and what percent of perpetrators (sp?) cooperate with these studies ?
**
like i said, i'm coming at the subject from firsthand experience. the "facts" in these studies don't really impress me
that doesn't mean we should argue, nor does it mean i'm close minded
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Exc, please check your PTs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
i
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
The Vatican blows white smoke up the world's foot, after however many days of black smoke (and eons of generic smoke), and joy, joy, a new Pope emerges. Hide the Vaseline, kids! You don't want to get annointed by these guys.
This guy is supposed to be a real bear on doctrine. A Catholic joke goes:
Ratzenberger (Pope Benedict) and two theologians die and go to Heaven.
The first theologian goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, he comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??"
The second theologian goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, he comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??"
Ratzenberger goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, God comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??"
Is his name Ratzenberger? Something like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It's kind of difficult to criticize someone and not look like an @$$ if you don't even know enough about him to know his name.
It was Joseph Ratzinger, and it is now Benedict (but not Arnold) XVI. This guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
http://www.snapnorthwest.org/trail_of_pain...ch_crisis_l.htm
i got all my catholic threads mixed up, not sure where i wanna post this
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.