Tough to be Catholic these days.

[diamond]

Everytime you turn around, it seems there is another molestation case and a Preist is being arrested in our area.

Even worse for years Bishops have covered for the pedophiles Priests in our area.
Sickening.
Now theyre arresting the Bishops that covered for the Priests.

Theyre all going to jail.

My heart goes out to first-
the victims.

They come to what they feel is God's Church then are tainted and damaged for life.
The victims try and report the crimes of sexual impurities put on them by someone they look to as "Godly" and are told to keep quiet by the Bishops, who are supposed to be even more "Godly".

Then they go and try and report to legal authorities and The Bishops dissuade them telling them they have to forgive the Priests.

The Priests are quietly transfered and start in a new area, molesting new children.
Nationally and globally it has hit the fan.
The Vatican has been inconsistent on what to do..
1st its-a one strike law..re molesting clergy
then its a zero tolerence law..wtf?

Why should it be anything more than a zero- tolerence policy? Jesus Christ.

2ndly-
I feel bad for the hundreds of millions of good Catholics who are scratching their heads wondering if this is really God's church.

Man it would be tough to be Catholic right now.

Diamond

 

[adamswildhoney]

has a Catholic (tho i consider myself Christian) im appalled at the acts that the church has taken.

What really piss me off tho is when my grandmother says that are doing whats best for both the victims and priests by transfering them and i strongly disagree with her on that!!!

Even worse im beginning to question my religion! i dont question God bc i will always believe in God no matter what happens!

 

[bonoman]

To me Church is just a place to go to if you want to make yourself think you are closer to God. I am a Catholic and pray every night, try to do my 'Catholic duties'. Really it never surprised me that this was going on. You have men who are not allowed to have sex and you stick them with young defenseless choldren. Well put them together! I will never be ashamed to be Catholic nor should a Muslim ever be ashamed to be Musilm just for the acts of a few.

 

[diamond]

Bonoman-
Its the way theyre handling the situation.
The Bishops are almost becoming enablers for the Priests,
, by not reporting them to the legal authorities.

The Bishops are thinking of the Church's well being instead of the members.

Something tells me Muslims would amputate a penis if a member was harmed.

Diamond

 

[bonoman]

You are probably right Diamond. I could car less what the Church does i know i am very spritual, not very religiuos.

 

[adamswildhoney]

I could car less what the Church does i know i am very spritual, not very religiuos.

I agree with you Bonoman!

im not ashamed of being Catholic,i just question being catholic sometimes and i just dont like the way that the church is going about solving this way.

 

[Diemen]

[as] a Catholic (tho i consider myself Christian)

This always bugs me...this distinction some people make between Catholic and Christian isn't necessary. Catholics are Christians. Catholicism is a Christian religion. Just as all varieties of Baptists, Methodists, etc... are still Christian.

 

[adamswildhoney]

This always bugs me...this distinction some people make between Catholic and Christian isn't necessary. Catholics are Christians. Catholicism is a Christian religion. Just as all varieties of Baptists, Methodists, etc... are still Christian.

I just said that because im simply a believer in God. I dont like using labels for religion because almost everyone believes in a higher power and worships their own way. I dont like it when people say that their religion is better than another.

 

[melon]

An interesting sidenote...take it for whatever value you give it...

Marian apparitions in Medjugorje, in the 1990s, have foretold the destruction of the Catholic Church, whereupon it will be rebuilt--much like how Jesus said He would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days in the New Testament. Mary's words were that the clergy were merely human, and, of course, they are going to be fallible and open to sin like anyone else; and, as always, one is to put their faith into the teachings, rather than the people.

Melon

 

[melon]

This always bugs me...this distinction some people make between Catholic and Christian isn't necessary.

I tend to call myself "Catholic" so I don't get confused with those heretical Protestants.



Melon

 

[bonoman]

Sorry but i am CATHOLIC, not prod or methodist or baptist. You might not fully relize this but there is big differences.

I ahve nothing againist other religion or faiths but i am what i am and will tell you that i am that.

 

[Bono's shades]

You're right Diamond - these are very, very difficult times in which to be a Catholic. This year has been awful. Every time I turned around I read about yet another priest abusing kids and yet another diocese covering it up. About six months ago I found out that a priest who served at the parish I attended when I was a teenager was accused of molesting a boy at a parish he served at before he came to ours. He admitted guilt and left the priesthood. I can't remember if actual criminal charges were filed. I don't think they were. It was a horrible shock. I had always remembered this priest fondly. His manner was very kind and gentle. It makes me sick to even think about it.

Although I have never for a moment doubted my faith in God, there have been a couple of times this year when I have had fleeting thoughts about leaving the Church. Part of me wonders if it is necessary to participate in organized religion to be a Christian, but I guess the other part of me is stronger because I'm still attending Mass. I guess I'm holding onto the hope that there will be reforms in the Church, just as there have been in the past.

 

[ouizy]

as a human, I am apalled at what these other humans chose to do...


religion is fiction

 

[nbcrusader]

as a human, I am apalled at what these other humans chose to do...


religion is fiction

A friend of mine is writing a book on the problem of evil. Part of his research included a review of all the atrocities that have taken place around the globe just in the last 300-400 years. Horrific stuff.

 

[melon]

A friend of mine is writing a book on the problem of evil. Part of his research included a review of all the atrocities that have taken place around the globe just in the last 300-400 years. Horrific stuff.

A part of the problem of documenting "evil" is that it is culturally subjective. As the saying goes, someone's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

<-- post 2000 (again)

Melon

 

[bonosloveslave]

A part of the problem of documenting "evil" is that it is culturally subjective. As the saying goes, someone's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Melon

Culture may be subjective in what it calls 'evil', but I am a firm believer in absolute truth.

 

[nbcrusader]

A part of the problem of documenting "evil" is that it is culturally subjective. As the saying goes, someone's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Melon

Ahhh. Relativism.

Are you saying that some cultures, for example, might view ?torturing babies for fun? as permissible (i.e., not evil) and we cannot label that activity as evil?

 

[melon]

Culture may be subjective in what it calls 'evil', but I am a firm believer in absolute truth.

Oh my...that's why we're going to vehemently disagree naturally.

[opinion]

The idea of "absolute truth" is a fallacy. Somewhere down the line, whether it be in the last decade or last century or millennia ago, some individual or culture made the subjective distinction of what is "acceptable." I mean, who made the decision that capital punishment was an acceptable form of law enforcement, while wanton murder was abominable? It certainly isn't a modern phenomenon, and, even in reading the Bible, the nature of "evil" evolves. What a huge paradigmatic shift it is between the Mosaic Law and the New Testament!

It is my belief that, due to the fact that everything must be processed through one's individual eyes, "objectivity" and "absolutes" are misplaced ideals, because, somewhere down the line, things we societally may label "objective" are, in fact, subjective cultural mores.

[/opinion]

Melon

 

[melon]

Ahhh. Relativism.

Are you saying that some cultures, for example, might view ?torturing babies for fun? as permissible (i.e., not evil) and we cannot label that activity as evil?

Let's describe something more realistic in the same vein. In Inuit cultures, infanticide was fairly common, particularly since their food was wholly determined by weather. When the Arctic weather got so bad that they literally could not feed themselves, it was common for babies to just be abandoned and left to die of exposure. I'm sure, many of you here are about to say that this is an objectively evil act, right?

In American culture, the death penalty is culturally acceptable. From a European Union standpoint, however, the death penalty is a socially repugnant act. What is the difference between infanticide and execution? From its most banal standpoint, there is no difference; in both cases, another life is lost.

Evil is subjective.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

If truth or evil is all subjective, then you can never say something is right or wrong.

If you say the death penalty is wrong, who is it wrong for?

Any stance you take is only true for you. The logical conclusion of this type of thinking is that it is meaningless to make a statement, as it only applies to the individual.

Also, the statement that "absolute truth is a fallacy" is self-defeating, because in essence, you are saying that there is at least one absolute truth.

 

[melon]

If truth or evil is all subjective, then you can never say something is right or wrong.

If you say the death penalty is wrong, who is it wrong for?

Any stance you take is only true for you. The logical conclusion of this type of thinking is that it is meaningless to make a statement, as it only applies to the individual.

Also, the statement that "absolute truth is a fallacy" is self-defeating, because in essence, you are saying that there is at least one absolute truth.

You make an a priori assumption here:

"Subjective truth is wrong."

Quite the contrary, I'm being realistic. I do think that the death penalty is wrong: that is a subjective value judgment based upon either rational or irrational motives, depending on your point of view. However, that is what I believe.

In the same vein, cultures make subjective value judgments all the time, and that is okay. Does that mean that we cannot criticize outside cultures that we view as "wrong"? Of course not!

So what am I saying? I guess there is one "absolute truth": all "truth" is subjective. Is this a play on semantics? Perhaps. However, "absolute truth" takes on a certain connotation on the plane of "mythic speech"--in other words, it is so "sacred" that no one is allowed to question it. Those who question so-called "absolute truths" are, henceforth, "evil" or, in a structuralist sense, "the Other." "Truth," for me, does not exist; it is simply subjective individual and cultural judgments that are a necessity and an inevitability. However, with that, none of these judgments are, by default, "good" over the others.

Melon

 

[speedracer]

You make an a priori assumption here:

"Subjective truth is wrong."

Quite the contrary, I'm being realistic. I do think that the death penalty is wrong: that is a subjective value judgment based upon either rational or irrational motives, depending on your point of view. However, that is what I believe.

In the same vein, cultures make subjective value judgments all the time, and that is okay. Does that mean that we cannot criticize outside cultures that we view as "wrong"? Of course not!

So what am I saying? I guess there is one "absolute truth": all "truth" is subjective. Is this a play on semantics? Perhaps. However, "absolute truth" takes on a certain connotation on the plane of "mythic speech"--in other words, it is so "sacred" that no one is allowed to question it. Those who question so-called "absolute truths" are, henceforth, "evil" or, in a structuralist sense, "the Other." "Truth," for me, does not exist; it is simply subjective individual and cultural judgments that are a necessity and an inevitability. However, with that, none of these judgments are, by default, "good" over the others.

Melon

There are many moral questions about which there may be distinct yet "equally valid" answers depending on one's priorities and axioms, but not all moral questions fall into this category.

Either (God exists) or NOT (God exists). Exactly one of these statements qualifies as an "absolute truth."

 

[U2Bama]

This always bugs me...this distinction some people make between Catholic and Christian isn't necessary. Catholics are Christians. Catholicism is a Christian religion. Just as all varieties of Baptists, Methodists, etc... are still Christian.

I agree wholeheartedly; the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches are all part of the Body of Christ, (despite what any of them say about the other). Despite their differences and respective faults, the mission of each is to fulfill His ministry.

Regarding the later posts in this thread about absoulte truth and subjectiveness and such, I have to agree with Melon.

As deplorable as I think salvery is here as an 2002 American, I honestly don't know what my views would have been if I were born in Virginia, Alabama or especially the states now known as Kansas or Missouri in 1848. I always tell myself today that I am a Unionist and I am opposed to slavery in any form, but if I were around in antebellum times, much less "biblical" times when it was even more common, would I have known any moral concept of the practice?

Like Melon says, it does not mean we should refrain from criticizing outside cultures, as I frequently do the current slave-holding regime in Sudan. It would be ideal if every generation and every culture had a set code of right and wrong that everyone agreed with; but reality is the obstacle to that.

~U2Alabama

 

[bonosloveslave]

I guess I'm looking at absolute truth in terms of how God sees things. Of course, there are some things the Bible doesn't talk about, so I don't know exactly what God thinks.
I guess an analogy might be that you go to another country and do something that is legal in the U.S. but is illegal there - you didn't know it was wrong, but according to a higher authority it was, and you pay the consequences.

 

[melon]

Either (God exists) or NOT (God exists). Exactly one of these statements qualifies as an "absolute truth."

But neither can be proven, nor can we settle on the nature of God, nor can we all settle on the existence of God, versus non-Christian deities like Vishnu and whatnot. Could you honestly say that you would believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of God if you were born a Hindu in India?

And certainly, there is the absolute question: Does God exist? As humans, we can try and answer that all we want, but all answers will fall under the category of "subjective."

Melon

 

[speedracer]

But neither can be proven, nor can we settle on the nature of God, nor can we all settle on the existence of God, versus non-Christian deities like Vishnu and whatnot. Could you honestly say that you would believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of God if you were born a Hindu in India?

Maybe not, but I'd either be right or wrong. I don't know if I'd automatically be condemned to hell if the Judeo-Christian God actually existed and I didn't know of him, but I'd still be wrong.

And certainly, there is the absolute question: Does God exist? As humans, we can try and answer that all we want, but all answers will fall under the category of "subjective."

Melon

Well, now you're delving into epistemology--you're asking the question "how do you know what you know," which for practical purposes is probably almost as or as important your answer to the question "does God exist?" Certainly the person who can give some explanation for why he does or does not think God exists is in better shape than the person who answers by blind faith.

But even if we can't see God or the absence of God with our own eyes, he either exists or does not exist.

And please, nobody bring up Godel's incompleteness theorem.

 

[nbcrusader]

You make an a priori assumption here:

"Subjective truth is wrong."

Actually, I think that is the logical conclusion.

Relativism makes for easier conversation at any given moment, but forces us to accept atrocities - you cannot condemn Hitler because it (the millions he slaughter for starters) was only evil in your eyes, not his.

Rather, I think we must undertake the difficult, unpopular task of discovering and teaching absolute truth.

 

[melon]

Relativism makes for easier conversation at any given moment, but forces us to accept atrocities - you cannot condemn Hitler because it (the millions he slaughter for starters) was only evil in your eyes, not his.

Rather, I think we must undertake the difficult, unpopular task of discovering and teaching absolute truth.

No, you assume that relativism means acceptance of everything, when, in fact, I've already mentioned that subjective condemnation is a natural and logical thing! Condemnations of Hitler, for all purposes, is subjective. It is certainly popular subjective, but subjective nonetheless. As we have seen, we have prominent figures (Pat Buchanan, anyone?) and the neo-fascist movements who do not outright condemn him.

And who defines "absolute truth" if we are to teach it? By that alone, "absolute truth" is a contradiction in terms, as a subjective individual or organization will have to define what is "absolute." And what would you do if the gatekeepers to what is "absolute truth" condemn you in the process? Now that their ideas have taken on proportions of "mythic speech," only someone "deviant" (e.g., "terrorist sympathizer") will challenge it.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

No, you assume that relativism means acceptance of everything, when, in fact, I've already mentioned that subjective condemnation is a natural and logical thing! Condemnations of Hitler, for all purposes, is subjective. It is certainly popular subjective, but subjective nonetheless. As we have seen, we have prominent figures (Pat Buchanan, anyone?) and the neo-fascist movements who do not outright condemn him.

Instead of saying, "accepting", I should have said, "we must remain silent". I apologize for the confusion.

If all truth is subjective, then you cannot say Hitler or Pat Buchanan are wrong, for that is only your (and many others) subjective viewpoint.

From my prior example, torturing babies for fun is wrong at all times in all places for all people. It is an absolute.

 

[melon]

If all truth is subjective, then you cannot say Hitler or Pat Buchanan are wrong, for that is only your (and many others) subjective viewpoint.

On the contrary, I say that they are wrong, but I admit that it is from a subjective viewpoint. Just as Pat Buchanan can state that the Holocaust was a fraud, and that is from a subjective viewpoint.

From my prior example, torturing babies for fun is wrong at all times in all places for all people. It is an absolute.

While I agree with the fact that torturing babies is wrong, on who's viewpoint do you decide that it is an absolute? Your own? The dominant hegemonic view? Both are subjective viewpoints.

Melon