The Sins of the Father

Published on July 17, 2007 By Dr Guy In Religion

One of our esteemed members decided to post an article concerning a religion where he stated:

I should comment that I am pretty much against the Catholic Church

Some of the reasons he stated are historical, if somewhat prejudicial, and are ones that the Church in the modern era has had to deal with in their quest to return to its roots - that of being a faith based, and not a political based organization. And some are an attempt to bestow upon an fallible organization a measure of perfection that does not exist in this world. And still others are a gross mis-interpretation of a teaching that many do not understand, yet continue to decry and denounce in their ignorance.

Let us look at these three different aspects of these accusations.

The first is easy enough to identify. They deal with Historical facts. The inquisition, the heresy of Galileo, and the Crusades. All of these are historical facts, that are undeniable. And to deny them would be akin to denying the holocaust. But they are historical. The implication in the linked article is that since these were done in the name of the Church, then all descendants must bear the shame of those forefathers. That those descendants must renounce their faith, because the Church (not the faith) is imperfect and has done evil. They are guilty, because their ancestors are guilty. And not even necessarily their ancestors, but the acquaintances of some of their ancestors.

It matters not that the descendants have apologized for those deeds. It matters not that the descendants have repudiated the deeds. It matters only that those deeds were committed by the fathers, and thus the sins must be visited upon the children.

Now we come to the point where this faith based organization must know not only all that has been, but all that will be. In 1933, the Church signed a concordat with a sovereign nation stating they would get out of Politics. Something they had been in since Constantine back during the Roman Empire. Something they were never meant to be. And something they should never have been. And yet, into the 20th century, they were still involved with the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire. So they got out. By signing an agreement with the government of Germany. At the time, a democratically elected government whose primary concerns were not with ruling the world (that would come later), but in getting the country out of the worst depression they had ever seen.

While this was a mistake, at the time, no one knew the evil that was to occur under the new leadership of Germany. But we are to believe, again, that this is a heinous crime. And the crime was in not being omniscient. They should have known that the evil was to come, and never signed the agreement, and that they did sign it before the evil was perpetrated upon the world, is irrelevant. For they must be omniscient. Because people say they are.

And because they signed this agreement, then all the works of the Catholics throughout Europe, those who sacrificed their lives for the persecuted, was just a dog and pony show. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. hey! They must have been pretending.

Finally we come to modern day deeds. Yes, what WE do today WE are responsible for. At least in most circles. But what did the Church do in the current day? There are 2 charges.

One: The participation in the genocide in Rwanda by priests and nuns,

Two: Hundreds of years (no kidding or exaggeration) of tacitly permitting the sexual abuse of parishioners, specifically including children, by priests

That is right. The church and all 1.1 billion members participated in the genocide in Rwanda. And not another soul in the world did so. Nope, none of the other 5 billion people participated, just the 1 billion Catholics. And how did they participate? How many people were killed by Catholics? Well, that gets kind of murky, since even the author does not indicate that a single Catholic raised up arms against the Hutus and Tutsis. NO, the only allegation is that they did nothing. But the other 5 billion people sure did a lot, right? They sure stopped the massacre from happening! I remember well, the brigades of Americans (non-catholic of course), Israelis, English, French, and Germans marching in there to stop this slaughter. I remember it very well. Maybe you do as well?

But not the Catholics. Not a single Catholic sacrificed their lives for that massacre.

And the pedophilia? Yep! A crime that did not exist prior to it being discovered in the church, and what is even better, would not exist were it not for the church. And its 1 billion members! That is right! You heard it here first! The Church, and its 1 billion members are all pedophiles, or so we are to believe. Because only Catholics are pedophiles, and they must all be because we have found some priests that are.

Forget those men behind the curtain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

Forget the hundreds of instances where headlines have blared that "This teacher and that teacher" is convicted of it (they must all be Catholics too). Forget all the felons rotting in jail (they are all Catholics too). Just concentrate on the 13,000 charges (not all proven yet - except the fact they are Catholics) in the last 50 odd years against those evil Catholics. Do away with those Catholics, and problem solved! You do not need to worry about any one else!

No way is it possible that perhaps those inclined to pedophilia are attracted to occupations that put them in contact with children. No, all those teachers are Catholics, all those Felons are Catholics, and all those Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imams are really Catholics in disguise. Problem solved. The final solution is to kill all the Catholics.

Then we have this statement: When Ratzinger was a Cardinal, he helped conceal the severity of the problem. And this is the man that has the audacity to say that you are "wounded" in your beliefs if you do not acknowledge him?

Yes, the author now is an expert on theology, and knows more about interfaith dialog than any one else. So he can now state the intent and reason for the claim of "wounded" irregardless of its context: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288976,00.html

Let just pretend again that the Pope (who is all Catholics after all), is again saying that, now not only all Muslims are evil (Exact quote from Manuel Il Paleologus, a Byzantine Emperor, not a pope):

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

Since he quotes a historical text to a CLASS on theology, he must have originated the quote, and firmly believes in it. Just like the statement he re-released recently that the experts in the media took to be a slam on protestant churches, instead of what it was. A re-statement of a working paper for the reconciliation of all Christian faiths. "The wound" that is talked about is reflected in the Popes belief that his faith is the right one. But as we can guess from these wanna-bee Theological experts in the mainstream media and elsewhere, ONLY Catholics believe that. All other people of faith must then believe that their faith is not the right one, and they are just waiting on a street corner for a bus to come along with a better one.

I guess we have 5 billion people that just cant wait to find a better creed and faith.

And finally we get to the last item. One corrected so many times, it truly boggles the mind that people would continue to perpetrate it. I guess some just love to revel in their ignorance instead of trying to discern the truth, or even seeking it. Even worse, when presented with the truth, they chose to ignore it, because ignorance is so much more fun. But for the record:

Pope ... ....always correct and infallible...

Is incorrect. The pope is only infallible when he goes Ex-cathedra, which means speaking for the faithful, and that has occurred only twice in the last 500 years. All the other times, he is speaking as the leader of the faithful - much like Bush speaks for all Americans (ha ha). He is the head teacher, as the role of priest has its roots in the Jewish faith, and that of the Rabbi - which means teacher, his words carry more weight than the other teachers and the students. But last I checked, no teacher is right all the time, and no man is either. And the Pope, outside of his role as head teacher, is just that. A man.

So please, slam those 1 billion plus Catholics for all these sins. We can even make a special place for them, since they are all evil and do only evil. But at least get your facts right when you are marching them to the gallows.

Comments (Page 1)

Larry Kuperman

on Jul 17, 2007

I'm not sure how I feel about your posting selected excerpts from my article, instead of posting a reply ON that article. Talk about out of context....I hope people read the entire article.

I can substantiate everything that I wrote:

"The participation in the genocide in Rwanda by priests and nuns" Not 1.1 billion Catholics.. priests and nuns.

November 17th, 2006 Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka is convicted of rape and aiding militias in the killing of hundreds of Tutsi refugees at the Holy Family Cathedral in downtown Kigali, where he was head priest.
Father Guy Theunis charged with category one genocide.
Sister Gertrude Mukangango received a 15-year sentence for her role in the massacre of some 7,000 people seeking refuge at her convent in southern Rwanda.
Sister Maria Kisito Mukabutera received a 12-year sentence.

Do I need to itemize each one? Or is a summation from a Catholic journal enough?

Quoting from Catholic World News "Many Catholic priests and religious have been charged with participation in the slaughter of 1994, in which 800,000 members of the minority Tutsi ethnic group were killed along with more moderate members of the majority Hutu tribe. Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, is heavily Catholic, and Tutsis flocked to Church properties in an effort-- often unsuccessful-- to escape the massacres."

Never said that Catholics invented pedophilia. I did document that for 250 years the Church has known of the problem, that the incidence of abuse is higher, MUCH HIGHER, in the Catholic Church than in either other religious schools or in secular schools What is your point? The Church doesn't need to deal with their criminal acts, because others do it? All I want is that evildoers, priests who committed criminal acts, be arrested and sent to prison....publicly, without special protection. And those high-ranking Church officials that knew about it and acted to conceal criminal acts, like Cardinal Bernard who has admitted as much, be tried for conspiracy and obstruction.

"It matters not that the descendants have apologized for those deeds. It matters not that the descendants have repudiated the deeds." When and where? When has the Church ever issued an apology to the Jews? Ever? When did the Church ever say "Yeah, we made all the blood libel stuff up to steal your property." Can you show me that?

You should have entitled your article "The Sins of the Fathers" because all the sinning was done by this Father and that Father....

Larry Kuperman

on Jul 17, 2007

Again, Dr. Guy, because you posted your own article with only some quotes from me, people might not know that I wrote this:

"You know what the sad part is? (I hope that our colleague, Dr. Guy, someone that I have respect for reads this.) If you think of the Church as an INSTITUTION, as the exclusive agent of G-d on Earth, it is hard to defend it. Kids and other innocents have been hurt and exploited at exactly the moments that they were weakest and those who were supposed to safeguard them failed horribly. And this has gone on and on....for centuries. It is just evil, there is not other word.

On the other hand, if you view the Church as people, the problem becomes more solvable. It is time for the Church to rid itself of the pederasts and haters. Save your pity for the victims and implement zero tolerance for sexual predators. Zero. One act and you are gone and excommunicate. No more room for the Mel Gibsons who hide their hate behind a cross."

Pasted verbatim including the grammatical error. It should have read "there is NO other word" but instead I wrote "not."

I still respect you, though. I disagree and I really am bothered that you only took selected passages, but that doesn't lessen my respect.

Contego

on Jul 18, 2007

Father Guy Theunis
This man should probably be taken off your hate list. Here is an article describing his life's work and involvment in Rwanda.
http://storage.paxchristi.net/AF72E05.pdf.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15667
Also, here is a news article about the rallying of people for the truth to come out about this priest, and how he is no longer being persecuted for the false allegations of crimes, except by you. He is still under investigation by the Belgium authorities, while they search out the validity of the charges. However, reading up on the charges, one really has to question the Rwanda judicial system, as retailatory charges against those who stood out isn't uncommon.

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/rwanda14782.htm
This article outlines the judicial system and many of its problems. And it even cites an example of a priest being "sentenced to 12 years in prison for minimizing genocide." So I do supposed some people were convicted of crimes, helping to minimize genocide.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/index.cfm?docid=720
While this link is extensive and exhaustive, it is from the US Department of State on the Human Rights Violations of Rwanda. Bishop Augustin Misago was charged by the Rwandan Government for crimes of genocide, but acquited by the Court. The Appeals Courts overturned the convictions and death sentences of Edouard Nturiye and Francois Kayiranga, both priests.
1.d. is important. It says that 95% of all people in jail are charged with genocide, some have been jailed since 1994. 18,000 prisoners have no files on them, and are yet being held.
1.e. is important to note the review of the judicial system. Many Magistrates have been removed for their corruption of either giving "not guilty" verdicts or creating false charges of genocide. They also have enacted group trials, finding many guilty together instead of examining each case seperately. In the Gacaca Courts, newest courts, lawyers aren't allowed and judges are elected by communities. Reduced sentences could be obtained for confessions. Since 1996, when this law was enacted, 20,000 people have confessed, with the government only processing a few.
2.c. talks quite a bit about the persecution of the Church, as well as many Christians. For the State Department to state that there is clear targeting, as supported by "numerous human rights groups," of the Catholic Church is a huge statement. My sister works for the State Department; due to the clear seperation of Church and State in the US, she has to be amazingly careful not to make statements such as these unless she has substantial evidence to make the statement. They don't make any statements lightly, but least of religous ones.

As far as Gertrude Mukangango and Maria Kisito Mukabutera go, I believe that the courts of Belgium are not influenced by corruption. I believe that with the evidence and testimonies, they properly found them guilty of complicity. I would like to read the testimonies of court case. While I know that even good people do bad things, and that bad people pretend to do good things, the hope in me wonders if they weren't coerced. The news articles I've found have been very limited. They state only that the nuns turned the people over and then brought petrol to burn a garage with 500 people in it. I can't possibly imagine that state of matters.

Wenceslas Munyeshyaka seems to have a very detailed case against him. After reading this indictment it seems as though he has committed hideous attrocities. Though, his trials still awaits in France. His case seems to be the most defined of all of the case with cited evidence. I will keep a watch on this, thanks.
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:ueLd6B0irdMJ:69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/cases/Munyeshyaka/indictment/munyeshyaka_ind_en.pdf+Wenceslas+Munyeshyaka&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

In all, I'm not here to justify the evil deeds of people, especially my Catholic brothers and sisters. But I do hope that we don't get everything lost here. You pick of a few of the fallen to exemplify the whole. Tell me your denomination and see if after a few google searches I can't uncover some fallen. While we're on Rwanda, for all those Americans out there, if we are to be exemplified by the individual, let us also remember Clinton's role with Rwanda. He turned a blind eye to the genocide. While many blame the Church for their passivity, look first at the world power, the strongest military in the world, the richest country with the most influence. As compared to the Church which has no military and has been trying to remove itself from the political realm (as cited with the Reich Concordat of 1933), it seems unfair to say the least. Don't let hatred blind you from the truth. Seek out the truth first and adapt yourself to it. That is the goal of an intellectual.

Contego

on Jul 18, 2007

" I did document that for 250 years the Church has known of the problem, that the incidence of abuse is higher, MUCH HIGHER, in the Catholic Church than in either other religious schools or in secular schools What is your point? The Church doesn't need to deal with their criminal acts, because others do it? All I want is that evildoers, priests who committed criminal acts, be arrested and sent to prison....publicly, without special protection. And those high-ranking Church officials that knew about it and acted to conceal criminal acts, like Cardinal Bernard who has admitted as much, be tried for conspiracy and obstruction."

Being new here, I missed the documentation of the 250 years thing. Also did you have the documentation for the Catholic Church incidence of abuse being higher? I just am interested in numbers. I'm not calling you out.

I agree that priests who commit criminal acts, any criminal act but especially those involving child molestation, should be arrested, tried, and punished for their crimes.
I do want to ask though, how you would have the Church go about doing that though? My guess is that these offending priests went to their superiors during confession to confess their sins and their crime. During that confess, I have little doubt that the confessor then told that priest to turn himself in to the authorities and to make any amends possible to rectify the situation. While I haven't committed anything close to that degree or on that level even, I have confessed some regrettable actions. And every time, without fail, the priest tells me to go and make amends the best I can. Sometimes that involves going to the person and telling them the truth, if I've lied. Or to pay for something, if I've damaged it. The point is, I've always been told to repair as much of the damage as I could and to take full responsibility for my sins and the ensuing damage. However, it is up to the sinner to heed the advice of the confessor. It is not a requirement for forgiveness. In fact, just the stated desire for forgiveness and the whole-hearted intent to never repeat the sin is all that is necessary. That being said, if a person truly wants forgiveness, they must also want to repair any and all damage of the sin. In human weakness, though, what we want and what we choose to do are often very separate things.
Upon confessing the sin and receiving forgiveness, the confessor is sealed to the highest form of secrecy by the Church, in all cases without exception. Reconciliation is a sacrament, a most sacred act of the Church. There are no exceptions to this supreme secrecy. In the US, it has been common law practice to uphold this secrecy just as it does for doctor-patient confidentiality and lawyer-defendant confidentiality. And all but 6 states have enacted their own laws explicitly protecting ministers and priests with a state-level protection. So if the confessor cannot tell anyone about the crimes or turn anyone over to the law, then what course of action is proper? My guess is that they discuss options for combating the temptation of sin. One of the best ways is to distance one's self from the source of the temptation. If you are prone to anger around a particular person or thing, get away from it, if possible. Therefore, the best alternative is to move the priest, preferably to a position away from the children or young men that were a source of temptation. And in many cases, they did just that. I'm guessing that it was a mutually agreed upon move in the confessional. In the cases that it wasn't agreed upon, the Bishop could not force the move on the basis of the confession made. This would be a violation of the seal. So therefore, some of the offenders remained in the same parishes. And I missing a detail that you were in questions about?

And the Catholic Church can't say sorry for making up the blood libel thing. They didn't. Here's a link from a Jewish Encyclopedia citing the propagator of the myth, if not the originator (though it might have come around earlier). His name was Apion, born in 20 or 30 BC dying in Rome around 45 or 48 AD. So, it'd be a little hard for the Church to have made it up.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1641&letter=A

As far as propagating the myth of this, here are two accounts for consideration.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=190&letter=W
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15635a.htm

This first is the Jewish Encyclopedia's account. And the second is the Catholic Encyclopedia's account. I want to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia's account, "this has been well named "one of the most notable and disastrous lies of history"." The Catholic Encyclopedia cities it as a "well named" lie. This account is affirming that this story is a lie. In the end if the creation of this story has done anything, it has created a myth that might have become a monster. For imagine if there are some confused, misguided Jews out there who are a bit eccentric. They happen up this lie, this myth and think: "is it true? Do I have to kill a Christian to gain the promises of heaven?" And then they go out and do such a thing. I'm not saying they have ever done it. But I am proposing that this hypothetical is possible. Moreover, it is ultimate the fault of those parents and relatives of William of Norwich, who are then part of the any future murders against Christians. They created their own beast. If any cases did exist or were justified, it is simply the actions of one believe of the faith and not a reflection of doctrine. If it occurred in that way, the Jewish people as a whole cannot be held responsible for the actions of one individual. Which side of the bread do you butter?

Larry Kuperman

on Jul 18, 2007

Contego, I said Theunis was charged with Categoy One Genocide...and he was. That is the truth. There is nothing in that statement of fact that qualifies as "persecution" or hate by most standards.

He worked at Le Dialogue, a periodical that is proven to have contributed to the genocide. The editor was convicted. Are you going to tell me that Father Theunis was unaware of the nature and the gist of the periodical? Whether he actually translated articles that contributed to the genocide or simply worked at a periodical that did is the only issue.

Two quotes from your response:

"As far as Gertrude Mukangango and Maria Kisito Mukabutera go, I believe that the courts of Belgium are not influenced by corruption. I believe that with the evidence and testimonies, they properly found them guilty of complicity. I would like to read the testimonies of court case." In other words, despite the court findings, they are not really guilty until you complete your judicial review?

"Wenceslas Munyeshyaka seems to have a very detailed case against him. After reading this indictment it seems as though he has committed hideous attrocities. Though, his trials still awaits in France. His case seems to be the most defined of all of the case with cited evidence. I will keep a watch on this, thanks." No ego there....

You understand why these trials took place in Belgium and France, not Rwanda where the crimes took place? They were tried in Catholic countries, where the juries were predisposed toward the accused and a hardship was placed on the witnesses.

You say "In all, I'm not here to justify the evil deeds of people, especially my Catholic brothers and sisters." Funny it seems that that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. I write that 3 Catholic Clergy are convicted and one has been charged. You agree with those facts, your entire post could be summarized in the words "Yes, but...", but you consider me hateful for pointing out the facts?

You consider Clinton's non-action on Rwanda the same as Catholic clergy actively contributing to the genocide? I didn't fly to Rwanda myself, is that the same as opening the doors of my Church and saying "Here they are, kill them all?"

Failing to disprove the facts that I cited, you ask me "Tell me your denomination and see if after a few google searches I can't uncover some fallen." Thats the best that you come up with? Moral relativism? I am sorry, that is as lame as the earlier argument that Catholic priests engaged in a persistent pattern of sexual abuse, but nothing should be done about it, because there are other sexual abusers too. The facts show that the rate of priestly abuse was, in some Archdiocese 5 times higher than in public schools and other religious institutions.

The Reich Concordat is here: Link The Catholic Church agreed to behave DIFFERENTLY in Germany than elsewhere. Specifically in Article 32 the Concordat reads: "In view of the special situation existing in Germany, and in view of the guarantee provided through this Concordat of legislation directed to safeguard the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic Church in the Reich and its component states, the Holy See will prescribe regulations for the exclusion of clergy and members of religious orders from membership of political parties, and from engaging in work on their behalf."

"Seek out the truth first and adapt yourself to it." Try it and let me know how that works for you.

Oh, just so that there is no point unanswered, I consider myself a secular Humanist, but I am by ancestry a Jew.

Contego

on Jul 18, 2007

"If you think of the Church as an INSTITUTION, as the exclusive agent of G-d on Earth, it is hard to defend it. Kids and other innocents have been hurt and exploited at exactly the moments that they were weakest and those who were supposed to safeguard them failed horribly. And this has gone on and on....for centuries. It is just evil, there is not other word.

I think of the Church as the Body of Christ, since that is how Christ left it.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm
Christ is the head of the Body, of the Church. As far as being the exclusive agent...not possible. A perfect quote comes to mind from a story about a war-damaged crucifix missing its hands with a message underneath that reads, "Jesus Christ has no other arms but ours to do his work, and to show his love. We are the instruments and the agents of G-d's commands.
Please clarify, what "is hard to defend?"
I do agree with the part that we have horribly failed the innocent. And it has gone on for far too long. It needs to be stopped...but not just in the Catholic Church. Everywhere. The Jewish faith, the Protestant sects, the Muslims, the Hindu, the Buddhists, the Medicine Men, the teachers, the doctors, oh yes the doctors, the camp counselors, the coaches, the policemen... Far worse than the priests are the ones much closer, our own relatives. Uncle ZQXW needs to be stopped. Even Dad GPVS has to be stopped. But it's not just men either. Women, who do such things, need to be stopped and brought to justice with the rest of them. This should our battle cry. Why think so limited? Why root the problem out on such a small scale? If you really care about this, it must be stopped everywhere. Otherwise, the only safe place will be the Catholic Church.

"On the other hand, if you view the Church as people, the problem becomes more solvable. It is time for the Church to rid itself of the pederasts and haters. Save your pity for the victims and implement zero tolerance for sexual predators. Zero. One act and you are gone and excommunicate."
Excommunication. That is a heavy, heavy word. With the manner in which you use it, I know that you don't fully understand the severity of the word. You don't know the implications and the ramifications that it bears on the soul. But it also makes me question your understanding of forgiveness and the teachings of Christ. Christ welcomed the worst sinners of His day to sit and eat with Him. The worst. He forgave them and welcomed back the lost sheep to the flock. Yes, the wool was a little stained. But He washed it out, with His own Blood. Maybe you are just demonstrating your passion and not your ignorance. Computers can be such a hassle in that sense. Like now, I pray that no one misinterprets this as anything but a peaceful hope at understanding, for that is how I am writing it. I've seen some of the Catholics responses be rather pointed. Forgive them. They have had to defend the faith to many, many people who will not listen. Instead those people insist on badgering Catholic because they misunderstand the Church. So please forgive them. I'm sure they aren't meaning to be snide toward you. It's a weakness, I'm sure they are working on it to overcome it. Be patient.

Larry Kuperman

on Jul 18, 2007

Simultaneous posts.

250 years of abuse documentation: "Sacramentum Poenitentiae was an apostolic constitution published by Pope Benedict XIV in 1741. It is a four-page document establishing general notice of the problem of sexual abuse amongst the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church. It was the fifth document in the canon-law book that was used to train all priests between 1918 and 1982. Specifically, the Sacramentum Poenitentiae addresses the soliciting of sex from people, including children, by priests during confession. The document has been cited often in legal battles surrounding the sexual abuse of children by the Catholic clergy, usually as a rebuttal to church officials' claims that they were unaware of the occurrences of abuse."

Neither the myth of Blood Libel (nor the Protocols of the Elders of Zion more recently) were made up by the Church, they were used by the Church and its followers.

"it is simply the actions of one believe of the faith and not a reflection of doctrine." You mean like the Inquisition was an isolated act? You are denying that the Catholic Church engaged in numerous and well documented acts of murder, rape and torture against the Jews during the Middle Ages? And that these were institutional and wide-spread, not isolated and by a few "confused, misguided" Catholics?

I think that I am pretty much done here.

Dr Guy

on Jul 18, 2007

I can substantiate everything that I wrote:

You will also note I did not contend the facts that you wrote (except for the Infallibility). But as I said, your version was slanted, inflamatory and bigotted. This is hyperbole, but I was hoping that by writing this, you would notice a similarity. IN none of your writings did you separate the sin from the Church, you branded all Catholics that way by association. That is your right.

And I did provide a source to show you that while there is a problem in the Catholic Church, it is not the sole source of this deviation, or even the largest. You chose to ignore that. And that disturbs me as well. For by singling out the easiest source, instead of digging into the issue and the overall problem (stated by me many times in the past, but ignored by you in your quest to paint one billion people with a tar brush), you have shown your prejudice against a faith. Something I would have expected from (and seen) a fundamentalist group, but not from you, who I had come to respect as a voice of moderation, reason, and intellect. But apparently not on this issue.

What scares me most of all, whether you intended it or not, was in reading your article and response to another article, I was struck by how a nation could be so whipped into a frenzy over a people that, who by a vast majority, had never done them harm. I am not speaking of Colonial times USA, or modern day South. I am talking about early 20th century Russia, and mid 20th Century Germany. Your rhetoric and hyperbole was eerily reminiscent of what happened to Jews in those Nations at those times.

You wrote "I should comment that I am pretty much against the Catholic Church. I have a little list of reasons:", and then listed what I have commented on here. Not the perpertrators of the sins, but the whole Church (which I have also commented on is not a big stone building in Europe, but 1 billion souls).

As for Rwanda, I never said there was no crimes. But the handful of statistics you quote are in themselves tainted (to the victor goes the history), and some of them are known to be trumped up charges by a people. wronged by a genocide, looking for scapegoats (source: UN Commission on African Genocide). Yet you are again eerily silent on the sins of the other 5 billion people in their tacit approval of that Genocide by doing nothing. And you do not list the cases where Nuns and priests are not around to tell their tale - because they would not fit into your list, but rather would demonstrate that, like all people, Priests and Nuns are just people, and some will do good and some will do evil.

I stay out of Religion for the most part, because, apparently in today's society, the one last area of politically correct bigotry is the Catholic Church. I started writing in the past in this forum on that issue, not to defend any past practices, but to educate others on common misconceptions. And saw the hate and bigotry directed against me and my faith. But I do read some Religion articles, and in the past have found you to be one of the better ones - balanced, fair, and non-judgemental.

Until now. And that saddens me the most.

Dr Guy

on Jul 18, 2007

Also did you have the documentation for the Catholic Church incidence of abuse being higher? I just am interested in numbers. I'm not calling you out.

I agree that priests who commit criminal acts, any criminal act but especially those involving child molestation, should be arrested, tried, and punished for their crimes.

Welcome aboard, and thank you for your posts. I will also state, for the record again, that the vast majority (Cardinal Law not withstanding) of Catholics Abhor and detest the crimes of pedophelia within the church. And that it is Catholics who have brought it to light! I will also say that the pendulum has swung back - probably due to light being shown on this issue, so that now, there are a lot of allegations that are simply not true (and on that I have personal knowledge and evidential knowledge). But those allegations are still counted among the sins of the clergy, unfounded as they are.

And I did provide a link to a source that shows that the Catholic church is not the worst offender, just the largest. And most centralized, so the easiest to vilify by those who already hated Catholics, and just gave them more ammunition and justification for their prejudice.

Jythier

on Jul 18, 2007

I don't hate Catholics, but I think they're a little silly at times. Their loyalty to the church seems to be unmatched, which is awesome.

Moving away from the temptation is only going to give you different temptations, so that doesn't help. I think they should be dismissed. If you are committing the kind of sin that really hurts others, and the church, you should not be a priest anymore. But I'm not Catholic, so my opinion is not necessarily in line with Catholicism.

Dr Guy

on Jul 18, 2007

If you are committing the kind of sin that really hurts others, and the church, you should not be a priest anymore. But I'm not Catholic, so my opinion is not necessarily in line with Catholicism.

Silly? Downright funny at times (yes, I fully admit that some of the trappings are silly).

As for as defrocking them - that is one solution. At the very least, they should be put into positions where they cannot harm any more children (after serving their sentence).

Whether you are Catholic or not, your opinion on this is of value since it does transcend the faith, and indeed it is not a matter of faith, but of a deviant behavior.

Contego

on Jul 18, 2007

Before starting, I do really, really want to say thank you. For over the last couple of days, I have done more research and learning about the Catholic Church, than I have in a long, long time. It's nice that you have good standards for debate, and don't just throw out petty remarks. Now, being that you can't hear the tone of my voice, I want to reassure you that I am really thankful. Take this compliment at face value, that's what it is.

" There is nothing in that statement of fact that qualifies as "persecution" or hate by most standards." --Fully agree. But I don't have documentation for your fact. I provided mine.
"Theunis was charged with Categoy One Genocide...and he was. That is the truth."
From my reference, http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15667, "accused of high-level responsibility in the genocide and was immediately transferred to Kigali prison." It also says in the article that, "he left Rwanda without an escort on a commercial flight ...he was immediately questioned by officials handling the judicial investigation initiated against him in Belgium."
Yes he worked at the Dialogue. But I need citation as to the proof that the periodical contributed to genocide. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/priest-faces-rwanda-genocide-trial/2005/09/12/1126377255807.html. This link provides some information I think you were referencing about the editor who was convicted. His name was Hassan Ngeze, but edited the Kangura, which was a periodical found to provide genocide propoganda.
If there are some sources out there that I need to look at, please send them my way. But I still haven't found anything that has Theunis convicted. So putting him on a list of people who you cite as examples of people who participated in the genocide of Rwanda is still a bit far if he's only been charged.

"In other words, despite the court findings, they are not really guilty until you complete your judicial review?"
No, by restating my words, you have made me say something that is not consistent with my statement. I simply said that, "I would like to read the testimonies." I did not say that I don't believe the courts, or that they were corrupt. Nor did I contend nor imply that I was superior to the courts. I have found no need to question the Belgium courts. I have found reason to question the Rwandan courts, as I cited. My interest in the testimonies is based in curiosity. Why did they do it? What was the motivation? Were they so filled with hatred at a group of people? Were they willing to go so far because that hatred had blackened their souls so much? The limits of human cruelty is boundless, but I can't conceive as to why.

"No ego there...." -- I only assume that it is another jab at my interest to follow the route of justice. Again, what turns a man or woman of God, even just a child of God period, to kill another person? It is a psychological enigma mixed with religious issues. Purely difficult to understand. And you have to look for the justice of it. If a person does such a deed, at the end of the day human response calls for justice. Divinity is that which calls for forgiveness. However, God still doesn't exclude justice after forgiveness.

"You understand why these trials took place in Belgium and France, not Rwanda where the crimes took place? They were tried in Catholic countries, where the juries were predisposed toward the accused and a hardship was placed on the witnesses."
-- I'm looking for a citation here also. Sounds like conjecture, bound by prejudice (one that you already admitted, I'm not being snide, just observant).
I found some articles that relate to reasons for moving some of the trials. They are long, though. Get ready for some reading. And I tried to extract a few points and reference them, but there are so many and they are so disperse throughout. Sorry. I'll look for some neater sources, but I chose credible over pretty.
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/early/rwanda1.html
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR400031998?open&of=ENG-2F2
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_6/morris2.html -- This one was most interesting. It produced this quote, "it appears that incitement to commit genocide is punishable under the ICTR Statute even without proof that the incitement actually led to subsequent acts of genocide." Crazy. Also if you go back and read the US State Department Report, that I cited, it talks quite alot about the state of affair of their judicial system. In all of these articles, I couldn't find one reference to the fact that they were being tried in Catholic countries with had predisposed juries towards the accused. In fact, Rwanda is mostly all Catholic. So the victims would also be Catholic, no real benefit to either side. However, it does state the terrible condition that the judicial system was in after the genocide. It said that in 1995 the courts didn't even try one single case. You can read more about all of the extensive details. Most all of the reasons cited were due to the status quo of the judicial system. Mostly, it wasn't able to handle the mass quantity of people that it had to try.

"Funny it seems that that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. I write that 3 Catholic Clergy are convicted and one has been charged. You agree with those facts, your entire post could be summarized in the words "Yes, but...", but you consider me hateful for pointing out the facts?"
1. You said, "seems." Interesting thing, that "seems." It's based on one's perceptions. Being an avid linguist, I pick up on the word choices that people use. It is so very important and reveals so much about them. What is your perception of me, especially since I'm Catholic? What is your perception of my intellectual integrity, especially since I'm Catholic? Seems. Such an interesting word.
2. You put quotes around "yes, but...", now I assume that's where you are putting the words into my mouth and making me speak rather than actually quoting my words (a summary could still be made off of the document itself using the material at hand). I didn't ever say that did. I never said, "yes, but..." I actually just agreed with you. Is that so hard to accept?
3. Your use of the word "facts." I'm not claiming by any measure that you are wrong, lying or otherwise being deceitful. I would just like the references, from credible source. And no, I'm not going to be unfair about the sources, unless you pull them off of blogs and other questionable sites. I just want the benefit of knowing what you know.

"You consider Clinton's non-action on Rwanda the same as Catholic clergy..." And I stop the quote right there, because you just changed my topic that I was talking about there. Here's my quote. "While many blame the Church for their passivity..." I say nothing about the clergy here nor their crimes. I am talking about criticism against the Church as a whole and it's "passivity." And I don't expect you to fly to Rwanda, a voice in the darkness is enough to get someone to light a match.

"Failing to disprove the facts that I cited," I totally agree with the quote you gave from the Catholic World News source, even though I had to look it up myself (http://www.cathnews.com/news/509/54.php). I didn't even try to disprove that.

"Thats the best that you come up with? Moral relativism?" -- It's not the best I can come up with, but it does help to wear the other man's shoes.

"The facts show that the rate of priestly abuse was, in some Archdiocese 5 times higher than in public schools and other religious institutions." Dr. Guy had a really compelling piece of evidence to state the contrary. I'd be willing to look at your evidence before making up my mind. I just need that link.

Thanks for the Reich Concordat link. Great. I saw that source too. Leaves out some articles, though they aren't mostly important. Mostly. I like when we agree. I said that the Reich Concordat said they were trying to get out of politics and so did you. That's great.
Here's another link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat, though I don't mind you throwing it out since it is wikipedia. It just sums up everything nicely. I can find a better source if you want it.
The important part here is that I think you are trying to stick me with the "behave differently in Germany than elsewhere." See, I am astute. However, the article states that the Church had established three other previous Concordats before the one with Germany. Also the Protestants also signed on for the Concordat. I guess it was a fad.

""Seek out the truth first and adapt yourself to it." Try it and let me know how that works for you." -- I'm trying it. I just need some more links, on the quest.

By the way, thanks for answering the question about belief. So many people would be keen to pass it up. I appreciate it.

Contego

on Jul 18, 2007

Larry,

First, thanks for the citation.

Next, You're kidding me, right? They reference a 250 year old document to say that the Church should know that Priest GTDQ is molesting boys?!?! That is ridiculous. That's like referencing a memo that French are planning an attack on the US from 250 years ago and saying that we should expect an attack, provided that the French are planning to attack us now. That's ridiculous.
But don't let my astonishment of the facts detract from the fact that you came through with the citation.

"Neither the myth of Blood Libel (nor the Protocols of the Elders of Zion more recently) were made up by the Church"
"Yeah, we made all the blood libel stuff up to steal your property.(cited from your initial statement on this thread)" -- I guess you were using a different nuance to the meaning "made up." 'To lie about' instead of 'to create, originate.'

I noticed a typo of mine. Instead of "the actions of one believe," it should be "believer." Sorry.

But now that you bring up the Inquisition, which of the four do you want to discuss? I will be forthcoming, I am quite well versed on the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions as it was a large part of my degree in college. That leaves the Roman and the Medieval. I'll have to do some more reading on them to be able to have a fair discourse. But I will say that it was one of the darkest periods, if not the darkest, of all the Catholic Church's history. And that was certainly a great evil done by the men of the Church. It was still not the Church, but it went straight up to the Pope. But let's not fall off back into a debate about infallibility. See the Pope isn't infallible in what he does or says, only infallible pertaining to a very certain condition and only in reference to morality and faith, God doesn't care what he does otherwise. He's human.

The fact that you reference the Jews makes me think you want to talk about the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions. But don't leave out the Muslims. They were the major target. The Jews only came later.
I won't deny that the officials of the Church sanctioned the Inquisition. Not only sanctioned, but created, instituted it, permitted torture, etc. etc etc. I don't deny that. To do so is to deny that we also overcame that. It was called the Dark Ages for a reason...no pun intended.

Contego

on Jul 18, 2007

Jythier,

"Their loyalty to the church seems to be unmatched, which is awesome."
Thanks for the compliment. And we are silly, oh so silly. But our loyalty to the Church isn't just blind faith. We are truly the Church's worst critics. We scrutinize teachings and doctrines, just as many others do. But we go further. Many people simply get tired of scrutinizing, but Catholics have an obligation to accept the doctrines. Therefore, we're going to be very exhaustive in our researching and learning about the doctrine beyond that of others. It took me at least 7 years to come to terms with Euthanasia Doctrine. I thought for the longest time that if someone is suffering...put them down. It wasn't until God placed my great grandmother in our care that I really started to understand why the Church is so adamant and absolute about their teachings. All Catholics have issues with the Church. That's what being Catholic is. We know that just because we don't fully understand the issue, doesn't mean that others don't. And they don't come to these things easily. But if I wasn't sure that God gives the Pope, even the bad ones, guidance in doctrinal matters, it would be really hard to accept sometimes. Oh, and if any Catholic tells you that he or she isn't working on an issue with the Church, they probably aren't well-enough read up on the doctrines of the Church. Even priests and nuns have lots of issues about doctrine, but they'll be hard bent to tell you. For they still have an obligation to teach the truth, even if they don't agree right away.

A similar thing happened on this thread. I accept the court's ruling in the matters of the Sister and the genocide, but I would still like to read up on it and know more about it. I can accept it on faith, given that it comes from a reliable source. The rest, I just have to come to terms on.

"Moving away from the temptation is only going to give you different temptations, so that doesn't help." You're right. The devil will always find ways of tempting us, no matter what. The strength of those temptations, though, can be different. Here's an example to think about, if you are addicted to chocolate, and can't resist it for anything in the world, what would happen if you moved to a country without chocolate? (I know, hard to imagine) Initially, you would probably go out and try other things to fill in for chocolate. But in the end, you're probably not going to have the same uncontrollable urge for vanilla as you did for chocolate. I'm dealing with that right now. Living in Japan they don't have Dr. Pepper, my uncontrollable. I drank it nearly everyday. But now, no DP, only Coke. And I'm not a big fan of Coke. I might get it sometimes, but if I had reason not to drinking it (ie, poisonous) then I just wouldn't drink it.

Dr Guy

on Jul 18, 2007

We are truly the Church's worst critics.

Amen to that.

All Catholics have issues with the Church. That's what being Catholic is.

One of the basic doctrines is to question. For in questioning, we come to either a greater understanding, or, in time, a revision of the teachings. YOu later refer to the "dark ages". That is a good example of questioning the Church and changing it. While some "blind Catholics" do not want to acknowledge that part of the history of the church, others of us can look at it and be glad that our forefathers could change the way the church did business in that part of history.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!