Celebrate Religion here

Quote: FrGamble

EvenBob, good response. I don't know what to tell you about the past mistakes to help you not be so blind to the present.

Good grief, I'm not blind to the present. I look at the
Catholic Church as a whole entity, not just its present
incarnation. Is there any evidence that the Church ever
changed anything on their own, without being forced to
by changing times? Look at the pedaphilia thing, for
instance, they dragged their feet for decades on that,
and still are. They have 1500 years of crimes against
humanity to answer for. If you want to do something
really constructive, Padre, address those human rights
crimes the church is quilty of. The sheer weight of them
must be incredible on anybody who's a true, really true,
representative of the Church. Personally, I couldn't do
it. I investigated witchcraft back in the 90's to see what it
was all about, and I wish I could forget most of what
I learned about the Catholic Church and how they treated
anybody who was considered a heretic.

EvenBob, the first thing that might be helpful is to read what the Church teaches and has always taught. The Catechism of the Church lays out the consistent teaching of the Church for its 2000 years. You will find that many of the sins attributed to the Church are sins against the Church's offical teachings that were perpetrated by even some of its leaders. It is sad that humans sin. However, there are many more saints in the history of the Church who lived out what the Church is truly about and they are worthy of celebrating. Many of whom are the reason there is not even a distant second when it comes to chartible outreach and service to humanity compared to the Catholic Church. I celebrate the unchanging truths consistently taught by the Church and the men and women who lived to such a degree that they changed the world for the better. Many of our greatest cities are named after them and they are remembered with love. The awful sinners of the Church's history whose names are often forgotten remind us of the reality of sin and the pain of hypocrisy not that the Church itself is not worthy of celebration.

Quote: FrGamble

EvenBob, the first thing that might be helpful is to read what the Church teaches and has always taught. The Catechism of the Church lays out the consistent teaching of the Church for its 2000 years. You will find that many of the sins attributed to the Church are sins against the Church's offical teachings that were perpetrated by even some of its leaders.

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice".

Matthew 23:1-3

Sigh.

FrGamble, you will never win with this group, but that's not the intention here, is it? I've seen musings by our members that suggest that the laws of physics are different in other universes. I've seen musings by everyone with guesses on what happened at the point of the big bang and what may have existed "before" the big bang.

These are just musings. No one (even the best theoretical physics) has more than a clue of what actually happened before the big bang, whether other universes exist, or what the laws of physics are in those universe.

We all live our day-to-day lives in our Newtonian universe with a little help from Einstein. Our point of view is Newtonian and it's difficult for most of us to even conceive of the initial expansion of the universe that was the big bang and the laws of physics in place at the beginning of the universe.

That said, there (in my opinion) is no physical evidence of God's existence in this universe. A beginning of the universe doesn't mean that "God did it". We just don't know how it started. Time is just another dimension in space. It's very difficult to explain what happens to "Time" at the beginning of the universe. There may be no need for a "cause".

Today is the Feast Day of St. Albert the Great, patron of scientists. Here is a nice little prayer to say today:

A Prayer to Saint Albertus Magnus

Dear Scientist and Doctor of the Church,
Natural science always led you to the higher science of God.
Though you had an encyclopedic knowledge, it never made you proud,
for you regarded it as a gift of God.
Inspire scientists to use their gifts well in studying the wonders of creation, thus bettering the lot of the human race and rendering greater glory to God.
Amen.

Quote: boymimbo

Sigh.

And how! :)

Quote:

FrGamble, you will never win with this group, but that's not the intention here, is it?

So far the good father is doing a fantastic job proving either 1) an irresistible force has no chance against an unmovable object, or 2) the irresistible force isn't so irresistible after all.

Quote: Garnabby

And expectations being inherently of the mind, then such a god such have known better!

That begs the question.

Quote: Nareed

So far the good father is doing a fantastic job proving either 1) an irresistible force has no chance against an unmovable object, or 2) the irresistible force isn't so irresistible after all.

I'd say our Padre's accomplishments are more in the order of continuing to be able to provide his point of view without being generally resented, indeed finding it welcomed in some quarters, and still tolerable to most, with notable exceptions.

Quote: odiousgambit

with notable exceptions.

I'm sorry, I forgot to add:

:)

There.

Come on. The "what happnes when an irresistible force meets and unmovable object?" is a philosophical cliche. I was merely having some fun with it. My assumption is that religious people, particualrly priests of all religions, regard god as an irresistible force.

Quote: FrGamble

There will never be a shortage of new truths found and every new truth found does not prove or disprove the existence of God but they continue to provide more evidence that the existence of God is a logical, albeit it non-scientific, conclusion. Thanks.

The first part of your sentence does not lead to the second clause in your sentence. They do not provide any evidence that God is a logicial conclusion.

And I have no idea what you mean by a logicial, non-scientific conclusion. Logic is a science, from starting with certain axioms we can make arguements and test them.

Perhaps the point being made is that there are 2 distinct threads regarding religion. One is called "Rag on religion" and the other, this one to be precise is called "Celebrate religion here". It seems that anyone who can read would celebrate religion on this thread and rag on religion in the other thread. If you're not on this thread to celebrate religion, why are you here? Why would someone feel the need to post negative comments about religion on this thread? Not sayin', just sayin'.

Because I'm a nosy bugger, and couldn't leave well enough alone :)

Quote: boymimbo

These are just musings. No one (even the best theoretical physics) has more than a clue of what actually happened before the big bang, whether other universes exist, or what the laws of physics are in those universe.

Oh come now, surely you exaggerate? Maybe what has never had a viable academic future here is the so-called mathematics of gambling? Maybe that's why the ancient Greeks just ignored it? And the reason that the "casino industry" has picked up on it in earnest. It does nothing for the gambler, but "justifies" everything for both. Anyway, a true existentialist wouldn't bother to try to categorize anything in terms of good physicists, and bad ideas; if comment at all. No idea is of any such use if, and when, the only basic (unproved) belief is that there aren't any others. On the contrary, i think it's summary analyses like this which aren't even musings.

Quote: boymimbo

We all live our day-to-day lives in our Newtonian universe with a little help from Einstein. Our point of view is Newtonian and it's difficult for most of us to even conceive of the initial expansion of the universe that was the big bang and the laws of physics in place at the beginning of the universe."

Enough with the wanna-be, Sheldon Cooper-Pi un-nerd stuff. It's, "99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration". Flitting from one gimmick, let alone career, to another only takes its tolls on one's faculty for critical thinking, and quiet-zest for seeing something special through to its logical conclusion(s). Cling to your "roots", stay with what you (think you) really know. Then who knows, maybe the "gang" might thusly try to mock you someday.

Quote: thecesspit

Because I'm a nosy bugger, and couldn't leave well enough alone :)

I admit I posted on that other thread about religion too because I couldn't resist. If we all posted on separate threads I wouldn't be able to talk to my friend Nareed, aka the unmovable object.

Quote: FrGamble

If we all posted on separate threads I wouldn't be able to talk to my friend Nareed, aka the unmovable object.

Aw, that's very kind of you. If we ever meet, remember I owe you a token of gratitude for the help you gave me with my work, however unwitting it was <g>

Vive le difference, I say.

Quote: FrGamble

You will find that many of the sins attributed to the Church are sins against the Church's offical teachings that were perpetrated by even some of its leaders.

This is the same defense the German's used after WWII. Hey,
don't blame us, it was those wascally Nazi's that did all the
damage, we had no idea what was going on.

The truth is, the real truth, not the spin the Church puts on
everything, is, the Catholic's for most of their history believed
that conversion was to be achieved thru any means necessary.
The repression of scientific thought was essential if the masses
were to be kept ignorant and malleable. When it all crumbled
around them, it was time for a new strategy. Hey, we're not
that bad, don't blame us for a few bad apples. The modern
form of confession was started during the Inquisition as a way
to weed out the heretics, and gather info on the enemy. It
worked so well they never got rid of it. A priest can't forgive
you for your sins, only god can do that. If you believe in that
stuff..

Quote: EvenBob

The modern form of confession was started during the Inquisition as a way to weed out the heretics, and gather info on the enemy.

A statement like that needs to be backed up.

Quote: odiousgambit

A statement like that needs to be backed up.

I read it somewhere. Confession was around before the
Inquisition, but the present form, where they sit in a booth,
and the priest can take notes unseen by the confessor, comes
from the Inquisition era.

Quote: EvenBob

I read it somewhere.

There. If that doesn't satisfy you, what more do you want? Bob doesn't need to back anything up. He reads a lot of stuff.

I don't care enough to look it up again.
Knock yourself out..

Quote: EvenBob

I read it somewhere. Confession was around before the
Inquisition, but the present form, where they sit in a booth,
and the priest can take notes unseen by the confessor, comes
from the Inquisition era.

I'm sorry, I laughed out loud when I read this. The seal of confession is the most sacred responsibility of any priest and breaking the secrecy of confession in any way, including taking notes, is an automatic excommunication for any priest.

Allow me to give a brief history of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, aka Confession or Penance. From the very beginning it was clear that Christ gave the Church the power "to bind and loose" sins (Mt. 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:21-23). This was based on the common practice in Jewish Synagogues which referred to an expulsion from the community in the hopes of leading to a change of heart and then a reunion of the converted back into the community.

The early second century document, The Didache, mentions that serious sins could be forgiven after a lengthy period of penance and separation from the community. Public and serious sins in the early Church needed to be publicly confessed and then followed an intense and often long period of public repentance leading to a joyful return to the community. In the middle of the fifth century the historian Hermias Sozomen gives a description of what happened, "[the penitents] with downcast eyes and mournful faces wailing and lamenting they throw themselves prostrate on the floor. The Church echoes with loud cries and the whole congregation is filled with tears. After this the bishop gets up and raises those who are prostrate, and after praying for the penitents in a befitting manner he dismisses them. Then each one on his own performs the difficult works for as long as the bishop has assigned, either fasting, or not bathing, or abstaining from meat, or doing other things which have been prescribed." (Door of the Sacred, J. Martos)

This practice of Confession was not very popular for many reasons you can probably guess at; besides the strange penance of not bathing is pretty gross, sometimes the period of penance was years or decades. Around this time before a potential penitent went to the bishop who would decide if his sin was serious enough for this drawn out public process they would often stop by and get the counsel of a priest or monk. This practice was especially important in missionary lands where the faith was new, sins frequent, and not many bishops around. The monks in Ireland for example began to give the new converts and penitents private counsel and private penances, which the clerics were used to because it was forbidden for a monk or priest to go through the public process of forgiveness lest the scandal be too great. This practice of private confession quickly spread to Europe and in 650 a local council in France declared confession to a priest, "medicine for the soul". By the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 the practice of private reconciliation had replaced the ancient public and involved ecclesiastical process.

This is a quick explanation, a more detailed account would go into some of the interesting questions the Church wrestled with through the years such as; Should there be some sins that can never be forgiven? How many times can someone be forgiven? In every instance the Church fell on the side of mercy and the unconditional love of God. In this one instance EvenBob is correct in that it is only God who can forgive sins.

Please note that all this development of the Sacrament of Confession happens before the first inquisitions in 1231, which were created to tamper the Albigensian crusade where mobs were brutally taking matters of heresy into their own hands and killing heretics and rioting. The infamous Spanish Inquisition began in the mid 15th century at the behest mainly of the government and had nothing to do with the development of the Sacrament.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm sorry, I laughed out loud when I read this. The seal of confession is the most sacred responsibility of any priest and breaking the secrecy of confession in any way, including taking notes, is an automatic excommunication for any priest.

Allow me to give a brief history of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, aka Confession or Penance.

That's easy for you to say... but did you READ it somewhere?

Quote: TheNightfly

That's easy for you to say... but did you READ it somewhere?

I've read about the history of the Sacrament of Penance many times and have heard many lectures about it as well. The history and development of the Sacraments and their theology is obviously a big part of our seminary studies. Here are two books I remember and have found helpful. The first is more famous and more available. As you can see from my post I quoted the historian Herminas from 'Doors to the Sacred'.

Doors to the Sacred: A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church
By: Joseph Martos

The Sacramental Mystery
By: Paul Haffner

Quote: FrGamble

The seal of confession is the most sacred responsibility of any priest and breaking the secrecy of confession in any way, including taking notes, is an automatic excommunication for any priest.

Thats true now, but it certainly wasn't that way always. You
want us to believe the same Church who burned midwives
and witches and heretics at the stake, who murdered thousands of
people thru torture, who forced conversions on hundreds
of thousands, mostly Jews, by any means
necessary, you want us to believe this same ruthless
Church balked at violating confession? Are you serious?

Why do you think confession was started in the first place?
What a perfect way to weed out the trouble makers and
the malcontents than to get them to voluntarily give up
information, and make them feel guilty if they don't.

Quote: odiousgambit

A statement like that needs to be backed up.

Agreed!

Quote: FrGamble

I've read about the history of the Sacrament of Penance many times and have heard many lectures about it as well. The history and development of the Sacraments and their theology is obviously a big part of our seminary studies. Here are two books I remember and have found helpful. The first is more famous and more available. As you can see from my post I quoted the historian Herminas from 'Doors to the Sacred'.

Doors to the Sacred: A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church
By: Joseph Martos

The Sacramental Mystery
By: Paul Haffner

I think TheNightFly was being a bit sarcastic on account of EvenBob, but thanks for the book title.

If confession were a good means of thought control and wholesale management of the populace, then the secular religions, like Communism and Nazism, would have adopted it as well.

Quote: EvenBob

This is the same defense the German's used after WWII. Hey,
don't blame us, it was those wascally Nazi's that did all the
damage, we had no idea what was going on.

You're required to produce a counter-example (of any time when a group of "leaderless" persons revolt against the leader(s)). I doubt there are any, in which case that sort of free will just isn't available (to the masses). Otherwise, your analogy seems simplistic. Like trying to put something down w/o first admitting to some of its genuine goodness.

Quote: Nareed

If confession were a good means of thought control and wholesale management of the populace, then the secular religions, like Communism and Nazism, would have adopted it as well.

I may be missing sarcasm on the internet here but...

Communism (at least Maoist and Cambodian versions) did have "confession". I forget the exact term for it, but cadres were encourage to not only look out for counter-revolutionary behaviour in others, but also admit and correct their own failings. These confessions were always useful if they wanted to perform a purge later.

The Nazi's and Russian Commies seemed to be much more keen on shopping your neighbour and exhorting each other to be "better" members of the party. That's a pretty good technique too.

Quote: Nareed

If confession were a good means of thought control and wholesale management of the populace, then the secular religions, like Communism and Nazism, would have adopted it as well.

What about plea bargains offered to persons charged with drug possession if they give the names of their sellers, and so on? To be spared torture and execution during the Inquisition, it wasn't enough to renounce one's heresy; he had to expose his confederates as well. Aren't these scenarios similar?

Quote: NowTheSerpent

What about plea bargains offered to persons charged with drug possession if they give the names of their sellers, and so on? To be spared torture and execution during the Inquisition, it wasn't enough to renounce one's heresy; he had to expose his confederates as well. Aren't these scenarios similar?

To be fair, the police and the DA will offer such deals to all criminals, where aplicable, not only to those related to drugs. Do note I think drugs shouldn't be illegal, and that the "war on drugs" has been a dismal flop.

But none of these has anything to do with the practice of confession as I understand it to be. Not that I endorse such a practice, either, but that's another matter.

Quote: EvenBob

Why do you think confession was started in the first place?

Bob I hate to disappoint you but there is no sinister plot behind why we have confession in the first place. Confession itself is good for the soul. Even outside of the specific sacramental discussion it is just common sense that being able to tell someone whom you trust what your interior struggles are and how they may have manifested themselves in outward actions you are not proud of is a good thing. It is healing to take ownership of and talk about your mistakes and an important step in overcoming them. Not that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is therapy or anything like that, but it should be obvious what Jesus is trying to do and what the Church's only concern is, namely the healing of guilt and the freedom from past mistakes.

Confession is the bold statement that my sins do not define me. My mistakes are not who I am, I am better than that, I am a child of God called to be holy. Confession in the Church is meant to remind you and I of two things: 1) God loves you always and 2) No matter what lies your sins whisper to you about who you are the truth is that you are good and wonderful in God's eyes. The result of this is not guilt or fear but transforming grace and the inspiration to live in a way worthy of your calling.

It sounds like your view of the Church and its practices have been really affected by some of the things you have read in regards to its mistakes in the past. I don't want to even try to defend the obvious sins committed by members of the Church because there is no defense, but I think some of your facts may be a little off leading you to generalizations and characterizations about the Church as a whole that are off as well. I might recommend even something as simple as reading wikipedia's brief treatment of The Spanish Inquisition for an update on the facts. Don't worry there are still plenty of mistakes made by the Church, but I think you will see that the official Catholic Church was worried and concerned, not ruthless concerning the Spanish Monarchy's establishment of their own inquisition.

Quote: thecesspit

I may be missing sarcasm on the internet here but...

No sarcasm. Communism is as much a religion as Christianity, and in fact they share many of the same goals. The former just happens to be much more totalitarian. But noth are based on a belief for which there is no proof. It's worse in the case of cimmunism, because you can prove it won't achieve its stated aims.

Anyway:

Quote:

Communism (at least Maoist and Cambodian versions) did have "confession". I forget the exact term for it, but cadres were encourage to not only look out for counter-revolutionary behaviour in others, but also admit and correct their own failings. These confessions were always useful if they wanted to perform a purge later.

Whom would they confess to? Some form of political officer? A work leader? The local Soviet? I can see some use in such practices, but as far as I know they weren't very widespread.

To be sure there were show trials followed by very public confessions and swift executions. If you read 1984, or saw the movie with Richard Burton, that's portrayed rather well near the end (BTW that's one book i've refused to re-read).

Quote:

The Nazi's and Russian Commies seemed to be much more keen on shopping your neighbour and exhorting each other to be "better" members of the party. That's a pretty good technique too.

It sure is, especially if you hand out rewards for it. That, too, is also portrayed in 1984. Winston's co-worker (Parsons?) was denounced by his children.

Quote: Nareed

No sarcasm. Communism is as much a religion as Christianity, and in fact they share many of the same goals. The former just happens to be much more totalitarian. But noth are based on a belief for which there is no proof. It's worse in the case of cimmunism, because you can prove it won't achieve its stated aims.

The sarcasm I was thought was that the communists did use confession as part of their methods.

Quote:

Anyway:

Whom would they confess to? Some form of political officer? A work leader? The local Soviet? I can see some use in such practices, but as far as I know they weren't very widespread.

The cadres were the party worker and campaigners, the more senior members of the party. So they'd be confessing to each other and the top level leaders. Tis a funny thing, for all it's preached awareness of equality, there's a strict and delineated hierarchy in most evolved communist revolutionary parties (which is then shaken up in the next purge/revolt). Much more so than in a mainstream democratic party.

I think fear and retribution was used for the normal folks.

There was certainly parts of the Cultural Revolution in China which were used by the party as confessions of anti-revolutionary activities that didn't (always) lead to trial, detainment and/or death (Den Xiaoping was basically ex-communicated from the party during that time for his "sins".... and then was rehabilitated and became the leader later on).

I just wish I could recall the term for it that Pol Pot used. It's one of the words that like "re-education" that sounds very innocuous, but really isn't.

Quote: thecesspit

The sarcasm I was thought was that the communists did use confession as part of their methods.

Why not? they used others: a holy book, prayer services, god figures, prophet figures, Satan figures. If they'd found the confessional useful, they'd have used it, too.

Quote:

So they'd be confessing to each other and the top level leaders.

That makes sense.

Quote:

Tis a funny thing, for all it's preached awareness of equality, there's a strict and delineated hierarchy in most evolved communist revolutionary parties (which is then shaken up in the next purge/revolt). Much more so than in a mainstream democratic party.

Not funny at all. They also had more political advertising. Not just posters, TV and radio spots, but entire films, novels, text books, just about everything was party propaganda of one sort. They had to. The Nazis were just like that, too.

Quote: FrGamble

It sounds like your view of the Church and its practices have been really affected by some of the things you have read in regards to its mistakes in the past.

From about 1250 to 1810, when it was finally banned, the Church
prosecuted the Inquisition in Europe. Thats 550 years of a 'mistake'?
It wasn't a mistake, it was a slow moving Holocaust on the Jews
and heretics and anybody else the Church didn't like. It was the time
of the Church's greatest increase in wealth, they robbed Europe blind,
all for the glory of making the Church rich. Calling it a 'mistake' is like
calling an amputated finger a hangnail. How can someone not be
affected by such an abomination on humanity? They tortured and
murdered ten's of thousands of people to fatten their pockets,
and did it in the name of Jesus Christ.

They tortured and murdered them in the most hideous ways possible.
When this is brought up, you always say "But look at all the good
the Church has done." When we put someone on trial for being a
serial killer and murdering 15 people, is his defense that he gave
10 million to a childrens hospital, that he did a lot of good? Of course
not, that would be ludicrous. The Church was power hungry, vain,
disdainful, corrupt, and yes, evil. They were guilty of every sin they
preached about, to the n'th degree. They've never answered for their crimes.
You don't make a 'mistake' for 550 years. It was planned, plotted,
and cleverly executed religious persecution whose main purpose
was to grow the Catholic Church into what they became, the most
powerful religion the world had ever seen. The immense wealth they
accumulated during those 550 years still props them up to this day.
They haven't made restitution, or even made any attempts to. Why
is that, Padre? They kept extremely detailed records of the tortures and
the murders and the property they confiscated. They have the records,
they know what happened.

Read the whitewashed version on Wikipedia? I don't think so. Who wrote
that, the Church? There's no details there of what happened in the
torture chambers, or what happened in the public trials. They gloss over
the fact that the Jews were the hardest hit and were followed by their persecuters
all over Europe in an attempt to convert them or wipe them out. The
public trials in the 16th and 17th centuries in Spain and Portugal were as
well attended as the bull fights.

Since the 1960's there has been a concerted effort by the Church to
'revise' the severity of the Inquisition or Inqusition's. To imply that, hey,
its wasn't that bad, a lot of it is myth and urban legend. Much like
Muslims like to deny there was a Holocaust. But the truth is out there,
it was extensively researched and written about in the 19th and early
20th century. Ever since Vatican II in the 60's, the Church has been
trying to reinvent itself. Trying to crawl out from under the burden of
its terrible history.

As one Catholic scholar put it: "We have come thusfar with broken
hearts and bruised spirits, betrayed again and again by shepherds
who became predators and preyed on our trust."

Bob- tell us what you really think! No need to be shy!

Quote: SOOPOO

Bob- tell us what you really think! No need to be shy!

Pope Paul II actually apologised for the Inquisition in 2004,
kind of. This was after the Symposium Report, a large
783-page volume assessing the Inquisition based on up-to-now
unseen documents from the Vatican archives. This
is like asking the Nazi's to go thru their records of what
happened in the Holocaust and give us their version of
what really happened. "Holocaust? What Holocaust?"

The Vatican records that show the torture chambers,
witch-burning, and vindictive power-crazed churchmen
were nonexistent, part of the “black legend” invented by
the Protestants. So the Pope apologised for the new, PC,
sqeaky clean version of the Inquisition, not the real one,
which of course is just made up nonsense by the
Protestants. Catholics are buying it hook line
and sinker. Anything to get from under the burden of
the truth.

Quote: FrGamble

It sounds like your view of the Church and its practices have been really affected by some of the things you have read in regards to its mistakes in the past.

I've no idea what Bob said, as I have him blocked (handy feature, that one), but I agree the past is over and doen with, and it makes no sense to blame a good man like the late Pope John Paul II, or for that matter you, for what happened then, mistake or deliberate policy.

Howvere, recently a young man's been raked over the coals for failing to do enough to stop a pedophile. The Catholic Church has its own problmes there, much mreo recent. So I would like to ask: of those priests and other Church officials who knew or suspected anything about pedophiles withing their ranks, how many reported their findings or suspicions to the police?

Quote: Nareed

but I agree the past is over and doen with,

So lets just forget it, right? Life doesn't work that way,
fortunately.

Quote: EvenBob

So lets just forget it, right? Life doesn't work that way, fortunately.

And you were the "wrascally" guy who wanted the WW2-Germans to just forget about Hitler's lattermost "ambitions"? And ultimately, by inference now, to have us all just make the most of the present.

Quote: Garnabby

And you were the "wrascally" guy who wanted the WW2-Germans to just forget about Hitler's lattermost "ambitions"?

What are you talking about?

Quote: EvenBob

This is the same defense the German's used after WWII. Hey,
don't blame us, it was those wascally Nazi's that did all the
damage, we had no idea what was going on.

P.S. Maybe, "Posting doesn't build character, it reveals it."

Quote: Garnabby

This is the same defense the German's used after WWII. Hey,
don't blame us, it was those wascally Nazi's that did all the
damage, we had no idea what was going on.

Thats what the modern Church is saying. Don't blame them,
it was the 'old church' that did all the damage. But they claim
that Jesus runs the Church, the Pope is god's representitve
on earth. How can they make such monumental 'mistakes'
if god is telling them what to do.

Quote: Nareed

I've no idea what Bob said, as I have him blocked (handy feature, that one), but I agree the past is over and doen with, and it makes no sense to blame a good man like the late Pope John Paul II, or for that matter you, for what happened then, mistake or deliberate policy.

Howvere, recently a young man's been raked over the coals for failing to do enough to stop a pedophile. The Catholic Church has its own problmes there, much mreo recent. So I would like to ask: of those priests and other Church officials who knew or suspected anything about pedophiles withing their ranks, how many reported their findings or suspicions to the police?

Doesn't that put the confessional right in the middle of that "priest-penitent privilege" red herring? What are the origins and philosophical legitimacy of that practice? Is it as simple as being about maintaining the "insurmountable wall of Church-State separation"?

Quote: NowTheSerpent

Doesn't that put the confessional right in the middle of that "priest-penitent privilege" red herring? What are the origins and philosophical legitimacy of that practice?

The privilege? That confession couldn't be carried out without it. Same as psychotherapy. I don't see anything wrong there.

Quote:

Is it as simple as being about maintaining the "insurmountable wall of Church-State separation"?

The separation of church adn state is supposed to protect both entities from each other. But the members of the various religious are still subject to the authority of the state. So a pedophile ought to eb arrested and tried, and if convicted sent to prison, whether or not he is a priest. and the church should cooperate witht he authorites, whether or not it piles on some other sort of pennance on top of a prison sentence.

I am at the National Catholic Youth Conferance in Indianapolis so I'm not able to respond to EvenBob but suffice it to say now that his post is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Read any serious history about that period and the myths and untruths Bob writes about will be exposed. No one is saying atrocities were not committed but Bob's account is not true!

Quote: Nareed

(priest-penitent) privilege? That confession couldn't be carried out without it. Same as psychotherapy. I don't see anything wrong there.

The separation of church and state is supposed to protect both entities from each other. But the members of the various religions are still subject to the authority of the state. So a pedophile ought to be arrested and tried, and if convicted sent to prison, whether or not he is a priest. and the church should cooperate with the authorites, whether or not it piles on some other sort of penance on top of a prison sentence.

So there should not be priest-penitent privilege in just the case of suspected pedophilia? What about murder, theft or terrorism?

My understanding of CSS is that it helps protect individuals from the use of State power to enforce religious tenets and other diverse "mitzvot", such as statements of faith and sabbath-keeping.

Quote: NowTheSerpent

So there should not be priest-penitent privilege in just the case of suspected pedophilia? What about murder, theft or terrorism?

Doctor-patient privilege, including that for psychotherapy, can be breached if/when the doctor suspects a crime was or is about to be committed. For example, an ER physician treating a child with an unusual number of injuries may call the authorities to report a suspicion of child abuse.

But that's not entirely material here. I'm sure many of the cases of child molestation that were done by priests weren't found out at the confessional. No excuses there.

Quote:

My understanding of CSS is that it helps protect individuals from the use of State power to enforce religious tenets and other diverse "mitzvot", such as statements of faith and sabbath-keeping.

It does that. It also keeps the state from dictating what the Church may or may not do, within limits. For example, while in Mexico divorce is realtively easy and remarriage is possible legally, the state does not compel any church to perform marriages of divorced individuals. But of course if a religion wanted to practice human sacrifice, that would be murder and should be prosecuted accordingly.