| lifetimefanofqueen 17.09.2010 07:42 |
i'm watching it on the news right now. the pope's visit to the UK. dose anyone agree with it since there was a resent child abuse rant about it? personaly i couldnt give a flying monkeys about the pope comeing to the UK since i'm not religious, and its said there are 5 men who have been arrested on threats of terror to the pope. the pope's visit has been in the news for ages now, but he arrived yesterday, (i think, i dont realy care) so, what do u guys think about it? do u agree with it and think its great that the pope has come to the UK? or do u not realy give a fuck? or do you absolutely dissagree with it? |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 17.09.2010 08:46 |
how long you got coz i could be here all day with this...? |
| The Real Wizard 17.09.2010 11:41 |
The only thing that I have a problem with is the BBC and CBC covering it. Public tax dollars shouldn't pay a penny to promote someone who a) endorses misogyny, b) contributes to AIDS deaths worldwide and c) systematically covers up child abuse. Otherwise he's free to go wherever he wants, no matter how bloody his hands are. |
| Saif 17.09.2010 12:00 |
You guys are talking about the evil Emperor from the Star Wars films, right? That dude is bad for sure. link |
| lifetimefanofqueen 17.09.2010 13:16 |
yes thats egactly what were talking about saif :) |
| lifetimefanofqueen 17.09.2010 13:34 |
and also, they showed a little clip from when the pope was giving a speach and he was saying "the only way to happyness is through god" well if this "God" brings such "happyness" then why are most wars started from religion then, eh? and why have there been no scientific discoverys of this "heaven" and this "god" and how did he create the world in 7 days? and how the hell can people trust what other people said thousands and thousands of years ago. its like chineese whispers, it get twisted and changes, were all humans, some are biast, all tell lies, so maby Jesus's disipals were biest and convinced this "God" was real, so spread the word of it and twisted it to make people more interested and actualy give a shit. if ur gonna tell me God is real then so is Harry Potter and also, look at 911 in America, that was caused by terrorists who killed thousands because that was part of their religion, and look at the 77 bombings in london, also caused by terrorists because of religion, this is why we are at war with afganistan etc.......and why inosent people are dieing trying to sort out this shit! religion just fucks people up im sorry if apsolutely hate me now for saying this but there is such a thing as freedom of speach, and there is nothing wrong with shreing ideas, so if you dont like me the i dont give a flying fuck! i dont spend my life trying to please you! and i have tryed to get along with EVERYONE on Queenzone and some people on here have become my bestest friends, some on here are just total dick heads and spend all their time putting people down and makeing them feel even worse than they already are. |
| GratefulFan 17.09.2010 14:56 |
Sir GH wrote: The only thing that I have a problem with is the BBC and CBC covering it. Public tax dollars shouldn't pay a penny to promote someone who a) endorses misogyny, b) contributes to AIDS deaths worldwide and c) systematically covers up child abuse. Otherwise he's free to go wherever he wants, no matter how bloody his hands are. ================================= I kind of like my public news organization to cover the news. And like it or not, it's news, in large part because of social issues like the ones you noted. Misogyny is a bit strong, to say the least. |
| tcc 17.09.2010 17:21 |
lifetimefanofqueen wrote: and also, they showed a little clip from when the pope was giving a speach and he was saying "the only way to happyness is through god" well if this "God" brings such "happyness" then why are most wars started from religion then, eh? and why have there been no scientific discoverys of this "heaven" and this "god" and how did he create the world in 7 days? and how the hell can people trust what other people said thousands and thousands of years ago. its like chineese whispers, it get twisted and changes, were all humans, some are biast, all tell lies, so maby Jesus's disipals were biest and convinced this "God" was real, so spread the word of it and twisted it to make people more interested and actualy give a shit. if ur gonna tell me God is real then so is Harry Potter and also, look at 911 in America, that was caused by terrorists who killed thousands because that was part of their religion, and look at the 77 bombings in london, also caused by terrorists because of religion, this is why we are at war with afganistan etc.......and why inosent people are dieing trying to sort out this shit! religion just fucks people up im sorry if apsolutely hate me now for saying this but there is such a thing as freedom of speach, and there is nothing wrong with shreing ideas, so if you dont like me the i dont give a flying fuck! i dont spend my life trying to please you! and i have tryed to get along with EVERYONE on Queenzone and some people on here have become my bestest friends, some on here are just total dick heads and spend all their time putting people down and makeing them feel even worse than they already are. I find this talk very matured for a thirteen year old. |
| Micrówave 17.09.2010 17:54 |
I don't really think the Pope has a bumpersticker that says "I break for Altar Boys." Yes, religions start wars. Bloody wars. And most of the time, they're only sorry when they get caught. But to accuse one person of promoting the spread of AIDS is a bit much, isn't it? How then, should the Catholic Church (or any other) go about their business? It's still a church and it needs to keep moving forward, right? Most human beings follow some form of organized religion. If it stops "spreading the word", those people will simply follow another form. You can't just do away with organized religions because some boy got buggered. Heck, we've had some guy threatening to burn books all last week and then say "just kidding, never mind." It's an absolutely crazy, dumb story... but it is news. I'd like to hear about it. Yes, your public funds are being used, Sir GH. (Not that you pay any of that, mind you.) That's the press' job. That's why those funds are there in the first place. To report the news. Not worry about some Queenzoner being offended because of some shameful act(s) that already happened. Where was the press then? If all these priests were boinking boys left and right, how come it took years to find it out? |
| Holly2003 17.09.2010 18:22 |
So religion starts wars... Let's look at the biggies over the last 150 years or so -- were they caused by religion? US Civil War: no Franco-Prussian War: no World War One: no World War 2: no Korea: no Vietnam: no Falklands: no Iraq no & no Westerners don't really get involved in religious wars. We prefer fighting over monarchies, money and nationalism. And football. |
| The Real Wizard 18.09.2010 01:37 |
GratefulFan wrote:
Misogyny is a bit strong, to say the least.Not at all. The catholic church sees women as second class citizens. Women get no say in any church decisions, and they are not allowed to be cardinals, bishops, or priests. I don't know what you call it, but the word is misogyny. |
| The Real Wizard 18.09.2010 01:39 |
Micrówave wrote:
That's why those funds are there in the first place. To report the news.Yes, of course. But it's just unfortunate that this kind of person representing this kind of organization makes the news in this day and age. If all these priests were boinking boys left and right, how come it took years to find it out?Sexual abuse was incredibly taboo a few decades ago. Most people wouldn't tell about it out of fear of being marginalized both by society and the people close to them. To this day, many parents won't believe their kids when they say the priest touched them inappropriately, because they still see clergymen as infallible. The pope is only appearing to be remorseful now because many people are leaving the religion over the issue. Anything to keep themselves and their medieval control system alive. Otherwise, you make fair points overall. Of course, most people will always need a crutch. If religion wouldn't be there, something else would be. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 18.09.2010 03:16 |
tcc wrote: lifetimefanofqueen wrote: and also, they showed a little clip from when the pope was giving a speach and he was saying "the only way to happyness is through god" well if this "God" brings such "happyness" then why are most wars started from religion then, eh? and why have there been no scientific discoverys of this "heaven" and this "god" and how did he create the world in 7 days? and how the hell can people trust what other people said thousands and thousands of years ago. its like chineese whispers, it get twisted and changes, were all humans, some are biast, all tell lies, so maby Jesus's disipals were biest and convinced this "God" was real, so spread the word of it and twisted it to make people more interested and actualy give a shit. if ur gonna tell me God is real then so is Harry Potter and also, look at 911 in America, that was caused by terrorists who killed thousands because that was part of their religion, and look at the 77 bombings in london, also caused by terrorists because of religion, this is why we are at war with afganistan etc.......and why inosent people are dieing trying to sort out this shit! religion just fucks people up im sorry if apsolutely hate me now for saying this but there is such a thing as freedom of speach, and there is nothing wrong with shreing ideas, so if you dont like me the i dont give a flying fuck! i dont spend my life trying to please you! and i have tryed to get along with EVERYONE on Queenzone and some people on here have become my bestest friends, some on here are just total dick heads and spend all their time putting people down and makeing them feel even worse than they already are. I find this talk very matured for a thirteen year old. why thank you :) |
| GratefulFan 18.09.2010 11:13 |
Sir GH wrote: Sexual abuse was incredibly taboo a few decades ago. Most people wouldn't tell about it out of fear of being marginalized both by society and the people close to them. To this day, many parents won't believe their kids when they say the priest touched them inappropriately, because they still see clergymen as infallible. The pope is only appearing to be remorseful now because many people are leaving the religion over the issue. Anything to keep themselves and their medieval control system alive. Otherwise, you make fair points overall. Of course, most people will always need a crutch. If religion wouldn't be there, something else would be. ====================================== OMFG Bob. You're talking straight out your ass, and I know you know that, because I had a previous conversation with you about the some of the misperceptions surrounding the history of the abuse scandal. Yet you're happy to continue rattling off absolute nonsense. To repeat: there isn't and never has been a greater risk of being molested by a Catholic clergy member than a clergy member of any other faith. The vast, vast majority of the abuses that have caused this moral panic over the Catholic Church occurred in the 60's and 70's, with a sharp drop beginning in the 1980's. They are in the past, not being rained down on present day children who aren't believed by their parents! You're completely and totally making that up. Why anybody would actively court and spread that kind of ignorance is beyond me. The failure of the church was, and in some cases still is, the failure to turn over past abusers to the civil authorities once discovered, and in enacting a strategy that lobbies victims for secrecy. That is morally, socially and legally unacceptable, and pressure needs to continue be applied to sweep this kind of response from the Church away forever. Much work has been done, more needs to come. Incidentally, there were actually less cases of pedophilia in the Catholic Church than in the general population. Priests just didn't and don't have access to small children the way family members or school personnel do. The victims of Catholic Priests were more likely to be adolescent males. This is worse in a way in my mind because there is some element of 'consent' that the victims torture themselves over for years. To have to carry around the burden of shame for years that sometimes stretch into decades only to be lobbied to forget about it once it's out in the light is shameful. That culture needs to end. I'm Catholic. Even though I'm in a years long phase where I'm not really practicing in any significant way, that remains meaningful to me. It's just a part of who I am, and in my world it speaks to that. It means I probably went to particular schools, and had a particular set of experiences that can be instantly communicated and shared with others with the simple words "I'm Catholic". It ties me to my personal history, to my family, and to the country across the ocean from which it was inherited. Those things are a source of meaning and pride to me, not some kind of 'crutch'. You clearly don't have the first clue about why a lot of people embrace their faith. The Church does indeed deserve strong criticism on the abuse issue and you're welcome to your opinion. But in spreading nonsense you're being pretty abusive and irresponsible yourself. |
| GratefulFan 18.09.2010 12:37 |
Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote: Misogyny is a bit strong, to say the least. Not at all. The catholic church sees women as second class citizens. Women get no say in any church decisions, and they are not allowed to be cardinals, bishops, or priests. I don't know what you call it, but the word is misogyny. ============================= Orthodox religions across the board don't ordain women as clergy. Nobody should ever be denied an opportunity based on something like their gender, and those who feel demeaned or excluded by that have my sympathy, respect and support. That said, it would be a mistake to assume that this is the experience of all or even most women in their respective faiths or in the larger world that still favours men in positions of influence and power. There are now several faiths that accommodate women who seek these kinds of leadership positions, yet women are not in fact leaving orthodox religions in droves despite decades of a social movement that has largely successfully sought to embed the sense of freedom, choice and opportunity in every institution and in the heart and mind of every girl and woman. Perhaps it's a little more 'misogynistic' to feel women are in need of your rescue when in fact most are exercising choice and seeking out roles that are fulfilling to them. Because of the gains society has made women may seek power, or they may not. We have influence in society and in our everyday lives either way. I am nothing less than a completely equal person, and though life still isn't perfect for women with that knowledge I'm able to enjoy and appreciate men in leadership roles for which there is often a natural affininty. I like listening to men. I like listening to them speak and sing and be good at what they do. I like looking at them. I find men inspiring, and though they sure can gut you one on one in love, they're an awesome gender overall. Is that OK with you Bob, or do I need to be wrestling men for some pulpit or big leather chair to be equal? |
| thomasquinn 32989 18.09.2010 13:37 |
I find some of the pictures a little...unsettling. "It looks nice, but I won't go a penny over 45 unless you throw in a choirboy or two" link I didn't know he could do that outside Holland link |
| GratefulFan 18.09.2010 15:12 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I find some of the pictures a little...unsettling. I didn't know he could do that outside Holland link ============================ ROFL! |
| GratefulFan 18.09.2010 15:13 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: "It looks nice, but I won't go a penny over 45 unless you throw in a choirboy or two" link =========================== "Leiden U is a known diploma mill" |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.09.2010 14:23 |
GratefulFan wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: "It looks nice, but I won't go a penny over 45 unless you throw in a choirboy or two" link =========================== "Leiden U is a known diploma mill" ====== Errm, where did that come from, and what in the name of bob are you talking about? |
| The Real Wizard 19.09.2010 23:09 |
GratefulFan wrote:
They are in the past, not being rained down on present day children who aren't believed by their parents! You're completely and totally making that up.You can't possibly speak for every single family and know unequivocally that there still aren't pious parents who reject their kids' horror stories out of blind faith. From personal experience, I know they still exist. Those things are a source of meaning and pride to me, not some kind of 'crutch'. It means I probably went to particular schools, and had a particular set of experiences that can be instantly communicated and shared with others with the simple words "I'm Catholic".To me it sounds like you're saying "I used to be catholic," or "I used to do catholic things." Thus it definitely isn't a crutch for you. If I stopped playing baseball 15 years ago, I wouldn't call myself a baseball player. But hey, to each their own. You clearly don't have the first clue about why a lot of people embrace their faith.I may not be an expert, but I certainly do know a thing or two about the psychology of belief vs evidence. Most people feel the need to believe in something outside of themselves, and most of them grab onto a religion, usually because they were raised to. One cannot deny that most religious people rely on something outside of themselves to provide answers to questions or solutions to situations they feel they cannot create themselves. To me, the opposite of self-sufficiency is a crutch. If anyone wants to attach positive or negative connotations to either term, that's their choice. I'm just defining the two styles of thinking without pledging allegiance or having any emotional connection to either side. As for your other points, I wasn't suggesting that child abuse didn't occur in other faiths, nor did I suggest that child abuse only occurred in churches. Not sure why you felt the need to get so defensive.. |
| The Real Wizard 19.09.2010 23:15 |
GratefulFan wrote:
Perhaps it's a little more 'misogynistic' to feel women are in need of your rescue when in fact most are exercising choice and seeking out roles that are fulfilling to them.I'm not trying to rescue anyone. If women are happy going to churches where men hold all the major positions and make all the major decisions, then great - everybody wins. But in the interest of equality, I feel that's wrong. To suggest I may have misogynistic tendencies for that reason is a bit of a stretch. In other words, I'm not a misogynist if I agree with the notion that a woman has the right to choose to be subservient to men? I think my brain just exploded. I like listening to men. I like listening to them speak and sing and be good at what they do. I like looking at them. I find men inspiring, and though they sure can gut you one on one in love, they're an awesome gender overall. Is that OK with you Bob, or do I need to be wrestling men for some pulpit or big leather chair to be equal?Naturally equality is relative to one's own ideas and comfort levels. If you feel equal or at ease in this way, then great. But there are plenty of women who say, "Eve took the apple, so we ladies are the ones who messed everything up," or "a woman's job is to have babies and raise the family while the men do all the work" It's that kind of mentality that I'm referring to. It is still out there and rampant, and of course not just in churches. I grew up watching it in action. If a priest or a cardinal said, "I like listening to women. I like listening to them speak and sing and be good at what they do. I like looking at them. I find women inspiring," then we'd have equality. If a pope said it, then hell would freeze over. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 20.09.2010 02:53 |
thank fuck he's gone home! |
| Rick 20.09.2010 03:12 |
The Dutch made a parody of the pope concerning his visit to the UK: link |
| YourValentine 20.09.2010 04:17 |
Child abuse happens everywhere when adults (mostly men) have power over children: in families, schools, the churches. I often think that pedophiles perhaps pick a job that gives them access to children. I think that the celibacy in theCatholic church may play a role in the incredibly many cases of child abuse in the Catholic church: oppressed sexuality in combination with power must be a dangerous mix. There are not so many cases in the Protestant church - at least not in my country. Even if the child abuse cases were not so frequent, the outcry about priests abusing children would be still much louder than in other cases because of the presumed moral authority of a priest. Imagine you confess your spiritual doubts and even your sins to a child molester - that is really a frightening thought and a much bigger breach of trust than in cases of secular teachers who are not regarded as the moral leaders. Looking into the cases of child abuse that popped up in recent years almost everywhere, we have learnt that the abused children are full of shame and guilt and do not open up to their parents or other people. It's not that parents did not believe their children - the overwhelming majority simply did not know. We can only hope that the pubilicity of the known cases lead to fear and caution, so that potential child abusers do not dare to carry on with their behaviour. We should also get more educated about sexuality - how can it be that so many adults feel attracted to children without the society even being aware of that problem? We have had tons of studies about sexuality since the 1970s but the issue of child abuse is strangely absent fron these studies. |
| YourValentine 20.09.2010 04:31 |
Although the Catholic church says that God created all human beings equal and loves all of "his" children in the same way, they still do not treat the women as equal human beings. The church is not only a religious organisation, it's also a powerful worldly organisation but there is not a single woman in the hierarchy of the church because it is being lead by the clergy. A chuch who excludes half of the population from taking an active part should not be surprised that modern Christians turn their backs to the hopelessly outdated and oldfashioned organistaion. In the last 50 years people freed themselves from the moral dictatorship of the church and do not care much about the moral point of view of the church anymore. It is not enough for the Pope to apologise for child abuse - he has to consider the reality of modern life if he wants to be taken seriously as a spiritual leader. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 20.09.2010 06:36 |
>>> YourValentine wrote:In the last 50 years people freed themselves from the moral dictatorship of the church and do not care much about the moral point of view of the church anymore. It is not enough for the Pope to apologise for child abuse - he has to consider the reality of modern life if he wants to be taken seriously as a spiritual leader. <<< . And yet, sadly, there are still throngs of people in awe of this man. They stand riveted when he speaks as if their god is speaking through him. So, while many have turned away and do not regard him as a worthy moral or spiritual leader, others have remained loyal almost to the point of obsession. I still receive calls from family when "the pope is speaking". I'm expected to turn on the TV and listen to his mass or whatever else he's doing to take up airtime. People like those in my family feel more protective of the pope and the catholic church now with all the scandals as if he and the church were separate from the abuse. They feel catholics are being persecuted and if this had happened so openly in other religions, the backlash against the hierarchy would not have been as robust. They're apologists, blind followers and faithful servants of their god no matter what representatives of their god might do. I fear there are more people like them than we might realize. |
| Yara 20.09.2010 08:01 |
The Catholic Church doesn't endorse misogyny. Women are still allowed to pay the tithe! |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.09.2010 08:10 |
Yara wrote: The Catholic Church doesn't endorse misogyny. Women are still allowed to pay the tithe! ==== LOL! Also, the Catholic Church doesn't actively oppress women; they've long since delegated that task to their husbands. |
| plumrach 20.09.2010 09:08 |
Being a devout Athiest i managed to avoid all things pope like the weekend |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.09.2010 09:24 |
plumrach wrote: Being a devout Athiest ==== As an agnostic I would like to ask you what (or whom, of course) you are devoted to? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 20.09.2010 09:29 |
I know this is not exactly the place for this but I couldn't resist... AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODS An atheist was walking through the woods. "What majestic trees!" "What powerful rivers!" "What beautiful animals!" He said to himself. As he was walking alongside the river,he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.. He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him. At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!" Time Stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.. "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?" The atheist looked directly into the light, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?" 'Very well,' said the voice. The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke: "'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen." :-) |
| plumrach 20.09.2010 10:14 |
Im not devoted to anything (apart from Queen!) i believe in myself and thats good enough for me |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.09.2010 12:15 |
plumrach wrote: Im not devoted to anything (apart from Queen!) i believe in myself and thats good enough for me === I was commenting on the irony of referring to oneself as a devout atheist. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 20.09.2010 13:00 |
i hope the BBC spend as much money and send as many people to cover the event when the head of the Jedi Council comes on a state visit to the UK... |
| lifetimefanofqueen 20.09.2010 14:19 |
THE POPE HAS FUCKED OFF BACK TO HOLY LAND!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOO |
| The Real Wizard 20.09.2010 16:17 |
YourValentine wrote:
Even if the child abuse cases were not so frequent, the outcry about priests abusing children would be still much louder than in other cases because of the presumed moral authority of a priest.+1 |
| The Real Wizard 20.09.2010 16:20 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
People like those in my family feel more protective of the pope and the catholic church now with all the scandals as if he and the church were separate from the abuse. They're apologists, blind followers and faithful servants of their god no matter what representatives of their god might do.-1 |
| Zeppelina 20.09.2010 19:03 |
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck about the pope because he represents mental slavery...*cough* *cough* organized religion. |
| plumrach 21.09.2010 02:54 |
I should of just said im an athiest rather than a devout one I respect peoples choice to be religious and i wouldnt mock them over their choice as that would be disrespectful |
| thomasquinn 32989 21.09.2010 08:09 |
plumrach wrote: I should of just said im an athiest rather than a devout one ===== Well, it's all a matter of semantics - what words mean. It is perfectly conceivable that an atheist might consider him/herself 'devout', but the question remains, as a subject cannot be devout without an object to be devoted to. This is a matter of grammar and pure logic. The bottom line is that I took your example because it is so nice and clear, but people in general should pay more attention to the exact wording of their remarks - increasingly, conflicts arise because people don't (or even refuse to) use words in their correct meaning, or take notice of the implications of the words they use. This is part and parcel to the ever more aggressive and anti-social attitude of society the last decade or so. |
| Sergei. 21.09.2010 17:28 |
lifetimefanofqueen wrote: and i have tryed to get along with EVERYONE on Queenzone and some people on here have become my bestest friends, some on here are just total dick heads and spend all their time putting people down and makeing them feel even worse than they already are. Lmao are you serious? Bestest friends? Like who? This sounds amusing. |
| GratefulFan 21.09.2010 21:52 |
Sir GH wrote: You can't possibly speak for every single family and know unequivocally that there still aren't pious parents who reject their kids' horror stories out of blind faith. From personal experience, I know they still exist. I wasn't purporting to speak for every single family. I was objecting to the use of your word 'many', like it was a known, troubling and widespread phenomenon somehow reflective of the church or it's adherents. I'm afraid you'll need evidence for that. Otherwise, it's fair for me to assume you're making it up. The conversation would have been different if you had spoken of the children in your family, on which you absolutely do have authority. If you had, I would have (and do now) expressed my sympathy and reminded you that with the knowledge of other family members there is no need for these children to go unprotected. The police, society, and in theory the church, are as prepared to deal with this kind of harm as they've ever been. To me it sounds like you're saying "I used to be catholic," or "I used to do catholic things." Thus it definitely isn't a crutch for you. If I stopped playing baseball 15 years ago, I wouldn't call myself a baseball player. But hey, to each their own. I can see how my words would have left that impression. What I meant to express was that I don't go to church regularly at this time. Sporadic attendance is the reality of many, many Catholic families. Only about 20% of children enrolled in Catholic schools attend mass regularly. As such, the responsibility for religious education and engagement is in large part downloaded to the Catholic schools in this province. So many families do indeed do 'Catholic things', but in less traditional settings, like schools and the community rather than through regular mass attendance. Attendance for the 'big ones' - Christmas, Easter etc. is still high. Essentially, people have taken the modernization of Catholocism into their own hands to a degree. These patterns of engagement are part of that. I may not be an expert, but I certainly do know a thing or two about the psychology of belief vs evidence. Most people feel the need to believe in something outside of themselves, and most of them grab onto a religion, usually because they were raised to. One cannot deny that most religious people rely on something outside of themselves to provide answers to questions or solutions to situations they feel they cannot create themselves. To me, the opposite of self-sufficiency is a crutch. If anyone wants to attach positive or negative connotations to either term, that's their choice. I'm just defining the two styles of thinking without pledging allegiance or having any emotional connection to either side. Claiming you have no 'emotional connection to either side' is not that believable. You pretty clearly have an opinion on which is the superior path through life, which is fine. I just find worth and wisdom in either or both. As for your other points, I wasn't suggesting that child abuse didn't occur in other faiths, nor did I suggest that child abuse only occurred in churches. Not sure why you felt the need to get so defensive.. It seems to me though that you remain willing to support, at least by proxy, the notion that Catholic children are at greater risk for abuse than children in other settings. I find that irresponsible and unjust as there is simply no evidence of that. What evidence there is points firmly in the other direction. The failure of the church is not in breeding a special culture of abuse, but a destructive culture of secrecy and a misguided tendency to advocate for victimizers rather than victims. To solve a problem, or to comment on it for that matter, it's best to be in firm possession of the best facts available. |
| GratefulFan 21.09.2010 23:59 |
Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote: Perhaps it's a little more 'misogynistic' to feel women are in need of your rescue when in fact most are exercising choice and seeking out roles that are fulfilling to them. I'm not trying to rescue anyone. If women are happy going to churches where men hold all the major positions and make all the major decisions, then great - everybody wins. But in the interest of equality, I feel that's wrong. To suggest I may have misogynistic tendencies for that reason is a bit of a stretch. In other words, I'm not a misogynist if I agree with the notion that a woman has the right to choose to be subservient to men? I think my brain just exploded. I like listening to men. I like listening to them speak and sing and be good at what they do. I like looking at them. I find men inspiring, and though they sure can gut you one on one in love, they're an awesome gender overall. Is that OK with you Bob, or do I need to be wrestling men for some pulpit or big leather chair to be equal? Naturally equality is relative to one's own ideas and comfort levels. If you feel equal or at ease in this way, then great. But there are plenty of women who say, "Eve took the apple, so we ladies are the ones who messed everything up," or "a woman's job is to have babies and raise the family while the men do all the work" It's that kind of mentality that I'm referring to. It is still out there and rampant, and of course not just in churches. I grew up watching it in action. If a priest or a cardinal said, "I like listening to women. I like listening to them speak and sing and be good at what they do. I like looking at them. I find women inspiring," then we'd have equality. If a pope said it, then hell would freeze over. ========================== Of course I don't actually think you or your position is misogynistic. I specifically gave the word the ' ' treatment so I could take it back later, which is now. :) But given the voluntary nature of organized religion in the modern age can you not also see how it's a bit insulting to say that women who choose to be involved in Catholocism are hated in their parishes? And again, if you object to a lack of opportunity for women in religion, Catholics most certainly don't stand alone in this. There are several other churches as well. Hell, the Old and New Testaments in general can easily be read as tools of female supression. It's a mistake to think I'm talking about subservience. Not at all, though that is a valid choice as well I suppose. Some couples are genuinely fulfilled like this, and as long as there is love and respect and happiness I suppose they can carry on without our help. Some women really do embrace traditional gender roles with relish, and I do think that shouldn't be diminished as a valid choice. It wouldn't be my choice however, and that's probably true of the majority of women. What I'm really talking about is the fact that it's a victory of equality - kind of a post feminist movement triumph - when we realize that to be equal things don't have to be even all the time. With freedom and opportunity and choice mostly embedded in society it's okay to step back and appreciate people for their relative strengths, which in some very general and broad ways do shake out along gender lines, like it or not. Though of course anybody can be good at anything, men and women *are* different and that's something to be appreciated and admired and accommodated, not lost in honourable intentions. There are 14 people in my department at work, and only three of us are female. Of the three, only one - me - is a senior technical person. I have no desire to be my boss. I can't begin to express just how unappealing the idea of going to meetings all day and dealing with other people's crap is to me. But that doesn't mean I'm not ambitious and don't have influence - I am, and I do. But it's a very particularly female ambition and influence, and there's no more perfect place to see that than when you're working in a department dominated by males. My ambition, in short, is to make everybody I deal with feel happy, competent and empowered. I spend about 10% of my day dealing directly with people who are calling me with problems. My actual job is to solve those problems. But I make it my job to be keenly aware of the whole needs of the people on the other end of the phone. I don't want to make them wait, I want them to feel heard, I don't want them for a second to feel stupid, though Lord Jesus Christ are they stupid sometimes. I don't want them to suffer a moment's unnecessary frustration or self doubt relating to their competence on the systems I design and/or support. Everybody gets a custom job from me tailored for who they are and what they need. One of my jobs it to supply random passwords for things, and if I know someone needs a boost or there is something special going on in their life I'll work some little word into the password that I think will make them smile somehow. They usually don't know I've done it deliberately, which is that much more fun for me. I get to make people feel lucky or blessed just for a moment. Today I assigned this kid who I know as a friend of my son's before he moved to a different neighbourhood a password based on the name and number of the captain of the Detroit Red Wings - his idol. He will have no clue this came from anywhere but heaven itself and I know this kid - it will make him happy for like ever. Sometimes I deal with randomly generated passwords for kids. And I comb through them carefully to pull or edit any with unfortunate combinations of letters - lazy, cow, fat, die etc. - because you don't know who is on the other end of those passwords or how they might hurt. To me, that's real power, of the sort I want in my job and my life. I know I make a difference in these people's lives, because many of them eventually get around to telling me so. I'll likely never be anybody's boss, and I don't care. Now those last two paragraphs of female nonsense? I can't begin to tell you how not on the radar any of that stuff is for the guys I work with. The one I'm closest with - the guy who gave me the Queen guitar for my son - really couldn't suck bananas any more than he does at client service. He simply can't deal well with client complaints or requests because they somehow hit him in the ego, like his competence is being questioned. That's a really guy thing that's just not even going to occur to me to feel. I usually try to run interference on his calls when I can because he's just so terrible at taking care of these people's needs. He'll just reject it as his problem, or ignore them for ages, leave them in limbo, talk to them like it's their fault etc. But he's a great guy! A wonderful father and husband, and a kind and generous friend. He's good at his technical work, and he plays a mean air guitar. I appreciate him for who he is and what he's good at, and that fact that each of us leaves space for each other to shine where we're meant to. We're not even, but we're equal. Well, this went on a great deal longer than I intended and I'm not even confident I've communicated what I wanted to. Mostly I want you to know that I wasn't talking about subservience and that it of course is valuable to remain a vigilant change agent where equal opportunity doesn't yet exist, like in some churches. But to take swipes at the church without noticing that women do indeed enrich their parish communities in meaningful ways that absolutely are acknowledged, respected and appreciated by priests and and the church heirarchy is selling women short. And expecting all cardinals, or all men, to list among his things he most loves about the women in his life is that 'he loves listening to them speak' is a bit optimistic I think. :) My whole point is that we're different, and that's OK. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 22.09.2010 02:03 |
Sergei. wrote: lifetimefanofqueen wrote: and i have tryed to get along with EVERYONE on Queenzone and some people on here have become my bestest friends, some on here are just total dick heads and spend all their time putting people down and makeing them feel even worse than they already are. Lmao are you serious? Bestest friends? Like who? This sounds amusing. like loads of people, mercedes, ashlyn, jacob, etc...... btw you are a total dick head, i hope you know that! go pick on someone else and leave me the fuck alone! ive got nough troubles as it is and u are just being a fucking wanker, as i said, i try to get along with everyone but personaly i think your a total dick head, go fuck urself and stop picking on people who have done fucking nothing to you |
| Micrówave 22.09.2010 09:08 |
Okay so all this bullshit come down to is: 1. The Pope is responsible for all the child abuse that's ever happened involving members of the Catholic Church 2. The Pope is responsible for women not being priests, cardinals, or popes. That pretty much shows how uninformed most in this thread seem to be. I went to church Sunday and was administered communion BY A WOMAN. Oh my God!!! Life seemed so much better after that. The grass was greener, the sky was a lighter hue of blue. Terrorists laid down their rifles. Then, as I sat with my daughter, we watched as NO ONE was buggered on the way out. Yes, this was a Catholic service. Can you believe it? What about the Church of England and all their women priests? How about those bhuddist monks? Are there really boobs hiding beneath those robes? Let's not forget the long line of English and French kings, who made a practice of banging young pages? You're pissed off at the Pope for something that happens in everyday society, not just the Catholic church. Yet, I bet you're all big fans of Bill Clinton. Yeah, the guy that spurned his wife and shagged a young intern in the oval office. So when he visits England, I'm sure Bob, TQ, Barb, and everyone else will condemn his visit, too. Hipocracy is alive and well on Queenzone. |
| GratefulFan 22.09.2010 09:56 |
Micrówave wrote: I went to church Sunday and was administered communion BY A WOMAN. Oh my God!!! Life seemed so much better after that. The grass was greener, the sky was a lighter hue of blue. Terrorists laid down their rifles. ======================== Precisely. Women give communion, they're readers at mass, they're huge forces in the auxilliary and social/community life of a parish. Tradition still dictates that men are the only people who may be ordained, but critics should be aware that the practical effect for the majority of everybody is naught, and the traditions are experienced as something positive, or at least neutral, for most. There are much more hurtful and limiting gender injustices in everyday life. Just yesterday I had to deal with a silly but hurtful bit of sexism from my boss who doesn't mean harm, but just bumbles into these things because he's just not good at them. I worry far more about how girls and women are taught by society to despise and mutilate their own bodies. I worry far more about how men can be stripped of dignity and too many rights of fatherhood in the family court system. There are much bigger problems in the world than who gets to sign up for the privilege of life as a member of the Catholic clergy. |
| GratefulFan 22.09.2010 11:28 |
Since I know we have at least one Toronto person following this thread I'd like to add one other significant advance in gender equality. Not for the first time, and certainly not the last, the Toronto Maple Leafs of the NHL appear to have dressed a team of ladies last night and sent them out to be humilated 5-0 by my mighty Ottawa Senators, who drew first blood in the 2010/2011 Battle of Ontario. Another chance tonight. Maybe the men will be available... |
| Amazon 22.09.2010 12:35 |
While I do have my own personal problems with the Catholic Church, I don't know all that much about the abuse scandal specifically (beyond what I read in the papers), so I'm not going to comment on it, other than to respond to something. Micrówave wrote: "Yet, I bet you're all big fans of Bill Clinton. Yeah, the guy that spurned his wife and shagged a young intern in the oval office. So when he visits England, I'm sure Bob, TQ, Barb, and everyone else will condemn his visit, too. Hipocracy is alive and well on Queenzone." There is no comparison. Bill Clinton slept with a consenting woman*. He did not sexually abuse children. One can perhaps criticise him from a moral perspective for committing adultery (although I personally wouldn't but that's another discussion), however he didn't break the law and what he did can not in any way be compared to what priests have been accused of doing. There is nothing hypocritical about being a fan of Clinton and criticising the Church. *One could argue that there was a imbalance of power, which is true, and which would make it sexual harrassment. However there is a massive difference beween this and sexual abuse. |
| YourValentine 22.09.2010 13:53 |
As usual you did not bother to read my post, microwave. I did not condemn the Pope's visit to England at all. I happen to think that the Queen invited much worse state visitors over the decades. I did not blame the pope for child abuse or the status of women in the church, either. However, he is the "deputy" and he decides which way the church is going - and nobody ever called Benedetto an innovator. I do not see what Bill Clinton has to do with the issue. He is not a Catholic as far as I know. Surely, you are not suggesting that he was unfaithful to his wife because he is not a Catholic. JFK was a Catholic and legend has it that he was not the most faithful husband, either. Which brings us to the core of the whole issue of organised religion. I have no problem with people who follow the rules of their religion and are happy with that. I only have a problem when the church has the power to dictate the moral behaviour of people. It has not been so long ago that the church had exactly this power in my country: divorced woman were social outcasts, homosexuality was a crime, "illegal" children (born to unmarried mothers) were second-rate citizens who could not carry their father's name or inherit his money. There was no legal abortion and rape in a marriage was not a crime because the woman had no right to refuse her husband. Today we are over this. Our president is a divorced Catholic, our chancellor is a woman and our foreign minister a married gay man. You do not need to be a specific race, gender, religion or anything else in order to be respected as a person. Only half of the population is Catholic or Protestant and the numbers are falling - the churches are still very privileged, anyway and nobody has a big problem with that. As long as they keep their sexual moral theology within the church and do not harrass other people it's really not a problem at all. It's in other parts of the globe that the Catholic church has still the power to make women miserable or even put them in danger (AIDS) by enforcing their sexual morality upon them. You may have received communion from a woman but that does not mean that women are in any way equal in the Catholic church, they are not. If that is okay for you and gratefulfan, it's definitely okay for me, too. The church has definitely more to offer for their members than equal opportunity. Child abuse is a different story, it's not the private business of the church although they seem to have treated it that way in many cases. That is exactly what causes the outrage: the assumed moral superiority on the one hand and the protection of child molesters with obviously no compassion for the victims on the other hand. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.09.2010 15:03 |
As for Microwave's second posed thesis, which is The Pope is responsible for women not being priests, cardinals, or popes. Technically, this is the case. Sure, he will get criticism and dissent, people will leave the church (but never that many as we see now), but at the end of the day, the pope can decide that henceforth the priesthood is no longer reserved for men. Some theologians will agree, some disagree. At the end of the day, most Catholics will stay Catholics because, whomever the people behind it, it is Catholicism, something beyond people. One can disagree with or even look down on this, but it is a fact. |
| Yara 22.09.2010 15:44 |
There's some misunderstanding here. A church in Brazil - I can't hardly think of a more Catholic country, and very liberal at that on the other hand - has recently been punished by the Vatican for allowing women to give communion. There was a minor outcry because the Brazilian Bishop's Council, which is as liberal, or even outright left-wing in politics as it gets, has strongly condemned the practice and, even more recently, has been out speaking against one of the Presidential candidates for being pro-abortion. It's the official stance of the church, it's not about what happens at an isolated church house. For sure, abortion is not such a clear-cut matter as simply excluding women from the decision-making structure of the Church and its holiest rituals. What is the official theological basis for not allowing women to give communion? It was stated officially that, being the most sacred part of the mass, the women, who had not - and could not have in any case - been ordained, would be "defiling Christ's body". Yes, unordained males can't give it either, except that women can't even be ordained and fully represent Christ on earth - something which happens when the (male) priest consacrates the bread. One might say, hey, Christ was a male. For sure, but nowhere in the Gospels he says: "And women shall not be allowed to reenact this ritual": the last bit was the creation of a society controlled by men. You may call it whatever you want: voluntary submission, tradition, playing traditional roles with relish. I call it for what it is taking into account the official stance of the Church and the historical context in which these traditions have been brought about: mysoginy, as I don't think there's any shred of credible evidence to support the claim that, first, there is a God who endorses all this and, if that was not enough, that he speaks mainly through the pope. It's a matter of faith, and I think that using faith to manipulate the counsciousness of individuals is sad. They are sure allowed to, but, boy, this is regressive! It's a grave sin for a woman to preside over the holiest part of the Catholic ceremony (there was threat of excommunication if that happened again). I happen to think this is slightly mysoginist, and I strongly disagree that something ceases to be mysoginist as soon as women are really or supposedly submitting to it with relish, flair and gusto. I'm sure many Muslim women use the burkha because they want to. That doesn't prevent me from thinking that this is a barbaric, mysoginist and hateful practice. I think the Catholic Church has been far too condescending with perpetrators of child abuse over the years for people to take it so easy on the institution. It's not only a deeply hierarchical structure based on secrecy; it's a hierarchical structure based on secrets held by men. And, yes, although the church is growing ever more irrelevant in many parts of the world, and I can tell this for sure at least about the U.S (see the PEW research of 2008, for instance) , Brazil and Israel, it still makes its impact on wordly affairs which belong to everyone of us. The way the Catholic Church has traditionally handled the cases of such a hedious crime is simply indecent. It's no wonder that people may have a feeling of distrust towards catholic priests and institutions. The amount of literature - some serious, some stupid, some factual, some conspiratory - about abuses against women in such Catholic institutions as Opus Dei - which is directly subordinate to the pope - is so overwhelming that I really can't bring myself to have a more generous stance over all this. |
| GratefulFan 22.09.2010 23:12 |
The use of laypersons (men and women) as Extraordinary MInisters of Holy Communion has been in very officially in place via Papal decree for something like 35 or 40 years Yara. Perhaps the Brazil situation was about consecration, which can only be done by a priest, or some of the purification rituals, or some other fine point of order? Look up 'Immensae caritatis' for the original document, which has since been written into Canon Law. The Catholic Church believes it has no authority to ordain women as it views God's choice to become a man, specifically, in Christ, and then further Christ's choice of men for apostles is a statement of immutable, divine law as it pertains to ordaining clergy. That's the thinking, whether some of us think it's crap or not. At some level a whole lot of religious dogma and ritual is crap. They're old, old institutions trying to find a place in the modern world, and though that presents clear challenges and problems, I believe the world would be a lesser place if every last voice was relentlessly and exclusively progressive. There is value in tradition and voices of conservatism, and that's spoken by a person about as liberal as one can get and still have her feet on the ground. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.09.2010 06:35 |
In essence this is nothing but an exercise in theological pedantry. The Catholic Church has always held that *in case of an accute emergency* the functions normally fulfilled by a priest can and must be performed by *any and every Catholic* available. The reason for this stance, already established in medieval times, was to prevent infants from dying unbaptized if the priest couldn't make it in time, but because it was phrased so generally, and 'emergencies' are ill-defined, there is plenty of room for interpretation. |
| Yara 23.09.2010 08:51 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: In essence this is nothing but an exercise in theological pedantry. The Catholic Church has always held that *in case of an accute emergency* the functions normally fulfilled by a priest can and must be performed by *any and every Catholic* available. The reason for this stance, already established in medieval times, was to prevent infants from dying unbaptized if the priest couldn't make it in time, but because it was phrased so generally, and 'emergencies' are ill-defined, there is plenty of room for interpretation. Yeah! Always good to have a historian around!!! There was something about it in the document issued by the Bishop's Council. I remember they argued there was no emergency and that the local church should avoid whenever possible letting those women give the communion because of the big risk of "defiling Christ's body". It was not about consecration, I'm sure about it; if it were, the condemnation would have been far more harsh. Lay people were invited to take part in the ceremony, and so on, but that when it came to the sacraments the exception should not be turned into the rule. I guess it was pretty much what you're saying - a narrower interpretation of the rule. I agree with you (Gratefulfan) about there being wisdom in reliIgious tradition. This discussion reminded me of that recent movie "Doubt" casting Meryl Streep and Seymour Hoffmann. The latter plays a priest who's suspected of having committed child abuse; Meryl is in the role of a nun with very rigid morals and a pre-second vatican council mindset. The movie is really worth seeing - what's also sad about the whole story is that, even if one assumes that Seymour's character did commit the abuse, there was no way for a woman inside the male hierarchy of the church to get him either denounced or punished. I found it beautiful, though, and I shall grant Gratefulfan this point, how Meryl's character, as conservative as she was, went out of her way to try to protect a black kid in an all-white Irish environment. She couldn't care less about people's color and was really committed at protecting and saving the boy, even if that meant that she could get in serious trouble. I read somewhere when the movie was released that her character was based on a real-life nun. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.09.2010 11:36 |
>>> Micrówave wrote: Yet, I bet you're all big fans of Bill Clinton. Yeah, the guy that spurned his wife and shagged a young intern in the oval office. So when he visits England, I'm sure Bob, TQ, Barb, and everyone else will condemn his visit, too. Hipocracy is alive and well on Queenzone.<<< . There is no hypocrisy. There is no comparison. Abuse victims of all ages suffer not just the abuse but the often life-time effects of it. Nightmares, paranoia, fear, diminished or non-existent self-esteem, dysfunctional relationships. The list goes on. To compare consensual sex with abuse is a disgusting, brutally unfeeling and dismissive insult to the victims. The victims of church sex abuse were children. Innocents. Children who trusted their parents, who did what their parents told them to do, who went to church, volunteered, interacted with priests they were told they should trust and obey. They believed priests were men closest to god. Children raised in catholic families are often told they will be punished by their god for disagreeing, for doubting, for resisting or questioning. And so those children were trapped - it was their bodies or their souls. It’s horrifying to think how they suffered, not just physically, but emotionally, having no one to confide in who would believe them or help. It’s like a victim of domestic abuse finally finding the courage to leave the abuser only to be told to go back, or to have it implied the abuse was somehow the fault of the abused. Children are supposed to be protected, guided and loved so their childhood is a happy one. Happy enough for them to grow into productive and happy adults… adults who will make society that much better. For everyone. Instead, these children were sacrificed in the name of some god, in the name of men representative of that god. There is no way to compare any of that to any form of consensual sex whether or not you approve of the sex or the people involved in it. |
