Gonna take a second to address the earlier Biblical literalism stuff in this thread, if I may...
A common argument to the whole anti-gay thing in the Bible being paid attention to is "well, what about stoning adulterers or not wearing mixed fibers etc etc?"
This is actually a spurious argument, as according to many Christian denominations, Christ's death eliminated the need to follow the ritual rules(animal sacrifice, kosher diet, not mixing fibers, etc), while still mandating the moral rules(ten commandments, etc).
HOWEVER
There are much stronger arguments that biblical detractors fail to make.
For starters, Christians engaging in Biblical literalism from the Old Testament is an automatic fail. Because of course, the Old Testament is the Torah. The Jews have been studying it for far longer than Christians because they had it first. Hebrew is also far closer to the original translation than subsequent versions.
Additionally, context and translations matter.
That whole "lying with a man as a woman is an abomination?" There is a strong argument to be made that the meaning to that is actually "don't rape or shame others." Much of what the Bible says has a great deal of context and allegory that completely changes the meaning.
So if you're quoting the Bible to justify an anti-gay stance, you're more projecting your own hatred onto it than anything else.
I mean yeah, the Bible is full of some awful shit though. It endorses slavery and is a real shit to women. But the Bible is a terrible thing to be taken literally because the context just ins't there any more.
Out of curiosity, what would you (or any other of you fine readers) say to someone who is a devout Catholic who also knows about the sins of the Church? According to Catholic doctrine, separation from the Pope is sure damnation. If Darth Benedict says you're going to Hell, then you're going to Hell, no questions asked.
For these people, leaving the Catholic Church is worse than suicide, as they're not just cutting themselves off from all their family and friends, they're also damning their souls to Hell in the most sure way possible. Even mass murderers can be forgiven, but not traitors.
That's the worst part of the sins of the Vatican, IMO. Not only do they do heinous things, but they can realistically threaten Hell if you don't do exactly as they say, including covering for them.
Well, according to religion God is the only one that can damn you to hell, certainly not the Church, and certainly not a criminal Church. If you truly believe in a loving God, rejecting the Church because of very real moral concerns would actually be the only acceptable course of action.
So that pope dude... Is there an age requirement for that position or something? Now, I don't think they need some hipster wearing his rosary like a headband, rapping about how he's down with the G-O-D. But it would do wonders for their image if they picked somebody that didn't look like Skeletor's second cousin. One of the issues going on is how younger generations are abandoning the church in droves. It might help if the grand poo-bah looked more like a cool grandpa, and not out-of-touch Old Man Sedgwick who screams at them to get off the lawn while shaking his cane.
Clearly the odds of this happening are approaching infinite zero though.
They should just go back to the way it used to be done, accept bribes from debonair, crooked aristocrats in exchange for the office.
One of the most important Rabbis in Israel recently said that homosexuality to not keeping the Sabbath is as littering to theft. The idea that Christianity cancelled the penalty for the serious offense while keeping it in place for a very minor one is pretty strange. To me, at least, it seems like homophobes follow the parts that support their hatred and ignore anything that would inconvenience them.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Gonna take a second to address the earlier Biblical literalism stuff in this thread, if I may...
A common argument to the whole anti-gay thing in the Bible being paid attention to is "well, what about stoning adulterers or not wearing mixed fibers etc etc?"
This is actually a spurious argument, as according to many Christian denominations, Christ's death eliminated the need to follow the ritual rules(animal sacrifice, kosher diet, not mixing fibers, etc), while still mandating the moral rules(ten commandments, etc).
HOWEVER
There are much stronger arguments that biblical detractors fail to make.
For starters, Christians engaging in Biblical literalism from the Old Testament is an automatic fail. Because of course, the Old Testament is the Torah. The Jews have been studying it for far longer than Christians because they had it first. Hebrew is also far closer to the original translation than subsequent versions.
Additionally, context and translations matter.
That whole "lying with a man as a woman is an abomination?" There is a strong argument to be made that the meaning to that is actually "don't rape or shame others." Much of what the Bible says has a great deal of context and allegory that completely changes the meaning.
So if you're quoting the Bible to justify an anti-gay stance, you're more projecting your own hatred onto it than anything else.
I mean yeah, the Bible is full of some awful shit though. It endorses slavery and is a real shit to women. But the Bible is a terrible thing to be taken literally because the context just ins't there any more.
(note: I'm atheist)
You had me until the last paragraph, because you basically say: "You can't make a definitive evaluation of what the Bible says, because the context has been lost," and follow it with, "These are my definitive evaluations of what the Bible says."
Also, you're making an assumption of authority, that Jewish scholarship is more accurate a priori. It may or may not be, but an awful lot of Christian biblical scholars have put in a lot of effort to understand the context. Indeed, I think it can be safely stated that the Bible is the most academically studied and scrutinized book that's ever existed. So, to make the claim that Jewish scholarship is, by definition, more accurate is specious. (Also note that, for large swaths of Jewish history, Hebrew was not the dominant language.)
As for your specific claims in that last paragraph, there's a man named Philemon who would have words with you on the first point (as well as the entire U.S. Emancipation movemment, which was rooted in the church); and toward both points, there is a tendency to take the descriptive parts of the Bible and represent them as prescriptive. There are some parts that are definitely prescriptive, but the majority of the Old Testament is actually descriptive - an historical record. A good example of this is the book of Judges.
One of the most important Rabbis in Israel recently said that homosexuality to not keeping the Sabbath is as littering to theft. The idea that Christianity cancelled the penalty for the serious offense while keeping it in place for a very minor one is pretty strange. To me, at least, it seems like homophobes follow the parts that support their hatred and ignore anything that would inconvenience them.
Christian theology disputes this characterization purely on the grounds that it requires a hierarchy of sins - that some sins are somehow less bad than others. In fact, that is the very rule Jesus got in trouble with the Pharisees over: "Is it wrong to heal on the Sabbath?" Within Christian theology, all sin is demonstration of our rebellion against God. All sin, in this sense, funnels back to the first Commandment.
For the record, as stated above, I agree that the church shouldn't be making homosexuality a point of emphasis, precisely because it ends up appearing as though there is a hierarchy of sins. Of course, in the Catholic doctrine there IS a hierarchy of sins (mortal vs. venial). Point of information: according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the following, along with homosexuality, are listed as "grave matter" (essentially Mortal sins):
-Lying
-Perjury
-Rape
-Scandal (deliberately causing someone to sin greatly)
I hope he contracted some horrible illness and is 'resigning' to spend his last days rotting away in a ward for the terminally ill.
More likely that he just couldn't handle it anymore. Coward & wuss to the very end,
Odds we're about to have another sex abuse scandal break?
Rape scandal. Not 'sex abuse' or 'sex scandal'. Rape scandal. He facilitated the rape of orphans in the church's care and then protected the rapists from law enforcement.
Sorry, but I'm sick of the church managing to twist the wording into something less severe.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Does anyone seriously think "sex abuse" is a softer term than "rape"?
+1
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Sex abuse could be quite a lot of things. Rape is more specific, and more vile. It's the difference between fondling an 11 year old and fucking him in the ass.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Sex abuse could be quite a lot of things. Rape is more specific, and more vile. It's the difference between fondling an 11 year old and fucking him in the ass.
I gotta be honest.
I don't really see a difference in the vileness of those acts. They're both so far at the edge of things that should make it okay to rip your skin off and feed it to you that distinction seems unimportant.
+1
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
"sex abuse" just sounds like a euphemism. Same with "sexual assault". Yes they both have "Sex + bad word" in them, but they're vague and wishy-washy. They sound like terms that lawyers fight over the definitions of, so normal people don't have to think about what they actually mean.
Everybody knows what "rape" means.
I'm not saying the other terms shouldn't be used ever or that they're bad; i'm just saying that when it's actually rape, call it that. Using more generalized terms when a specific one would be just as accurate softens the impact for no reason.
"sex abuse" just sounds like a euphemism. Same with "sexual assault". Yes they both have "Sex + bad word" in them, but they're vague and wishy-washy. They sound like terms that lawyers fight over the definitions of, so normal people don't have to think about what they actually mean.
Everybody knows what "rape" means.
I'm not saying the other terms shouldn't be used ever or that they're bad; i'm just saying that when it's actually rape, call it that. Using more generalized terms when a specific one would be just as accurate softens the impact for no reason.
Isn't it the other way around? "But it wasn't rape-rape." "Was it real rape?" "Yeah, but are you sure that technically counts as rape?" "Yeesh, rape is a harsh word, isn't it?"
"Sexual abuse" is easier to narrow down to, and harder to dodge.
Does anyone seriously think "sex abuse" is a softer term than "rape"?
The church certainly seems to think so (and as does anyone else insisting on the former term, in my opinion), given that they've completely rejected the latter term and latched onto the former with all their might.
I see it as the difference between "He murdered someone," vs "He killed someone." Responsibility for someone's death is being implied either way, but the former is much less ambiguous about the severity of the crime than the former.
The kids in the orphanages were raped. Rape is a specific kind of sexual abuse.
Generally speaking, Democrats are wusses who don't fucking have the strength of their convictions. Which explains why Catholics are Democrats, because they don't fucking have the strength of their convictions. "I'm a Catholic, and I believe in the Pope and Jesus and stuff, but I don't hate gay people. So, when I'm talking to gay people, I'll talk about how I'm supportive of them, and when I'm in church and they're talking about how awful gay people are, I'll just sit quietly in the pew and never say anything, because God forbid I rock the fucking boat, and maybe if I speak up then people will think that I'm just not Catholic enough..."
Man the fuck up.
I grew up in the Catholic Church and never once heard anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit or at Catholic events. American Catholics are by and large less conservative than American Protestants and generally the sermons you hear reflect this. But I'm sure you have been to many Catholic masses.
ed
I also only heard an anti-abortion message once and 30-40 people walked out and the guest priest was not allowed to speak again.
In fact I know the Cub/Boy Scout troop I belonged to that met in the basement of a Catholic church had gay Scouts and knew all about it. The point of Vatican II was to make the Church less centralized, which means in some places they don't actually act like right wingers
Generally speaking, Democrats are wusses who don't fucking have the strength of their convictions. Which explains why Catholics are Democrats, because they don't fucking have the strength of their convictions. "I'm a Catholic, and I believe in the Pope and Jesus and stuff, but I don't hate gay people. So, when I'm talking to gay people, I'll talk about how I'm supportive of them, and when I'm in church and they're talking about how awful gay people are, I'll just sit quietly in the pew and never say anything, because God forbid I rock the fucking boat, and maybe if I speak up then people will think that I'm just not Catholic enough..."
Man the fuck up.
I grew up in the Catholic Church and never once heard anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit or at Catholic events. American Catholics are by and large less conservative than American Protestants and generally the sermons you hear reflect this. But I'm sure you have been to many Catholic masses.
ed
I also only heard an anti-abortion message once and 30-40 people walked out and the guest priest was not allowed to speak again.
In fact I know the Cub/Boy Scout troop I belonged to that met in the basement of a Catholic church had gay Scouts and knew all about it. The point of Vatican II was to make the Church less centralized, which means in some places they don't actually act like right wingers
Yeah, sorry, I don't generally attend rallies for hate groups.
And yeah, maybe your church was awesome... and then turned around and gave money to the to the people who were lobbying against gay marriage (presuming you grew up in Mass, both your archdiocese and the Vatican). But hey, Boston Catholics are the good ones, right? The poster boys for "we're Not All Like That," right?
Catholics aren't KKK members or Nazis. I'm not sure what point there is in continuing the discussion with people who insist otherwise and can't see a difference between the Catholic Church, the Nazi Party, and the KKK.
It is not 'Godwinning' the thread. Even if he was making a direct comparison, it's a legitimate comparison because fucking Ratzinger himself was a Goddamn child soldier in the Hitler Youth. Now, maybe you can say, "Well we forgive himfor that, because he was a child in Nazi Germany and hey, what you gonna do?" but you can't say it's a Godwin fallacy to mention Nazism in the thread when Ratzinger himself was an actual fucking Nazi.
It's also worth noting that the Catholic church was quite happy to sign treaties & agreements with the fascist party in Italy, the fascist party in Germany and the fascists in Spain, and for a while celebrated the late Fuhrer's birthday. What a proud history! 'Godwinning the thread'? Are you crazy?
Catholics aren't KKK members or Nazis. I'm not sure what point there is in continuing the discussion with people who insist otherwise and can't see a difference between the Catholic Church, the Nazi Party, and the KKK.
It is not 'Godwinning' the thread. Even if he was making a direct comparison, it's a legitimate comparison because fucking Ratzinger himself was a Goddamn child soldier in the Hitler Youth. Now, maybe you can say, "Well we forgive himfor that, because he was a child in Nazi Germany and hey, what you gonna do?" but you can't say it's a Godwin fallacy to mention Nazism in the thread when Ratzinger himself was an actual fucking Nazi.
It's also worth noting that the Catholic church was quite happy to sign treaties & agreements with the fascist party in Italy, the fascist party in Germany and the fascists in Spain, and for a while celebrated the late Fuhrer's birthday. What a proud history! 'Godwinning the thread'? Are you crazy?
As was addressed earlier in the thread, the modern Catholic church's finances are built significantly on their close alliance with Mussolini.
To say that the Catholic church likes fascism is an understatement.
Catholics aren't KKK members or Nazis. I'm not sure what point there is in continuing the discussion with people who insist otherwise and can't see a difference between the Catholic Church, the Nazi Party, and the KKK.
It is not 'Godwinning' the thread. Even if he was making a direct comparison, it's a legitimate comparison because fucking Ratzinger himself was a Goddamn child soldier in the Hitler Youth. Now, maybe you can say, "Well we forgive himfor that, because he was a child in Nazi Germany and hey, what you gonna do?" but you can't say it's a Godwin fallacy to mention Nazism in the thread when Ratzinger himself was an actual fucking Nazi.
It's also worth noting that the Catholic church was quite happy to sign treaties & agreements with the fascist party in Italy, the fascist party in Germany and the fascists in Spain, and for a while celebrated the late Fuhrer's birthday. What a proud history! 'Godwinning the thread'? Are you crazy?
Let's not forget that Das Pope also Venerated the Pope who signed said treaties.
As was addressed earlier in the thread, the modern Catholic church's finances are built significantly on their close alliance with Mussolini.
Absolutely; the granting of sovereignty to Vatican City was personally oversaw by Mussolini.
Fucking 'Godwinning' a thread dealing with the Catholic church & Ratzinger. Incredible. I guess everyone just 'Godwins' threads about Albert Speer or Heinrich Himmler, too?
Generally speaking, Democrats are wusses who don't fucking have the strength of their convictions. Which explains why Catholics are Democrats, because they don't fucking have the strength of their convictions. "I'm a Catholic, and I believe in the Pope and Jesus and stuff, but I don't hate gay people. So, when I'm talking to gay people, I'll talk about how I'm supportive of them, and when I'm in church and they're talking about how awful gay people are, I'll just sit quietly in the pew and never say anything, because God forbid I rock the fucking boat, and maybe if I speak up then people will think that I'm just not Catholic enough..."
Man the fuck up.
I grew up in the Catholic Church and never once heard anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit or at Catholic events. American Catholics are by and large less conservative than American Protestants and generally the sermons you hear reflect this. But I'm sure you have been to many Catholic masses.
ed
I also only heard an anti-abortion message once and 30-40 people walked out and the guest priest was not allowed to speak again.
In fact I know the Cub/Boy Scout troop I belonged to that met in the basement of a Catholic church had gay Scouts and knew all about it. The point of Vatican II was to make the Church less centralized, which means in some places they don't actually act like right wingers
Yeah, sorry, I don't generally attend rallies for hate groups.
And yeah, maybe your church was awesome... and then turned around and gave money to the to the people who were lobbying against gay marriage (presuming you grew up in Mass, both your archdiocese and the Vatican). But hey, Boston Catholics are the good ones, right? The poster boys for "we're Not All Like That," right?
And yeah, maybe your church was awesome... and then turned around and gave money to the to the people who were lobbying against gay marriage (presuming you grew up in Mass, both your archdiocese and the Vatican). But hey, Boston Catholics are the good ones, right? The poster boys for "we're Not All Like That," right?
Generally speaking, Democrats are wusses who don't fucking have the strength of their convictions. Which explains why Catholics are Democrats, because they don't fucking have the strength of their convictions. "I'm a Catholic, and I believe in the Pope and Jesus and stuff, but I don't hate gay people. So, when I'm talking to gay people, I'll talk about how I'm supportive of them, and when I'm in church and they're talking about how awful gay people are, I'll just sit quietly in the pew and never say anything, because God forbid I rock the fucking boat, and maybe if I speak up then people will think that I'm just not Catholic enough..."
Man the fuck up.
I grew up in the Catholic Church and never once heard anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit or at Catholic events. American Catholics are by and large less conservative than American Protestants and generally the sermons you hear reflect this. But I'm sure you have been to many Catholic masses.
ed
I also only heard an anti-abortion message once and 30-40 people walked out and the guest priest was not allowed to speak again.
In fact I know the Cub/Boy Scout troop I belonged to that met in the basement of a Catholic church had gay Scouts and knew all about it. The point of Vatican II was to make the Church less centralized, which means in some places they don't actually act like right wingers
Yeah, sorry, I don't generally attend rallies for hate groups.
And yeah, maybe your church was awesome... and then turned around and gave money to the to the people who were lobbying against gay marriage (presuming you grew up in Mass, both your archdiocese and the Vatican). But hey, Boston Catholics are the good ones, right? The poster boys for "we're Not All Like That," right?
Give me a fucking break.
Or maybe you are just too Fundamentalist in this?
Your argument is "but my diocese kinda-sorta-almost rose to the level of basic human decency, while continuing to support the Archdiocese, which did not." Maybe you're the one who's too Fundamentalist in this.
Complainants alleged that the regime of discipline was unlawful, cruel and unjust. They claimed that it was impossible to avoid punishment in Artane, and that punishment was administered inconsistently, irrationally and capriciously by different Brothers. They alleged that, even if a boy obeyed all the rules and did what he was told, he could encounter a Brother who was in bad form or who had some other excuse for administering punishment. A boy might be punished for anything or for nothing. They maintained that there was a pervasive climate of fear in the Institution that came about because of the unbridled use of corporal punishment.
Page 116 of the Ryan Commission's Report:
he jumped straight at me, picked me up, threw me like a dog around the place. I hit desks, hit the floor. I landed after some time on the floor. The commotion of boys screaming had
brought Br Quintrell, who was in 11 school, which was the next school, he flew in and pulled him off. I know I was unconscious, and I know to God that if it hadn’t been for him coming in, I do not think I would be here today, in all honesty. The attack was vicious. Moments later, he was apologising, crying
That's the 'tame' stuff (occurred in an orphanage that was supposed to be looking after children abandoned by their parents, or found in conditions of total squalor. The priests knew that these kids had nowhere else to go, and nobody to talk to about what happened behind closed doors - and this is how the 'luckiest' of them were treated.
EDIT: I should clarify: that's page 114 of the Ryan's Commission's report on Artane.
And let's be honest here, jokes about priests screwing boys were old in Shakespeare's days. This may be less a modern scandal and more the traditional mores of the Church coming into conflict with modernity again.
ruined my life. Night-times were the worst; if you weren’t taken out of bed and beaten you were listening to it happening to someone else. You could hear the screams all over the whole building at night it was so quiet. Up to 4 Brothers would come and take a boy out of bed on some pretext and give him a hammering, make you take off your nightshirt, they would do what they wanted. They were like a pack of hunting animals
Page 71 from the Ryan Commisson's study of male victim / witness statements.
Posts
A common argument to the whole anti-gay thing in the Bible being paid attention to is "well, what about stoning adulterers or not wearing mixed fibers etc etc?"
This is actually a spurious argument, as according to many Christian denominations, Christ's death eliminated the need to follow the ritual rules(animal sacrifice, kosher diet, not mixing fibers, etc), while still mandating the moral rules(ten commandments, etc).
HOWEVER
There are much stronger arguments that biblical detractors fail to make.
For starters, Christians engaging in Biblical literalism from the Old Testament is an automatic fail. Because of course, the Old Testament is the Torah. The Jews have been studying it for far longer than Christians because they had it first. Hebrew is also far closer to the original translation than subsequent versions.
Additionally, context and translations matter.
That whole "lying with a man as a woman is an abomination?" There is a strong argument to be made that the meaning to that is actually "don't rape or shame others." Much of what the Bible says has a great deal of context and allegory that completely changes the meaning.
So if you're quoting the Bible to justify an anti-gay stance, you're more projecting your own hatred onto it than anything else.
I mean yeah, the Bible is full of some awful shit though. It endorses slavery and is a real shit to women. But the Bible is a terrible thing to be taken literally because the context just ins't there any more.
(note: I'm atheist)
Well, according to religion God is the only one that can damn you to hell, certainly not the Church, and certainly not a criminal Church. If you truly believe in a loving God, rejecting the Church because of very real moral concerns would actually be the only acceptable course of action.
They should just go back to the way it used to be done, accept bribes from debonair, crooked aristocrats in exchange for the office.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
at least if he was wearing the hat we wouldn't have to look at his combover anymore
You had me until the last paragraph, because you basically say: "You can't make a definitive evaluation of what the Bible says, because the context has been lost," and follow it with, "These are my definitive evaluations of what the Bible says."
Also, you're making an assumption of authority, that Jewish scholarship is more accurate a priori. It may or may not be, but an awful lot of Christian biblical scholars have put in a lot of effort to understand the context. Indeed, I think it can be safely stated that the Bible is the most academically studied and scrutinized book that's ever existed. So, to make the claim that Jewish scholarship is, by definition, more accurate is specious. (Also note that, for large swaths of Jewish history, Hebrew was not the dominant language.)
As for your specific claims in that last paragraph, there's a man named Philemon who would have words with you on the first point (as well as the entire U.S. Emancipation movemment, which was rooted in the church); and toward both points, there is a tendency to take the descriptive parts of the Bible and represent them as prescriptive. There are some parts that are definitely prescriptive, but the majority of the Old Testament is actually descriptive - an historical record. A good example of this is the book of Judges.
Christian theology disputes this characterization purely on the grounds that it requires a hierarchy of sins - that some sins are somehow less bad than others. In fact, that is the very rule Jesus got in trouble with the Pharisees over: "Is it wrong to heal on the Sabbath?" Within Christian theology, all sin is demonstration of our rebellion against God. All sin, in this sense, funnels back to the first Commandment.
For the record, as stated above, I agree that the church shouldn't be making homosexuality a point of emphasis, precisely because it ends up appearing as though there is a hierarchy of sins. Of course, in the Catholic doctrine there IS a hierarchy of sins (mortal vs. venial). Point of information: according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the following, along with homosexuality, are listed as "grave matter" (essentially Mortal sins):
-Lying
-Perjury
-Rape
-Scandal (deliberately causing someone to sin greatly)
Sound like anybody we know, Catholic Church?
More likely that he just couldn't handle it anymore. Coward & wuss to the very end,
Rape scandal. Not 'sex abuse' or 'sex scandal'. Rape scandal. He facilitated the rape of orphans in the church's care and then protected the rapists from law enforcement.
Sorry, but I'm sick of the church managing to twist the wording into something less severe.
I gotta be honest.
I don't really see a difference in the vileness of those acts. They're both so far at the edge of things that should make it okay to rip your skin off and feed it to you that distinction seems unimportant.
Everybody knows what "rape" means.
I'm not saying the other terms shouldn't be used ever or that they're bad; i'm just saying that when it's actually rape, call it that. Using more generalized terms when a specific one would be just as accurate softens the impact for no reason.
Isn't it the other way around? "But it wasn't rape-rape." "Was it real rape?" "Yeah, but are you sure that technically counts as rape?" "Yeesh, rape is a harsh word, isn't it?"
"Sexual abuse" is easier to narrow down to, and harder to dodge.
The church certainly seems to think so (and as does anyone else insisting on the former term, in my opinion), given that they've completely rejected the latter term and latched onto the former with all their might.
I see it as the difference between "He murdered someone," vs "He killed someone." Responsibility for someone's death is being implied either way, but the former is much less ambiguous about the severity of the crime than the former.
The kids in the orphanages were raped. Rape is a specific kind of sexual abuse.
ed
I also only heard an anti-abortion message once and 30-40 people walked out and the guest priest was not allowed to speak again.
In fact I know the Cub/Boy Scout troop I belonged to that met in the basement of a Catholic church had gay Scouts and knew all about it. The point of Vatican II was to make the Church less centralized, which means in some places they don't actually act like right wingers
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And yeah, maybe your church was awesome... and then turned around and gave money to the to the people who were lobbying against gay marriage (presuming you grew up in Mass, both your archdiocese and the Vatican). But hey, Boston Catholics are the good ones, right? The poster boys for "we're Not All Like That," right?
Give me a fucking break.
It is not 'Godwinning' the thread. Even if he was making a direct comparison, it's a legitimate comparison because fucking Ratzinger himself was a Goddamn child soldier in the Hitler Youth. Now, maybe you can say, "Well we forgive himfor that, because he was a child in Nazi Germany and hey, what you gonna do?" but you can't say it's a Godwin fallacy to mention Nazism in the thread when Ratzinger himself was an actual fucking Nazi.
It's also worth noting that the Catholic church was quite happy to sign treaties & agreements with the fascist party in Italy, the fascist party in Germany and the fascists in Spain, and for a while celebrated the late Fuhrer's birthday. What a proud history! 'Godwinning the thread'? Are you crazy?
As was addressed earlier in the thread, the modern Catholic church's finances are built significantly on their close alliance with Mussolini.
To say that the Catholic church likes fascism is an understatement.
Absolutely; the granting of sovereignty to Vatican City was personally oversaw by Mussolini.
Fucking 'Godwinning' a thread dealing with the Catholic church & Ratzinger. Incredible. I guess everyone just 'Godwins' threads about Albert Speer or Heinrich Himmler, too?
Or maybe you are just too Fundamentalist in this?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
"I'm totally not a racist. I have black friends!"
Page 116 of the Ryan Commission's Report:
That's the 'tame' stuff (occurred in an orphanage that was supposed to be looking after children abandoned by their parents, or found in conditions of total squalor. The priests knew that these kids had nowhere else to go, and nobody to talk to about what happened behind closed doors - and this is how the 'luckiest' of them were treated.
EDIT: I should clarify: that's page 114 of the Ryan's Commission's report on Artane.
Page 71 from the Ryan Commisson's study of male victim / witness statements.
#proudtobecatholic