Originally posted by frontal lobe: ...... I'm pretty sure catholics believe unmarried people living together is wrong, too. So it is a legitimate point to ask why children of those people can go to the school. .....
can they? it hasnt been shown in this thread, but - I am assuming even divorced parents cannot send their kids to this school. when you only accept "the best" - there will be MANY left out. these lesbians are likely not the only folk turned away.
IP: Logged
12:02 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Yeah, I don't know who else the school excluded. They were accused of not excluding children of people living together unmarried, divorced, etc. But it didn't really say.
But with the divorce rate being as high as it is, I just figured statistically a school of that size would have children of divorced people in the group.
BTW, technically, it is fine if parents are divorced. What is not fine is if they are divorced, and then remarried that is the prohibition. Not at all the main point, but just trying to be technically accurate.
IP: Logged
02:03 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
when you only accept "the best" - there will be MANY left out. these lesbians are likely not the only folk turned away.
By the by, as far as actual behavior, I know homosexual couples that live a lot "better" than people in my own church. So not trying to make too fine of a point on it here, but it really isn't about accepting "the best". It is really only about accepting those that at least are on board with trying to follow the beliefs.
IP: Logged
02:06 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
Well not to be anti-anything but, they don't appear to be following their upbringing if they were raised Catholic.
quote
Originally posted by fastblack:
i'm sure the two women were aware of the catholic church's stand on homosexuality, so why did they even start down this road by enrolling their child in a catholic school.
Gawd, some of you guys seem to be trying to imply that the Catholic Church is a bastion of morality. Do you have short memories (or selective memories) or what?
Catholic priests have been diddling little boys for centuries. Homosexuality runs rampant in the higher echelons of the Catholic Church. I can't think of a more hypocritical organization. Makes me want to puke.
The pope's brother has now even been implicated! Here, from today's news...
German Catholic sex abuse scandals draw link to pope
Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:03pm IST By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
PARIS (Reuters) - In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says that if anyone leads innocent children to sin, "it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
That passage must now be ringing in the ears of the Roman Catholic clergy in Germany and the Netherlands, where the Church's latest scandals of priests sexually abusing boys have broken out, and echoing down the marbled halls of the Vatican.
The alarm bells are tolling all the more urgently in Rome, where tenuous links run from Bavarian boarding schools all the way to the German-born Pope Benedict. Critics are asking what he knew and did then and what he will do now.
His brother, Rev. Georg Ratzinger, has admitted to slapping boys in his Regensburg choir repeatedly. Ettal Abbey, scene of brutal beatings and sexual abuse in the past, is located in the archdiocese the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger once headed.
"Joseph Ratzinger was bishop of Munich from 1977 to 1981, so he has to answer the qustion of what he knew then and why he acted as he did," Christian Weisner, spokesman for a critical lay movement called We Are Church, said in a statement.
"He's affected because he's German," said Rev. Andreas Batlogg, editor in chief of the German Jesuit monthly Stimmen der Zeit. "Naturally, everybody's probably nervous (in the Vatican) about whether anything comes out of Munich too."
MASSIVE LOSS OF TRUST
Benedict is due to issue a letter to Ireland's Catholics about their scandals soon and Batlogg said it might be expanded to comment on Germany. "That letter will be important," he said.
Benedict has repeatedly denounced clerical sex abuse, far more than his predecessor Pope John Paul did, and there have not been charges of it under his direct responsibility in Munich.
But as his brother's confession showed, the "don't ask, don't tell" rule reigned in the German Church as it did in Ireland and the United States, where earlier scandals exposed a culture of secrecy and a policy of protecting Church interests.
In addition, politicians and the public have lost patience with the once mighty institution. "There has been a massive loss of trust," Batlogg told Reuters from his office in Munich.
That has been evident in Berlin, where Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger has accused the Vatican of covering up the scandals and pressed the bishops to cooperate with prosecutors "like in Ireland".
Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, the top German Catholic bishop who will hold talks with Benedict at the Vatican on Friday, reacted testily and accused her of bashing the Church. He later admitted the bishops had underestimated the problem.
Zollitsch rejected calls for an inquiry only into Catholic schools. The Church seems set to join Protestant leaders, family associations and school and local officials at "round table" talks called by the government to investigate all schools.
Rev Klaus Mertes, the Jesuit boarding school director in Berlin who first exposed abuse cases there in January, said the Church could only recover by discussing its problems openly, including the issue of the sexuality of its celibate priests.
"Silence is like petrol for abusers' motors. This can only be stopped by making it public," he told the Tagesspiegel daily.
SILENCE AND COMPENSATION
Benedict's involvement with the abuse scandals runs deeper than just his German roots.
When he was the Vatican's top doctrinal official before becoming pope, he oversaw the Church's handling of abuse charges against priests and instructed bishops that consultations on such cases were bound by "the pontifical secret".
Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi has denied that the 2001 directive with that phrase fostered "a culture of silence", but that argument many not convince many Church critics now.
Benedict called all Irish bishops to Rome for a summit last month, but shied away from disciplining them despite widespread expectations in Ireland of a hierarchy shake-up after two damning government reports last year shocked the nation.
Irish dioceses paid out over 25 million euros in damages before this crisis and victims have now asked for 1 billion euros in compensation. One bishop met with shock and refusal when he urged Catholics in his diocese to help pay the bills.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the second-highest German at the Vatican, has called for a "clean-out" in his native Church and suggested it would also have to pay damages to the victims.
Claims against the German Church could be high, but probably lower than those faced by 7 American dioceses and the Jesuit province of Oregon that have sought bankruptcy protection because of huge damages U.S. courts have ordered them to pay.
SEVERE HEAD WINDS
The Dutch bishops, facing a wave of abuse charges, agreed on Tuesday to an independent probe by a former education minister.
"By opting for an independent inquiry led by a Protestant, the Dutch bishops avoid the charge they want to control the case and cover up things as they wish," the Dutch daily Trouw said.
In Austria, where a monastery archabbot resigned on Monday after confessing to abusing a boy 40 years ago, Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said the Church had to "call guilt by its name" and openly discuss taboo issues such as celibacy, priestly training and changed social attitudes to sex.
"We face severe head winds," Schoenborn, whose predecessor quit amid sexual abuse charges in 1995, wrote in a Church newsletter. "We stand here ashamed and sullied."
Originally posted by Patrick: Gawd, some of you guys seem to be trying to imply that the Catholic Church is a bastion of morality. Do you have short memories (or selective memories) or what?
Catholic priests have been diddling little boys for centuries. Homosexuality runs rampant in the higher echelons of the Catholic Church. I can't think of a more hypocritical organization. Makes me want to puke.
The pope's brother has now even been implicated! Here, from today's news...
Patrick, I don't believe this had anything to do with the Catholic Church's pedophile problem, (at least I don't see it that way) this is more about two supposed parents attempt to put a child in a school that has a right to admit or deny the student based on whether or not the supposed parents are following the church's beliefs and/or rules of behavior. Homosexuality may run rampant in the higher echelons of the Catholic Church as you suggest, I don't know, I'm not Catholic and I don't necessarily buy every story I've been told on this topic. But, your point to morality is well taken but doesn't change a thing as far as who can attend a private school. I fully expect there will be a discrimination case filed by someone seeking damages for being discriminated against.
IP: Logged
02:50 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
...this is more about two supposed parents attempt to put a child in a school that has a right to admit or deny the student based on whether or not the supposed parents are following the church's beliefs and/or rules of behavior.
The very people that run the show don't even follow their own "beliefs and/or rules of behavior".
This whole thing just freakin' reeks of hypocrisy.
The Catholic Church is rotten to the core.
IP: Logged
03:00 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33137 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Blanket codemnations are rarely accurate, Patrick. You should know that as well as anyone.
If what you say is true, then you are, because you're a liberal, a pinko commie bastage. (and no, I don't believe that's true either)
Because sin and immorality exist does not mean that it should be accepted or that we should be forced to lower our standards to that lowest common denominator.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Ron, no need to take my word on that. Read the news. Read what I quoted in my earlier post. Then draw your own conclusions.
IP: Logged
07:45 PM
PFF
System Bot
Mar 11th, 2010
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
If what you say is true, then you are, because you're a liberal, a pinko commie bastage. (and no, I don't believe that's true either)
It's amazing how politics gets dragged into almost any discussion here in O/T.
quote
Originally posted by jstricker:
Blanket codemnations are rarely accurate, Patrick.
What was my "blanket codemnation"? I didn't say all Catholics were "rotten to the core" (if that's what you're referring to), just the Catholic Church (more to the point, those who run it).
quote
Originally posted by jstricker:
Because sin and immorality exist does not mean that it should be accepted or that we should be forced to lower our standards to that lowest common denominator.
Who's asking YOU to lower YOUR standards, John?
Do you not see the total hypocrisy of a powerful organization rife with homosexual pedophiles that prohibits a child from enrolling in one of their schools because, <gasp>... the child has two mothers?
I somehow doubt that the Catholic Church would be "lowering their standards" by allowing the child of a lesbian couple to enroll when the Church itself has been turning a blind eye to their own priests ****ing little boys for hundreds of years. Seriously, how would it be possible for the Catholic Church to have "standards" any lower than they already are?
Wow, if thinking that this is total BS makes me a pinko commie bastage liberal, then so be it.
IP: Logged
02:27 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Yep, from that awesome country that recently won all the gold medals.
Obviously the whole thing rigged for the home team.
I understood what you meant about the hypocrisy. And while it is hard not to blanket cover one group with a sweeping statement, the historical level of occurrence of pedophilia (while not universal, obviously, it seems very high) and the institutional response to it (cover up) makes it highly hypocritical to try to "protect" the flock from a child with lesbian parents when a much more serious risk is happening to the flock from the leaders themselves.
And that isn't meant to be catholic bashing. That is just an objective assessment of the situation.
IP: Logged
02:34 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
...makes it highly hypocritical to try to "protect" the flock from a child with lesbian parents when a much more serious risk is happening to the flock from the leaders themselves.
Well said, Doc.
IP: Logged
02:39 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
The "we" referred to Christians, not just Catholics and yes, Patrick, WE are asked, in some cases ORDERED BY THE COURTS, to lower what we believe to be our standards in the name of tolerance.
Of course I see the hypocrisy of SOME LEADERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I also know a lot of priests that are disgusted and sickened my such behavior, but to say an entire organization is "rotten to the core" is a blanket condemnation, no matter how you'd like to re-phrase that statement now ("more to the point, those who run it" is not the same thing as the Catholic Church).
I guess you missed the part in my example of blanket condemnations where I specifically stated that although you are a bonafide liberal I didn't think you were a "pinko, commie, bastage". You might want to go back and read that again.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Who's asking YOU to lower YOUR standards, John?
Do you not see the total hypocrisy of a powerful organization rife with homosexual pedophiles that prohibits a child from enrolling in one of their schools because, <gasp>... the child has two mothers?
I somehow doubt that the Catholic Church would be "lowering their standards" by allowing the child of a lesbian couple to enroll when the Church itself has been turning a blind eye to their own priests ****ing little boys for hundreds of years. Seriously, how would it be possible for the Catholic Church to have "standards" any lower than they already are?
Wow, if thinking that this is total BS makes me a pinko commie bastage liberal, then so be it.
IP: Logged
02:50 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by jstricker: The "we" referred to Christians, not just Catholics and yes, Patrick, WE are asked, in some cases ORDERED BY THE COURTS, to lower what we believe to be our standards in the name of tolerance.
Of course I see the hypocrisy of SOME LEADERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I also know a lot of priests that are disgusted and sickened my such behavior, but to say an entire organization is "rotten to the core" is a blanket condemnation, no matter how you'd like to re-phrase that statement now ("more to the point, those who run it" is not the same thing as the Catholic Church).
I guess you missed the part in my example of blanket condemnations where I specifically stated that although you are a bonafide liberal I didn't think you were a "pinko, commie, bastage". You might want to go back and read that again.
John Stricker
yup. any blanket statements like this - especially covering such a HUGE population - is silly. but, doesnt seem to stop people.
and - it is a basic rule: rarely can any group stand up to its own standards. but - that shouldnt mean them standards should be dismissed. think of them more as goals, than standards.
IP: Logged
03:08 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
....to say an entire organization is "rotten to the core" is a blanket condemnation, no matter how you'd like to re-phrase that statement now ("more to the point, those who run it" is not the same thing as the Catholic Church).
John, we can agree to disagree, but please don't try and make it out that I'm somehow backpeddling by clarifying that I wasn't referring to the "flock" when I said "Catholic Church".
As far as it being a "blanket condemnation" of those in power within the Catholic Church, sure, I'm fine with that. I can't think of a more corrupt "legal" organization on the planet. Those who weren't participating in the atrocities over the centuries were either actively involved in the cover ups, or at least guilty of looking the other way.
My father's family were Irish Catholic for generations, but my father's parents left the Catholic Church when they were informed they would burn in Hell or whatever crap they were told when they asked their priest about wanting to use birth control after having five kids. (I should add that the fifth child was stillborn as my "nana" was getting older by that time.)
It's apparently been acceptable for hundreds of years in the Catholic Church for the priests to **** the alter boys, but heaven forbid if someone in the flock were to sin by limiting their number of children through the use of birth control.
The Catholic Church's problem with birth control, I suspect, is that it would lessen the number of young boys to fondle, ****, and forget.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
The very people that run the show don't even follow their own "beliefs and/or rules of behavior".
This whole thing just freakin' reeks of hypocrisy.
The Catholic Church is rotten to the core.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 03-12-2010).]
IP: Logged
09:19 PM
redbandit98 Member
Posts: 106 From: Fort Smith, AR Registered: Feb 2010
well here it is from my point of view..I speak my mind whether right or wrong. Do I agree with homosexuality..no, Is it really any of my business if someone else wants to do whatever...no Should they be allowed to kick anyone out for any reason..yes. Its a private school, they could kick you out for having a bad hair day if they want..its a PRIVATE school. Here is my opinion..its all for show. Religion is more politics than anything. These people knew damn good and well when they made a stink about not letting their "child" go to this school bc both of them were gay it would get attention out the wazoo. All they had to do is enroll them in another school. They just wanted the public to cry out for them and be on a morning show. "oh I cant believe little Mary cant go to school, we are devoted Catholics...I mean we are gay and I know thats not Kosher with the code of conduct but we just pick and choose what part we believe and go with that" Whatever I hate religion.
IP: Logged
09:52 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33137 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by redbandit98: These people knew damn good and well when they made a stink about not letting their "child" go to this school bc both of them were gay it would get attention out the wazoo.
BINGO!!!! We have a winner!!!!
Ron
IP: Logged
10:01 PM
PFF
System Bot
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
These people knew damn good and well when they made a stink about not letting their "child" go to this school bc both of them were gay it would get attention out the wazoo.
I'm trying to follow you here. Are you suggesting that all people want this kind of attention, or is it just gay people who want it?
IP: Logged
10:27 PM
Mar 13th, 2010
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Originally posted by jstricker: You seem to have a tendency in this thread to lump people into groups, Patrick. Why can't he just be talking about these two individuals, who happen to be lesbians?
Yes "all people" is a reach. Fact is some people do want attention to call light to their cause. It could be "anyone with an agenda". Of which if I was another student, I would be pissed at the lesbos. Only because they made a cause out of my prom.
IP: Logged
09:25 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
It's apparently been acceptable for hundreds of years in the Catholic Church for the priests to **** the alter boys, but heaven forbid if someone in the flock were to sin by limiting their number of children through the use of birth control.
The Catholic Church's problem with birth control, I suspect, is that it would lessen the number of young boys to fondle, ****, and forget.
You really should try to curb your hatred of the Catholic Church, Patrick. When you attempt to demean them as you did in this post you really only demean yourself. I don't know what has happened in your life to instill such hatred towards a group in your heart, but I honestly do wish that you could get past it.
Having said that, the problem the Catholic Church has with birth control is based on Old Testament Biblical reference, but I also suspect you already knew that and simply ignored it. That's what I'm referring to when I say it only demeans you and not your target.
I'm not Catholic. They have a lot of beliefs that are in direct contradiction to my own. I also despise those INDIVIDUAL priests that take indecent sexual liberties with any of the people that look to them as their spiritual leader. Likewise, those that attempt to cover up such acts are equally culpable.
There are about 70,000,000 Catholics in the US, about 150,000,000 in the world. There have been about 110,000 priests serve in the US from 1950-2002. [/quote] The report determined that, between 1950 and 2002, 10,667 people had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. After investigating the remaining 7700 allegations, the dioceses were able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time period covered by the study.[21] The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[22]
Of the 4,392 priests against whom the accusations were deemed to be credible, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. Police were contacted regarding 1,021 of the remaining 1092 priests. 384 of these priests were prosecuted, resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.[4][23] [/quote]
So, out of the 1092 that were turned over for police investigation, 384 were prosecuted and 252 were convicted, about 25%. The US average conviction for sexual assault is about 30%, so not a big difference. Regardless of that, and assuming that ALL of the 4,392 that had credible accusations made against them were indeed fact, you're talking about less than 4% of the priests and for that number, you are willing and eager to say the other 96% are "rotten to the core".
The numbers of abuse are not that different between priests and other occupations like teachers (3%) and law enforcement officers (5%). Are these groups also "rotten to the core"? Is the Catholic Church any more guilty about protecting their own than, say, a police department? <shrug> That's really a rhetorical question because I don't know and I don't know how anyone could quantify an answer.
My point is, while the issue is definitely despicable and important, it does not warrant blanket statements like "the catholic church is rotten to the core" or "I can't think of a more corrupt "legal" organization on the planet". I can personally think of several more corrupt beginning with politicians, and ending with labor unions, but that's just me not looking through hate-smoked glasses.
John Stricker
[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 03-13-2010).]
IP: Logged
12:54 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
There have been about 110,000 priests serve in the US from 1950-2002.
The report determined that, between 1950 and 2002... 252 convictions
And what report might this be, John? You know better than to "quote" an article and not supply information regarding its source.
Let's assume it's a credible source. Are we to then garner from this information that between 1950 and 2002 in the entire United States, only 252 out of a grand total of 110,000 priests have sexually violated young boys? Five priests a year? If you believe that I'll sell you a nice Canadian bridge.
quote
Originally posted by jstricker:
The numbers of abuse are not that different between priests and other occupations like teachers (3%) and law enforcement officers (5%).
Right.
How can you compare priests with teachers and law enforcement officers? Any organization that is run and "staffed" solely by males who are sworn to celibacy has got to be different, way different. It's highly unusual not to want to engage in sexual activity. It's very difficult to repress this most basic animal urge. (Yes, we are "animals" in the grand scheme of things.)
I honestly believe it's this forced celibacy that eventually puts so many priests over the edge. They're forbidden to relate to adult women in a manner the rest of us take for granted, therefore they work off their sexual frustration with what they have access to... young boys. Either that or men who desire young boys in the first place sign up with the priesthood with that one goal in mind (ie access to alter boys, etc).
quote
Originally posted by jstricker:
You really should try to curb your hatred of the Catholic Church, Patrick.
And you should really try to curb your hatred of homosexuals, John. You've got quite a history here of showing your disdain and contempt for them, whether they be gay men cutting your lawn, two girls wanting to go to a grad prom together, or a lesbian couple simply trying to enroll their child in a school.
Most people just want to be able to live their lives like everybody else. What they do in their own bedrooms is none of your business or mine. I'm about as "straight" as they come, but it really disturbs me when the same people who champion their own "rights" are so keen to suppress the rights of others (in this case, homosexuals) to live their day to day lives without being ridiculed, harassed, shunned, or ostracized.
It wouldn't make a bit of difference to YOUR life if two girls went to a prom together.
It wouldn't make a bit of difference to YOUR life if a lesbian couple enrolled their child in a Catholic school.
And no John, your lawn wouldn't have cared less if it was cut by gay men.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 03-14-2010).]
IP: Logged
03:52 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
And you should really try to curb your hatred of homosexuals, John. You've got quite a history here of showing your disdain and contempt for them, whether they be gay men cutting your lawn, two girls wanting to go to a grad prom together, or a lesbian couple simply trying to enroll their child in a school.
Most people just want to be able to live their lives like everybody else. What they do in their own bedrooms is none of your business or mine. I'm about as "straight" as they come, but it really disturbs me when the same people who champion their own "rights" are so keen to suppress the rights of homosexuals to live their day to day lives without being ridiculed, harassed, shunned, or ostracized.
It wouldn't make a bit of difference to YOUR life if two girls went to a prom together.
It wouldn't make a bit of difference to YOUR life if a lesbian couple enrolled their child in a Catholic school.
And no John, your lawn wouldn't have cared less if it was cut by gay men.
But I believe you knew I could back up that quote so you're just throwing that statement out as a distraction.
I can easily compare teachers/priests/police officers. All three groups are authority figures over others and particularly children. The groups are not that dissimilar. You are free to hypothesize however you want as to why priests seem to have such a high rate of sexual abuse towards children, but I wasn't aware you were a trained psychologist so you might want to temper that a bit at least until you read up on the subject a bit. By the way, the priesthood is not a "forced" celibacy. The last I knew they didn't sell people as slaves into the priesthood nor did any governments draft people to become priests, therefore they CHOOSE that lifestyle (not unlike gays/lesbians choose to lead their public lifestyle).
You say I'm all about taking away homosexuals "rights". You need to gain a working knowledge of what a "right" is. It is NOT a right to be able to put your child in any school you want without regard to their rules and regulations for admittance. It is NOT a right to attend a formal event wearing whatever you want, with whomever you want. It is NOT a right to work for anyone you want, if they want to employ you or not. You, and a lot of other people, are confusing the differences between "rights" and "wants", but you're certainly not alone in that regard.
As far as my "hatred" of homosexuals, you are mistaken again and it's again interesting that you push this around to the point I have something to do with it.
I said nothing derogatory about gays, only that if these are the rules then they are subject to them. That's all. Nothing more. Because these incidents don't affect my life, I should remain silent? That's a double edged sword, Patrick, they don't affect yours either yet you can't seem to keep your hands from typing out your opinion. Oh, I see, unless I agree with YOUR viewpoint I should remain silent.
I believe you're confusing the threads, this one has nothing to do with the one about the girl not being admitted to the prom. I said before that had she not tried to make this a particular public cause of her own, she could have gone to the prom, with her girlfriend, both dressed appropriately to the school's acceptable dress standards, and all would have been well. How, exactly, is it hatred to expect someone to follow the same rules everyone else does?
The private Church School has their rules and standards on who they will enroll. Why is that wrong? There are other schools the couple can enroll their child in, why insist on that one and more importantly, why make it a public cause? You know the answer to that one, because they feel they don't have to follow the rules everyone else does.
Can a gay/lesbian mow my line as well as a straight one? Probably, depends on the individual and their talents and attention to detail. Is it right that I should be FORCED to have the gay/lesbian mow my lawn even if I choose not to? No it's not. THAT is my problem Patrick, it always has been.
I have a history showing my hate of homosexuals? Really? Show me one single post where I have wished ill on someone for their lifestyle choice? You can't do it.
I show a lot of disdain in being forced BY LAW to accept a practice I don't approve of, but that is disdain for those in power much more than disdain for those that live a lifestyle I don't approve of. I think everyone should be able to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't affect me. It shouldn't cost me any money. I shouldn't be forced to associate with them or face legal penalties. I shouldn't have to pay for their cosmetic surgery. I should be given the same freedom to do what I like and associate with who I like just as I am willing to gladly give that freedom to others, regardless of whether or not I agree with what they are doing.
That you can confuse that with hatred of an individual vs. opposing a usurping of my personl freedoms is your problem, not mine.
John Stricker
[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 03-13-2010).]
IP: Logged
05:04 PM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
But I believe you knew I could back up that quote so you're just throwing that statement out as a distraction.
I can easily compare teachers/priests/police officers. All three groups are authority figures over others and particularly children. The groups are not that dissimilar. You are free to hypothesize however you want as to why priests seem to have such a high rate of sexual abuse towards children, but I wasn't aware you were a trained psychologist so you might want to temper that a bit at least until you read up on the subject a bit. By the way, the priesthood is not a "forced" celibacy. The last I knew they didn't sell people as slaves into the priesthood nor did any governments draft people to become priests, therefore they CHOOSE that lifestyle (not unlike gays/lesbians choose to lead their public lifestyle).
You say I'm all about taking away homosexuals "rights". You need to gain a working knowledge of what a "right" is. It is NOT a right to be able to put your child in any school you want without regard to their rules and regulations for admittance. It is NOT a right to attend a formal event wearing whatever you want, with whomever you want. It is NOT a right to work for anyone you want, if they want to employ you or not. You, and a lot of other people, are confusing the differences between "rights" and "wants", but you're certainly not alone in that regard.
As far as my "hatred" of homosexuals, you are mistaken again and it's again interesting that you push this around to the point I have something to do with it.
I said nothing derogatory about gays, only that if these are the rules then they are subject to them. That's all. Nothing more. Because these incidents don't affect my life, I should remain silent? That's a double edged sword, Patrick, they don't affect yours either yet you can't seem to keep your hands from typing out your opinion. Oh, I see, unless I agree with YOUR viewpoint I should remain silent.
I believe you're confusing the threads, this one has nothing to do with the one about the girl not being admitted to the prom. I said before that had she not tried to make this a particular public cause of her own, she could have gone to the prom, with her girlfriend, both dressed appropriately to the school's acceptable dress standards, and all would have been well. How, exactly, is it hatred to expect someone to follow the same rules everyone else does?
The private Church School has their rules and standards on who they will enroll. Why is that wrong? There are other schools the couple can enroll their child in, why insist on that one and more importantly, why make it a public cause? You know the answer to that one, because they feel they don't have to follow the rules everyone else does.
Can a gay/lesbian mow my line as well as a straight one? Probably, depends on the individual and their talents and attention to detail. Is it right that I should be FORCED to have the gay/lesbian mow my lawn even if I choose not to? No it's not. THAT is my problem Patrick, it always has been.
I have a history showing my hate of homosexuals? Really? Show me one single post where I have wished ill on someone for their lifestyle choice? You can't do it.
I show a lot of disdain in being forced BY LAW to accept a practice I don't approve of, but that is disdain for those in power much more than disdain for those that live a lifestyle I don't approve of. I think everyone should be able to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't affect me. It shouldn't cost me any money. I shouldn't be forced to associate with them or face legal penalties. I shouldn't have to pay for their cosmetic surgery. I should be given the same freedom to do what I like and associate with who I like just as I am willing to gladly give that freedom to others, regardless of whether or not I agree with what they are doing.
That you can confuse that with hatred of an individual vs. opposing a usurping of my personl freedoms is your problem, not mine.
John Stricker
GAWD !!!!
I hate to admit it................but I think John is on the right track here.......(I cant believe that I agree with you agian---#7 in 6 years )
IP: Logged
05:18 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
not unlike gays/lesbians choose to lead their public lifestyle
That right there sums up your entire attitude. You believe homosexual people "choose" to be homosexual. And the nerve of the b*st*rds wanting to be "public" about it! It was much better in the old days, eh, when they knew their place was in the closet.
Seriously now, who the hell would "choose" to be put in a position to be ridiculed, harassed, shunned, and/or ostracized?
That's the fundamental difference in our opinions, John. You believe these people have a choice in regards to what sex they're attracted to. I believe they're hard wired that way and have no such choice.
Sure, they can fake it and pretend they're heterosexual. Many have. The end result - disastrous marriages, alcoholism, drug use, suicide...
When it comes to sexual attraction, you are what you are.
As long as the "act" itself is private and with another adult, what does it really matter to you and I?
I'm done here, John. I've posted my opinion.
IP: Logged
05:37 PM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
personally, I got no use for catholism, and dont want it anywhere near me (grow up in an old european home)...but i do have to admmit---some priests of the chruch are great guys to talk to.....they do have thoughts and points on ideas an philosohies ...some catholic priests are the best guys to have a coffee with......
including homosexuality..........
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 03-13-2010).]
IP: Logged
06:07 PM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
1) Told me that I "hate" homosexuals 2) Assumed to know what I think in regards to someone's choice of sexual partners 3) Referred several times that these matters don't affect me so I should just keep out of it.
You are wrong on all three accounts.
I don't "hate" anyone. Period. I honestly don't care what two people do with each other as long as one, and only one, requirement is fulfilled...........THEY KEEP ME OUT OF IT. Period. Go bang who you want. Shoot in your arm whatever you want. Eat whatever you want. I honestly could not care less UNTIL you (or others) start making laws, rules, and regulations that requires me to HIRE and/or ASSOCIATE with these people whose lifestyle choice I don't believe to be appropriate, healthy, or improper. Unless and until that happens, knock yourself out.
I fail to see how you can know what I think about WHY someone is homosexual when in fact, I don't know WHY someone is homosexual. What I DO know is that for whatever reason(s), they are attracted to the same sex. Again, as long as I'm not involved in it, then knock yourself out, I don't care. I do not believe that to be a morally acceptable way to lead one's life, or even a particularly healty one, but if I'm kept out of it, I honestly don't care. I do know that they can CHOOSE to live their lives in several ways. The freaks pictured marching in the gay pride parades (and other things like that, the Nazi/skinhead demonstrations come to mind) have CHOSEN to do that. Again, if it doesn't affect me or others that wish to be kept out of that lifestyle, then knock yourself out, I honestly don't care. What we're talking about here, and in the thread of the prom being cancelled, is not that. It is individuals that CHOOSE to drag others, MANY OTHERS, into at the very least an acceptance of their version of what's appropriate and proper if they want to do that or not, by LAW AND THE FORCE OF THE COURTS.
THAT is the difference.
In the case of how a person lives their private lives you are 100% correct, that does not affect me. Go in peace, enjoy your life. But in BOTH of these cases they are NOT dealing with living a private lifestyle. In one case, they want to bring the Catholic school into an acceptance of a lifestyle that they believe is morally wrong, in the other they want special consideration and waiver of the rules because of their personal lifestyle choices, waivers and considerations that are not warranted.
If the rule is that the boys have to wear a tux to the prom, and a boy can't afford to rent a tux, should THEY be allowed a waiver? I say no, because it IS the rule and it's a formal event. I would be just as unsympathetic to that request as I am the one for the girl wanting to wear a tux when the rules are girls have to wear a dress.
It's not about what I like or dislike, Patrick, it's about an assumption of rights based on individual circumstance and the rights they are asserting simply do not exist.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
That right there sums up your entire attitude. You believe homosexual people "choose" to be homosexual. And the nerve of the b*st*rds wanting to be "public" about it! It was much better in the old days, eh, when they knew their place was in the closet.
Seriously now, who the hell would "choose" to be put in a position to be ridiculed, harassed, shunned, and/or ostracized?
That's the fundamental difference in our opinions, John. You believe these people have a choice in regards to what sex they're attracted to. I believe they're hard wired that way and have no such choice.
Sure, they can fake it and pretend they're heterosexual. Many have. The end result - disastrous marriages, alcoholism, drug use, suicide...
When it comes to sexual attraction, you are what you are.
As long as the "act" itself is private and with another adult, what does it really matter to you and I?
I'm done here, John. I've posted my opinion.
IP: Logged
06:28 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37848 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Patrick: That right there sums up your entire attitude. You believe homosexual people "choose" to be homosexual. Seriously now, who the hell would "choose" to be put in a position to be ridiculed, harassed, shunned, and/or ostracized?
Let's play. Pedophiles don't choose to be child molesters. I mean, why would they put themselves in a position to be ridiculed, harassed, shunned, and/or ostracized, arrested, and jailed, umm, inprisoned for a long time ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-13-2010).]
IP: Logged
09:07 PM
Mar 14th, 2010
Phaeton Member
Posts: 1437 From: Interior Alaska Registered: Dec 1999
Child abuse claims sweep Catholic Church in Europe
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, Associated Press Writer Shawn Pogatchnik, Associated Press Writer 41 mins ago
DUBLIN – It often starts as a voice in the wilderness, but can swell into an entire nation's demand for truth. From Ireland to Germany, Europe's many victims of child abuse in the Roman Catholic church are finally breaking social taboos and confronting the clergy to face its demons.
Ireland was the first in Europe to confront the church's worldwide custom of shielding pedophile priests from the law and public scandal. Now that legacy of suppressed childhood horror is being confronted in other parts of the Continent — nowhere more poignantly than in Germany, the homeland of Pope Benedict XVI.
The recent spread of claims into the Netherlands, Austria and Italy has analysts and churchmen wondering how deep the scandal runs, which nation will be affected next, and whether a tide of lawsuits will force European dioceses to declare bankruptcy like their American cousins.
"You have to presume that the cover-up of abuse exists everywhere, to one extent or another. A new case could appear in a new country tomorrow," said David Quinn, director of a Christian think tank, the Iona Institute, that seeks to promote family values in an Ireland increasingly cool to Catholicism.
Quinn noted that stories of systemic physical, sexual and emotional abuse circulated privately in Irish society for decades, but only moved aboveground in the mid-1990s when former altar boy Andrew Madden and orphanage survivor Christine Buckley went public with lawsuits and exposes of how priests and nuns tormented them with impunity.
Floodgates opened for Irish complaints that have topped 15,000 in this country of 4 million. Three government-ordered investigations have shocked and disgusted the nation, which has footed most of the bill to settle legal claims topping euro1 billion (nearly $1.5 billion).
"A lot comes down to: When does that first victim gather the courage to come forward into the spotlight?" Quinn said. "It seems to take that trigger event, the lone voice who says what so many kept silent so long. That's basically happening now in Germany. It could happen next in Spain, Poland, anywhere."
In January, an elite Jesuit school in Berlin declared it was aware of seven child-abuse cases in its past and appointed an outside investigator, Ursula Raue, to seek testimony. Within weeks, she had gathered stories of long-suppressed woe from more than 100 ex-students abused by their Jesuit masters, and from 60 molested by parish priests.
"I always thought that at some point the wave would reach us," said Petra Dorsch-Jungsberger, a commentator on Catholic affairs and retired University of Munich communications professor.
She credited heavy German media coverage of the latest Irish abuse scandal — a November report into decades of cover-up in the Dublin Archdiocese involving approximately 170 priests — with inspiring similar soul-searching in Germany.
"Once the door had been opened, then many others felt they were able to step up and say: That happened to us too," she said.
In recent weeks, new German abuse claims have surfaced on a near-daily basis and spread to Pope Benedict's Bavarian heartland and the Regensberg boys' choir long directed by the pope's brother. Benedict was Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger of Munich from 1977 to 1982, and questions now focus on what role, if any, the pontiff, played in handing pedophile priests to new parishes rather than to the law.
A Swiss abbot said in an interview published Saturday that 60 people have reported being victims of abuse by Catholic priests in Switzerland.
Abbot Martin Werlen of the Benedictine Abbey of Einsiedeln told Swiss daily Aargauer Zeitung that the allegations were reported to the Swiss Bishops Conference, which is investigating them.
The Vatican on Saturday denounced what it called aggressive attempts to drag Pope Benedict XVI into the spreading scandals of pedophile priests in his German homeland, and contended he has long confronted abuse cases with courage.
In separate interviews, both the Holy See's spokesman and its prosecutor for sex abuse of minors by clergy sought to defend the pope.
"It's rather clear that in the last days, there have been those who have tried, with a certain aggressive persistence, in Regensburg and Munich, to look for elements to personally involve the Holy Father in the matter of abuses," Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi told Vatican Radio.
It's inevitable that all bishops of the day, including Ratzinger, handled abuse complaints against priests in-house, said the Rev. Fergus O'Donoghue, editor of the Irish Jesuit journal Studies.
"The pope was no different to any other bishop at time. The church policy was to keep it all quiet — to help people, but to avoid scandal. Avoiding scandal was a huge issue for the church," he said. "Of course there was cover-up," he added. But worse was "the systematic lack of concern for the victims."
In the Netherlands, a former Catholic boarding-school abuse victim is leading a campaign for accountability. Bert Smeets, 58, has formed Mea Culpa, a victims group that has collected testimony from hundreds of abuse victims and is mulling a class-action lawsuit against the Dutch church.
The church has apologized to the victims and set up an inquiry headed by a former government minister, a Protestant. Smeets dismisses that effort as "a typical Vatican cover-up." He said the pressure on the church came from aggressive investigations into abuse in Ireland and the U.S.
In other predominantly Catholic areas of Europe, child-abuse scandals have tarnished individual priests and even a Polish archbishop, but have not mushroomed into a mass movement. In Spain, more than a dozen priests have been convicted of child abuse in recent decades and two potentially larger-scale cases are attracting attention.
Ireland was until relatively recently the most enthusiastically Catholic country in Europe. Its half-dozen seminaries exported priests worldwide. All but one of those seminaries is closed now, illustrating the rapid falloff in Mass attendance as the economy has advanced and secularism has spread.
Quinn, the Dublin think-tank director, noted that a few Irish dioceses are openly warning that they're struggling to pay bills stemming from abuse claims. In the southeast diocese of Kells, the archbishop's house has had to be remortgaged.
"The church is asset-rich but cash-poor," Quinn said, noting that it's the biggest property owner in Ireland but has comparatively little cash in the bank. He said the Vatican, too, has less money on tap than resides in the endowment fund of a typical top-tier U.S. university.
Whether it's the Toyota acceleration issue, or a Catholic Church scandal, or any other issue the media touts, these kinds of things take on a life of their own. Call me a skeptic, not that I don't think such things happen but that they happen as claimed in every case and that as much happens as is claimed. Where dollars and the press become involved, things almost always get expanded beyond reality. Again, I'm not about to suggest that this hasn't happened but, we've all bought into the power of the press before.
Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-14-2010).]
IP: Logged
06:39 AM
Patrick Member
Posts: 39075 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
Call me a skeptic, not that I don't think such things happen... Where dollars and the press become involved, things almost always get expanded beyond reality.
Again, I'm not about to suggest that this hasn't happened but, we've all bought into the power of the press before.
So Ron, do you feel the same way about the moon landings?
I actually feel that in this case, the number of molestations and sexual assaults has been UNDER reported. Many of the victims simply can't bring themselves to report the abuse they withstood. They'd prefer to just move on with their lives rather than dredge up all the old horrors. That and the fact that many of the victims (and perpetrators) have also already died over the decades.
IP: Logged
03:37 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33137 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
So Ron, do you feel the same way about the moon landings?
I actually feel that in this case, the number of molestations and sexual assaults has been UNDER reported. Many of the victims simply can't bring themselves to report the abuse they withstood. They'd prefer to just move on with their lives rather than dredge up all the old horrors. That and the fact that many of the victims (and perpetrators) have also already died over the decades.
No Pat, I believe we landed on the moon.
There is no doubt in my mind after reading your postings that you have strong feelings on this. I'm also not surprised that you feel the numbers are under reported. That doesn't make you or I right. I tend to look at these things statistically, similar to what John Stricker did. Though I agree that any abuse is still too much, there is no way I could generalize and condemn the whole leadership group.
Heck, I even think there are some good Democrats, mostly misguided but they are out there.
Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-14-2010).]
)
