Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

German catholic church halts inquiry into child abuse.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 126 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Jan 2013 08:36:26 GMT
C. A. Small says:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20957406

Anyone care to defend the catholic churches (latest) attempt to cover up the scale of it's abuse of children?

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 14:23:46 GMT
Spin says:
Of course, only the abrahamic monotheistic organised religions are guilty of child abuse and its cover-up...The perfection of atheistic secularism would never, ever allow such atrocities to occur...

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 14:43:46 GMT
R. Kroell says:
The catholic church is now sueing the investigator.
What a mess again. That was supposed to be a scientific rework of the abuse cases.
But the church wanted to control which files are made available.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 14:51:13 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Almost like trying to look honest and open whilst engaging in a cover-up!

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 15:00:51 GMT
Spin says:
Child abuse is, of course, non-existent among the non-religious. They are as pure as the driven snow..

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 15:11:55 GMT
No one made that claim Spin

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 15:13:57 GMT
Spin says:
Stephen: It is implied..

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 15:17:39 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Stephen- just a heads up, Spin responds to what he wants the poster to have said, not what they actually did say.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 15:19:04 GMT
G. Hanks says:
By Atheistic secularism isn't an organisation, it's just people who do not belong to a religion. Whereas the Catholic church is an organisation allegedly covering up the acts of child abuse perpetuated by individuals.

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 15:19:59 GMT
Spin says:
Are you to judge your own family according to the faults, indiscretions or crimes of one member of your family?

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 15:45:05 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jan 2013 15:45:23 GMT
Judging an individuals actions and judging an organisation are not the same thing, you can tar an organisation with a big brush especially when prominent members are the ones doing the "covering up" but as in the case of a bad egg in a family lets say? It's not so easy to condemn them all on ones actions if the rest of the family are clearly against the actions of the individual

The Catholic church however had problems even as high as the Bishops, this is the wear the similarities are completely different

Also I didn't see anyone in any post imply that only the Catholic Organisation are the only ones guilty of such crimes, merely just the highlight of this particular topic

I don't mind Spin's posts they can add to the discussion or provoke certain thoughts that were elsewise placed at the back of your mind but this one particular is a bit out of context and unneeded

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 15:52:24 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Hi Stephen- the problem actually goes up as high as the current pope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?_r=2&hp&

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 15:53:20 GMT
Spin says:
Stephen: Do you judge your own family, your freinds, your collegues because of the fault of one of them? Do you you consider your circle of family and freinds to worthy of condemnation because one of you went astray in some manner?

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 15:56:00 GMT
Spin you are missing the fact that no one in a family unit speaks for the actions of everyone in that family, same goes for a group of friends and same goes for collegues. However in an institution like the Catholic Church for example there are people who speak for everyone and these people were involved in the "cover up" of the evidence.

This is why you can condemn the organisation as the individual was protected by it

My actions as an individual do not condemn my family, collegues or friends. If I murder someone we don't all do jail time

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 16:00:23 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 16:08:59 GMT
I don't blame people who are religious for any of the crimes of their church, I do however blame the Catholic Organisation for the wide spread "covering up" (struggling to find a better way of putting this, brain is tired from work I guess) of the facts. These acts of moving priests around different parishes and such wasn't orchastrated by a few individuals this would have had to be done with certain permissions from high up in the church itself meaning you could implicate the hierarchy which represents the church itself.

I don't mean to blame the religious for the acts of the organisation if it sounded that way then apologies. I fail to see how people could follow such men but I guess that isn't the topic at hand

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 16:40:39 GMT
G. Hanks says:
"Are you to judge your own family according to the faults, indiscretions or crimes of one member of your family?"

If the family defends such actions and crimes (or tries to hide them) then yes.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 16:57:07 GMT
G. Hanks says:
"But it is acceptable to blame the religious for the crimes of a minority who clearly do not represent the majority."

Isn't that fairly standard though. BP were blamed for the Gulf of Mexico, the individuals involved weren't all singled out, the whole company got it. So why should the Catholic Church be any different from any other business?

It's worth noting that the Catholic Church (an organisation) is being blamed not cathlocism itself (although the unnatural call for chastity/celibacy could arguably lead to increases in sexual deviation.)

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 14:27:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 14:28:44 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 14:44:38 GMT
G. Hanks says:
Well catholics may disagree but Catholicism is a belief system but the Catholic church is an organisation to help facilitate said belief system. Are we falling back into pedantry again? ;-)

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 14:50:33 GMT
A church follower and a member of the church organisation are two completely different things Spin, lets not pretend that people can't tell the difference between a person going to a church and a Bishop... because that would just be complete and total nonsense

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 14:54:22 GMT
Spin says:
G; No, not at all. But catholic doctrine is that the church IS catholicism. Christ and the organised church are one and the same. ( The creed; I believe in one Holy, catholic, and apostolic church). You cannot extend secular opinion of religion to a religion itself. To refute a religion one must address it in its own terms.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 14:59:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 15:00:30 GMT
No matter what their book says or their so called "God" there is still a distinct difference between lets say the "flock" and the Catholic Organisation itself

What they say and what they do, there are still distinctions that are easily made and I find this is a moot point that is really going nowhere

The followers don't have the power the be involved in any of the things mentioned above

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 16:39:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jan 2013 16:41:00 GMT
The Vatican is not the Church -- even by its own estimates. The Church is the people of God. The Vatican left to the Bishops to deal with child abuse. SOme acted in exemplary fashion, others didn't. Now new protocols are in place. CA Small started this thread I believe. He has started various others on this topic. He would be better advised looking at the record of the institutions of his own country. He is not a Catholic and has no influence on Catholicism. In this particular case the enquiry into sex abuse has been halted through legal objections held to be fairly convincing on the part of a small group of conservative priests (no suggestion they are themselves abusers) that their civic rights are being infringed by their confidential records being opened up to a third party. Once legal safeguards are put in place and legal advice taken the Bishops are to reopen the enquiry. I hold no brief for either side but CA always takes the negative view where the church is concerned. He has taken the very opposite with the Savile affaire and Uk institutions.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 16:42:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Jan 2013 23:51:42 GMT
Obelix says:
Only he hasn't. Lie again and see your posts vanish.

Your argument effectively boils down to exonerating the Church of any and all accountability for any wrong doing by its members. This is not only self serving, it is immoral.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  126
Initial post:  10 Jan 2013
Latest post:  11 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions