Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Options
1…6162646667…71

Comments

  • Options
    #1892
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭optogirl


    prinz wrote: »
    Chances are you are safer in the RCC these days as you are anywhere else. I know one priest who has been forbidden by superiors from being in the same room as his niece without another adult present, apparently a widespread warning. I don't think any other organisation in the world goes to similar lengths.


    Most don't have to


  • Options
    #1893
    Irish_polizei
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭Irish_polizei


    How the F#ck did this gobsh#te get 127 pages of replies in a few days? :eek:


  • Options
    #1894
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    optogirl wrote: »
    Most don't have to

    But that's highly unfair. You can't assume every priest is a child molester. The vast majority most likely aren't. Just like you can't assume every athiest is smug and condscending;)


  • Options
    #1895
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    koth wrote: »
    And what if you don't want to join another religion? They've removed the procedure to officially leave the Catholic church.

    ....and? That's a monumental cock-up on their part, but as described it seems to be some sort of interim measure. They may, and should, make it a simpler process.


  • Options
    #1896
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Irish_polizei wrote: »
    How the F#ck did this gobsh#te get 127 pages of replies in a few days? :eek:

    I guess it's a loaded topic!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1897
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭optogirl


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    But that's highly unfair. You can't assume every priest is a child molester. Just like you can't assume every athiest is smug and condscending;)


    Sorry but it isn't unfair to say that most organisations don't have to put a ban on adults being in the same room as children without supervision. I never said anything like 'all priests are paedophiles'. Will you read posts before you attack and then smiley face them please


  • Options
    #1898
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    optogirl wrote: »
    Most don't have to

    Which clearly shows that you don't have an understanding of rates of abuse etc. Even at the height of the abuse during the last 50 years you were no more likely to be abused by a Catholic priest than anyone else. So it's completely misleading to maintain that "most don't have to". In fact similar arrangements are followed by most teachers, sport coaches, etc. Really anyone in contact with kids.


  • Options
    #1899
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    prinz wrote: »
    ....and? That's a monumental cock-up on their part, but as described it seems to be some sort of interim measure. They may, and should, make it a simpler process.

    Hopefully they will.

    I was just pointing out that not all definitions of changing your religion are fine with the Vatican is all.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1900
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Irish_polizei wrote: »
    How the F#ck did this gobsh#te get 127 pages of replies in a few days? :eek:

    He insulted and stereotyped a large proportion of boards user base into a bunch of religious bashing, bible burning fanatics. Showing a complete lack of understanding regarding evolution, science and the concept of atheism along the way.


  • Options
    #1901
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    prinz wrote: »
    I know one priest who has been forbidden by superiors from being in the same room as his niece without another adult present, apparently a widespread warning. I don't think any other organisation in the world goes to similar lengths.

    Prinz, I'm a little worried that you think a man having such an order against his own niece is something to boast about. Especially when he presumably professes to give moral guidance.
    I can't imagine this would be tolerated in any other organisation: he would be fired.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1902
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Malty_T wrote: »
    He insulted and stereotyped a large proportion of boards user base into a bunch of religious bashing, bible burning fanatics. Showing a complete lack of understanding regarding evolution, science and the concept of atheism along the way.

    Those threads usually last 3 or 4 pages of "the pope's a nazi and ur a paedo". :pac:


  • Options
    #1903
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,189 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    prinz wrote: »
    Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh - oh wait that's stupid childishness.

    Hahahaha, ridiculous!

    I can't leave the RCC! Only by their conditions should they either kick me out or decide that they recognise whatever religion i choose to join.

    What if i don't want to join another religion?

    Scraping the barrell here my friend.


  • Options
    #1904
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    optogirl wrote: »
    Sorry but it isn't unfair to say that most organisations don't have to put a ban on adults being in the same room as children without supervision. I never said anything like 'all priests are paedophiles'. Will you read posts before you attack and then smiley face them please

    No but from your quote I assume you agree that the priest should stay away from his niece?

    That's what I'm saying is unfair. You cannot tar them all with one brush.


  • Options
    #1905
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Prinz, I'm a little worried that you think a man having such an order against his own niece is something to boast about. Especially when he presumably professes to give moral guidance.
    I can't imagine this would be tolerated in any other organisation: he would be fired.

    I think you have misunderstood the situation. He has never, ever, ever, ever been remotely linked to anything regarding child abuse. Why would he be fired? :confused: Engaging the typing fingers before engaging the brain it seems. Yes fire him,.....uhm what for exactly?

    The order is a general one that is going down the line to many, if not all, priests, and should greatly improve child protection, albeit often times at a personal cost to the individual priests.

    You need to stop quick-firing and start digesting what people are actually saying.


  • Options
    #1906
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Prinz, I'm a little worried that you think a man having such an order against his own niece is something to boast about. Especially when he presumably professes to give moral guidance.
    I can't imagine this would be tolerated in any other organisation: he would be fired.

    Again just because he's priest does not mean he's out to rape and hurt her.


  • Options
    #1907
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭optogirl


    prinz wrote: »
    Which clearly shows that you don't have an understanding of rates of abuse etc. Even at the height of the abuse during the last 50 years you were no more likely to be abused by a Catholic priest than anyone else.


    Get your head out of the sand. It is the institution itself that is responsible for this scourge- they are responsible for the systematic abuse and COVERING UP OF ABUSE of thousands of children. Their reaction was to protect the abusers and deny deny deny until a costly and in depth report exposed them for what they are. If a nurse or popstar or truck driver was found to be guilty of any of the Church's sins, unless their union or organisation stood by them and indeed supported them, you cannot say that the institutions themselves are flawed, merely the individuals. However, in the case of the church, it is the institution itself that oversaw, allowed and denied these abuses and continued to shelter the scumbags that perpetrated the crimes.


  • Options
    #1908
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    prinz wrote: »
    I think you have misunderstood the situation. He has never, ever, ever, ever been remotely linked to anything regarding child abuse. Why would he be fired? :confused:
    I must have: why would he be barred then?
    The order is a general one that is going down the line to many, if not all, priests, and should greatly improve child protection, albeit often times at a personal cost to the individual priests.
    Why didn't you say so then instead of "a priest"?
    :confused: It was misleading
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Again just because he's priest does not mean he's out to rape and hurt her.
    :rolleyes:
    Audrey really you need to grasp contexts behind posts or read them properly or something. I'm not the one who issued the barring order in the first place. You seem to be misreading all mentions of "priest" as "child molester" on this thread.


  • Options
    #1909
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    optogirl wrote: »
    Get your head out of the sand. It is the institution itself that is responsible for this scourge- they are responsible for the systematic abuse and COVERING UP OF ABUSE of thousands of children. Their reaction was to protect the abusers and deny deny deny until a costly and in depth report exposed them for what they are. If a nurse or popstar or truck driver was found to be guilty of any of the Church's sins, unless their union or organisation stood by them and indeed supported them, you cannot say that the institutions themselves are flawed, merely the individuals. However, in the case of the church, it is the institution itself that oversaw, allowed and denied these abuses and continued to shelter the scumbags that perpetrated the crimes.

    Not the entire Church as I've said but a certain group of individuals. You can't put the blame on every single member of the Church.


  • Options
    #1910
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭optogirl


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    No but from your quote I assume you agree that the priest should stay away from his niece?

    That's what I'm saying is unfair. You cannot tar them all with one brush.


    I didn't mention the priest or his niece!


  • Options
    #1911
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I must have: why would he be barred then?

    Why didn't you say so then instead of "a priest"?
    :confused: It was misleading


    :rolleyes:
    Audrey really you need to grasp contexts behind posts or read them properly or something. I'm not the one who issued the barring order in the first place. You seem to be misreading all mentions of "priest" as "child molester" on this thread.

    What else could the context be when the post is about priests, children and a barring order?

    And please don't patronise me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1912
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    prinz wrote: »
    Those threads usually last 3 or 4 pages of "the pope's a nazi and ur a paedo". :pac:

    Meh, it's the internet, any troll can fill a thread to 4 pages easily these days. You of all people know I don't follow or support the paedo argument.:)
    While threads like "Religion is child abuse" are frequent in AA, do you judge a book by its cover, a newspaper article by its headline, or the content within the book or newspaper article?


  • Options
    #1913
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    optogirl wrote: »
    I didn't mention the priest or his niece!

    I know but your post suggested to me you agreed with him being stopped from seeing her without anyone else there merely because he's priest.


  • Options
    #1914
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭optogirl


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Not the entire Church as I've said but a certain group of individuals. You can't put the blame on every single member of the Church.


    No just the leaders and administrators of the organisation


  • Options
    #1915
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭optogirl


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    What else could the context be when the post is about priests, children and a barring order?

    And please don't patronise me.


    Audrey - please go back and read the sequence of posts and note who first posted the rubbish about a priest and his niece


  • Options
    #1916
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,414 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    prinz wrote: »
    Which clearly shows that you don't have an understanding of rates of abuse etc. Even at the height of the abuse during the last 50 years you were no more likely to be abused by a Catholic priest than anyone else.
    Entirely false.

    According to figures from the "Irish Catholic" "newspaper", priests are forty (40, four-zero) times more likely to be convicted of child-abuse and serving time in prison than non-priests. Specifically, it claimed that while priests made up 0.1% of the population, they made up 4% of the convicted pedophiles in prison.

    I rather suspect you may not understand the rates of abuse.


  • Options
    #1917
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭optogirl


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I know but your post suggested to me you agreed with him being stopped from seeing her without anyone else there merely because he's priest.


    I was not referring to that post. I hadn't even seen it until after I wrote mine. Please stop jumping down people's necks with 'not all priests are paedos'. Nobody suggested they were.


  • Options
    #1918
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I must have: why would he be barred then?

    Part of general child protection measures. He was warned not to be alone with kids... that went for family members.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    Why didn't you say so then instead of "a priest"? :confused: It was misleading

    I was giving an example I have heard recently, which was not particular to that man, but part of a wider shake up in the RCC, which was why I said it was a widespread warning. Sad really. I know he was deeply hurt... but he knew who to blame.


  • Options
    #1919
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    What else could the context be when the post is about priests, children and a barring order?

    And please don't patronise me.

    Then please don't put words into my mouth or into optogirl's.
    Prinz said *a* priest had a barring order [practically] against his underage niece. Obviously that sounds like he did something wrong. prinz has now clarified he hasn't and it's a general order.
    Jumping in to lecture me about "all priests aren't molesters" isn't helpful or relevant.


  • Options
    #1920
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,189 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    prinz wrote: »
    I think you have misunderstood the situation. He has never, ever, ever, ever been remotely linked to anything regarding child abuse. Why would he be fired? :confused:

    Even if he was he wouldn't be fired anyway!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1921
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭optogirl


    prinz wrote: »
    Sad really. I know he was deeply hurt... but he knew who to blame.


    Bertie?


Advertisement