Catholic Church all over the Phillippines disaster like a rash

Cabaal

ewan whose army wrote: »

At least they are helping, I remember after 7/7 (London terror attacks) the Scientologists had some form of assistance where they offered people massages (seriously) and literally got in the way to stop grief councillors and you know proper psychologists in to help the victims.

Maybe massages helped people?
Likely helped some people as much as praying helps others

ewan whose army

Cabaal wrote: »

Maybe massages helped people?
Likely helped some people as much as praying helps others

Yup look up Scientology volunteer minister. They also went to Haiti (since Scientology bullied the UN into letting them in) did nothing, had no idea the country's infrastructure was destroyed (they forgot supplies and assumed they could get them there and then) and apparently just got in the way of real aid workers.

They are a bunch of grief vultures, apparently in London they tried to recruit people who were traumatised by being a victim of a terror attack.

Benny_Cake

vicwatson wrote: »

Because with the Catholic Church there always comes conditions. They should get as much aid as required unconditionally.

Really? Do organisations such as Trocaire (who would be a partner of the Catholic relief organisation in the Philippines) impose any conditions other than the person being in need? Despite no longer being a Catholic, I started volunteering recently with the SVP and I can say that the only criteria that governs whether help is given or not is the need of the person. Nobody is asked what religion they are, if any.

Dfmnoc

Why cant they use some of that 8 billion they have sitting in the bank

Sarky

They need that money for moving priests to different parishes after each abuse scandal.

feargale

vicwatson wrote: »

Irrelevant, what I donate is my business

And what Dermot Martin donates is your business too? And what you donate is nobody's business? Nice work, which you can only get in certain threads on boards. Maybe you should invite some Filipino victims in here to say which aid they will accept and which they won't accept. Or perhaps you know better than them about that. This thread is the ultimate in begrudgery.

Brian Shanahan

feargale wrote: »

And what Dermot Martin donates is your business too? And what you donate is nobody's business?

Well he is going around publically telling the rest of us to give to his church's "attempt" to help the poor of the Philipines. And we all know how great catholic churches are at helping the needy*.

*Provided the needy consist solely of illegitimate children of bishops.

Galwayguy35

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well he is going around publically telling the rest of us to give to his church's "attempt" to help the poor of the Philipines. And we all know how great catholic churches are at helping the needy*.

*Provided the needy consist solely of illegitimate children of bishops.

It was the people of Dublin he was asking to help the charity that is based there that needs food, if your going to bitch about the man at least get your facts correct.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well he is going around publically telling the rest of us to give to his church's "attempt" to help the poor of the Philipines.

Says a man living in a fcuking palace...

Seaneh

gaynorvader wrote: »

I agree, though I think the point by the OP is that the RCC is more charitable towards its flock than those not of its flock. Which is perfectly acceptable in my view.

I'm no fan of the catholicchurch but wasn't there church collections in aid of flood victims on Pakistan not too long ago as well as collections for tsunami survivors a few years ago?

Benny_Cake

Seaneh wrote: »

I'm no fan of the catholicchurch but wasn't there church collections in aid of flood victims on Pakistan not too long ago as well as collections for tsunami survivors a few years ago?

I think there were collections in Catholic churches. The various Catholic relief agencies certainly provided aid in both cases, for example:

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/tsunami/
http://www.cafod.org.uk/News/Emergencies-news/Pakistan-floods-2013

In any case, Diarmuid Martin was talking about hunger in Dublin, not the Philippines. I trust that the OP will clear up that mistake in due course, as well as providing some kind of clarity as to what strings are attached to aid provided by Catholic relief organisations.

Donnielighto

Goons here being really reprehensible. Jumping on aid donations as if they are bad in disaster situation. Plenty of things you can criticise organisations for but this aint one.

Bannasidhe

Yes. The RCC has the network.
Yes. It doesn't really matter the 'source' of the aid but that the aid arrives and there are no strings attached..

This is why the RCC distributes aid (even if the funds don't actually come out of it's own coffers) but claims no credit for it...after all, good works are their own reward and...

Oh wait....

TheIrishGrover

Of course. Now I see what you're on about. Ah. So they turn away non christians. Or they make them sign a form to convert to christianity. Or they give all christians a test to see if they are catholic or not.

There is video of this? There is proof of this? There are suggestions of this? There are rumours of this? Is anyone saying this is happening?

I haven't heard anything like that happening. Again, back to my point: WHO CARES who helps these people? The catholic church can do more good there than secular organisations so let them at it. Not every priest is there looking out for some young piece of ass. Not every priest or volunteer is there for the good of the church. I'm sure most are there because they want to help.

Bannasidhe

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Of course. Now I see what you're on about. Ah. So they turn away non christians. Or they make them sign a form to convert to christianity. Or they give all christians a test to see if they are catholic or not.

There is video of this? There is proof of this? There are suggestions of this? There are rumours of this? Is anyone saying this is happening?

I haven't heard anything like that happening. Again, back to my point: WHO CARES who helps these people? The catholic church can do more good there than secular organisations so let them at it. Not every priest is there looking out for some young piece of ass. Not every priest or volunteer is there for the good of the church. I'm sure most are there because they want to help.

Yeah - because our RCC dominated education system doesn't spread lies about relief measures taken by Protestants in our Famine being used to force people to convert.

They are quick enough to cast aspersions other's actions - turn about is fair play.

Yes - I care if their 'relief' comes with a) a price tag and b) is used as a PR opportunity.

Galwayguy35

I doubt they lied about the 1 million people left to die in ditches, and who are probably buried all around us while the food was exported by the British.

We got fook all help from them.

Bannasidhe

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I doubt they lied about the 1 million people left to die in ditches, and who are probably buried all around us while the food was exported by the British.

We got fook all help from them.

Mods - please feel free to move this to a new thread so not to drag this one off topic.

Care to play cite your sources?

I should warn you I have a certain amount of experience in this particular field.

I'll begin shall I with the 'we got fook all help off them/ Souperism' shall I?

Famine and ‘souperism’

Daly was [ANGLICAN] bishop during the calamity that was the Great Famine. He was an active participant in efforts to relieve sufferings in Waterford city. Two food shipments, sent by American Quakers, arrived in Waterford in June 1847. The distribution of this aid was entrusted to responsible local personages, among whom was Bishop Daly. The city was divided into districts, the bishop taking one, and he went around from house to house with tickets for coal, soup and clothing. He made contact with many influential people in England, allocating to each of them a particular parish or town in his diocese that they might ‘adopt’ as a special care.




Carrick-on-Suir, for example, became the special concern of Blackheath, near London. Large collections were made in the English church every Sunday, averaging from £30 to £40, and sent the following day to the vicar of Carrick. Daly himself received large sums of money from England and he proved himself a judicious almoner. Bishop Daly’s efforts were praised by a Catholic priest, Revd John Sheehan, when proposing him for the chair of a new relief committee formed in the city in March 1847. Sheehan referred to the ‘great zeal and attention’ displayed by Daly for the interests of the poor.
The famine, however, caused religious divisions throughout Ireland, with some Protestant clergy and laity being accused of ‘souperism’, the securing of conversions through material blandishments, especially food, most commonly in the form of soup. Waterford was not immune to the poison of religious divisions. Allegations were soon being made in the local nationalist organ, the Chronicle, that Anglican clergymen were engaging in this practice in parts of the county. Daly was accused of inciting such activities. In the light of what was regarded as his unrelenting anti-Catholicism, the Chronicle declared its intention to ‘keep a lookout after the doings of the Rt. Revd. Perverter’. A Revd Fry was accused of souperism and was believed to be acting under the guidance of Daly.
While souperism was practised in Waterford, it was not widespread. The strongest indicator is the absence of substantial reportage in the Chronicle, an avowed enemy of the established church. What of the allegations directed at Daly personally? He certainly came to Waterford with a reputation for hostility towards their church in the eyes of many Catholics. At a time of religious tensions he was viewed with suspicion. His attitude to Catholicism may have encouraged some evangelicals to engage in souperism. There is no evidence, however, that Daly personally engaged in this practice. The many accusations made against him reflected a deteriorating religious climate, not actual deeds carried out by him. On the contrary, contemporaries praised Daly’s efforts at famine relief, as noted in the comments of Fr Sheehan.

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/bishop-robert-daly-irelands-protestant-pope/

Galwayguy35

More could have been done, I'm gonna move this away from the whole catholic/ prodestant/ atheist thing and say, yeah no catholic priest starved either.

They all failed the people back then.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yeah - because our RCC dominated education system doesn't spread lies about relief measures taken by Protestants in our Famine being used to force people to convert.

I read in today's Irish Times about appeals for donations, Presbyterians and CoI are routing their donations through Christian Aid, RCC through Trocaire... even in a situation like this, the main 'christian' denominations don't trust each other enough to make a joint effort.

This made me a sad panda.

I'll be donating to MSF.

Kidchameleon

ninja900 wrote: »

I read in today's Irish Times about appeals for donations, Presbyterians and CoI are routing their donations through Christian Aid, RCC through Trocaire... even in a situation like this, the main 'christian' denominations don't trust each other enough to make a joint effort.

This made me a sad panda.

I'll be donating to MSF.

How exactly do you equate that to them not trusting each other?

MrPudding

ewan whose army wrote: »

I don't mind Church groups assisting people in need, at least the Vatican is spending some of its immense wealth on people who actually need help.

Spending some of its immense wealth? You sure? Are they liquidating assets? Selling art? Emptying bank accounts? Or perhaps they are simply redistributing money donated by it's inexplicably loyal followers.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How exactly do you equate that to them not trusting each other?

OK, I'll bite. Why do you think that very similar christian churches would all agree that it is the duty of christians to give aid, that aid to the third world/victims of natural disasters is a good thing, yet each set up their own separate organisations to do this?

They're hung up on their minor differences not their huge similarities. Or, in cruder terms they recognise that when it comes down to soul-winning and $$$ at the collection plate, they're bitter competitors, with products that have no differentiating features apart from branding and marketing.

If you have a better explanation I'm all ears.

Kidchameleon

ninja900 wrote: »

OK, I'll bite. Why do you think that very similar christian churches would all agree that it is the duty of christians to give aid, that aid to the third world/victims of natural disasters is a good thing, yet each set up their own separate organisations to do this?

They're hung up on their minor differences not their huge similarities. Or, in cruder terms they recognise that when it comes down to soul-winning and $$$ at the collection plate, they're bitter competitors, with products that have no differentiating features apart from branding and marketing.

If you have a better explanation I'm all ears.

There's hundreds of organizations collecting for this particular disaster, why don't they all join forces? Is it because they don't "trust" each other? Or is it because they are just different organizations?

Scartbeg

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There's hundreds of organizations collecting for this particular disaster, why don't they all join forces? Is it because they don't "trust" each other? Or is it because they are just different organizations?

This duplication of effort is the one thing that puts me off donating to charities. I have this innate feeling that a substantial percentage of donations goes to supporting CEOs and other full time staff who make a living out of this industry, however altruistic they may be. There must surely be some scope for rationalisation of organisations which share a common cause.

I prefer to support local causes where direct use of resources is clearly demonstrated.

And don't get me started on "Walking the Great Wall" charity challenges and the like!

goose2005

It's only fair, it was after all their god that did it

galait

Just in from Mass , There was a collection for Trocaire to assist Phillipines and Syria , It was astonishing to see the huge amount 50 & 20 Euro Notes in the Baskets , I was sitting adjacent to the sarcristy and saw them all being brought in , Irish people are still very generous in a crisis.

Cabaal

Wife happenwd to be in a mass this evening, priest asked everyone to pray for all the catholics...supoose to hell with all then non catholics then ?

TwoShedsJackson

Cabaal wrote: »

Wife happenwd to be in a mass this evening, priest asked everyone to pray for all the catholics...supoose to hell with all then non catholics then ?

Of course, any god they may follow is MADE UP!!

Kidchameleon

Cabaal wrote: »

Wife happenwd to be in a mass this evening, priest asked everyone to pray for all the catholics...supoose to hell with all then non catholics then ?

i find that hard to beleive

Galwayguy35

Kidchameleon wrote: »

i find that hard to beleive

+1

Any time a Priest prays for those killed or hurt in a disaster everyone is included, they would never say "let's just pray for the Catholics".

Cabaal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

i find that hard to beleive

I can assure you thats exactly what the priest said.

Are you suggesting my wife is lieing?

Soft Falling Rain

Sarky wrote: »

They need that money for moving priests to different parishes after each abuse scandal.

I find it pretty sad that someone would use abuse scandals as some kind of exercise in point scoring.

Sarky

That's nice.

Soft Falling Rain

The catholic church, and religion in general, can piss me off no end. But I can recognise their good aspects as well as their failures. Recognising the good they do doesn't make you any less of an atheist. One doesn't always have to be in attack mode.

Sheldons Brain

Wife happenwd to be in a mass this evening, priest asked everyone to pray for all the catholics

If some of the non Catholics in the Philippines were like some posters here, they'd take offence if they priest included them in the prayers! You'd can't win.

Turtwig

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If some of the non Catholics in the Philippines were like some posters here, they'd take offence if they priest included them in the prayers! You'd can't win.

Especially not if you're caught in a time loop. Best. Episode. Ever.

recedite

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Trocaire and some of the Irish orders have a long history in the Philippines, and the local Caritas affiliates have a big local presence which are probably very well placed......

Stinicker wrote: »

I consider myself a lapsed Catholic but this year I visited the Philippines before any of these disasters struck and I can say that when I returned I found my faith reinvigorated and restored. The church is doing many great things in this country and is genuinely helping people.

The strong influence of years of catholic teaching is manifested in their ridiculously high birth rates, overcrowded maternity hospitals and lack of emphasis on real education as opposed to indoctrination. Compare to the Chinese effort where huge resources have been invested in educating a comparatively smaller population in the younger generation, and also building up the country's infastructure.
If that same typhoon had hit a better organised country they wouldn't have had the same high casualty rate. I'll still donate to MSF for them, but I wonder will the survivors now implement such measures as early warning weather alert systems, mandatory evacuation protocols in coastal regions, concrete houses etc......
or will they just Thank God They Were Spared and carry on.

Sheldons Brain

Especially not if you're caught in a time loop. Best. Episode. Ever.

"Oh, it is a hoot and a half. You write your sins on a clay pigeon, they fire ‘em up in the air, and you pulverize them with a 12-gauge shotgun full of our Lord’s forgiveness."

robindch

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Any time a Priest prays for those killed or hurt in a disaster everyone is included, they would never say "let's just pray for the Catholics".

You might want to tell that to Herr Ratzinger who addressed his largest communication about religious child abuse in Ireland to the "catholics of Ireland" only.

The text of the letter is here and the title of the document and the first paragraph make it clear that Ratzinger has no interest in people who are not catholics:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

Turtwig

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

"Oh, it is a hoot and a half. You write your sins on a clay pigeon, they fire ‘em up in the air, and you pulverize them with a 12-gauge shotgun full of our Lord’s forgiveness."

Uhh I think we're talking about the wrong television show now. :pac:

Galwayguy35

robindch wrote: »

You might want to tell that to Herr Ratzinger who addressed his largest communication about religious child abuse in Ireland to the "catholics of Ireland" only.

The text of the letter is here and the title of the document and the first paragraph make it clear that Ratzinger has no interest in people who are not catholics:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

It was going to be read to Catholics so that might explain the heading, at no point was the apology meant to be to only Catholic victims and I'm assuming you have the cop on to know that, not sure why ya posted this in my direction anyway.

And how do you know he had no interest in victims who aren't Catholic?

Cabaal

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It was going to be read to Catholics so that might explain the heading, at no point was the apology meant to be to only Catholic victims and I'm assuming you have the cop on to know that, not sure why ya posted this in my direction anyway.

And how do you know he had no interest in victims who aren't Catholic?

Your whole post is an assumption, youve no factual basis for your claims.

At the end of the day the letter said what it said,

if i wrote a letter starting with "to the jews of Ireland " are you going to turn around and claim i intented it for everyone and not just the jews?

robindch

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It was going to be read to Catholics so that might explain the heading, at no point was the apology meant to be to only Catholic victims and I'm assuming you have the cop on to know that, not sure why ya posted this in my direction anyway.

I posted this in your direction because you made a claim that priests "would never say "let's just pray for the Catholics"". I posted evidence that disproves your claim. You can thank me for correcting your understanding when you feel ready to

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

And how do you know he had no interest in victims who aren't Catholic?

I'm inferring that he had no interest in non-catholics since in his 4,600 words of carefully self- and institutionally-exculpatory prose, he constantly referred to "us", "our", "we" while opening the letter and including a first paragraph which indicated quite clearly who he was referring to.

So far as I recall of the remainder -- and I must apologize here as I don't have the time to re-read all of it as carefully as it deserves -- Ratzinger didn't expend so much as a single word, a single thought or even raise so much as a single hair on a single eyebrow, towards anybody who wasn't a member of his peculiar religious club.

Galwayguy35

robindch wrote: »

I posted this in your direction because you made a claim that priests "would never say "let's just pray for the Catholics"". I posted evidence that disproves your claim. You can thank me for correcting your understanding when you feel ready to :)I'm inferring that he had no interest in non-catholics since in his 4,600 words of carefully self- and institutionally-exculpatory prose, he constantly referred to "us", "our", "we" while opening the letter and including a first paragraph which indicated quite clearly who he was referring to.

So far as I recall of the remainder -- and I must apologize here as I don't have the time to re-read all of it as carefully as it deserves -- Ratzinger didn't expend so much as a single word, a single thought or even raise so much as a single hair on a single eyebrow, towards anybody who wasn't a member of his peculiar religious club.

Nice way to describe anyone who is Catholic, do you say this to them in real life as well or just on here?

Cabaal

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Nice way to describe anyone who is Catholic, do you say this to them in real life as well or just on here?

Nice of you to dodge the issue,

robindch

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Nice way to describe anyone who is Catholic, do you say this to them in real life as well or just on here?

??? I didn't describe people who belong to Ratzinger's religon, so I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Anyhow, since you avoided responding to any of the meat of the post, I'll take it you concede that you were wrong.

Galwayguy35

Cabaal wrote: »

Nice of you to dodge the issue,

Nice of you to try and give me a dig, I've said what I think, he disagrees with me.

Such is life, I've no desire to try and convince you or anyone else of anything.

Galwayguy35

robindch wrote: »

??? I didn't describe people who belong to Ratzinger's religon, so I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Anyhow, since you avoided responding to any of the meat of the post, I'll take it you concede that you were wrong.

Peculiar religious club, so that wasn't a description of the Catholic church then was it?

As for rest, I said what my take was on it, you disagree.

So be it.

robindch

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Peculiar religious club, so that wasn't a description of the Catholic church then was it?

Yes, it was a description of the RCC, but not, as you seemed to think, a description of the people who claim membership of it, or more often around here anyway, people who have membership claimed upon their behalf.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

As for rest, I said what my take was on it, you disagree. So be it.

No. Or at least, not around here. Here's how online debate works:

You make a factual claim ("priests pray for everybody when things go bad"). Your claim is rebutted by somebody producing evidence that your claim is false ("er, here's this guy Ratzinger who certainly didn't"). In this case, you must either (a) rebut the rebuttal; or (b) admit your original claim was false; or (c) by failing to rebut or admit anything (and in your case, rather crassly ignoring what was written), then you're publicly failing to defend your claim, in which case it's assumed that you can't defend it since it's false.

Since you've done neither (a) nor (b), then by default, you're admitting that your original claim was indefensible, so everybody is free to conclude that your original claim was false.

Hope this helps.

feargale

Fiddling while Rome burns.

Edit: for Rome, read the Philippines.