Pope will vist Ireland in 2018(mod warning in Op)

RobertKK

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Anyone reading your pathetic defence of the paedophile behaviour of the Catholic Church knows enough about you to rebut your assertions.

Posting lies about me and trying to justify it is still lies.

54and56

Skommando wrote: »

behold the example of the doublespeak tolerant liberal that defends balance, diversity, equality and freedom from hatred, and distortion the truth (c)

I don't hate anyone and yes I am tolerant and will defend anyones right to believe whatever they want (providing it doesn't impact my right to not believe it), marry whoever they want etc but i will absolutely challenge the purveyors of and apologists for systematic sexual abuse.

If that that makes me intolerant in your book, you need a new book!!!

RobertKK

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I don't hate anyone and yes I am tolerant and will defend anyones right to believe whatever they want (providing it doesn't impact my right to not believe it), marry whoever they want etc but i will absolutely challenge the purveyors of and apologists for systematic sexual abuse.

If that that makes me intolerant in your book, you need a new book!!!

Well that is clearly a lie after what you posted about me.

I have not been an apologist for paedophiles. What you posted about me is sick. You also said I am a victim of the church as if you know me.
I just saw a one sided argument, decided to add some balance as the church has and does good.
Then you go and post lies about me, you have not been tolerant.

Kermit.de.frog

I think the Pope visiting would be a positive thing overall despite everything.

Bubbaclaus

Maybe St Patrick can rise again like his Arab uncle Jesus did and banish the paedophile snakish Catholic priests from Ireland.

foggy_lad

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

A half a dozen paedophiles in the BBC and a similar number in football clubs over the past three or four decades is in no way comparable to the 100+ paedophile priests IN ONE SINGLE DIOCESE in Ireland over the same period. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/101-priests-in-single-diocese-accused-of-abuse-in-40-years-268345.html

It is very telling that of all the 30 odd millions paid out so far in that one diocese one third of the total was paid out to lawyers to defend known paedophiles!

RobertKK wrote: »

The sexual abuse in the church was a very small percentage of overall abuse.
Also a very high percentage of the cases in the church were from the 1980s and earlier.
Nowadays a Garda vetted person and from what I see it seems to aways be women are present when the priest is alone with children to offer the children protection from abuse and the priest protection from false accusations.
Some act as if nothing has changed.

Most of the abuse did not happen in the church, it was at the priests houses or at the sports clubs and scouting trips or for some of the monsters they took special pleasure in visiting the poor childrens homes and becoming regular visitors with the parents so they could visit any time and pop up little johnny in his own fooking bedroom!

How dare you or anyone else make little of something so monstrous!

The vatican and bishops and all the canon lawyers who continued to shield and protect the paedophiles very often used this "false allegations" bull**** to deflect and defend the bastards while they moved them around to abuse kids at a new town with new schools and sports clubs scouts and girl guids etc.

10 year olds were well known in church circles to make these "false allegations" against priests and christian brothers because "they got into trouble" or "some adult put them up to it to get some money from the church."

When the Catholic Church pays it's Dues in full(€1billion+) in this small country of ours I will openly and warmly welcome the pope as the head of the RC Church, Until then the lot of them from their pope down to the church sacristans can die roaring in the fiery depths of Hell!

RobertKK

foggy_lad wrote: »

It is very telling that of all the 30 odd millions paid out so far in that one diocese one third of the total was paid out to lawyers to defend known paedophiles!

Most of the abuse did not happen in the church, it was at the priests houses or at the sports clubs and scouting trips or for some of the monsters they took special pleasure in visiting the poor childrens homes and becoming regular visitors with the parents so they could visit any time and pop up little johnny in his own fooking bedroom!

How dare you or anyone else make little of something so monstrous!

The vatican and bishops and all the canon lawyers who continued to shield and protect the paedophiles very often used this "false allegations" bull**** to deflect and defend the bastards while they moved them around to abuse kids at a new town with new schools and sports clubs scouts and girl guids etc.

10 year olds were well known in church circles to make these "false allegations" against priests and christian brothers because "they got into trouble" or "some adult put them up to it to get some money from the church."

Are you saying priests should not have legal representation?

foggy_lad

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you saying priests should not have legal representation?

They did not just have legal representation!

The bishops and Vatican knew many of these monsters were guilty as they had arranged payouts and confidentiality agreements and forced parents and young children to sign them and yet these holy people arranged the best defence that money could buy for monsters who they knew were guilty!

RobertKK

foggy_lad wrote: »

They did not just have legal representation!

The bishops and Vatican knew many of these monsters were guilty as they had arranged payouts and confidentiality agreements and forced parents and young children to sign them and yet these holy people arranged the best defence that money could buy for monsters who they knew were guilty!

Not all the people accused were monsters.
They all deserve a fair trial, not the RTE justice system that Fr Reynolds received, or the trials that collapsed where it was found the accuser lied to try and receive compensation for nothing.
That is why everyone even the most heinous criminal deserves a fair trial.
Everyone wants the guilty to go to prison, but I don't believe anyone wants innocent people being accused and possibly convicted, and given there has been at least one trial where the accuser ended up in prison, then having proper legal representation is essential.
RTE had to waste our money with their false accusations, and I watched that program and I was disgusted by Fr Reynolds, when it was RTE that ended up getting away with it via a pay off.
I just believe everyone deserves a fair trial, however guilty we believe the person to be.
if guilty , let them rot in prison, but then that is another story with our lax justice system.

The flying mouse

RobertKK wrote: »

Not all the people accused were monsters.
They all deserve a fair trial, not the RTE justice system that Fr Reynolds received, or the trials that collapsed where it was found the accuser lied to try and receive compensation for nothing.
That is why everyone even the most heinous criminal deserves a fair trial.
Everyone wants the guilty to go to prison, but I don't believe anyone wants innocent people being accused and possibly convicted, and given there has been at least one trial where the accuser ended up in prison, then having proper legal representation is essential.
RTE had to waste our money with their false accusations, and I watched that program and I was disgusted by Fr Reynolds, when it was RTE that ended up getting away with it via a pay off.
I just believe everyone deserves a fair trial, however guilty we believe the person to be.
if guilty , let them rot in prison, but then that is another story with our lax justice system.

Robert stop defending the indefensible,The Catholic Church covered up horrendous crimes against children to protects its own interests, And yes there were some falsh crys but for the majority it was a cry for help.

If they were so concerned about its victims the church would have plead guilty to the systematic cover up of abuse,And not have a huge defence team which cost thousands, also one must remember with the help of the Irish goverment & not forgetting the Garda involvement either.(see Murphy report)

Having said that I have no problem with the pope comming to Ireland but I would like an apology on Irish soil to the the people of Ireland & especially its victims.


Just to add I was very much against the queens vist back a few years ago,but it turned out to be a good vist which did more to better our relations than not, maybe the same can happen here ?

Didas

The flying mouse wrote: »

Robert stop defending the indefensible,The Catholic Church covered up horrendous crimes against children to protects its own interests, And yes there were some falsh crys but for the majority it was a cry for help.

If they were so concerned about its victims the church would have plead guilty to the systematic cover up of abuse,And not have a huge defence team which cost thousands, also one must remember with the help of the Irish goverment & not forgetting the Garda involvement either.(see Murphy report)

Having said that I have no problem with the pope comming to Ireland but I would like an apology on Irish soil to the the people of Ireland & especially its victims.


Just to add I was very much against the queens vist back a few years ago,but it turned out to be a good vist which did more to better our relations than not, maybe the same can happen here ?

The visit of the Head of State of our neighbours, who we share strong cultural, economic and political links with, is not the same as the visit of the leader of the worlds largest cult.

It is good and beneficial for ourselves and Britain to reconcile and improve relations, and the Queens visit did a lot to help that process. In this case on the other hand, the sooner all remaining links between Ireland and the Catholic church are severed the better. We do not need to better relations with Rome, we need to let whats left of those relations die.

The flying mouse

tonygun wrote: »

The visit of the Head of State of our neighbours, who we share strong cultural, economic and political links with, is not the same as the visit of the leader of the worlds largest cult.

It is good and beneficial for ourselves and Britain to reconcile and improve relations, and the Queens visit did a lot to help that process. In this case on the other hand, the sooner all remaining links between Ireland and the Catholic church are severed the better. We do not need to better relations with Rome, we need to let whats left of those relations die.

Is the pope not a head of state ? & I don't have the opinion that the CC is a cult.

RobertKK

The flying mouse wrote: »

Robert stop defending the indefensible,The Catholic Church covered up horrendous crimes against children to protects its own interests, And yes there were some falsh crys but for the majority it was a cry for help.

If they were so concerned about its victims the church would have plead guilty to the systematic cover up of abuse,And not have a huge defence team which cost thousands, also one must remember with the help of the Irish goverment & not forgetting the Garda involvement either.(see Murphy report)

Having said that I have no problem with the pope comming to Ireland but I would like an apology on Irish soil to the the people of Ireland & especially its victims.


Just to add I was very much against the queens vist back a few years ago,but it turned out to be a good vist which did more to better our relations than not, maybe the same can happen here ?

I was just defending the right to representation in a justice system and complained about how lax the prison time is for the guilty.
I would not consider that defending the indefensible.

whisky_galore

The flying mouse wrote: »

also one must remember with the help of the Irish goverment & not forgetting the Garda involvement either.(see Murphy report)

The vast majority of the population at the time colluded with the RCC, by allowing to happen and by staying silent.
People dumped their own family members into the laundries for pete's sake.

The RCC is no better than a brainwashing cult.

Hotblack Desiato

You know well that's not all you were doing Robert. There was also denial, obfuscation, whataboutery, and some irrelevant nonsense which by your own admission you just threw in there because you were losing the argument so badly.

RobertKK

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You know well that's not all you were doing Robert. There was also denial, obfuscation, whataboutery, and some irrelevant nonsense which by your own admission you just threw in there because you were losing the argument so badly.

The nonsense is coming from a select few in this thread who put the sexual abuse of minors on a rating system based on what organisation is responsible, despite cover up being cover up.
Then they choose to get personal and I was called an apologist for paedophiles for no good reason, and that I was abused by the church as I was brain washed, as if the person knew me.
People are losing arguments when they have to resort to that nonsense by making it personal.

padd b1975

ken wrote: »

Mod- Knock it on the head with the Catholic bashing please. No more references to them being a pedo cult etc.

Absolutely pointless issuing a warning and then not following up on it.

Bubbaclaus

padd b1975 wrote: »

Absolutely pointless issuing a warning and then not following up on it.

Pefectly reasonable when the head of the wealthiest organisation in the world has been invited to our nation to bring up its atrocities. The Catholic Church has tried to stifle free speech enough in this country.

OverRide

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Pefectly reasonable when the head of the wealthiest organisation in the world has been invited to our nation to bring up its atrocities. The Catholic Church has tried to stifle free speech enough in this country.

Do we remind mrs Merkel of Hitler's atrocities each time she visits?
This present Pope was not head of the Catholic Church when this was going on and systems are in place to prevent a repeat just as there are in Germany for to protect the Jews now

There
I've done it,Godwins law
Can we build a bridge now and get over it?

The Draugan

padd b1975 wrote: »

Absolutely pointless issuing a warning and then not following up on it.

I do think it's unfair to label all priests as paedophiles , i 100 % agree with you on that.

But at the same time i can fully understand the hostility in this thread towords the church given the abuses and atrocities it has committed in this state since it's inception. The upper echelons of the Church which the pope represents have covered up child abuse and shield paedophile priests and continue to do so.

In that regard the negative sentiment twords the church , the pope and his visit is understandable here.

rafatoni

[q uote="foggy_lad;101822210"]The old are there watching! Thankfully people are more educated now and don't have such large families so are not as reliant on the church to take their children and put them tmhrough school hell.

They never moved with the times because they cman't! Their game plan was always to take advantage of the poor, ignorant and illiterate people who they themselves created with their rules on family and contraception and how a woman was committing crimes against God by not letting her husband fcuk her or even rape her till she had a baby every ten months!

The catholic church here was worse than Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania!

Once people got education and travelled to see the world they knew they didn't have to accept the rule of the church.

Tax them and all other religious groups out of existence!
Pass a law that any property owned by these groups is forfeited to the state![/quote]

RobertKK

rafatoni wrote: »

[q uote="foggy_lad;101822210"]The old are there watching! Thankfully people are more educated now and don't have such large families so are not as reliant on the church to take their children and put them tmhrough school hell.

They never moved with the times because they cman't! Their game plan was always to take advantage of the poor, ignorant and illiterate people who they themselves created with their rules on family and contraception and how a woman was committing crimes against God by not letting her husband fcuk her or even rape her till she had a baby every ten months!

The catholic church here was worse than Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania!

Once people got education and travelled to see the world they knew they didn't have to accept the rule of the church.

Tax them and all other religious groups out of existence!
Pass a law that any property owned by these groups is forfeited to the state!

[/QUOTE]

The church won't be taxed when figures from the Economist estimate the church spends it money in the following ways:
57% on healthcare - about $97 billion a year
28% on education - close to $47 billion a year
6% on running dioceses and parishes.
2.7% on charity close to $5 billion a year

You think countries will want to tax an organisation that saves countries a lot of money.

A Little Pony

How can you blame the Pope for the child abuse scandal, it isn't his fault. The Irish people allowed the Catholic Church to rule over them. Stop blaming everyone else for that.

Galway_Old_Man

The Catholic Church wants to keep people poor, illiterate and uneducated!

Next thread

It's a disgrace that the Catholic Church runs so many schools.

Derp.

foggy_lad

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

The Catholic Church wants to keep people poor, illiterate and uneducated!

Next thread

It's a disgrace that the Catholic Church runs so many schools.

Derp.

NO abortion, NO contraception, NO marital rape etc etc basically a family shall only exist to breed children and any attempt to stop this breeding of Gods Army will be met with disdain.

A Little Pony

foggy_lad wrote: »

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

The Catholic Church wants to keep people poor, illiterate and uneducated!

Next thread

It's a disgrace that the Catholic Church runs so many schools.

Derp.

NO abortion, NO contraception, NO marital rape etc etc basically a family shall only exist to breed children and any attempt to stop this breeding of Gods Army will be met with disdain.

You don't need to be religious to fundamentally disagree with abortion. Think it is horrific personally.

Bubbaclaus

OverRide wrote: »

Do we remind mrs Merkel of Hitler's atrocities each time she visits?
This present Pope was not head of the Catholic Church when this was going on and systems are in place to prevent a repeat just as there are in Germany for to protect the Jews now

There
I've done it,Godwins law
Can we build a bridge now and get over it?

Last time I checked Nazi Germany ended in 1945.

Catholic Church is still around dipping their noses in where it's not wanted.

Bubbaclaus

foggy_lad wrote: »

NO abortion, NO contraception, NO marital rape etc etc basically a family shall only exist to breed children and any attempt to stop this breeding of Gods Army will be met with disdain.

It's interesting how little respect they have for human life in the period between birth and death considering how interfering they are in the periods either side -contraception and what to do with dead bodies (the hilarious don't spread ashes story from earlier this year)

OverRide

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Last time I checked Nazi Germany ended in 1945.

Catholic Church is still around dipping their noses in where it's not wanted.

Ha Germany definitely exists and boy does it stick its nose in everywhere

BigCon

RobertKK wrote: »

I am seeing the Pope next April in St Peters square. I received my letter from the Vatican that my ticket is reserved for Easter Sunday.

My earliest memory is when I was 3 and the Pope visited Ireland. My father was busy making hay, remember my mother painting the ceiling in the kitchen and the general excitement of the Pope's visit.

It will be a great time for the country in 2018. It should also be noted that Jorge Mario Bergoglio as a Jesuit lived in Dublin for a number of months at the Jesuits residence. So it should be special for him to now to return to Dublin as the Pope. He would know the city fairly well, despite a lot of changes in the meantime.

Wow, there must have been some excitement when he called to your house.

54and56

OverRide wrote: »

Do we remind mrs Merkel of Hitler's atrocities each time she visits?

Why should we? Hitler was the Nazi leader. The Nazi's were wiped out and Germany was forced to pay huge War Reparations. The people who replaced Hitler and Co established a new democracy which is an example of tolerance and respect for its citizens.

Using your analogy the visit of the pope is the equivalent of us welcoming Hitlers Nazi successor.

OverRide wrote: »

This present Pope was not head of the Catholic Church when this was going on and systems are in place to prevent a repeat

Only time will tell if the systems the Catholic Church have been forced to implement will prevent a repeat but this pope was a senior leader of the Catholic Church since becoming a Bishop in 1992. Over the time period form 1992 to today the Catholic Church has committed unprecedented levels of sexual abuse, facilitated coverups, attacked victims brave enough to stand up and report what happened to them and paid off countless others on condition they entered into binding confidentiality agreements.

To say he had no involvement as he climbed the hierarchical ladder over a 25 year period is deluded. He was either aware of what was going on and and did nothing about it or he was actively involved in the strategy of coverup and shut them up. Either way his hands are not clean. We should be investigating his involvement in the decades of Irish abuse including the three months he stayed in Dublin in 1980 and if sufficient evidence is found that he in any way facilitated abuse through cover up or pay offs we should be arresting him on arrival not rolling out the red carpet.

Also, you say he wasn't head of the Catholic Church during the time of the abuse (like the coverup's and payoffs are not still happening) but he is head of the Catholic Church now so as its leader why doesn't he 1) sanction the release of all documents, meeting notes, correspondence etc over the last four decades that could possibly relate to sexual abuse and 2) sanction the payment of appropriate compensation to all victims instead of hiding behind the disgraceful deal struck with Catholic Fianna Fail ministers to limit the compensation paid to victims? True repentance is about action and accountability not words and PR exercises.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

I just posted what I did for the response, the scientists in question has worked on their study of near death experiences since 1996 to come to this conclusion.

The scientist in question has, or the scientists in question have? Not being a grammar nazi on your typo here, just genuinely wondering if you are talking about one single scientist, or multiple.

If one single scientist, then I can only guess you are referring to Sam Parnia who have indeed been studying Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences for some years now and.... despite he himself being strongly biased towards getting positive results.... has found SQUAT in terms of any evidence of human consciousness, awareness or subjective experience lifting off the brain and existing independent of it in any way.

Which is comical when you realize that the clue is IN THE NAME. NEAR Death Experience. The patient did not die. A near death experience is about as much as experience of what some people pretend it is..... as ALMOST boarding a plane is an experience of a sun holiday in Morrocco.

So when you say "science" or "scientists" now say a soul exists.... it would pay to say WHICH scientists.... WHAT do they mean by "soul".... and WHAT is the evidence they have offered that the thing defined exists.

Soul and spirit are notoriously hard to get people to even define, let alone substantiate. Dan Barker in a debate against the unfortunately named theist Kyle Butt asked for a definition for example.

The best Butt could do was list off a spiel of things which soul and spirit ARENT.... but at the end of the spiel Barker rightly pointed out that Butt had not said one thing about what they actually ARE.

The Pope visiting a country where the Catholic Business Model has been steadily failing is an opportunity for him to answer such questions. And opportunity to stand up and say "Ok you guys have not been buying our assertions any more, so in this speech I am going to outline the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning behind our claims so that you can see our product is more than mere assertion and you should renew your subscription".

He very much SHOULD come and visit and stand up and say "Here is the evidence there is a god.........." or ".... we once suggested unbaptized infant causalities go to limbo..... but we do not think this any more..... and here is the actual data and substantiation upon which we based the modification....."

Yes indeed, a wonderful chance for him to visit and offer SOME basis for the narratives his organization have been selling, and continue to sell, to our country for a long time

Or given in my experience of scientific experimentation on the magic crackers they give out led me to the further realization that Catholics appear to fall into three belief camps............. of 1) The crackers are symbolic only and no more 2) The crackers are magical but in a spiritual way entirely undetectable by science and 3) A real literal change occurs on the crackers................... he could stand up and clarify for his "Flock" exactly what it is they are meant to believe. He should clear up the confusion for the 2/3 sub groups that are getting it wrong.

Yup I would love to see him come here and clarify CLEARLY any doctrines he feels people are getting wrong or believing their own version of.

Alas I suspect not only will none of these things occur.... I suspect I also know WHY. He will not clarify the basis of their beliefs and teachings..... because they do not have any...... and he will not clarify misunderstood doctrines and beliefs because allowing people to subscribe to their own version means he does not risk alienating and losing more followers.

And look, I managed to write all of that without any reference to sex or sexuality at all. But certainly on a human rights stand point he could comment on some sexual issues and human rights issues. Such as the global human rights of homosexuals.

Or the wisdom of teaching the sinful use of condoms in HIV ravaged continents. Or the relative Age of Consent laws between his state and ours could be an interesting sub-discourse to have given "The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only)."

RobertKK wrote: »

The church won't be taxed when figures from the Economist estimate the church spends it money in the following ways:
57% on healthcare - about $97 billion a year
28% on education - close to $47 billion a year
6% on running dioceses and parishes.
2.7% on charity close to $5 billion a year

You think countries will want to tax an organisation that saves countries a lot of money.

At best you are just showing the church to be a charity broker rather than a charity here. Money comes in and they broker it and redistribute it. Great. But your %s add up to only 93,7% above at a total of 159 billion.

That leaves out 6,3% which is around 10-12 billion. That is quite a profit margin to be making on Charity Brokerage. And I would suspect that anyone wishing to tax such an organisation would want to take them on THAT figure.... not the full 170 billion figure.

I work for and with quite a few not-for-profit organisations who do not make ANY profit. If they were keeping 6 euro in every 100 then questions would very quickly be asked about their qualification for their NFP title. So whatever else one might say..... it is useful to at least have the discussion on their business model and what tax laws would most make sense to apply. I would not simply hand wave dismiss it as readily as you.

OverRide

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Why should we? Hitler was the Nazi leader. The Nazi's were wiped out and Germany was forced to pay huge War Reparations. The people who replaced Hitler and Co established a new democracy which is an example of tolerance and respect for its citizens.

Using your analogy the visit of the pope is the equivalent of us welcoming Hitlers Nazi successor.

Oh? The population of Germany (who facilitated genocide by keeping Hitler)in 1945 were all imprisoned were they?

Only time will tell if the systems the Catholic Church have been forced to implement will prevent a repeat but this pope was a senior leader of the Catholic Church since becoming a Bishop in 1992. Over the time period form 1992 to today the Catholic Church has committed unprecedented levels of sexual abuse, facilitated coverups, attacked victims brave enough to stand up and report what happened to them and paid off countless others on condition they entered into binding confidentiality agreements.

To say he had no involvement as he climbed the hierarchical ladder over a 25 year period is deluded. He was either aware of what was going on and and did nothing about it or he was actively involved in the strategy of coverup and shut them up. Either way his hands are not clean. We should be investigating his involvement in the decades of Irish abuse including the three months he stayed in Dublin in 1980 and if sufficient evidence is found that he in any way facilitated abuse through cover up or pay offs we should be arresting him on arrival not rolling out the red carpet.

Also, you say he wasn't head of the Catholic Church during the time of the abuse (like the coverup's and payoffs are not still happening) but he is head of the Catholic Church now so as its leader why doesn't he 1) sanction the release of all documents, meeting notes, correspondence etc over the last four decades that could possibly relate to sexual abuse and 2) sanction the payment of appropriate compensation to all victims instead of hiding behind the disgraceful deal struck with Catholic Fianna Fail ministers to limit the compensation paid to victims? True repentance is about action and accountability not words and PR exercises.

Maybe and more than likely the documents have been destroyed
I doubt this present Pope would have stayed quiet had he known or condone the approach his predecessors took
He's very much an outsider
I'm of the view Benny was senile in his tenure TBH and John Paul certainly didn't look like he was capable of ruling the roost for a decade or two or more

As for reparations,you'd want to talk to Bertie Ahern about that,wasn't he the Taoiseach that agreed the poor settlement or maybe it was Cowen,one of them anyway
Their negotiating pedigree let us down in the banking guarantee too and many is the other time

Galway_Old_Man

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yup I would love to see him come here and clarify CLEARLY any doctrines he feels people are getting wrong or believing their own version of.

Alas I suspect not only will none of these things occur.... I suspect I also know WHY. He will not clarify the basis of their beliefs and teachings..... because they do not have any...... and he will not clarify misunderstood doctrines and beliefs because allowing people to subscribe to their own version means he does not risk alienating and losing more followers.

Well you heard it heard first folks, the Catholic Church doesn't have any basis for their beliefs Good Lord, boards continually delivers!

Of course there's basis for all these rules they have and adhere to. I'm sure others could do a better list but I'd suggest the writing of St Thomas Aquinas (it's amazing how much of it can be traced back to his writings, the man was a genius), C.S. Lewis's stuff or maybe even the Papal encyclicals on certain topics. To understand the Church's stance on abortion for instance you could easily go through some of St JP II ones.

I'm not Catholic (more a theology fan) but really, the ignorance displayed on behalf of atheists around here is astonishing. It's one thing to disagree with teachings but you should at least try to understand them (and not fall for common myths like your limbo comment).

foggy_lad wrote: »

NO abortion, NO contraception, NO marital rape etc etc basically a family shall only exist to breed children and any attempt to stop this breeding of Gods Army will be met with disdain.

Wait, what's all this then? Are we retreating from the position about keeping people illiterate and uneducated?

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The scientist in question has, or the scientists in question have? Not being a grammar nazi on your typo here, just genuinely wondering if you are talking about one single scientist, or multiple.

If one single scientist, then I can only guess you are referring to Sam Parnia who have indeed been studying Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences for some years now and.... despite he himself being strongly biased towards getting positive results.... has found SQUAT in terms of any evidence of human consciousness, awareness or subjective experience lifting off the brain and existing independent of it in any way.

Which is comical when you realize that the clue is IN THE NAME. NEAR Death Experience. The patient did not die. A near death experience is about as much as experience of what some people pretend it is..... as ALMOST boarding a plane is an experience of a sun holiday in Morrocco.

So when you say "science" or "scientists" now say a soul exists.... it would pay to say WHICH scientists.... WHAT do they mean by "soul".... and WHAT is the evidence they have offered that the thing defined exists.

Soul and spirit are notoriously hard to get people to even define, let alone substantiate. Dan Barker in a debate against the unfortunately named theist Kyle Butt asked for a definition for example.

The best Butt could do was list off a spiel of things which soul and spirit ARENT.... but at the end of the spiel Barker rightly pointed out that Butt had not said one thing about what they actually ARE.

The Pope visiting a country where the Catholic Business Model has been steadily failing is an opportunity for him to answer such questions. And opportunity to stand up and say "Ok you guys have not been buying our assertions any more, so in this speech I am going to outline the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning behind our claims so that you can see our product is more than mere assertion and you should renew your subscription".

He very much SHOULD come and visit and stand up and say "Here is the evidence there is a god.........." or ".... we once suggested unbaptized infant causalities go to limbo..... but we do not think this any more..... and here is the actual data and substantiation upon which we based the modification....."

Yes indeed, a wonderful chance for him to visit and offer SOME basis for the narratives his organization have been selling, and continue to sell, to our country for a long time

Or given in my experience of scientific experimentation on the magic crackers they give out led me to the further realization that Catholics appear to fall into three belief camps............. of 1) The crackers are symbolic only and no more 2) The crackers are magical but in a spiritual way entirely undetectable by science and 3) A real literal change occurs on the crackers................... he could stand up and clarify for his "Flock" exactly what it is they are meant to believe. He should clear up the confusion for the 2/3 sub groups that are getting it wrong.

Yup I would love to see him come here and clarify CLEARLY any doctrines he feels people are getting wrong or believing their own version of.

Alas I suspect not only will none of these things occur.... I suspect I also know WHY. He will not clarify the basis of their beliefs and teachings..... because they do not have any...... and he will not clarify misunderstood doctrines and beliefs because allowing people to subscribe to their own version means he does not risk alienating and losing more followers.

And look, I managed to write all of that without any reference to sex or sexuality at all. But certainly on a human rights stand point he could comment on some sexual issues and human rights issues. Such as the global human rights of homosexuals.

Or the wisdom of teaching the sinful use of condoms in HIV ravaged continents. Or the relative Age of Consent laws between his state and ours could be an interesting sub-discourse to have given "The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only)."



At best you are just showing the church to be a charity broker rather than a charity here. Money comes in and they broker it and redistribute it. Great. But your %s add up to only 93,7% above at a total of 159 billion.

That leaves out 6,3% which is around 10-12 billion. That is quite a profit margin to be making on Charity Brokerage. And I would suspect that anyone wishing to tax such an organisation would want to take them on THAT figure.... not the full 170 billion figure.

I work for and with quite a few not-for-profit organisations who do not make ANY profit. If they were keeping 6 euro in every 100 then questions would very quickly be asked about their qualification for their NFP title. So whatever else one might say..... it is useful to at least have the discussion on their business model and what tax laws would most make sense to apply. I would not simply hand wave dismiss it as readily as you.

The Economist did not say where all money was spent, but one presumes they need a pension fund to support retired clergy, care for the dying, etc.

The Holy See reported a budget deficit in 2014 of €25.6 million.
The Vatican state had a surplus of €63.5 million which was double the previous year, helped by tourism which has tripled under Pope Francis.
From CNN:
The Vatican has two main entities. The Holy See, which governs the Catholic Church and the Vatican City State, which governs Vatican City.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/

Galway_Old_Man

RobertKK wrote: »

The Economist did not say where all money was spent, but one presumes they need a pension fund to support retired clergy, care for the dying, etc.

The Holy See reported a budget deficit in 2014 of €25.6 million.
The Vatican state had a surplus of €63.5 million which was double the previous year, helped by tourism which has tripled under Pope Francis.
From CNN:
The Vatican has two main entities. The Holy See, which governs the Catholic Church and the Vatican City State, which governs Vatican City.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/

And it's probably worth re-iterating to the usuals that the Sunday collection is for the immediate local church and diocese. It's not "handed up to the Vatican" and any church worth its salt usually has something about the collection total versus loans etc in the newsletter. There's one additional collection per year for the wider Church, Peter's pence.

jmayo

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Last time I checked Nazi Germany ended in 1945.

Catholic Church is still around dipping their noses in where it's not wanted.

Funny you mention Nazi Germany, wasn't that where the last guy spent his formative years.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Why should we? Hitler was the Nazi leader. The Nazi's were wiped out and Germany was forced to pay huge War Reparations.

Ehh big correction there.
The Nazi's were not wiped out, the vast majority of them that survived the war went on to live long and sometimes prosperous lives.
Same with most of the Japanese war criminals and in particular those who performed experiments on POWs and Chinese.

In the grand scheme of things very few of the Nazis were executed.
Hell one Nazi and ex Wehrmacht officer became president of Austria after being appointed UN Secretary-General.

Albert Speer the minister of Armaments and War Production, which accounted for thousands of slave labourer deaths got a slap on the wrist and after the war became the acceptable face of Nazism.

And the father of NASA's space program von Braun was a Nazi and SS officer. The V2 rocket program killed thousands of slave labourers.

Glenster

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I work for and with quite a few not-for-profit organisations who do not make ANY profit.

No charity organisations make a profit but in the larger ones there's generally 7-8% that goes towards central overheads. Salaries and stuff.

RobertKK

jmayo wrote: »

Funny you mention Nazi Germany, wasn't that where the last guy spent his formative years.



Ehh big correction there.
The Nazi's were not wiped out, the vast majority of them that survived the war went on to live long and sometimes prosperous lives.
Same with most of the Japanese war criminals and in particular those who performed experiments on POWs and Chinese.

In the grand scheme of things very few of the Nazis were executed.
Hell one Nazi and ex Wehrmacht officer became president of Austria after being appointed UN Secretary-General.

Albert Speer the minister of Armaments and War Production, which accounted for thousands of slave labourer deaths got a slap on the wrist and after the war became the acceptable face of Nazism.

And the father of NASA's space program von Braun was a Nazi and SS officer. The V2 rocket program killed thousands of slave labourers.

The Nazi's murdered Pope Benedict's 14 year old cousin when he was a teenager because she had Down Syndrome.

nozzferrahhtoo

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

Well you heard it heard first folks, the Catholic Church doesn't have any basis for their beliefs Good Lord, boards continually delivers!

Specifially I am talking about the beliefs based on the existence of the very "Good Lord" you called out to. Their belief in souls. Their belief in a god. Their belief that mumbling Latin at wine and crackers causes any form of transformation in it. Their belief in the Resurrection of a human being physically dead for three days. Their belief in reincarnation, that this dead carpenter is to return again. Their belief in an after life. Their belief in an objective morality separate to human existence. Their belief that the use of contraception is morally or ethically dubious. Their belief in a soul and concept of "humanity", specifically but not limited to how they apply it to the topic of abortion and the right to die. The list goes on. AND ON.

And I doubt many people "heard it here first" at all. I would say most people reading here have very often been made aware of the fact that NONE of these hallmarks of catholic beliefs has a shred of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning substantiating them at all.

But if there IS in fact arguments, evidence, data or reasoning supporting any of that stuff.... then a Papal visit would be a GREAT and high time for them to finally make us aware of what they actually are. One would hope that he does a better job of it than your "Call them ignorant and retreat" approach..... which comes across as more a cop out to answer the challenge, than any actual substantive response to it.

RobertKK wrote: »

The Economist did not say where all money was spent, but one presumes they need a pension fund to support retired clergy, care for the dying, etc.

Thanks for only responding to a FRACTION of my post there, how nice of you.

However I would be careful with what you merely assume about their expenses there. For example your comment about pension funds..... on what basis do you assume that salary and pensions was not included under what YOU listed when you wrote "6% on running dioceses and parishes.". Because the FIRST two things that jump to my mind when I read "6% on running dioceses and parishes." is 1) Physical upkeep of the property and 2) Payment of staff.

But yes we are BOTH ignorant of the figures here. My comments were directed at JUST what YOU cited as the figures. But we both know these are incomplete. I would be more than happy to see a full profit and loss and balance sheet for the last 10 years of the Catholic Business model in Ireland before I made any comments on their tax status.

Glenster wrote: »

No charity organisations make a profit but in the larger ones there's generally 7-8% that goes towards central overheads. Salaries and stuff.

Yes and I believe Robert listed that already under ""6% on running dioceses and parishes."" which according to his figures comes to around 10billion +.

The figures he cites are vague at best however, I grant you, and which overheads, salaries and "stuff" are already included or not is FAR from clear in what he offered. A vagueness I internally suspect is contrived and willful however.

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thanks for only responding to a FRACTION of my post there, how nice of you.

However I would be careful with what you merely assume about their expenses there. For example your comment about pension funds..... on what basis do you assume that salary and pensions was not included under what YOU listed when you wrote "6% on running dioceses and parishes.". Because the FIRST two things that jump to my mind when I read "6% on running dioceses and parishes." is 1) Physical upkeep of the property and 2) Payment of staff.

But yes we are BOTH ignorant of the figures here. My comments were directed at JUST what YOU cited as the figures. But we both know these are incomplete. I would be more than happy to see a full profit and loss and balance sheet for the last 10 years of the Catholic Business model in Ireland before I made any comments on their tax status.



Yes and I believe Robert listed that already under ""6% on running dioceses and parishes."" which according to his figures comes to around 10billion +.

The figures he cites are vague at best however, I grant you, and which overheads, salaries and "stuff" are already included or not is FAR from clear in what he offered. A vagueness I internally suspect is contrived and willful however.

Each parish gives a detailed list of income and expenses to parishioners who attend mass, well they do in my diocese.
So if one could collect all those then one would have a figure for this country, presuming they all do the same with openness of Parish finances.

I don't have time for long replies.

nozzferrahhtoo

Don't really buy the time cop out, given you have the time to cherry pick what to reply to AND the time to have 400% most posts than me in 5 years less time posting. Time does not appear to be a feature holding back what you choose to respond to I suspect. Dodging what you can not respond to is more likely to be the cause.

But yes by all means lets have them do it, or if they already do it lets read those figures if someone can find them. It would certainly be interesting.

But those genuinely interested in charity would do well to compare the effectiveness / euro of donating to the church and donating to other charity brokers or actual charities who do not spend a significant % of that income on maintenance of their club houses or payment of staff to read books and mumble latin. There are many on-line only charities who have NONE of those over heads for example.

Another good opportunity for the papal visit then I guess. He could discuss where the money actually goes.

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then by all means lets have them do it, or if they already do it lets read those figures if someone can find them. It would certainly be interesting.

But those genuinely interested in charity would do well to compare the effectiveness / euro of donating to the church and donating to other charity brokers or actual charities who do not spend a significant % of that income on maintenance of their club houses or payment of staff to read books and mumble latin. There are many on-line only charities who have NONE of those over heads for example.

Another good opportunity for the papal visit then I guess. He could discuss where the money actually goes.

I see figures that the church operates 5,500 hospitals, 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and for people with special needs, the majority in the developing world and it manages 26% of global healthcare facilities.
This makes the Catholic Church the biggest non governmental organisation involved in providing healthcare.
The church also operates 67,848 pre-schools/Kindergartens, 93,315 primary schools and 42,234 secondary schools, and over 3 million people attend universities operated by the church.
Like with healthcare, the Catholic church is the biggest non governmental organisation involved in providing education.

Then the church operates about 9,900 orphanges, hundreds of centres to care for people with leprosy, near 12,000 child care facilities, 14,000 marriage counseling centres, over 34,000 social rehabilitation facilities, and 10,800 other various facilities.

When people talk about charities, there is nothing that one can compare the Catholic church to given the importance it has due to the services it provides.

Galway_Old_Man

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Specifially I am talking about the beliefs based on the existence of the very "Good Lord" you called out to. Their belief in souls. Their belief in a god. Their belief that mumbling Latin at wine and crackers causes any form of transformation in it. Their belief in the Resurrection of a human being physically dead for three days. Their belief in reincarnation, that this dead carpenter is to return again. Their belief in an after life. Their belief in an objective morality separate to human existence. Their belief that the use of contraception is morally or ethically dubious. Their belief in a soul and concept of "humanity", specifically but not limited to how they apply it to the topic of abortion and the right to die. The list goes on. AND ON.

And I doubt many people "heard it here first" at all. I would say most people reading here have very often been made aware of the fact that NONE of these hallmarks of catholic beliefs has a shred of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning substantiating them at all.

....

One would hope that he does a better job of it than your "Call them ignorant and retreat" approach..... which comes across as more a cop out to answer the challenge, than any actual substantive response to it.

Apart from the guys and works I listed, and the mountains of other theological works from over two millennia of Christianity, then yes you're right there are no arguments or reasoning that the Church operates on. I'd use a rolleyes here but my religion forbids it.

Go read some Aquinas, take it from there and stop embarrassing yourself and other atheists.

There's no harm in being ignorant. It's the beginning of all knowledge.

Glenster

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

Go read some Aquinas, take it from there and stop embarrassing yourself and other atheists.

Good advice,

Alternatively however you can just go out and have a few pints and not worry about theories of meaning or the existence of supernatural beings.

jmayo

RobertKK wrote: »

The Nazi's murdered Pope Benedict's 14 year old cousin when he was a teenager because she had Down Syndrome.

And wouldn't that make you think that he might really care about the plight of children.
Instead his record as the pope's enforcer and person in charge of dealing with child abuse scandals showed he cared shag all about the children whose lives were forever blighted.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

The Nazi's murdered Pope Benedict's 14 year old cousin when he was a teenager because she had Down Syndrome.

some say Ratzi turned him in to get a leg up in the Nazi party as a Good German

Galway_Old_Man

Glenster wrote: »

Good advice,

Alternatively however you can just go out and have a few pints and not worry about theories of meaning or the existence of supernatural beings.

Indeed. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Galway_Old_Man

gctest50 wrote: »

some say Ratzi turned him in to get a leg up in the Nazi party as a Good German

Who says?

Galwayguy35

gctest50 wrote: »

some say Ratzi turned him in to get a leg up in the Nazi party as a Good German

That's a horrible thing to say.