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

HellSquirrel

Even by internet standards, that's a pretty strong accusation to make without any evidence? ("People say" is a dubious defence!)

The flying mouse

gctest50 wrote: »

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

Who is this some ?

gctest50

Ratzi’s unit shot at allied pilots over Germany

Skommando

tonygun wrote: »

We do not need to better relations with Rome, we need to let whats left of those relations die.

Who's we, who are you speaking for ?

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!!!

If you just stopped for a second and had an honest assessment of the stereotyping and misrepresentation of Catholics, and their beliefs, based on the behavior of a very few in their Church, whose actions were in fact were against their own churches teaching. I presume you wouldn't accept this type of stereotyping of Black people, or Judaism, or Mexicans etc. based on the behavior of a few, but you perfectly happy to do it on Catholics.

ohnonotgmail

gctest50 wrote: »

Ratzi’s unit shot at allied pilots over Germany

As did many thousands of others. so what?

vicwatson

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

It's tied aid though, evangelism at it's core.

Hotblack Desiato

OverRide wrote: »

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

If she had a gilded micro-state in Berlin where she was shielding leading Nazis from justice, then yeah.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Only time will tell if the systems the Catholic Church have been forced to implement will prevent a repeat

Perhaps but I suspect that going forward the policy of parents of "keeping their kids the feck away from priests" will be even more effective.

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.

Exactly and every member of the RCC hierarchy needs to be held to account for what they did, and what they should have done but didn't.

This is what all the apologists either don't get or choose to ignore. It's the cover-up at all levels going right to the top which makes the RCC a rotten, amoral organisation.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

And none of what you list rebuts the point I made that DEPENDING on what the profits of their endeavors are, we should be allocating them a suitable tax class based on that.

One ALSO has to look at the effect of having a theology running those facilities, especially in the "developing world". What is the clash between their involvement with medical facilities and their stances on things like sexuality, abortion, and contraception?

Also when you simply say "operates" what EXACTLY does this mean? Operate them how exactly? Merely direct funding to them? Literal front line day to day operation? Unpack that word for me.

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

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.

So you have not actually answered anything in the list I gave have you? Stop embarrassing yourself and other theists and actually read and reply to what I wrote. There's no harm in being ignorant. It's the beginning of all knowledge. So you might want to start by taking the things in my list and actually directly replying to them and see if you can actually work out what the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning is behind the things in the list I produced.

HellSquirrel

I'm a little confused as to how the theological works of the Church over the centuries actually supports them? Given that theological works require a certain amount of acceptance already of the basis behind it, it's a bit like saying that elves exist because Tolkein (and many others) wrote about them.

Now, I'm not absolutely saying they're wrong, since it's an unprovable negative, but it's not exactly the greatest argument ever for why the Church are correct.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah it certainly is sitting right on the border between comedy and tragedy when you ask for the basis of theological works, and you are given the theological works as the basis. Merely calling this a "circular fallacy" does not do justice to the intellectual bankruptcy of it.

All one can do is get that feeling one gets when one reads something like that recent comment by a flat-earther that said something like "There are believers in flat earth theory all around the globe".

RobertKK

vicwatson wrote: »

It's tied aid though, evangelism at it's core.

Jesus according to the bible went to the sick and there is the part in the gospel where he talks of being hungry, sick, homeless, a prisoner, naked from having owning not enough clothes etc basically someone disadvantaged in society, and one of the apostles asks Jesus where did we see you in any of these circumstances, and the message Jesus gave his apostles was when people choose to not help other people and treat them badly, you are doing it him.

The message being it is the duty of the followers of Jesus to help others, the church is there to evangelise, but it also there to help people who are not part of their following as shown in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We see this in action in this country whether it Fr Peter McVerry and the homeless or the Capuchin monks who feed anyone without question in Dublin if they need food irrespective if that have a religious belief or none.
Newsnight on the BBC showed similar before a Papal election where they went to a slum in Lagos, Nigeria where a Catholic nun was the only provider of healthcare to the people, as they were interviewing her, she was treating a Muslim lady, and she said she treats whoever needs medical attention, it is not about what religion when it comes to helping people.
It is their personal belief that makes them better people to want to help others.
I just wish I could be like some of these people, but I think I am too selfish.

Galway_Old_Man

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you have not actually answered anything in the list I gave have you? Stop embarrassing yourself and other theists and actually read and reply to what I wrote. There's no harm in being ignorant. It's the beginning of all knowledge. So you might want to start by taking the things in my list and actually directly replying to them and see if you can actually work out what the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning is behind the things in the list I produced.

1 - Who said I'm a theist?
2 - Why on Earth should I repeat and re-hash the works of Catholic/Christian theologians here? I'm far from arsed.

You made a silly claim (that the Catholic Church itself has no basis for its teachings), I gave you a very skimmed list of some of the "big players" there which have informed the direction of the Church over the centuries. You can disagree with them all you want but denying their existence...? Flat Earthers eh?!

HellSquirrel wrote:

I'm a little confused as to how the theological works of the Church over the centuries actually supports them?

I really don't get where the confusement comes from. Let's replace the Church with something else...

Angry Capitalist: "Sure Communism is ridiculous! Their teachings are nonsense, how can a society function without bosses and the human desire for more?! I think they know this themselves as they have no basis for these teachings!"

Person 1: "Well I'm not a Communist but I believe you should start with Marx, some of the first meetings of the Commitern and probably some of Lenin's thoughts."

A.C.: "Haha! You can't even explain one of my objections! See I'm right! ha, commies are all the same"

Person 1: "Sigh, time for a lunch time pint"

Galway_Old_Man

gctest50 wrote: »

Ratzi’s unit shot at allied pilots over Germany

Flupping hell. You mean a youth SS anti-aircraft division actually fired at planes? I just can't accept that. No way would Nazi Germany use child soldiers, no way man.

RobertKK

Josef Ratzinger was 12 when WW2 started.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

the message Jesus gave his apostles was when people choose to not help other people and treat them badly, you are doing it him.

Wow, I have met that kind of person who thinks everything is about them.

Tongue out of cheek though this was hardly revolutionary teaching was it? Is the idea that a society can be judged by how it treats the lowliest and most vulnerable of it's members is an idea that has popped up many times in many places?

RobertKK wrote: »

but it also there to help people who are not part of their following as shown in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Ah yes the good samaritan who likely did the things he did without being either Christian OR having ever even heard of Jesus. So one wonders what the Nazarene even brought or added to the mix?

RobertKK wrote: »

We see this in action in this country

We see it in action all over the world, in people with and without religion or beliefs in a god. Which once again makes one wonder what religion or religious teaching even brings to the equation. It looks like charity, solidarity, the humanitarian, altruism, philanthropy all do quite well without subscription to any kind of unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can type from memory a wonderful quote about Saraswathi Gora which elevates her above many, including your Jesus character, in my mind. The words are burned into my consciousness. Here is an exerpt of what I recall. Apologies to the original text if I quote any of it wrong.

Her otherwise sympathetic heart bled coming face to face with the oppression meted out to the socially and economically down trodden, developing in her the urge to selfless sacrifices. She trained herself to accept a life of poverty, social work and dedication to national cause. While accepting such a life she had to balance between orthodox parents-in-law, a heretic husband and a superstitious society.

I will take that over someone who can tell a few stories, and preach a few re-hashed and re-worked morality any day. And as a founder of "the Atheist Center" I doubt any shred of her dedication and altruism was predicated on a subscription to anything unsubstantiated.

RobertKK wrote: »

she was treating a Muslim lady, and she said she treats whoever needs medical attention, it is not about what religion when it comes to helping people.

Yes, that is a characteristic of MANY doctors though, not of the religious. Doctors without borders anyone? You will find that regardless of their faith, or no faith at all, the oath people take as doctors is one they subscribe to with the level of dedication that makes them blind to the race, creed, sex, sexuality or anything else of the person they are treating. They just see a sick human and take it upon themselves to help them become well.

You laud a catholic treating a muslim as if we should all leap to our feet and applaud this as if it is some kind of wonderous feat or achievement. Tosh. It is the MINIMUM I would expect of a human being working in the medical profession. Not something trotted out as if it is some specific point of praise.

RobertKK wrote: »

It is their personal belief that makes them better people to want to help others.

Says you. But the abundence of people WITHOUT those beliefs who are JUST as dedicated to the same aims and ideals would seriously place a question mark over whether you are merely performing a contrived causation-correlation error here.

RobertKK wrote: »

I just wish I could be like some of these people, but I think I am too selfish.

Start small and work up would be my advice. I sat around wishing to do more and be more myself for a long time. And I realized wishing gets you nowhere. So I got up of my rear and started doing something.

So now I dedicate around 12 hours a week (6 study and preparation on my own and then 6 presentation to a class) to working with an organization here in Germany which meets Syrian Refugees coming off the buses here in Germany, and taking groups of them into the classroom to teach them real skills to get them real jobs.

So my role is teaching them full stack web development technologies from CSS and Java back through heroku, unix, ruby, javascript based systems, all on the Agile process using industry standard tools like Git and Github, algorithms and the Agile process. And then helping getting them into real jobs or real "praktikant" positions.

It is easy to sit around wishing, and hard to get up and move mountains. But baby steps.... those one can make quite easily. And I highly recommend it. There is little to compare with the feeling of genuinely helping someone in a REAL material first hand way.

nozzferrahhtoo

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

1 - Who said I'm a theist?

No one I am aware of. I merely suggested you stop embarrassing yourself AND other theists. In other words you, and a group of people other than you. So you would want to take your question up with someone who did say it, not me. I certainly have no assumptions about what you are or are not given you appear to be deliberately vague on the point.

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

2 - Why on Earth should I repeat and re-hash the works of Catholic/Christian theologians here? I'm far from arsed.

Why? No idea except I guess it is common decorum to back up what you say for some people. It is for me, if not for you. But that could be the difference between us. As I said I am not aware of any substantiation behind the things I listed. You rolled in like a knight in rusted armor to decry that comment with dripping sarcasm.

But it would appear that was unwarranted given you appear to be just as ignorant as I am as to what the basis for the things I listed actually are. And as I said in the first post.... I merely suspect I know why that is: That there IS no basis to offer.

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

You made a silly claim (that the Catholic Church itself has no basis for its teachings)

Nope. I did not. I make the QUITE CORRECT claim that I am unaware of what he basis for their beliefs are, and that in a society where I am led to believe the "bums on seats" ratio in the catholic business model is on the decline that a papal visit (which is what the thread is about remember?) would be ample opportunity for some clarification on what that basis actually is. And then I said I doubt this will happen and that I SUSPECT the non-existence of that basis is the reason why.

You then rolled in to declare this "silly" but given you appear to be also entirely unable to adumbrate the basis for the particular core beliefs I listed...... one is quite happy to note that you have essentially made my point for me. Ta for that.

vicwatson

RobertKK wrote: »

Jesus according to the bible went to the sick and there is the part in the gospel where he talks of being hungry, sick, homeless, a prisoner, naked from having owning not enough clothes etc basically someone disadvantaged in society, and one of the apostles asks Jesus where did we see you in any of these circumstances, and the message Jesus gave his apostles was when people choose to not help other people and treat them badly, you are doing it him.

The message being it is the duty of the followers of Jesus to help others, the church is there to evangelise, but it also there to help people who are not part of their following as shown in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We see this in action in this country whether it Fr Peter McVerry and the homeless or the Capuchin monks who feed anyone without question in Dublin if they need food irrespective if that have a religious belief or none.
Newsnight on the BBC showed similar before a Papal election where they went to a slum in Lagos, Nigeria where a Catholic nun was the only provider of healthcare to the people, as they were interviewing her, she was treating a Muslim lady, and she said she treats whoever needs medical attention, it is not about what religion when it comes to helping people.
It is their personal belief that makes them better people to want to help others.
I just wish I could be like some of these people, but I think I am too selfish.

It's tied aid and well you know it. They help out as long as you accept their gospel.

Also, no need to start preaching here please.

ArKl0w

To be fair,most of the V de P volunteers I know would never have read a bible,never mind be preaching it

I see today,It's came out that Chelsea FC paid a player stg50k to keep quiet about abuse as recently as 2014
Childlines in the U.K. Say they're inundated with calls which only serves to emphasise that this growing story tells us paedophiles infiltrate organisations that they can exploit
We are lucky to have a mass media

A Little Pony

The F*ck the pope attitude from some on this forum is surprising.

Skommando

A Little Pony wrote: »

The F*ck the pope attitude from some on this forum is surprising.

Have you been living under some sort of rock ? hating anyone and anything catholic is seen as very fashionable and trendy, then again so are neck beards, the Kardashians, and being fat and wearing luminous spandex while cycling.

Hotblack Desiato

RobertKK wrote: »

It is their personal belief that makes them better people to want to help others.

It's not altruism if you're expecting an eternal reward out of it.

And belief makes one a better person? Really??

Glenster

A Little Pony wrote: »

The F*ck the pope attitude from some on this forum is surprising.

Is it?

It's definitely a generational thing. I don't know anyone apart from the elderly at work (50+) or friends parents/grandparents who have positive feelings towards the church.

Ulysses Gaze

Skommando wrote: »

Have you been living under some sort of rock ? hating anyone and anything catholic is seen as very fashionable and trendy, then again so are neck beards, the Kardashians, and being fat and wearing luminous spandex while cycling.

That is not now, nor will it ever be fashionable and trendy.

The flying mouse

Glenster wrote: »

Is it?

It's definitely a generational thing. I don't know anyone apart from the elderly at work (50+) or friends parents/grandparents who have positive feelings towards the church.

Really, I know lots of young people in Ireland & were as they certainly not church going or practicing Catholics, They don't have any bad feelings towards the church either way, it must be just in your close circle ?

Jimmy Garlic

Glenster wrote: »

Is it?

It's definitely a generational thing. I don't know anyone apart from the elderly at work (50+) or friends parents/grandparents who have positive feelings towards the church.

A know/knew a few elderly people who actually hate the church, my own father being one.. It was their generation that had to live through the theocratic oppression of the 40s, 50s and 60s.

mansize

Catholic Orphanages?


I wonder what the infant mortality rate is there? Akin to the Mother and Baby homes no doubt

No US couple will pay top dollar for a sick baby I suppose...

whisky_galore

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

A know/knew a few elderly people who actually hate the church, my own father being one.. It was their generation that had to live through the theocratic oppression of the 40s, 50s and 60s.

Kind of in the minority, the rest were brainwashed and unable to think for themselves.

It's interesting how people would overlook or ignore things that were clearly wrong or would be seen as criminal misconduct in any other situation. It's a wonder how they got away with it for so long.

Jimmy Garlic

whisky_galore wrote: »

Kind of in the minority, the rest were brainwashed and unable to think for themselves.

It's interesting how people would overlook or ignore things that were clearly wrong or would be seen as criminal misconduct in any other situation. It's a wonder how they got away with it for so long.

The same way they get away with it in a lot of Muslim countries today, impossible to brainwash everybody, but you get the ones that you have brainwashed to keep down the rest.

Glenster

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

A know/knew a few elderly people who actually hate the church, my own father being one.. It was their generation that had to live through the theocratic oppression of the 40s, 50s and 60s.

pretty sure I neither said that all old people love the church, or all young people hate the church.

I said that I didn't know any young people who had positive feelings towards the church. and I think that's a fairly typical experience.

Da Boss

The sadistic anti catholic brigade out in force as usual.

c_man

Da Boss wrote: »

The sadistic anti catholic brigade out in force as usual.

Ah cheer up, just think how funny it will be to see the neckbeards outrage come the visit.

Bubbaclaus

Da Boss wrote: »

The sadistic anti catholic brigade out in force as usual.

Maybe the pope can organise a cover up of it.