Look Padraic, more sacred good works
Pathetic42
Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
just a bunch of silly nuns.
THE TIMES OF LONDON
March 31 1998
AUSTRALIA
Orphans 'tortured and beaten by
nuns in Australia'
BY ROGER MAYNARD IN SYDNEY AND OUR FOREIGN
STAFF
HUNDREDS of orphaned children, many from Britain,
suffered public floggings, sadistic torture and sexual abuse
at the hands of Roman Catholic nuns, an Australian
academic said yesterday.
The brutality took place over 90 years at an Order of the
Sisters of Mercy orphanage in Neerkol, northern
Queensland, ending only in 1976.
The order, under investigation by the Queensland state
government, has apologised for the cruelty, described as
some of the worst atrocities that Australia has known. But
a representative, Di-Anne Rowan, conceded yesterday
that little had been done to ease the pain and suffering of
victims.
Among them were 48 children who were part of a British
government orphan migration programme now under
investigation by a Commons committee.
The report, by Professor Bruce Grundy, describes a
catalogue of terror. Among those who suffered was Helen
Carter, now in her thirties. She told Professor Grundy that
the nuns once thrust a red-hot poker down her back "to
exorcise the Devil".
Another child almost lost her legs, which became infected
after a nun pulled out troublesome ingrown toenails with
pliers while other children were forced to hold her down.
Yet another was severely scalded and permanently injured
after a leg was thrust into a bucket of boiling water by a
nun who thought that the water she had been washing in
was not hot enough.
Boys and girls were routinely violated and sexually abused
by priests or men working at the orphanage, the professor
said. Some girls had miscarriages and foetuses were
flushed down lavatories. To hide injuries from visitors,
children were locked away in the "black hole" - an
underground cell - without bedding, ventilation or light.
"Madness, ruthless and sadistic madness, on the part of at
least some of the nuns, and a depthless depravity on the
part of some of the men who inhabited the place, are the
defining characteristics of some of those who ran the
orphanage," Professor Grundy claimed. "There was no
limit to the sexual deviance that could be engaged in with
those unlucky enough to find themselves singled out as 'the
chosen ones'."
The professor, the foundation head of Queensland
University's department of journalism, began his inquiries
after police found no evidence to substantiate reports that
stillborn babies and children killed by disease had been
buried in unmarked graves.
Many boys in Australian orphanages and schools run by
Catholic orders have won damages in the past few years,
but few allegations had surfaced about institutions run by
nuns.
The professor said of Neerkol: "Many of the children
went on to alcoholism and suicide, but some, remarkably,
made something of their lives. I would like to see them get
justice and I would like to see those responsible
prosecuted - particularly the bureaucrats and police who
knew what was going on but who did nothing to stop it."
Copyright 1998 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Padraic42
>Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
>just a bunch of silly nuns.
>
them to do that. Of course your group is spotless isn't it?
>
>THE TIMES OF LONDON
>
>March 31 1998
>
>AUSTRALIA
>
>
> Orphans 'tortured and beaten by
> nuns in Australia'
>
> BY ROGER MAYNARD IN SYDNEY AND OUR FOREIGN
> STAFF
>
> HUNDREDS of orphaned children, many from Britain,
> suffered public floggings, sadistic torture and sexual abuse
> at the hands of Roman Catholic nuns, an Australian
> academic said yesterday.
>
> The brutality took place over 90 years at an Order of the
> Sisters of Mercy orphanage in Neerkol, northern
> Queensland, ending only in 1976.
>
Pax Christi, Pat
"Misere Mei, Deus"
(http://members.aol.com/Padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)
robys
>Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
>just a bunch of silly nuns.
I am not Padriac, however I fail to see how your illustration proves
anything other than those individual human beings, regardless of their
vocation, need to repent and get their lives in order with the most high
living God.
When you stand before the Throne of God, you will not be able to say,
*well those nuns in Australia did thus and so, and I am better than them.*
That is what the Pharisee in Jesus' illustration said about the tax
collector in the temple *thank God I am not a sinner like him.*
You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You will
be compared with the holiness of God and found lacking. And unless you
have come into relationship with God through coming to the cross in
repentance, there will be nothing left to say.
<>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><>
http://www.concentric.net/~robys
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/3790
<>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><>
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:01:55 -0500, robys <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
>>just a bunch of silly nuns.
>
>I am not Padriac, however I fail to see how your illustration proves
>anything other than those individual human beings, regardless of their
>vocation, need to repent and get their lives in order with the most high
>living God.
>
>When you stand before the Throne of God, you will not be able to say,
>*well those nuns in Australia did thus and so, and I am better than them.*
>That is what the Pharisee in Jesus' illustration said about the tax
>collector in the temple *thank God I am not a sinner like him.*
>
>You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You will
>be compared with the holiness of God and found lacking. And unless you
>have come into relationship with God through coming to the cross in
>repentance, there will be nothing left to say.
>
And then one, foggy, Christmas Eve Santa came to say: "Rudolph with
your nose so bright won't you guide my sleigh tonight". What else is
there to say?
Thomas P.
gene...@penn.com
In article <6fq0vp$i3j$1...@newsfep2.sprintmail.com>,
Pathetic42 <pathe...@Vatican.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
> just a bunch of silly nuns.
>
>
> March 31 1998
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> Orphans 'tortured and beaten by
> nuns in Australia'
>
> BY ROGER MAYNARD IN SYDNEY AND OUR FOREIGN
> STAFF
>
> HUNDREDS of orphaned children, many from Britain,
> suffered public floggings, sadistic torture and sexual abuse
> at the hands of Roman Catholic nuns, an Australian
> academic said yesterday.
<snip>
Many years ago I read some of the works of the Marquis deSade and I found
them shocking. The events described herre are no less shocking, even more so
as they were performed by individuals who are supposed to have some special
relationship with god, (or so we are told). Now, I do not think any of us
regulars on alt.recovery.catholicism are going to maintain that the heinous
behavior described in the London times areticle is sanctioned by the church
in any official way, i.e., it is written down.
However, I think there is unofficial sanction for this type of behavior. It
stems from the church insisting on celibacy for nuns and priests. The sexual
instinct in humans is powerful. If it cannot find normal release, it
oftentimes tends to find release in bizarre ways. We have seen a rise in
preistly pedophilia, or, I think more accurately, we have seen a rise in the
REPORTING of priestly pedophilia. It is my feeling that pedophilia and
homosexuality among the RCC preisthood is far more common that we will ever
know. The innate meanness of nuns (not all of them, but many)is legendary
among RC's. I feel that too is a form of sexual release.
Historically, pedophilia was an acceptable way for celibate clergy to obtain
sexual release. Seems it still may be, being as how the church scrambles like
mad to avoid facing up to this problem when and wherever it surfaces.
My heart goes out to the people who, as defensless children, suffered the
tortures of those "holy" perverts. My problems seem quite petty.
These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say.
Gene Johnson
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Darklady
robys <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.HPP.3.96.98033...@demeter.sunyit.edu>...
<snip typical brainwashed babbling>
> You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You will
> be compared with the holiness of God and found lacking.
Well, that certainly sounds fair now, doesn't it? Explains how you
can gloss over the cruelty of adults who were savage to children... must
have been judging them against your demonic lord and master, Jehovah.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Chris
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:01:57 -0800, Pathetic42
<pathe...@Vatican.org> wrote:
>Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
>just a bunch of silly nuns.
> made something of their lives. I would like to see them get
> justice and I would like to see those responsible
> prosecuted - particularly the bureaucrats and police who
> knew what was going on but who did nothing to stop it."
Blaming the Roman Catholic church for the actions of a number
of nuns and priests is like blaming the Australian police force and
government for a number of those who covered the situation up. But
are you going to go around fighting the government and police of
Australia, for not doing what it was supposed to do? Then why pose
this as an attack on the RCC, for some of its members not doing what
they were supposed to do? In fact, why should Catholicism be attacked
for some members deeply violating the very basics of Catholicism? I
don't mean to make light of this atrocity, but you can't blame the
belief system just because of the hypocrites who don't live it out.
Chris
RobinOak
gene...@penn.com wrote in message <6frk7k$9jn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>However, I think there is unofficial sanction for this type of behavior. It
>stems from the church insisting on celibacy for nuns and priests. The sexual
>instinct in humans is powerful. If it cannot find normal release, it
>oftentimes tends to find release in bizarre ways. We have seen a rise in
>preistly pedophilia, or, I think more accurately, we have seen a rise in the
>REPORTING of priestly pedophilia. It is my feeling that pedophilia and
>homosexuality among the RCC preisthood is far more common that we will ever
>know.
Yes, it does happen.
> The innate meanness of nuns (not all of them, but many)is legendary
>among RC's. I feel that too is a form of sexual release.
Hold it right there....
"The innate meanness of nuns"?
Excuse me.....
But I was taught by vowed female religious from grades 1-12, and I find your
generalization sweeping and offensive.
And ridiculous.
If it weren't for a few of those 'innately mean nuns,' btw, I wonder whether
I'd have made it through adolescence in one piece. <doubtful> There is a long
tradition in Asian culture, for instance, of respecting the 'debt of honor'
you owe those who _taught_ you. I'm not Asian, but I like that custom.
There are some human beings who are mean, yes. But to pin this label on all
members of vowed religious communities is absurd, unkind, and untrue.
>Historically, pedophilia was an acceptable way for celibate clergy to obtain
>sexual release.
<shaking head....>
"Acceptable"?
What color is the sky in *your* world?
> Seems it still may be, being as how the church scrambles like
>mad to avoid facing up to this problem when and wherever it surfaces.
True enough. It's called 'damage control' when it does happen. Politics & PR
recovery. Happens everywhere, in companies, in government, and in religious
institutions. And yes, abuse sometimes happens.
But it is *not* the norm, not by a long shot!
Aren't you ignoring the many *married* <and presumably sexually active> people
who are found to have been abusing children? It's not only a phenomenon of
celibates, not by a long shot.
Aren't we scapegoating here, just a *tad*? <irony on>
Pardon the pun, but scapegoating of whatever kind really gets my goat.
Let's see, now.....
The radically right-wing Fundamentalist Protestants scapegoat the Catholics,
the more liberal Protestants, the 'alternative Newagers', and ... <well, just
about everyone else, I suppose...>
Some of the very conservative Catholics in here have scapegoated the
alternatives <and the Protestants, and the liberal Catholics, and the ...
etc...>
Some of the 'alternatives' scapegoat *all* Christians.
Historically, Christians have scapegoated Jews.
Men have scapegoated women, and women have scapegoated men.
Whites scapegoat blacks and other people of color.
Fundamentalist Moslems are scapegoating Americans <and Christians in general,
I suppose>
And now, some of the 'recovering Catholic' bunch are scapegoating all
Catholics.
(Is anybody keeping *score* in here?? <starting to laugh...> Maybe we should
run a Scapegoating Football Pool, and see who comes out the winner in the
Scapegoat Superbowl! <sheesh...>
>My heart goes out to the people who, as defensless children, suffered the
>tortures of those "holy" perverts. My problems seem quite petty.
Actually, it's the scapegoating impulse that I'd apply that particular term
to.....
>These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
>will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say.
Don't hold your breath, Gene....
I would like to see it transform and renew itself, but I wouldn't like to see
it crumble, no. And it won't, anyhow. It's too strong, and there's too
pervasive an infrastructure. *Internationally*, no less. Won't happen.
--from Robin, a *former* but not "recovering" Catholic.... I have nothing more
to 'recover' from, having recovered very nicely, thank you.... and in fact, I
now see that I have much to be thankful for..... posting from trc, where this
had been crossposted.....
RobinOak
Darklady wrote in message
<01bd5ce2$da7050c0$af6d...@darklady.spiritone.com>...
<eyes boggling out....>
What in the Lady's name is going *on* in here today??
DarkLady, if you call robys's God "demonic," you're no better than the people
who have applied the same term to me.... And you're picking on the wrong
person, because Robys does *not* deserve this kind of treatment.... <does
anyone?>
Chill *out* people, honestly.... !
Besides, the vernal equinox is now *over*, so all that sometimes-weird energy
that derives from it should be dissipating already!! <sheesh....>
RobinOak
tony...@post6.tele.dk wrote in message
<35210ab2...@news.inet.tele.dk>...
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:01:55 -0500, robys <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
>>>just a bunch of silly nuns.
>>
>
>>I am not Padriac, however I fail to see how your illustration proves
>>anything other than those individual human beings, regardless of their
>>vocation, need to repent and get their lives in order with the most high
>>living God.
>>
>>When you stand before the Throne of God, you will not be able to say,
>>*well those nuns in Australia did thus and so, and I am better than them.*
>>That is what the Pharisee in Jesus' illustration said about the tax
>>collector in the temple *thank God I am not a sinner like him.*
>>
>>You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You will
>>be compared with the holiness of God and found lacking. And unless you
>>have come into relationship with God through coming to the cross in
>>repentance, there will be nothing left to say.
>>
>
>
>And then one, foggy, Christmas Eve Santa came to say: "Rudolph with
>your nose so bright won't you guide my sleigh tonight". What else is
>there to say?
>
>Thomas P.
Oh, I get it.
The really weird stuff is coming from threads crossposted from
alt.recovery.catholic.
For the record, I am a former Catholic also.
I'm also <now> a Pagan. A *real* one. Capital "P". As in, 'Eco-feminist Deist
Goddess worshipper/follower of 'women's spirituality'"--aka, a Witch. <g>
Also for the record, Robys is Evangelical Protestant.
And I say, everybody: LEAVE OFF beasting on poor Robys! Stop it. She does
not deserve this.
(Further for the alt.recovery.catholic record, what I think happens at "THE
END" is that you approach the "throne" of the Lady, also known as "The Divine
Swimming Instructor....". <g>
Ninety-nine lifetimes out of a hundred, you will be found lacking..... and
then.... *splish*.... back into that cosmic swimming pool till you get it
_right_.....)
Call it "Purgatory" if you want. I really don't mind. <shrug>
--
"By whatever name you call God, by that name, God will come."
-- "The Mists of Avalon"
KayJay
<APPLAUSE>
Tsk tsk robys, common sense? on a NG? :)
gene...@penn.com
In article <35214f3d...@news.ct.net>,
>
> >Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
> >just a bunch of silly nuns.
>
> > justice and I would like to see those responsible
> > prosecuted - particularly the bureaucrats and police who
> > knew what was going on but who did nothing to stop it."
>
> Blaming the Roman Catholic church for the actions of a number
> of nuns and priests is like blaming the Australian police force and
> government for a number of those who covered the situation up. But
> are you going to go around fighting the government and police of
> Australia, for not doing what it was supposed to do? Then why pose
> this as an attack on the RCC, for some of its members not doing what
> they were supposed to do? In fact, why should Catholicism be attacked
> for some members deeply violating the very basics of Catholicism? I
> don't mean to make light of this atrocity, but you can't blame the
> belief system just because of the hypocrites who don't live it out.
>
> Chris
>
<sarcasm mode on>
Yeah, I guess blaming an organization based around medieval superstition that
psychologically manipulates its members with guilt and fear of eternal
damnation, worships a god whose wrath is appeased with a human sacrifice,
practices ritual cannibalism, and is completely devoid of human
understanding, has forsaken any of the message that their mythical christ
taught for fostering attitudes that end up with its sexually repressed
employees abusing others with impunity is pretty silly, isn't it?
<sarcasm mode off>
<sigh> You just don't get it, do you, Chris? This shit happens BECAUSE the
church is the way it is.
Tim Murphy
Chris wrote in message <35214f3d...@news.ct.net>...
>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:01:57 -0800, Pathetic42
><pathe...@Vatican.org> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
>>just a bunch of silly nuns.
>
>> made something of their lives. I would like to see them get
>> justice and I would like to see those responsible
>> prosecuted - particularly the bureaucrats and police who
>> knew what was going on but who did nothing to stop it."
>
> Blaming the Roman Catholic church for the actions of a number
>of nuns and priests is like blaming the Australian police force and
>government for a number of those who covered the situation up. But
>are you going to go around fighting the government and police of
>Australia, for not doing what it was supposed to do? Then why pose
>this as an attack on the RCC, for some of its members not doing what
>they were supposed to do? In fact, why should Catholicism be attacked
>for some members deeply violating the very basics of Catholicism? I
>don't mean to make light of this atrocity, but you can't blame the
>belief system just because of the hypocrites who don't live it out.
>
>Chris
>
Mmm... Well.. what was the percentage of Catholics and other Xtains in the
Australian Police Force? ...at the material time? If it came out that they
had known about and colluded with this... then I say we should raise it with
them and see what they have to say about it...
The thing is as well.... a lot of this stuff went on until very recently.
People like you come on this NG and say things along these lines all the
time.
"There was only a few".
"They were a few rotten apples".
"They were going against the teachings of the church".
"It is unfair to blame Catholicism because of some of it's members".
"You can't blame the belief system",
What we know and hear about all the time proves to us that this is not the
case.
The serious criminal mistreatment of Catholics by Catholics and especially
of Catholic children by Catholic adults was substantial and widespread. It
was more so than other Xtian groups (although a lot of them have a bad
record as well) because it seemed to go on for longer. It was outstandingly
bad.
What we are saying is not just that there were some criminal cases that were
covered up (we are saying that as well).
What we are saying is that it is the core ideas of Catholicism which have
produced the spiritual and psychological climate for child abuse and other
misuses of power up to and including WW2 Anti-Semitism.
I call this belief system "blood guilt cannibalism" or Catholic Church Mind
Abuse (CCMA).
Let me give you a very, very small example. On the scale of mistreatment
anything less than this is hardly worth talking about:
A person - an adult male - known to me, told me that when was in a seminary
when he was 12 years old....
....One winter evening he received from one holy father, a teacher, 12
strokes of a heavy bamboo cane - for leaning against a warm radiator during
prayers (rosary).
Not a sharp word or a slap round the head. 12 strokes of the cane on his
ass.
I suppose that was one for every year of his life.
Any semi-humane half moral person would have asked the kid to go and get a
sweater if they had noticed he was feeling cold.
What a fucking Psychopath.
This was in the mid sixties - post V2. At the time no one thought it
remarkable. It was normal.
Normal = systematic, ingrained, institutionalised, mental and physical abuse
of catholic children, at home, at school, convent. orphanage, seminary etc.
by (Catholic) parents, teachers, priests, nuns, monks and others.
After the Non-Apology by the RCC to the Jewish people, in the last week we
have had two Catholic religious orders confess (limited) responsibility for
severe, protracted, ingrained and institutionalised mistreatment, ranging
from (and I quote) "excessive corporal punishment" through "sexual abuse" to
"torture".
The cynic in me feels that these kind of groups (who have defended
themselves very vigorously in the past) are doing this to head off
litigation.
There have been severe mental health problems amongst numerous people as a
result of the "holy work" of these (very mainstream) catholic religious
orders - not only the direct victims but also the ones that had to watch
it/hear it and say nothing in case they got it as well. Some of these people
became drug and/or alcohol dependant and/or committed suicide.
It seems to me that a lot of these orders were used by the RCC to break the
will of poor people and immigrants who they especially singled out for extra
Xtian Charity (Love and Care).
In the 19th Century, (when many of these orders were founded, enlarged or
sent out to the colonies) throughout Europe small subsistence farmers were
losing their land and being pushed into the truly Dickensian urban slums as
factory fodder for the industrial revolution. Others, now poor and
homeless/landless were sent to the colonies.
These religious orders (under a kind of "social contract" to the factory
owners and the Catholic upper classes) were used to staff the schools and
social dustbin institutions that managed the new poor in their new slum
settlements and in the colonies. Other sections of society were going
through the same economic and social processes and suffering but with the
RCC it seems that they got stuck for generations.
"Dickensian" is what these orders still are. You know it when you see how
they dress, how they think, how they talk and when you see how they live and
hear what their views are.
If it talks like a Dickensian and looks like a Dickensian and thinks like a
Dickensian - then I say it is a Dickensian.
These latest admissions are still just the tip of the ICEBERG.
But it is coming out... bit-by-bit.
Oh... and another thing..... Please do not Xpost to ARC.
Darklady
RobinOak <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote in article
<6frqat$792$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
> Oh, I get it.
> The really weird stuff is coming from threads crossposted from
> alt.recovery.catholic.
>
> For the record, I am a former Catholic also.
No. For the record "the really weird stuff is coming from threads
crossposted" TO alt.recovery.catholicism.
> I'm also <now> a Pagan. A *real* one. Capital "P". As in, 'Eco-feminist
Deist
> Goddess worshipper/follower of 'women's spirituality'"--aka, a Witch. <g>
> (Further for the alt.recovery.catholic record, what I think happens at
"THE
> END" is that you approach the "throne" of the Lady, also known as "The
Divine
> Swimming Instructor....". <g>
Well, I'm an atheist. I don't plan on approaching ANYONE's throne.
Hardly egalitarian and sad to see a "real" pagan (whatever that means
anymore) should be into that sort of royalty stuff. (shrug) Whatever gets
you through the night.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
> > Well, that certainly sounds fair now, doesn't it? Explains how you
> >can gloss over the cruelty of adults who were savage to children... must
> >have been judging them against your demonic lord and master, Jehovah.
> DarkLady, if you call robys's God "demonic," you're no better than the
people
> who have applied the same term to me.... And you're picking on the wrong
> person, because Robys does *not* deserve this kind of treatment.... <does
> anyone?>
Let's review, shall we?
robys <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.HPP.3.96.98033...@demeter.sunyit.edu>...
> I am not Padriac, however I fail to see how your illustration proves
> anything other than those individual human beings, regardless of their
> vocation, need to repent and get their lives in order with the most high
> living God.
>
> When you stand before the Throne of God, you will not be able to say,
> *well those nuns in Australia did thus and so, and I am better than
them.*
> That is what the Pharisee in Jesus' illustration said about the tax
> collector in the temple *thank God I am not a sinner like him.*
>
> You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You will
> be compared with the holiness of God and found lacking. And unless you
> have come into relationship with God through coming to the cross in
> repentance, there will be nothing left to say.
Does this sound like a friendly god? This creature which judges the
fallible by comparing it to the infallible? Not in my book. And a person
who will shrug off evidence of hideous abuse to children (the post was in
response to a reporter uncovering years of horrible physical, mental and
emotional abuse of children including maiming, aborting and destroying
fetuses conceived within a convent school) and tell others they have no
right to look at these actions and feel horror at them or consider
themselves to be better than those who engaged in those acts has some
serious problems.
And if pagans think beating, burning, raping and abusing children is
fine with their god(s) then that's news to me and my many pagan friends.
I hardly think that calling a god who endorses such behavior "demonic"
is a bad thing and I would never call a pagan "demonic" unless they
endorsed said behavior. I've never met a pagan (before now, I guess) who
thought those sorts of things were fine.
How funny that poor robys gets this outpouring of sympathy... but the
children who were burned and beaten get none. I guess you have to have
your priorities.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
Chris <teething...@usa.net> wrote in article
<35214f3d...@news.ct.net>...
> Blaming the Roman Catholic church for the actions of a number
> of nuns and priests is like blaming the Australian police force and
> government for a number of those who covered the situation up.
I see. So governing bodies should not be held accountable for the
actions of their representative members in authority? Of course it was the
nuns and priests involved who are to blame for their own actions... but
they had bosses, you know... The RCC has a responsibility to make sure that
its schools are safe for the children who attend them. If a man walks into
a public school and rapes a girl in the bathroom the school will be held
liable for not protecting that girl. Why should the international and
multibillion dollar industry called the RCC be held less liable for its
establishments?
--
Darklady
Darklady
gene...@penn.com wrote in article <6frk7k$9jn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Many years ago I read some of the works of the Marquis deSade and I found
> them shocking. The events described herre are no less shocking, even more
so
> as they were performed by individuals who are supposed to have some
special
> relationship with god, (or so we are told). Now, I do not think any of us
> regulars on alt.recovery.catholicism are going to maintain that the
heinous
> behavior described in the London times areticle is sanctioned by the
church
> in any official way, i.e., it is written down.
Of course not. Now that the RCC no longer has a functional and
standing army that sort of thing is totally passe'.
> However, I think there is unofficial sanction for this type of behavior.
It
> stems from the church insisting on celibacy for nuns and priests.
I think it goes further than that. Many Buddhist sects have vows of
celibacy but I don't believe they have the same degree of abuse from their
leaders. I think it has more to do with the famous Catholic Guilt and
Original Sin. These folks took the RCC really seriously... that's why they
took on orders. Part of internalizing all that dogma is learning to hate
your mortality and anything associated with it that isn't "pure." This
desire to revile the flesh can only translate into diseased actions, sadly.
Yes, some priests and nuns are good and gentle people... but I think the
Poor Claire and Franciscan type of Catholicism is practically a different
religion from the sort of self-loathing we see in so many officials. It's
really quite sad.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
> > The innate meanness of nuns (not all of them, but many)is legendary
> >among RC's. I feel that too is a form of sexual release.
> But I was taught by vowed female religious from grades 1-12, and I find
your
> generalization sweeping and offensive.
>
> And ridiculous.
Learn to read. Gene said "not all but many." Your nuns are in the
clear.
Like it or not, the vast majority of people I've ever met who had
dealings with nuns have had bad dealings... especially within educational
facilities. And the good nuns always seem to have been getting shit from
the bad ones. I've heard tales of gentle nuns who were popular with the
kids but treated badly by their fellow nuns.
> >Historically, pedophilia was an acceptable way for celibate clergy to
obtain
> >sexual release.
>
> <shaking head....>
>
> "Acceptable"?
>
> What color is the sky in *your* world?
Is that your answer? A rhetorical question? Pick up a history book
and get a grip. Pedophilia has been a popular way to deal with sexuality
for a long time... pre-Christian, in fact. In some cultures it's a part of
the rite of passage from childhood to manhood, for instance. And the
sequestered orders have often been... very close to one another, especially
the fresh-faced new acolytes. Just because it doesn't make you all fuzzy
and happy and warm and full of fairy dust and full-moon magic doesn't mean
it isn't the case.
> And now, some of the 'recovering Catholic' bunch are scapegoating all
> Catholics.
Did the nuns teach you read selectively or is that something you
developed on your own? Gene (nor anyone else in a.r.c. that I know of)
does not scapegoat "all Catholics." We were all Catholics once, too! Some
of the folks here used to BE priests and nuns. We're not making this shit
up because we can't figure out what to do with our time.
And, as far as condemning molestation and abuse by priests and nuns...
why should we be focusing on married folks? We're not talking about the
mainstream. We're talking about the RCC. It's a very focused discussion
which does not deny that abuse occurs elsewhere, simply that it occurs
within the RCC and is covered up. Your request simply begs the question.
> >My heart goes out to the people who, as defensless children, suffered
the
> >tortures of those "holy" perverts. My problems seem quite petty.
>
> Actually, it's the scapegoating impulse that I'd apply that particular
term
> to.....
Once again the kids who were abused get shoved aside so that sympathy
can be poured on the poor, helpless offenders and anyone their supporters
want to scoop into the "let's not deal with the issue" net.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Dee...@worldnet.att.net
You absolutely can not blame the Catholic
Church for what you've just read. Catholics don't corner
the market on child abuse, you know. That would be the Mormons.
I'm not saying that that's what you are doing, but your
post kind of looks that way.
In my state, Washington, Catholic Community Services is second
only to the state welfare system(AFDC)when it comes to providing
children and adults
with food, clothes, shelter, rides to the doctor and other
home and health-care needs. There are sick people in all
religions and professions. If a doctor abuses his child, do you say,
"Oh, it's because he's a doctor?" No, you say he's a sicko!
Jen
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM
FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dee...@worldnet.att.net
>" These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
> will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say."
>
>
Excuse me, but we Catholics are fighting the good
fight to perserve the sanctity of life; to end abortion and
doctor-assisted suicide. Doesn't that say more about our
perceptions and attitude toward life than what a bunch of
psychotics did more than 20 years ago? Sure, I feel bad about
what happened to those kids, but as I've said before, Catholics
don't corner the market on child abuse. It's an equal
opportunity evil.
Dee...@worldnet.att.net
> >These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
> >will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say.
>
>
>
> I would like to see it transform and renew itself, but I wouldn't like to see
> it crumble, no. And it won't, anyhow. It's too strong, and there's too
> pervasive an infrastructure. *Internationally*, no less. Won't happen.
frank w elliott jr
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
:
: >" These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
: > Gene Johnson
:
:
: Excuse me, but we Catholics are fighting the good
: fight to perserve the sanctity of life; to end abortion and
: doctor-assisted suicide.
"We have God on our side. How can we do any wrong?"
: Doesn't that say more about our
: perceptions and attitude toward life than what a bunch of
: psychotics did more than 20 years ago?
If this story is true, those "psychotics" were acting with
the authority of your Church. It is your responsibility
to reform your Church so that atrocities are not committed
by people acting in the name of the Church.
: Sure, I feel bad about
: what happened to those kids, but as I've said before, Catholics
: don't corner the market on child abuse.
Catholics have cornered the market on covering up child abuse.
The Church, laity, clergy, and hierarchy, shows a complete lack
of willingness to examine itself as an institution. The attitude
is "We are an institution ordained by Christ. How can we do
any wrong?"
: It's an equal
: opportunity evil.
The clerical fascism that facilitates this evil in your Church
is a far greater evil.
:
: Jen
Cash
> Does this sound like a friendly god? This creature which judges the
> fallible by comparing it to the infallible?
Well, it isn't quite as simple as that.
> Not in my book.
Well, that's your book.
> And a person
> who will shrug off evidence of hideous abuse to children (the post was in
> response to a reporter uncovering years of horrible physical, mental and
> emotional abuse of children including maiming, aborting and destroying
> fetuses conceived within a convent school) and tell others they have no
> right to look at these actions and feel horror at them or consider
> themselves to be better than those who engaged in those acts has some
> serious problems.
First off, we don't just "shrug it off," what we shrug off is the attempt
to disprove Christianity because of these apparently perverted nuns. And
as far as the complaint against not being allowed to consider themselves
better than said nuns, remember that God does not judge by our standards
(there are lots of sins that, while minor to us, are very offensive to God)
> And if pagans think beating, burning, raping and abusing children is
> fine with their god(s) then that's news to me and my many pagan friends.
Depends on how you define pagan. I would consider most of this society
(even some who claim to be Christian) to be "paganistic." You don't have
to say "Hail Satan" to be a Satanist.
> I hardly think that calling a god who endorses such behavior
"demonic"
> is a bad thing
He does NOT endorse this behavior. No, the nuns will surely be punished,
if they haven't repented and expitiated their sins.
> and I would never call a pagan "demonic" unless they
> endorsed said behavior. I've never met a pagan (before now, I guess) who
> thought those sorts of things were fine.
So we are endorsing it because we want you to judge Christianity by its
teachings and not the sins and atrocities of its members?
Cash
No gene, I think that if a priest or a nun wanted to get it on, they would
find a normal way to do it....a parish priest could just seduce a member of
his congregation or something. No reason to equate celibacy = perverted
sex acts
Susan Roby
>> You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You
will
>> be compared with the holiness of God and found lacking. And unless you
>> have come into relationship with God through coming to the cross in
>> repentance, there will be nothing left to say.
>
> Does this sound like a friendly god? This creature which judges the
>fallible by comparing it to the infallible? Not in my book. And a
person
>who will shrug off evidence of hideous abuse to children (the post was in
>response to a reporter uncovering years of horrible physical, mental and
>emotional abuse of children including maiming, aborting and destroying
>fetuses conceived within a convent school) and tell others they have no
>right to look at these actions and feel horror at them or consider
>themselves to be better than those who engaged in those acts has some
>serious problems.
What I said was that an individual cannot use other's horrific acts and an
excuse. Those nuns, regardless of their vocation, will pay before God for
their acts. So will we. However, God has provided redemption through the
shed blood of Jesus. It cost him a great deal, the most loving act one
can do. The nuns cannot rest upon being nuns, they personally must repent
(truly repent) of their sins. Heaven is not a *given* based on their
vocation or choice of church membership. Catholocism does not teach that,
nor does any other denomination of Christianity.
My point to the original writer was he was trying to discredit
Christianity based on the sinful acts of those who consider themselves
Christians - and only our heart before God determines *true* Christianity.
The original poster cannot use the nuns as an excuse, nor can
Dark Lady, nor can I, to say, well, we are better then those nuns. We
still must go to the cross, confess our own sins, and truly repent (which
means, to change our actions).
And BTW, sin is any action which is out of the character of God. God is
love, which is patience, kindness, never haughty, selfish, or rude, for
example. Sin is the lack of His character in our lives. We all have much
to confess, as well as the nuns in Austraila.
Cash
> And, as far as condemning molestation and abuse by priests and
nuns...
> why should we be focusing on married folks? We're not talking about the
> mainstream. We're talking about the RCC. It's a very focused discussion
> which does not deny that abuse occurs elsewhere, simply that it occurs
> within the RCC and is covered up. Your request simply begs the question.
>
I think the point is, because it DOES happen even in conventional
situations, that maybe it is not the "evil Roman Church" that is the cause.
Now I bet you will say that "It is part of the problem because they are
covering it up." So what? I don't think it is the OFFICIAL policy. Are
you gonna quit this charade and start judging the Church by its teachings,
or are you gonna continue finding ways of rejecting the Truth because we
are sinners, some even horrible ones?
am...@snet.net
In article <6frk7k$9jn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
gene...@penn.com wrote:
>
> In article <6fq0vp$i3j$1...@newsfep2.sprintmail.com>,
> Pathetic42 <pathe...@Vatican.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
> > just a bunch of silly nuns.
> >
> >
> > March 31 1998
> >
> > AUSTRALIA
> >
> > Orphans 'tortured and beaten by
> > nuns in Australia'
> >
> > BY ROGER MAYNARD IN SYDNEY AND OUR FOREIGN
> > STAFF
> >
> > HUNDREDS of orphaned children, many from Britain,
> > suffered public floggings, sadistic torture and sexual abuse
> > at the hands of Roman Catholic nuns, an Australian
> > academic said yesterday.
>
> <snip>
>
> them shocking. The events described herre are no less shocking, even more so
> as they were performed by individuals who are supposed to have some special
> relationship with god, (or so we are told). Now, I do not think any of us
> regulars on alt.recovery.catholicism are going to maintain that the heinous
> in any official way, i.e., it is written down.
>
> instinct in humans is powerful. If it cannot find normal release, it
> oftentimes tends to find release in bizarre ways. We have seen a rise in
> preistly pedophilia, or, I think more accurately, we have seen a rise in the
> REPORTING of priestly pedophilia. It is my feeling that pedophilia and
> homosexuality among the RCC preisthood is far more common that we will ever
> among RC's. I feel that too is a form of sexual release.
>
like
> mad to avoid facing up to this problem when and wherever it surfaces.
>
> tortures of those "holy" perverts. My problems seem quite petty.
>
> will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say.
>
> Gene Johnson
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
than the sacrement of marriage puts a patina of "sin" on sexual
relaitonships. Young men or women (many not all) begin to consider the
priesthood or religious orders at a stage in their developement when all
those normal sexual feelings are becoming realized. They are then told to
repress these feeling. These feelings are wrong, evil, bad. (Like the nun who
told us to touch our bodies was a sin except to wash. I had no idea what
she was talking about. I went around in fear for a few days until my mother
noticed me acting strangely and cleared up my confusion, to her credit with a
laugh.) The confusion and pain and guilt must be tremendous. Imagine having
to be blinfolded for the rest of your life. The person knows the colors and
beauty are there but it is sinful to look at them.
These young men and women become arrested at an immature state of sexual
maturity. And because they have these feelings they feel tainted, not good
enough. They try to repress them all their lives and this repression and
guilt makes some of them do really bizarre things. Mandatory Celibacy is a
horrible thing. And for the people who will assert that these young men and
woman made a choice I don't believe it. They were taught from a very young
age that sex wasn't as good as celibacy and were brainwashed into thinking
the priesthood or religous orders were better. There was no choice here.
AMBAN
gene...@penn.com
In article <6frooq$9i5$1...@nw003t.infi.net>,
"RobinOak" <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
>
> gene...@penn.com wrote in message <6frk7k$9jn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >stems from the church insisting on celibacy for nuns and priests. The
sexual
> >instinct in humans is powerful. If it cannot find normal release, it
> >oftentimes tends to find release in bizarre ways. We have seen a rise in
> >preistly pedophilia, or, I think more accurately, we have seen a rise in
the
> >REPORTING of priestly pedophilia. It is my feeling that pedophilia and
> >homosexuality among the RCC preisthood is far more common that we will ever
> >know.
>
>
> > The innate meanness of nuns (not all of them, but many)is legendary
> >among RC's. I feel that too is a form of sexual release.
>
>
> "The innate meanness of nuns"?
>
> Excuse me.....
>
> But I was taught by vowed female religious from grades 1-12, and I find your
> generalization sweeping and offensive.
>
> And ridiculous.
>
> I'd have made it through adolescence in one piece. <doubtful> There is a
long
> tradition in Asian culture, for instance, of respecting the 'debt of honor'
> you owe those who _taught_ you. I'm not Asian, but I like that custom.
>
> There are some human beings who are mean, yes. But to pin this label on all
> members of vowed religious communities is absurd, unkind, and untrue.
Did those sweet nuns teach you to read? Maybe you missed the words "not all
of them..." in my post. Gee, touchy, aren't we...?
Well, I guess that's the "color of the sky" in your world. You cannot judge
my subjective experiences any more than I can judge yours. You are fortunate
your experiences were positive.
>
> >Historically, pedophilia was an acceptable way for celibate clergy to
obtain
> >sexual release.
>
> <shaking head....>
>
> "Acceptable"?
>
Acceptable, condoned and encouraged. I will have citations for that piece of
onfo soon. Stay tuned.
> What color is the sky in *your* world?
>
Depends on the weather. Today it's raining so it's overcast. You?
> > Seems it still may be, being as how the church scrambles like
> >mad to avoid facing up to this problem when and wherever it surfaces.
>
> True enough. It's called 'damage control' when it does happen. Politics & PR
> recovery. Happens everywhere, in companies, in government, and in religious
> institutions. And yes, abuse sometimes happens.
>
> But it is *not* the norm, not by a long shot!
>
> Aren't you ignoring the many *married* <and presumably sexually active>
people
> who are found to have been abusing children? It's not only a phenomenon of
> celibates, not by a long shot.
>
Hmmm...I didn't realize we were discussing them too. Anxious to change the
subject? Take the heat of the pedophile preists and sadistic nunz? Kinda
makes you squirm...doesn't it?
> Aren't we scapegoating here, just a *tad*? <irony on>
>
> <snip the barnyard>
Your point? It was RC nuns and proests involved in the specific incident
under duscussion. You have a real problem sticking to the subject, don't you?
>
> >My heart goes out to the people who, as defensless children, suffered the
> >tortures of those "holy" perverts. My problems seem quite petty.
>
> Actually, it's the scapegoating impulse that I'd apply that particular term
> to.....
>
???????
> >These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
> >will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say.
>
> Don't hold your breath, Gene....
>
I won't have to.
> I would like to see it transform and renew itself, but I wouldn't like to
see
> it crumble, no. And it won't, anyhow. It's too strong, and there's too
> pervasive an infrastructure. *Internationally*, no less. Won't happen.
>
> --from Robin, a *former* but not "recovering" Catholic.... I have nothing
more
> to 'recover' from, having recovered very nicely, thank you.... and in fact,
I
> now see that I have much to be thankful for..... posting from trc, where
this
> had been crossposted.....
>
>
I responded to a post that was evidently crossposted
alt.recovery.catholicism. I do not post to TRC as I have no use for any
dialogue with any true believers as I am not and do not wish to be one. I
can't change your mind and you surely won't change mine. Similarly, I have no
desire to offend anyone who actually subscribes to the RCC belief system.
Gene
Stephanie Rendino
(I've snipped alt.recovery.catholicism.)
Gotta agree with Cash here. People keep blaming celibacy for priestly
child abuse, but that's completely wrong. If that were true, single guys
would routinely go after kids, not women in singles' bars, right? Priests
are surrounded by adoring adult parishioners; a psychologically normal
priest who wasn't up to keeping celibacy doesn't need to go to kids.
I think the fact that sexual abuse by priests is the result of shabby
psychological screening in the past. Plus, you have to figure that a lot
of men who became priests were victims themselves, and they're continuing
the abuse that was done to them. It _can_ be stopped, and it has to be
done with the same tactics for stopping sexual abuse in family. It's a
painful process, but it has to be done.
Robert J. Pease
I probably would concede that many abuses of power by clergy are in
contradiction to the "teachings"..and that only a few regulars here
think that ALL Catholics are stupid or evil.
However, Two points:
1. The "Teachings " of the church seem to depend on who you talk to.
The New shiny 1990's product is quite different than the days of the
Index Librorum Prohibitorum that I grew up with.
2. To me, many of the BASIC teachings of Christianity are goofy, and
lead you to absurd cunclusions about yourself and humanity in general.
Cash
> 2. To me, many of the BASIC teachings of Christianity are goofy, and
> lead you to absurd cunclusions about yourself and humanity in general.
To you.
Amban
>
>6 BILLION people can't be wrong!
>Jen
I am sure that is pretty close to what the Germans in Nazi Germany thought.
gene...@penn.com
In article <6frpe4$2e2$1...@nw003t.infi.net>,
"RobinOak" <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
>
> Darklady wrote in message
> <01bd5ce2$da7050c0$af6d...@darklady.spiritone.com>...
>
> >
> >> You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You will
> >> be compared with the holiness of God and found lacking.
> >
> >can gloss over the cruelty of adults who were savage to children... must
> >have been judging them against your demonic lord and master, Jehovah.
> >Darklady
>
> <eyes boggling out....>
>
> What in the Lady's name is going *on* in here today??
>
people
> who have applied the same term to me.... And you're picking on the wrong
> person, because Robys does *not* deserve this kind of treatment.... <does
> anyone?>
>
>
> Besides, the vernal equinox is now *over*, so all that sometimes-weird
energy
> that derives from it should be dissipating already!! <sheesh....>
>
This thread has been crossposted into alt.recovery.catholicism. Nobody has
anything personal against the Robys, whoever they are. They are taking issue
with what they said, there's a difference. I don't know how things go in the
other NG's, but we use live rounds here. If you're going to post here, wear
your kevlar vest. And DL's comment about the "demonic lord and master jehova"
is rational and accurate.
Gene Johnson
Chris
On 1 Apr 1998 12:48:01 GMT, "Cash" <ca...@midwest.net> wrote:
>> And, as far as condemning molestation and abuse by priests and
>nuns...
>> why should we be focusing on married folks? We're not talking about the
>> mainstream. We're talking about the RCC. It's a very focused discussion
>> which does not deny that abuse occurs elsewhere, simply that it occurs
>> within the RCC and is covered up. Your request simply begs the question.
>>
>I think the point is, because it DOES happen even in conventional
>situations, that maybe it is not the "evil Roman Church" that is the cause.
> Now I bet you will say that "It is part of the problem because they are
>covering it up." So what? I don't think it is the OFFICIAL policy. Are
>you gonna quit this charade and start judging the Church by its teachings,
>or are you gonna continue finding ways of rejecting the Truth because we
>are sinners, some even horrible ones?
While I don't agree with the tone of this reply, I do agree
with the general idea. When a Roman Catholic abuses a child or kills
someone who disagrees or does anything else along those lines, it is
somehow implied that the cause of this is the Roman Catholic Church.
As if the RCC teaches its members to dutifully kill people and start
Inquisitions and rape little children. I'd ask you to show me where
Catholicism teaches those things. The institiution may have supported
the Inquisition, or some members may try to cover up child abuse, but
does that mean Catholicism is wrong for it? Catholicism opposes such
things. So do the majority of Catholics, BTW.
If child abuse occurs among the clergy, and child abuse occurs
among the 'conventional' world as well, doesn't that point to human
nature? If a man or woman who claims to believe in Catholicism rapes
a child, and a man or woman who claims to be atheistic rapes a child,
doesn't that show that raping children doesn't rest on the alleged
beliefs of the rapist?
Chris
Peter Cassidy
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
:
: 6 BILLION people can't be wrong!
Argumentum ad numerum just doesn't cut it. If you want to join the
biggest religion, go become a Hindu or something ...
Reminds me of those McDonalds "Millions served" signs - I can't
swallow their bland products either!
Pete C
--
| Peter Cassidy - Sacramento, CA, USA | Si/ na Samhna, |
| pcas...@iol.ie - http://www.iol.ie/~pcassidy | Tu/s na Bliain U/r. |
| ** No unsolicited commercial email ** | Si/ an Chrann Marbh, |
| | Deireadh an Tuath. |
Pathetic42
Padraic42 wrote:
> >Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
> >just a bunch of silly nuns.
> Yeah yeah Pathetic (appropriate name for you), show us where the
> Church told them to do that.
Read the next 57 posts.
> Of course your group is spotless isn't it?
My "group"? Which one? I associate with lots of groups. None of them
commit, year after year, systematic and continued crimes against
children.
And if they did, I wouldn't try and justify their barbaric behavior.
Instead, I'd leave them, but then none of them have brainwashed me since
birth.
> >
> >THE TIMES OF LONDON
> >
> >March 31 1998
> >
> >AUSTRALIA
> >
> >
> > Orphans 'tortured and beaten by
> > nuns in Australia'
> >
> > BY ROGER MAYNARD IN SYDNEY AND OUR FOREIGN
> > STAFF
> >
> > HUNDREDS of orphaned children, many from Britain,
> > suffered public floggings, sadistic torture and sexual abuse
> > at the hands of Roman Catholic nuns, an Australian
> > academic said yesterday.
> >
> > The brutality took place over 90 years at an Order of the
> > Sisters of Mercy orphanage in Neerkol, northern
> > Queensland, ending only in 1976.
> >
>
> Pax Christi, Pat
> "Misere Mei, Deus"
"I'm miserable, God. I'm a Catholic. Damn you! (Oops.) "
> (http://members.aol.com/Padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
·····································································
Amban
If you would be able to Cash you should take a survey. Ask them how it
feels to deny themselves. Ask them how it feels to loathe themselves for
those feelings. Ask them how it feels to know that they would be sinners
in the eyes of their "shepherd" and the eyes of their flocks. Ask them why
they can't leave their priesthood. They might go to hell, they wouldn't
have a job, their families might reject them. Ask the many suffering
priests out there who struggle with this issue day in and day out. You
have no clue what these men suffer through. You have Bing Crosby in mind
not a real human being. Mandatory Celibacy causes this suffering.
The pedophiles know that the children probably will not talk but adults
might cause complications. And they can't risk their collar and go to hell.
Cash wrote in message <01bd5d6a$cf7352c0$2402ebd0@cash>...
Stephanie Rendino
In article <6fu4kf$m...@news2.snet.net>, Amban <amba...@snet.net> wrote:
>If you would be able to Cash you should take a survey. Ask them how it
>feels to deny themselves. Ask them how it feels to loathe themselves for
>those feelings. Ask them how it feels to know that they would be sinners
>in the eyes of their "shepherd" and the eyes of their flocks. Ask them why
>they can't leave their priesthood. They might go to hell, they wouldn't
>have a job, their families might reject them. Ask the many suffering
>priests out there who struggle with this issue day in and day out. You
>have no clue what these men suffer through. You have Bing Crosby in mind
>not a real human being. Mandatory Celibacy causes this suffering.
Okay, first realize that I'm against mandatory celibacy, because I don't
see any point to it, and "We've always done it this way" doesn't wash.
But I think your comments on priests are self-loathing for having sexual
feelings is pretty off the wall. Maybe years ago that was the case, but
now the ones I know vent it all off into erotic poetry, physical fitness,
smoking or, sad to say, the bottle.
They think it's a stupid rule, too. But obviously there's something there
for them, because they've stuck with it.
>The pedophiles know that the children probably will not talk but adults
>might cause complications. And they can't risk their collar and go to hell.
This doesn't work. For a psychologically normal person to have sex with a
child just because they're horny is a stretch. Note that I said psycho-
logically healthy. As for fear that an adult might talk, heck, look how
easily dioceses just shuffle around pedophile priests. Gotta be even
easier to handle priests who had relationships with adults.
Yes, it happens. Yes, dioceses cover it up. It's not people outside the
Church who are going to stop it, though.
RobinOak
Cash wrote in message <01bd5d69$f84bac20$2402ebd0@cash>...
>
>> Does this sound like a friendly god? This creature which judges the
>> fallible by comparing it to the infallible?
>
>Well, it isn't quite as simple as that.
>
>> Not in my book.
>
>Well, that's your book.
And, uh, Cash? In my book, if somebody wants to discuss something that's been
posted on the newsgroup, any responses like the one you sent me in email
should *stay* on the newsgroup. What gives 'alternatives the *right*' to be
alternative is the concept of *freedom*. And justice.
Again, I refer you to the First Amendment, and other laws like it, which
guarantee religious freedom in countries outside the USA.
KayJay
> >http://www.concentric.net/~robys
> >http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/3790
this second addy doesn't exist... is there a new one?
KayJay
On 1 Apr 1998 Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> 6 BILLION people can't be wrong!
<grin> sure they can, look how many people went to the Spice Girls
movie...
:P
> Jen
Dee...@worldnet.att.net
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 14:28:57 -0500, "Amban" <amba...@snet.net> wrote:
> If you would be able to Cash you should take a survey. Ask them how it
> feels to deny themselves. Ask them how it feels to loathe themselves for
> those feelings. Ask them how it feels to know that they would be sinners
> in the eyes of their "shepherd" and the eyes of their flocks. Ask them why
> they can't leave their priesthood. They might go to hell, they wouldn't
> have a job, their families might reject them. Ask the many suffering
> priests out there who struggle with this issue day in and day out. You
> have no clue what these men suffer through. You have Bing Crosby in mind
> not a real human being. Mandatory Celibacy causes this suffering.
>
they were signing up for when they joined seminary? What, are
they dogs that can't cotrol their behavior?
I don't think so...celibacy is a gift from God. If a priest
can't handle it, then he needs to get help from his elders.
That's what they are there for. And if that doesn't help, then
he needs to leave the priesthood. It's a personal decision and
it isnt exactly a big surprise. They know what is expected
of them...and for good reason. I've been to a protestant church
and I can say that there is a subtle difference between married
and celibate. I prefer the Catholic Trad. any day of the
week.
Jen
some secret order. They know when they sign on
Dee...@worldnet.att.net
RobinOak
gene...@penn.com wrote in message <6ftn0v$2re$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Yeah, that's what I figured. That's the problem with crosspostings... half the
time you don't even realize where these darned things are going....
Okay, I'm intentionally throwing one more into a.recovery.c, just for that
famous record once again...
There was a time when I felt I was 'recovering' from Catholicism. And I had a
lot to 'recover' from, because I was raised in one of the most virulent forms
of it: oldtime *Latin* Catholicism. Tales of bloody sheets hanging from
windows after the wedding night <the 'family honor,' you know>; Maria Goretti,
lots of rules, hell, fire, brimstone, and God help you if you touch yourself
or even look down.
So there was all of that. However, they kept the Lady. <g> And for the last
two *thousand* years, that one presence of the feminine divine was kept alive
during those two millennia of Christian patriarchy in the West by that figure
of the Mother. <I'm being very Jungian here, and I know all about the finer
points of official Marian theology... she's not really a goddess, she's a
this, a that and the other.... yeah, yeah, whatever! I'm talking about a
*symbol*, not a real historical figure....> She was certainly appropriated
and even misappropriated, perhaps, but She was still *there*. That's
something. In my book, it's a big something.
Also, the sacramental aspect of Catholicism retained some of the older
reverence for the natural world, in its sacramental use of natural elements
like fire, water, etc.... <not to mention the famous "candle plunging" Easter
rite.... <G>
Finally, there is a "justice & peace" infrastructure to beat the band:
hospitals, missions, schools, and other philanthropic organizations, one of
which probably saved my life in utero, as a matter of fact, and then arranged
for an adoption.
So I tend to chill out more where Catholicism is concerned. Yeah, I got
beaten up by it too. <shrug> Took me some years, but I eventually got over it.
Nobody's perfect, after all. <g>
> Nobody has
>anything personal against the Robys, whoever they are. They are taking issue
>with what they said, there's a difference. I don't know how things go in the
>other NG's, but we use live rounds here. If you're going to post here, wear
>your kevlar vest.
> And DL's comment about the "demonic lord and master jehova"
>is rational and accurate.
Only if you read the non-canonical texts!!! <LOL>
Bring back Mom Sophia and the Archons!!! <she was like to WHUP Jehovah's
sorry butt for what he did in Genesis.... don't mess with Mom Sophia, because
She is TOUGH....> <g>
What makes you see Jehovah as a 'demonic force'? (To me, he often seems to
have NO sense of humor AT ALL, but I wouldn't go quite so far as to call him
'demonic,' no....)
Why would you say he's a 'demon'? The Abraham & Isaac story, for one?
There are aspects of the OT particularly that can strike one as incredibly
sick, agreed. All those *wars* and crushing enemies, and so on.... <tsk tsk>
But these texts were produced in another culture and another time.... if we
read them without their context, or if we read them literally, then yeah....
some of them sound mighty sick, even 'demonic.'
Here you have a god who is telling Abraham to take his son up to the
mountaintop, and sacrifice him.... then an angelic head pops out of the clouds
and says, "Whoops! Just *kidding*, Abe...."
Divine child abuse? If read that way, then yes: mighty Jehovah does come
across as a mighty sick old fart, agreed.
However.... I wonder if it's possible that a highly cynical reading such as
the one above falls into the same trap <though inverted> that fundamentalism
does:
Are we taking that story and many others like it, LITERALLY????? <G>
See my point?
(My point):
IT'S A BL**DY **METAPHOR**!!!
;-)
If I read that metaphorically, then I can find a great beauty in that story,
because it seems to convey not an actual historical event, but the extent of a
faith--"Abraham's", or what the _figure_ of Abraham represented in the OT.....
which was a race of people. Not a single historical figure, not entirely. From
what I gather, the story of Abraham & Isaac was meant to convey the *movement*
of a nation away from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. <an improvement,
let's face it...>
It also speaks to me this way: how much of what's important to us can we 'let
go of', in the service of what we _perceive_ as true, right, and just? And
some things are begging to be let go of. In my tradition we might call that
aspects of the "Shadow Self," those parts of us that are destructive and
pathologically selfish.... the shadow side of the personality. Whatever
stands in the way of enlightenment, growth, and spiritual perfection is that
which must be released, let go of... no matter how much we want to *cling* to
it, as Abraham wanted to cling to Isaac. "Sacrifice," in other words. Things
that must be *released*, however important they are. The Abe/Isaac story may
come across as a bit primitive, yes. But what can you expect, given its age
and the 'primitive' culture which produced it? <shrug>
Sometimes you just have to move ahead with whatever it is, on 'faith,' no
matter how crazy it may seem in terms of conventional wisdom. Conventional
wisdom says, "You cannot found a great nation if you slice & dice your only
child!"
"Conventional wisdom" is not always the way of the path of enlightenment,
which involves taking some risks and *sometimes,* moving in directions that
may seem 'foolish' to the rest of the world. But what seems 'foolish' to
society might just be the way to go, at times. <which is why The Fool comes
first in the Tarot, dare I add...>
This is not only a "Catholic" principle or a Jewish one or a Christian one: it
just *is*. There are certain basic spiritual principles that are said in many
ways in many faiths, and that is one of them.... risk-taking... faith.... and
being able to let *go* of even those things that we want to cling to, when
necessary. Clinging to things--even very important things--is what we want
most to do, but these will eventually become obstacles on our path to the feet
of the Divine One. <A Girl, btw> <G> Okay, okay... both male and female, and
yet neither one nor the other...
So that's how I read the Abe/Isaac "JUST KIDDING!!!" story....
Abraham-as-Fool, but as a holy fool... Needless to say, I am NOT recommending
or condoning child abuse or sacrifice!! Or any other act that is dangerous or
destructive. The story for me is meant to convey a *principle*, that of
_taking risks_ and of making 'leaps of faith,' **at appropriate times**. <let
us not be too literal, once again...>
My two Witch's cents, FWIW....
(PS: I hang out in the Catholic NG because it's just more interesting than the
Wiccan one, btw. Too many kids and silly flamers in there. In here I seem to
learn a lot more, and there are a few trained tolerant and patient theologians
who pop in from time to time, from whom I learn a great deal. Another of my
own cherished principles is that of religious tolerance, so long as what the
path teaches 'harms none'. Robys is very much a 'harm none' kind of person,
which is why I "flew" <witches are good at that> to her defense....) ;-)
So that's who I am, and where I'm at--the village witch of trc. <s> I
empathize with the need to 'recover' from a path that has damaged one, but I
cannot stand by and say nothing when I see intolerance and 'harm' being done.
I realize you feel that harm has been done to you all, by Catholicism, which
is why your NG is named 'recovery'. There's a process you're evidently having
to go through, to 'recover' from what you perceive as harm and damage that's
been done to you by aspects of the Catholic path, I understand that. <been
there, been there....>
There comes a time, however, when one must face up to the 'shadows', learn
from the past, and then--*move on*. It does one no good to continue for too
long ruminating in bitterness and ill-feeling.... that damages the psyche and
the spirit. This is life on planet Earth, and no path is perfect, no
tradition is without its Shadow Side, and the entire globe we're standing on
is populated with imperfect humans who reeeeally screw up, at times.....
You could call it 'forgiveness,' even of an institution. Or you could call it
something else...the net effect is the same. If you're 'alternative,' you
might call it "_releasing_ the shadow, moving on, and continuing onward and
upward in the spiral dance...."
Goddess bless.
--
"Geography is only physics slowed down, with a few trees stuck on it."
--Terry Pratchett
di...@tcsourceone.com
In article <6fsjlm$b46$1...@orthanc.reference.com>,
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> You absolutely can not blame the Catholic
> Church for what you've just read. Catholics don't corner
> the market on child abuse, you know. That would be the Mormons.
Really?
Put up or shut up.
Diana, asking for some shred of believable, acceptable proof.
gene...@penn.com
In article <6ftgi4$9...@stratus.CAM.ORG>,
be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>
> In article <01bd5d6a$cf7352c0$2402ebd0@cash>, Cash <ca...@midwest.net> wrote:
> >find a normal way to do it....a parish priest could just seduce a member of
> >his congregation or something. No reason to equate celibacy = perverted
> >sex acts
>
>
> Gotta agree with Cash here. People keep blaming celibacy for priestly
> child abuse, but that's completely wrong. If that were true, single guys
> would routinely go after kids, not women in singles' bars, right?
You are equating single guys with celibates? What planet are you living on?
That is a statement that is either incredibly stupid or naive.
Priests
> are surrounded by adoring adult parishioners; a psychologically normal
> priest who wasn't up to keeping celibacy doesn't need to go to kids.
OK, expert, why do they?
>
> I think the fact that sexual abuse by priests is the result of shabby
> psychological screening in the past. Plus, you have to figure that a lot
> of men who became priests were victims themselves, and they're continuing
> the abuse that was done to them. It _can_ be stopped, and it has to be
> done with the same tactics for stopping sexual abuse in family. It's a
> painful process, but it has to be done.
>
Was that an answer? Sounds like more bullshit excuses to me.
Oh, as for a "...psychologically normal priest..." just where do you find one
of those anyway?
Gene
gene...@penn.com
In article <6fsl2v$bs1$1...@orthanc.reference.com>,
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>
> >" These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
> > will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say."
> >
> >
>
> Excuse me, but we Catholics are fighting the good
> fight to perserve the sanctity of life;
The church, and I'm not sure if that includes "we catholics" or not,
historically only cares abouit preserving the sanctity of life when it is in
the best interest of the church. Cardinal Spellman was directly responsible
for getting the US into Vietnam (don't agrue, just read a history book, he
sucked up to Nixon who was Ike's VP and was on a real "anti-communist" roll)
to keep a Catholic minority in control of a Buddhist majority, which led to
the deaths of MILLIONS of people througout Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. So
that "sanctity of life" stuff is not too impressive. Well, maybe it wasn't
all bad, heaven got some fresh souls out of th deal, right?
> the sanctity of life to end abortion and doctor-assisted suicide.
I don't want to argue the abortion issue, all I will say is that the
interference of the RCC and other well meaning busybodies in to those two
issues seem to exemplify the typical "Christian" tendency of "Christians" to
not mind their own damned business and tell everyone else how to lead their
lives. The only reason the church cares about abortion is that they don't
want to run out of fresh bodies to contribute to the church coffers.
And yes, the post is coming out of alt.recovery.catholicism where the
original post was Xposted and yes I am somewhat hostile to the church, with
good reasons. And I do not subscribe to ANY of it anymore. Pious arguments do
not sway me.
You got a faith that works for you? Good! Not everybody else is into it.
Doesn't that say more about our
> perceptions and attitude toward life than what a bunch of
> psychotics did more than 20 years ago? Sure, I feel bad about
> what happened to those kids, but as I've said before, Catholics
> don't corner the market on child abuse. It's an equal
> opportunity evil.
>
> Jen
<sigh> Another lukewarm apology.
gene...@penn.com
In article <01bd5d6a$cf7352c0$2402ebd0@cash>,
"Cash" <ca...@midwest.net> wrote:
>
> No gene, I think that if a priest or a nun wanted to get it on, they would
> find a normal way to do it....a parish priest could just seduce a member of
> his congregation or something. No reason to equate celibacy = perverted
> sex acts
>
>
Well, that could be true, assuming that nuns and priests are "normal." I
guess that would mean that they are heterosexual and capable of sexual
gratification in that manner (I really don't like using the word "normal")
as But they are not. They are individuals who live in enforced celibacy.
Very different situation.
Gene
Darklady
Cash <ca...@midwest.net> wrote in article
<01bd5d69$f84bac20$2402ebd0@cash>...
>
> > Does this sound like a friendly god? This creature which judges
the
> > fallible by comparing it to the infallible?
>
> Well, it isn't quite as simple as that.
I responded to a very specific sentence in a very specific post.
And in that post it *was* that simple.
> > And a person
> > who will shrug off evidence of hideous abuse to children (the post was
in
> > response to a reporter uncovering years of horrible physical, mental
and
> > emotional abuse of children including maiming, aborting and destroying
> > fetuses conceived within a convent school) and tell others they have no
> > right to look at these actions and feel horror at them or consider
> > themselves to be better than those who engaged in those acts has some
> > serious problems.
>
> First off, we don't just "shrug it off," what we shrug off is the attempt
> to disprove Christianity because of these apparently perverted nuns. And
> as far as the complaint against not being allowed to consider themselves
> better than said nuns, remember that God does not judge by our standards
> (there are lots of sins that, while minor to us, are very offensive to
God)
I can't remember something which hasn't been proven to be a fact.
You've got your personal perception of what you think the god you believe
in is like but I and many other people don't share that view. Therefore, I
don't need to "remember" anything that YOU believe. We're talking about a
character in a book and there appear to be many ways to interpret said
character's behavior.
Secondly, by ignoring the issue of the nuns (none of the good
Christian folk have bothered to even mention that... they've been too busy
sweeping up after them and making it all look clean and neat) utterly they
*are* shrugging it off. How much work does it involve to say, "What these
women did was horrible and the fact they were able to get away with it for
so long is equally horrible."
Maybe I'm being hard on you folks but I could argue your side of this
issue better than I've seen it argued.
> > And if pagans think beating, burning, raping and abusing children
is
> > fine with their god(s) then that's news to me and my many pagan
friends.
>
> Depends on how you define pagan. I would consider most of this society
> (even some who claim to be Christian) to be "paganistic." You don't have
> to say "Hail Satan" to be a Satanist.
I'm assuming that you know Jack and Shit about pagan religions, then.
Some involved sacrifices and some didn't. The Jews certainly engaged in
sacrifices (animal and human) but I assume that falls under some special
dispensation clause. If there's anything "pagan" around here it's the RCC,
which is steeped in paganism.
Being a Satanist has more to do with Christianity, btw, than paganism.
Without Satan, God has no purpose and without God, Satan has no complaint.
Don't try to put that on the pagans.
> > and I would never call a pagan "demonic" unless they
> > endorsed said behavior. I've never met a pagan (before now, I guess)
who
> > thought those sorts of things were fine.
>
> So we are endorsing it because we want you to judge Christianity by its
> teachings and not the sins and atrocities of its members?
You've got the selective reading gene, too?
"We" (is that your royal "we?") are calling this creature "demonic"
because, as presented in the original post, its behavior and endorsements
fit the bill. I'll go one better and say that I think it's a label that
fits not just the "sins and atrocities of its members" (cop-out city) but
also its teachings. The god of the OT is violent, bloody, cruel, sadistic
and capricious.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
Susan Roby <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.HPP.3.96.98040...@demeter.sunyit.edu>...
> What I said was that an individual cannot use other's horrific acts and
an
> excuse. Those nuns, regardless of their vocation, will pay before God
for
> their acts. So will we. However, God has provided redemption through
the
> shed blood of Jesus.
Except, of course, the sacrifice didn't apparently work. See, this
Jesus guy supposedly died for our "sins" except we can still go to hell...
so it didn't work. Tough luck, Jesus. But at least you didn't have to
spend years being tortured at the hands of people you were trained to
believe were virtuous.
> My point to the original writer was he was trying to discredit
> Christianity based on the sinful acts of those who consider themselves
> Christians - and only our heart before God determines *true*
Christianity.
> The original poster cannot use the nuns as an excuse, nor can
> Dark Lady, nor can I, to say, well, we are better then those nuns.
We can use any excuse we want, first of all. Whether we're right or
not is debatable.
Secondly, I can most assuredly say that I am much better than nuns who
torture and abuse. If you can't, then you should probably turn yourself
into the authorities at your earliest convenience.
I think it's valid to point out the bad behavior or authorized
representatives of a religion. The power of their religion can't be very
strong if it can't keep true believers in line or teach them proper
behavior. The "word" of that religion may be valid but it certainly isn't
anything more than philosophy if it has no power beyond its ink.
> And BTW, sin is any action which is out of the character of God. God is
> love, which is patience, kindness, never haughty, selfish, or rude, for
> example.
You want to find a Biblical quote to support that statement?
God killed laughing boys, told a man to murder his son, drowned a
planet of people and animals, destroyed a city, turned a woman into salt...
shall I continue? These are the actions of a loving, patient, kind, not
haughty, selfish or rude god? Do you live in a world where words mean the
opposite of what they mean in my world?
--
Darklady
Robert J. Pease
Any word I choose shall mean exactly whay I want it to mean....no
more,no less.....
LEWIS CARROLL (white queen?)
Darklady
RobinOak <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote in article
<6fudeb$dpg$1...@nw001t.infi.net>...
> >This thread has been crossposted into alt.recovery.catholicism.
>
> Yeah, that's what I figured. That's the problem with crosspostings...
half the
> time you don't even realize where these darned things are going....
You got that right.
> So there was all of that. However, they kept the Lady. <g> And for the
last
> two *thousand* years, that one presence of the feminine divine was kept
alive
> during those two millennia of Christian patriarchy in the West by that
figure
> of the Mother.
Amusingly enough, that is an aspect of the RCC that most of the guys
(they're nearly always guys) who come into a.r.c. to tell us why we're
fucked up don't like. The inclusion of Mary in the RCC really bugs the
hell out of some people. God forbid (literally) that a woman should have
any value at all in Christianity. And even then, the BVM is so out of
touch with womanhood as to be only vaguely female.
I spoke with a stripper friend recently who said she never identified
with Jesus or God, but with the Virgin of Guadeloupe.
> Finally, there is a "justice & peace" infrastructure to beat the band:
> hospitals, missions, schools, and other philanthropic organizations, one
of
> which probably saved my life in utero, as a matter of fact, and then
arranged
> for an adoption.
The RCC, being fabulously organized (and once a genuine political
entity) has made a point of developing some benevolent societies... I
believe that is because people are basically good and Catholic people want
to do good things.
<gene wrote:>
> > And DL's comment about the "demonic lord and master jehova"
> >is rational and accurate.
>
> Only if you read the non-canonical texts!!! <LOL>
We clearly have a difference of opinion regarding Jehovah's behavior.
> What makes you see Jehovah as a 'demonic force'? (To me, he often seems
to
> have NO sense of humor AT ALL, but I wouldn't go quite so far as to call
him
> 'demonic,' no....)
Demons are supposed to be violent, destructive and hateful, right?
Check out the OT. Seems to fit Jehovah to a t. Keep in mind that I'm an
atheist. I don't believe any of it. I think it's all metaphor and
analogy. That's one reason I said the behavior described is "demonic." I
attacked the behavior, not the deity.
> There are aspects of the OT particularly that can strike one as
incredibly
> sick, agreed. All those *wars* and crushing enemies, and so on.... <tsk
tsk>
> But these texts were produced in another culture and another time.... if
we
> read them without their context, or if we read them literally, then
yeah....
> some of them sound mighty sick, even 'demonic.'
What context? These aren't the stories of actions of a people...
they're the stories of the action of a god. A god who has a lot of
opinions about other gods. I can read the Bible as a reflection of the
people who wrote it and I can read it as a holy work supposedly inspired by
a god. I agree with you in the secular interpretation (mine) but if it's
being promoted (as it was in the original post) as a divine text then I
believe using my spin is not out of line.
Like it or not, the Bible is taken literally by many people. When
someone presents it to me in a way which indicates that they are doing so,
I respond using their fundamental arguments. I will treat it like reality
even though I think it's a fever dream from the ancients.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
<6fslgu$btm$1...@orthanc.reference.com>...
> 6 BILLION people can't be wrong!
So, you believe that the Chinese way of life is correct, then?
Might makes right? I'll keep that in mind.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
gene...@penn.com
In article <01bd5d78$af830560$2402ebd0@cash>,
Amban
Stephanie Rendino wrote in message <6fu950$r...@ocean.CAM.ORG>...
In article <6fu4kf$m...@news2.snet.net>, Amban <amba...@snet.net> wrote:
>>If you would be able to Cash you should take a survey. Ask them how it
>>feels to deny themselves. Ask them how it feels to loathe themselves for
>>those feelings. Ask them how it feels to know that they would be sinners
>>in the eyes of their "shepherd" and the eyes of their flocks. Ask them
why
>>they can't leave their priesthood. They might go to hell, they wouldn't
>>have a job, their families might reject them. Ask the many suffering
>>priests out there who struggle with this issue day in and day out. You
>>have no clue what these men suffer through. You have Bing Crosby in mind
>>not a real human being. Mandatory Celibacy causes this suffering.
>
>Okay, first realize that I'm against mandatory celibacy, because I don't
>see any point to it, and "We've always done it this way" doesn't wash.
>But I think your comments on priests are self-loathing for having sexual
>feelings is pretty off the wall. Maybe years ago that was the case, but
>now the ones I know vent it all off into erotic poetry, physical fitness,
>smoking or, sad to say, the bottle.
How long will the poetry (besides aren't those bad thoughts?), excercise,
smoking and drugs last as a fix? Why do they need these things? Isn't it
sad that they have to resort to things like this? Many many have illicit
sexual relationships and become hypocrites.
>
>They think it's a stupid rule, too. But obviously there's something there
>for them, because they've stuck with it.
Well I would say they are stuck with it. If they leave they have to face
family pressures, they lose their pensions, it is difficult to start again
when you are over 40 and one personally that I know doesn't want to
disappoint his mother. And lets face it it is much easier to know where
your next meal, car insurance, health insurance and not having to deal with
the pressures of real life. It is easier not to have to sacrifice your time
on a personal level.
>This doesn't work. For a psychologically normal person to have sex with a
>child just because they're horny is a stretch. Note that I said psycho-
>logically healthy. As for fear that an adult might talk, heck, look how
>easily dioceses just shuffle around pedophile priests. Gotta be even
>easier to handle priests who had relationships with adults.
I wasn't saying that all priest were pedophiles and I was not talking about
just being horny. I am talking about real psychological damage that is done
to these men. Many of the pedophiles are arrested at a juvenile state of
sexual maturity and that is either because the church tells them that sex is
not as good as being celibate thus bad at an early age or some of the
persons attracted to the priesthood are thus attracted because they have
ambivalent feelings about their sexuality and have been try to repress them
all their lives. And I feel there is a difference between mandatory
celibacy and those who choose celibacy. But what kind of choice is it if
you are told from a young age that celibacy is better than sexuality? And if
you love and want to serve God you have to be celibate or you just don't
make the rate. I don't think this brainwashing is a choice.
It is messier with adults. The church still does it or tries. I know of 3
attempts in a 5 year period in the town I know of. One of the priests none
of the parishoners even guessed was involved with someone. Adults can't
be scared into keeping quiet. they could be embarrassed though. I was one
of those adults who at the time thought I would never complain but when I
heard that the bishop wanted to hide away my now husband from me and my
family I saw red. Now that I have had a few years to think about it you
better believe the bishop that I trusted would be on the front page of the
newspaper if my husband had been using me like many priests use the women in
the shadows. But I was a fully realized adult not a confused child.
>
>Yes, it happens. Yes, dioceses cover it up. It's not people outside the
>Church who are going to stop it, though.
I don't want to try to change the church. I don't even care anymore. I
think there is a cancer in the hierarchy that can not be expunged and I will
not be a part of it. But if you think, especially being a woman, that you
are going to change anything, you are sadly mistaken. Been there, thought
that and realized it was never going to happen. The church is a group of
politically motivated good old boys hiding behind a collar of holiness. You
know what Stephanie they would not give you a second thought if you came in
the way of a collar. What bothers me are all the good people left in the
church who still believe the lies. It is so very sad. I merely thought the
hierarchy were a bunch of confused men trying to serve God the best way they
could now I know that they are a bunch of motivated men trying to serve
themselves in the best way they can.
My former priest husband said he would answer this post but he is tired of
all the misconceptions and attacks that are sent his way by the misguided
"Christians" out there.
gene...@penn.com
In article <Pine.HPP.3.96.98040...@demeter.sunyit.edu>,
Susan Roby <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >> You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You
> will
> >> have come into relationship with God through coming to the cross in
> >> repentance, there will be nothing left to say.
> >
> > Does this sound like a friendly god? This creature which judges the
> person
> >who will shrug off evidence of hideous abuse to children (the post was in
> >response to a reporter uncovering years of horrible physical, mental and
> >emotional abuse of children including maiming, aborting and destroying
> >fetuses conceived within a convent school) and tell others they have no
> >right to look at these actions and feel horror at them or consider
> >themselves to be better than those who engaged in those acts has some
> >serious problems.
>
> excuse. Those nuns, regardless of their vocation, will pay before God for
> their acts. So will we. However, God has provided redemption through the
> can do. The nuns cannot rest upon being nuns, they personally must repent
> (truly repent) of their sins. Heaven is not a *given* based on their
> vocation or choice of church membership. Catholocism does not teach that,
> nor does any other denomination of Christianity.
>
> My point to the original writer was he was trying to discredit
> Christianity based on the sinful acts of those who consider themselves
> Christians - and only our heart before God determines *true* Christianity.
> The original poster cannot use the nuns as an excuse, nor can
> Dark Lady, nor can I, to say, well, we are better then those nuns. We
> means, to change our actions).
>
> And BTW, sin is any action which is out of the character of God. God is
> love, which is patience, kindness, never haughty, selfish, or rude, for
> to confess, as well as the nuns in Austraila.
>
> <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><>
> http://www.concentric.net/~robys
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/3790
> <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><> ~ <>< ~ ><>
>
Susan,
I do not know who's idea it was to crosspost this thread to
alt.recovery.catholicism, but it certainly has stirred up a merry little
shitstorm. All that stuff you said is sort of very nice, it sparkles with
"fairy dust" and all, but it really means little to us in ARC because we do
not believe in the innate goodness of the church. I am no longer a catholic
or a christian. The point many of us have come to on the group is that there
comes a time at which you cannot separate the teachings of an organization
from its actions. We see many of the actions of the RCC as evil. Argue all
you want, believe in it all you want, pray all you want, we're not getting
off that position. Nothing personal. If there was a jesus, he might have been
ok, after all he (allegedly) turned water into wine! But the church most
definitely isn't OK and hasn't been for, oh, a thousand years or so.
Actually, longer.
The real curious thing is that across the board, we see the "loyal" RC's
willing to cop out on the responsibility of the church in these matters. Yes,
a lot of love and compassion there (that was sarcastic). Maybe these
individuals will "pay before god" but it sure wouldn't hurt the church to
take some responsiblity for the actions of it's employees. All the church
wants to do is squirm out of having to own up. The "blood of jesus" has no
meaning here. How about "justice?" That one's got a good ring to it.
Gene Johnson
SteveH
Chris, you are missing the point here entirely (was that an airplane that
just flew over my head?)
Most a.r.c. participants understand that the rcc does not have a monopoly on
molestation and abuse. Unfortunately every corner of our society has its
share of sick people who commit these acts. You had better, however check
some past posts on Deja News for some disturbing statistics on pedophilic
clergy.
The real issue with the rcc is how it acts (e.g. coverups) then reacts when
these stories come to light. I again refer you to many prior posts on this
subject.
How do you think the church should react in these situations? Should it
cover them up or get them out in the open? Which is best for the church and
its members, as well as for its credibility with the non-rc world?
One of the biggest credibility gaps IMHO with the rcc (and there are many)
is that they incessantly preach, "we are sinners, now and at the hour of our
deaths", and yet somehow the church itself is infallible, always right,
capable of doing no wrong (as evidenced by the recent slick side step on
anti-semitism).
Chris, the church is made up of people like you and I (well, maybe you, not
I), right on up to JPII himself. All humans, all fallible, all making
mistakes. Isn't it time they started to admit a few mistakes? If they don;t
then things will never change, never improve.
Unless of course you call the anullment rules new and improved. LOL
SteveH
Chris wrote in message <35226de3...@news.ct.net>...
RobinOak
Darklady wrote in message
<01bd5d08$a9353540$2f6d...@darklady.spiritone.com>...
[]
>> DarkLady, if you call robys's God "demonic," you're no better than the
>people
>> who have applied the same term to me.... And you're picking on the wrong
>> person, because Robys does *not* deserve this kind of treatment.... <does
>> anyone?>
>
> Let's review, shall we?
>
>robys <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote in article
><Pine.HPP.3.96.98033...@demeter.sunyit.edu>...
>
>> I am not Padriac, however I fail to see how your illustration proves
>> anything other than those individual human beings, regardless of their
>> vocation, need to repent and get their lives in order with the most high
>> living God.
>>
>> When you stand before the Throne of God, you will not be able to say,
>> *well those nuns in Australia did thus and so, and I am better than
>them.*
>> That is what the Pharisee in Jesus' illustration said about the tax
>> collector in the temple *thank God I am not a sinner like him.*
>>
>> You will not be compared with the works of other human beings. You will
>> be compared with the holiness of God and found lacking. And unless you
>> have come into relationship with God through coming to the cross in
>> repentance, there will be nothing left to say.
>
> Does this sound like a friendly god? This creature which judges the
>fallible by comparing it to the infallible? Not in my book.
Nor in mine, as it happens. But as you said, "whatever gets you through the
night."
Robys and I differ on a few things, I imagine. One thing I think it's safe to
assume is that both of us, the Deist and the Evangelical Christian, believe in
a loving deity who created the world.
That's the most basic thing. The details are another matter.
> And a person
>who will shrug off evidence of hideous abuse to children (the post was in
>response to a reporter uncovering years of horrible physical, mental and
>emotional abuse of children including maiming, aborting and destroying
>fetuses conceived within a convent school) and tell others they have no
>right to look at these actions and feel horror at them or consider
>themselves to be better than those who engaged in those acts has some
>serious problems.
> And if pagans think beating, burning, raping and abusing children is
>fine with their god(s) then that's news to me and my many pagan friends.
You're putting words right into my mouth. I never said that, implied it, or
suggested anything remotely resembling that.
In fact, you sound an awful lot like a Fundie. <the variety doesn't matter...
Catholic, Protestant, whatever...>
> I hardly think that calling a god who endorses such behavior "demonic"
>is a bad thing and I would never call a pagan "demonic" unless they
>endorsed said behavior. I've never met a pagan (before now, I guess) who
>thought those sorts of things were fine.
And you just did it again.
Jumping someone else to a false conclusion is a fave activity among some of
the more radically conservative in here.
I've read some of your postings, DarkLady. You can and have done a lot better
than this.
> How funny that poor robys gets this outpouring of sympathy... but the
>children who were burned and beaten get none. I guess you have to have
>your priorities.
The children have my sympathy. May they rest in peace, and be reborn in
strength and beauty.
But this is just scapegoating, what you're doing, with this case: attempting
to condemn an entire tradition because of what some followers have done.
That's illogical and unfair.
The Christians burned 'witches' centuries ago. Some Pagans today scapegoat all
Christians because of it.
Also illogical and unfair.
The reason why I complained about the Robys-bashing is because Robys is a very
kind and loving human being. She also happens to be Christian.
Period.
RobinOak
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<6fslgu$btm$1...@orthanc.reference.com>...
>
>> >These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
>> >will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to see it transform and renew itself, but I wouldn't like to
see
>> it crumble, no. And it won't, anyhow. It's too strong, and there's too
>> pervasive an infrastructure. *Internationally*, no less. Won't happen.
>
>
>6 BILLION people can't be wrong!
What, what, now it's the CHINESE who have the absolute truth???
<THUD.... faint.....>
Darklady
> No gene, I think that if a priest or a nun wanted to get it on, they
would
> find a normal way to do it....a parish priest could just seduce a member
of
> his congregation or something. No reason to equate celibacy = perverted
> sex acts
So "seducing a member of his congregation or something" is a "normal
way to do it?"
You're creepy.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
Stephanie Rendino <be...@CAM.ORG> wrote in article
<6fu950$r...@ocean.CAM.ORG>...
> In article <6fu4kf$m...@news2.snet.net>, Amban <amba...@snet.net> wrote:
> >If you would be able to Cash you should take a survey. Ask them how it
> >feels to deny themselves. Ask them how it feels to loathe themselves
for
> >those feelings. Ask them how it feels to know that they would be
sinners
> >in the eyes of their "shepherd" and the eyes of their flocks. Ask them
why
> >they can't leave their priesthood. They might go to hell, they wouldn't
> >have a job, their families might reject them. Ask the many suffering
> >priests out there who struggle with this issue day in and day out.
You
> >have no clue what these men suffer through. You have Bing Crosby in
mind
> >not a real human being. Mandatory Celibacy causes this suffering.
>
> Okay, first realize that I'm against mandatory celibacy, because I don't
> see any point to it, and "We've always done it this way" doesn't wash.
> But I think your comments on priests are self-loathing for having sexual
> feelings is pretty off the wall. Maybe years ago that was the case, but
> now the ones I know vent it all off into erotic poetry, physical fitness,
> smoking or, sad to say, the bottle.
Steph? Amban is married to an ex-priest. I think she has some
insights that the rest of us lack.
And these new priests don't appear to be the ones committing acts of
violence against kids.
And, for what it's worth, "erotic poetry" doesn't sound like something
sanctioned for priests. Must be part of that New! Improved! RCC thinking
I've heard so much about. :)
--
Darklady
Darklady
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
<6fufgg$oim$1...@orthanc.reference.com>...
> Oh, come on now...you think they didn't know what
> they were signing up for when they joined seminary?
I think that very few of us "know" what we're signing up for when we
do much of anything. Marriage? Who knows what it is until they're
married... and even then all they know about is what *that* marriage is
like. How many soldiers know what they're signing up for? Would you deny
them the right to claim damages from being exposed to battle?
What, are
> they dogs that can't cotrol their behavior?
They're humans who shouldn't have to deny their nature.
> I don't think so...celibacy is a gift from God.
And sexuality is what? A burden given by Satan?
Celibacy isn't a gift... it's the denial of a gift. It's telling
"god" that what he gave us is dirty and of no value unless it's being
denied.
> That's what they are there for. And if that doesn't help, then
> he needs to leave the priesthood. It's a personal decision and
> it isnt exactly a big surprise. They know what is expected
> of them...and for good reason. I've been to a protestant church
> and I can say that there is a subtle difference between married
> and celibate. I prefer the Catholic Trad. any day of the
> week.
Then why don't you go become a priest of nun since you think it's so
great?
"But That's Different!"
You seem to have absorbed the absolutists tendencies of the bad parts
of the RCC quite effectively. You exhibit the ability to be steadfastly
judgmental and unconcerned with human feelings without any problem.
Congratulations. You keep it up and what little soul you started with will
be totally destroyed.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
Anthony M Annett <am...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
<6fubfn$f68$1...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>...
> It is a myth that pedophilia and homosexuality are associated; you hear
> people express their fear that gays are after the children. In fact, the
> vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.
>
> Nonetheless, you do make a valid point. Sexual frustration and repression
> combined with clerical authoritarianism is a potent combination.
Agreed 100%. I think that in the case of priests we're often dealing
with men who have several sexual issues going on at the same time. That's
one reason they're priests: they don't have to deal with their sexuality
issues. Or so they think. From things I've heard on this newsgroup, there
are many young men who go into the priesthood thinking that their only
option is to become priests in order to deal with their homosexuality.
They then find themselves with an unresolved orientation... surrounded by
other men and boys. They're fed self-loathing and power trips at the same
time, which can warp their views even more. I suspect that many of these
men could have led happy lives as well-adjusted homosexuals if it hadn't
been for the fucked up views they get fed from the seminary and the church.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 16:46:16 GMT, teething...@usa.net (Chris)
wrote:
>On 1 Apr 1998 12:48:01 GMT, "Cash" <ca...@midwest.net> wrote:
snip
>
> While I don't agree with the tone of this reply, I do agree
>with the general idea. When a Roman Catholic abuses a child or kills
>someone who disagrees or does anything else along those lines, it is
>somehow implied that the cause of this is the Roman Catholic Church.
>As if the RCC teaches its members to dutifully kill people and start
>Inquisitions and rape little children. I'd ask you to show me where
>Catholicism teaches those things. The institiution may have supported
>the Inquisition, or some members may try to cover up child abuse, but
>does that mean Catholicism is wrong for it? Catholicism opposes such
>things. So do the majority of Catholics, BTW.
>
> If child abuse occurs among the clergy, and child abuse occurs
>among the 'conventional' world as well, doesn't that point to human
>nature? If a man or woman who claims to believe in Catholicism rapes
>a child, and a man or woman who claims to be atheistic rapes a child,
>doesn't that show that raping children doesn't rest on the alleged
>beliefs of the rapist?
>
>Chris
The authoritarian nature of the Church makes it extremely easy to
cover up cases of child abuse, and the Church has consistently covered
up the abuse. The organisation has been used to protect its own
instead of to provide help to the victims. It is reasonable to
conclude that there is something wrong with this organisation.
Thomas P.
RJ England
Darklady wrote:
>
> Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
> <6fslgu$btm$1...@orthanc.reference.com>...
>
>
> Might makes right? I'll keep that in mind.
Yeah nd everyone knows that China has more Catholics than any where
else.Sarcasm mode on.
Darklady
> > And if pagans think beating, burning, raping and abusing children
is
> >fine with their god(s) then that's news to me and my many pagan friends.
>
> You're putting words right into my mouth. I never said that, implied it,
or
> suggested anything remotely resembling that.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I said "If" and also said it
wasn't my experience that they did endorse these things. Keep in mind that
you shot the first shot with the whole nonsense about me calling you
demonic like a Christian would because you're a pagan.
>
> In fact, you sound an awful lot like a Fundie. <the variety doesn't
matter...
> Catholic, Protestant, whatever...>
Do what I say not what I (etc.)
> The children have my sympathy. May they rest in peace, and be reborn in
> strength and beauty.
>
> But this is just scapegoating, what you're doing, with this case:
attempting
> to condemn an entire tradition because of what some followers have done.
>
> That's illogical and unfair.
>
> The Christians burned 'witches' centuries ago. Some Pagans today
scapegoat all
> Christians because of it.
You claim to have read my posts and then you write this nonsense? I
condemn the tradition based on far more than this one pathetic example of
the church's corruption.
> The reason why I complained about the Robys-bashing is because Robys is a
very
> kind and loving human being. She also happens to be Christian.
She may well be kind and loving but her post was full of bullshit and
hate. I called it like I saw it.
I also happen to be a "very kind and loving person." I like animals
and flowers and am kind to children.
But if I write crap then I expect someone to call me on it.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
> From what I've heard, the seminaries are trying hard to develop a healthy
> attitude towards sexuality. That at least means recognizing it. The older
> crop of priests were simply taught that all sexual impulses were
occasions
> of sin; this led to the self-loathing and other psychological issues.
If so, I'm glad.
However, this makes you wonder what was wrong with the old way. I
mean, as an atheist and a free thinker I certainly know what *I* think was
wrong... but the teachings of self-loathing were parts of Catholic
doctrine. How can those have been wrong (assuming you buy the idea that
the RCC was created by God and its policies came from God)? By becoming
more enlightened about these issues the church certainly becomes more
ethical and humane... but it becomes less and less the Roman Catholic
Church and becomes more and more something new. I have no problem with
this new entity... but I think it is hypocritical for it to continue to
claim to still be the One True Church and to have a tradition of remaining
true to its original teachings. I just like things to be consistent or to
be honest... both if possible.
> A priest I know pointed out that today there is still a problem: people
> use the priesthood as an escape from sexual problems. THis clearly isn't
> healthy. It is also clear to me that the reason why so many priests are
> gay is that it is a decent alternative to the lack of a family.
I don't think it's a decent alternative, myself. I'd rather men
trying to escape their sexuality just accepted it and lived their lives as
fulfilled homosexuals with partners and families. Maybe if the church
would suddenly get enlightened about homosexuality there would be fewer men
escaping into holy orders.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
khai...@bradford.ac.uk
In article <Pine.HPP.3.96.98033...@demeter.sunyit.edu>,
robys <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It wasn't the Church, it was
> >just a bunch of silly nuns.
>
> I am not Padriac, however I fail to see how your illustration proves
> anything other than those individual human beings, regardless of their
> vocation, need to repent and get their lives in order with the most high
> living God.
>
We were told that Nuns and Priests were specially holy people. They had given
their lives to God therefore they were holier than the rest of us mere mortals
and were therefore to be looked up to and respected.
So when we find Nuns and Priests who do wrong, it does little good to say to
us "Not those Nuns and Priests".
Either being a Nun or a Priest makes people extra specially holy or it does
not. If it does, why then are some Nuns and Priests extra-specially evil.
Either we go round believing that all Nuns and Priests are extra holy, except
for the ones we have met who are not real Nuns and Priests at all, or we
decide the original premis is wrong.
We have decided, based on our experience and the experience of others, that
there is nothing extra special or extra holy about Nuns and Priests after all.
When we recount experiences of bad Nuns and Priests we ares saying "Nuns and
Priests are not more Holy than the rest of us. So there."
Kathy HH
Jeff Beshoner
khai...@bradford.ac.uk wrote in article
<6fvupn$b77$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.96.98033...@demeter.sunyit.edu>,
> robys <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> When we recount experiences of bad Nuns and Priests we ares saying "Nuns
and
> Priests are not more Holy than the rest of us. So there."
>
> Kathy HH
I think that you would find most Catholics agree with your statement. All
Catholics are called to holiness, some have chosen to strive toward
holiness as a Priest or Brother or Nun, some are striving toward holiness
as a Mother or Father, some are striving toward holiness in the single
life. The most you can say is that hopefully the atmosphere in the
religious life aids in the goal of attaining holiness - sometimes it does,
sometimes it doesn't.
Jeff Beshoner
khai...@bradford.ac.uk
In article <6ft8k0$tap$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott jr)
wrote:
> If this story is true, those "psychotics" were acting with
> the authority of your Church. It is your responsibility
> to reform your Church so that atrocities are not committed
> by people acting in the name of the Church.
>
> : Sure, I feel bad about
> : what happened to those kids, but as I've said before, Catholics
> : don't corner the market on child abuse.
>
> Catholics have cornered the market on covering up child abuse.
People who want to abuse children seek out positions where they will be put in
contact with children with minimal supervision.
If a man becomes a priest, then he has the absolute trust of his congregation.
He is regarded as holy. Anyone who tries to say anything negetive about him
can be silenced on the grounds they are telling wicked lies about a holy
priest. People will automatically take his word for a situation rather than
his victims without inquiring too closely.
It is a perfect hiding place.
Can the RCC point to methods in testing vocations that will weed out the
people who see such a position as very desirable? Of course, the potential
abuser is going to make sure they know exactly the sort of image to present,
exactly the right words to say in answer to questions.
I would suggest there is something in the priviledged position of priest that
attracts abusers and maybe the RC church has not always taken the care it
should have done to weed them out.
Kathy HH
> :
> : --------------------------------------------------------------------
> : Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM
> : FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
> : --------------------------------------------------------------------
gene...@penn.com
In article <01bd5ddf$06a049a0$106d...@darklady.spiritone.com>,
Well, Darklady, I guess we're getting down to the nitty gritty now, we're
really finding out what the REAL acceptable limits of sexuality for a
celibate clergy are, written by the true believers themselves. This IS most
revealing, isn't it? Maybe this is the "normal" way for a priest to deal with
celibacy. When I was in my mid teens, I remember my father making a remark
about the priest that baptised me (and my father was not at all religious),
"There awee a lot of women in the parish Father Barrett used to visit...and
he wasn't hearing their confessions..."
Gene
RobinOak
gene...@penn.com wrote in message <6ftl13$144$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6frooq$9i5$1...@nw003t.infi.net>,
> "RobinOak" <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
[]
>> >REPORTING of priestly pedophilia. It is my feeling that pedophilia and
>> >homosexuality among the RCC preisthood is far more common that we will
ever
>> >know.
>>
>> Yes, it does happen.
>>
>> > The innate meanness of nuns (not all of them, but many)is legendary
>> >among RC's. I feel that too is a form of sexual release.
>>
>> Hold it right there....
>>
>> "The innate meanness of nuns"?
>>
>> Excuse me.....
>>
>> But I was taught by vowed female religious from grades 1-12, and I find
your
>> generalization sweeping and offensive.
>>
>> And ridiculous.
>>
>> If it weren't for a few of those 'innately mean nuns,' btw, I wonder
whether
>> I'd have made it through adolescence in one piece. <doubtful> There is a
>long
>> tradition in Asian culture, for instance, of respecting the 'debt of honor'
>> you owe those who _taught_ you. I'm not Asian, but I like that custom.
>>
>> There are some human beings who are mean, yes. But to pin this label on all
>> members of vowed religious communities is absurd, unkind, and untrue.
>
>Did those sweet nuns teach you to read?
Gene, I have a master's degree in English, and taught college for six years.
Had I not married and moved to Europe, I would have finished a PhD in
Victorian lit, because I was about 2/3rds finished, and had gone far beyond
the master's level.
Yes, they taught me to read.
They also taught me to strive for fairness and justice, and a couple of them
saved my life when I was a teenager. "Sweet" is not a word I'd apply to them,
however. "Smart, tough, and savvy" fit much better.
> Maybe you missed the words "not all
>of them..." in my post. Gee, touchy, aren't we...?
<smile>
Could be... how about you?
>Well, I guess that's the "color of the sky" in your world. You cannot judge
>my subjective experiences any more than I can judge yours. You are fortunate
>your experiences were positive.
>
>>
>> >Historically, pedophilia was an acceptable way for celibate clergy to
>obtain
>> >sexual release.
>>
>> <shaking head....>
>>
>> "Acceptable"?
>>
>
>Acceptable, condoned and encouraged. I will have citations for that piece of
>onfo soon. Stay tuned.
>
>
>> What color is the sky in *your* world?
>>
>
>Depends on the weather. Today it's raining so it's overcast. You?
Blue skies and sunny.
>> > Seems it still may be, being as how the church scrambles like
>> >mad to avoid facing up to this problem when and wherever it surfaces.
>>
>> True enough. It's called 'damage control' when it does happen. Politics &
PR
>> recovery. Happens everywhere, in companies, in government, and in religious
>> institutions. And yes, abuse sometimes happens.
>>
>> But it is *not* the norm, not by a long shot!
>>
>> Aren't you ignoring the many *married* <and presumably sexually active>
>people
>> who are found to have been abusing children? It's not only a phenomenon of
>> celibates, not by a long shot.
>>
>
>Hmmm...I didn't realize we were discussing them too. Anxious to change the
>subject? Take the heat of the pedophile preists and sadistic nunz? Kinda
>makes you squirm...doesn't it?
I'm not the one who's squirming, Gene.
You are.
You've evidently got a major agenda here, and that is to pin all your ills,
frets, and the heartbreak of psorasis on the RCC.
You are doing yourself no favors in that.
>
>> Aren't we scapegoating here, just a *tad*? <irony on>
>>
>> <snip the barnyard>
>
>Your point? It was RC nuns and proests involved in the specific incident
>under duscussion. You have a real problem sticking to the subject, don't you?
No, Gene, that wasn't the point at all. The point was:
"Let's find every last thing we can to illustrate just how baaaaaaaad the
Roman Catholic Church is. Then we can pin the blame for whatever is wrong with
us on something _external_ to ourselves, instead of taking responsibility for
our own actions, failings, and neuroses."
*That* was, and is, the underlying point.
Some of the more right-wing people in here have done the same thing to me and
to the "alternative spirituality" people. Lay the blame for everything on Big
Bad Guy in Red Suit.
Also external to the self, I'm afraid. Another form of scapegoating, which
neatly avoids the taking up of one's own personal responsibility for one's
actions and responses.
There have been stories of people locked up in concentration camps who had
more genuine inner freedom than you appear to. Read Elie Wiesel's 'Night', for
instance.
>> >My heart goes out to the people who, as defensless children, suffered the
>> >tortures of those "holy" perverts. My problems seem quite petty.
>>
>> Actually, it's the scapegoating impulse that I'd apply that particular term
>> to.....
>>
>
>???????
E.g., "My problems seem quite *petty*." IOW, I'd said that IMO the
scapegoating impulse is 'petty' as well.
>> >These flaws in the church's perception of and attitude toward life itself
>> >will eventually lead to its demise. The sooner the better, I say.
>>
>> Don't hold your breath, Gene....
>>
>
>I won't have to.
>
>> I would like to see it transform and renew itself, but I wouldn't like to
>see
>> it crumble, no. And it won't, anyhow. It's too strong, and there's too
>> pervasive an infrastructure. *Internationally*, no less. Won't happen.
>>
>> --from Robin, a *former* but not "recovering" Catholic.... I have nothing
>more
>> to 'recover' from, having recovered very nicely, thank you.... and in fact,
>I
>> now see that I have much to be thankful for..... posting from trc, where
>this
>> had been crossposted.....
>>
>>
>
>I responded to a post that was evidently crossposted
>alt.recovery.catholicism. I do not post to TRC as I have no use for any
>dialogue with any true believers as I am not and do not wish to be one. I
>can't change your mind and you surely won't change mine. Similarly, I have no
>desire to offend anyone who actually subscribes to the RCC belief system.
I'm not trying to change you back into a Catholic--no longer one myself. I
don't believe in anyone attempting to shove dogma or religion down someone's
throat via aggressive proselytizing or any kind of coercion whatsoever. That
stuff gives me the willies. I jumped into this primarily because a trc regular
was herself being jumped upon, and I complained.
And because "tolerance" is one of tenets of my own path.
Along with 'justice'.
People cherish their own paths, their own traditions, because that is how they
are approaching the divine at a given time. There has to be diversity in
belief systems, because there is so much diversity among individuals. Has to
be this way. And those differences & paths deserve respect, so long as they do
not invade the freedom of others and cause harm. My intention here was not to
defend Mama Church at any and all costs: my intention is to attempt to inject
a note of fairness and balance here.
The Church certainly *does* have a Shadow Side.
Don't you, Gene? I know I have one. But that's not the only side of the
Church there is... everything and everyone has both light and shadow,
institutions as well as individuals. The language about 'approaching the
throne of God' was KJV biblical metaphor.... but the foundational issue, that
we are not <yet> *perfect*, is something I agree with. I'd state it
differently and have a different eschatology, but the idea that we all 'need
work' on our personalities and spirits is something I'd agree with, yes.
Needless to say, I don't expect to be thrown in with the goats at the Last
Judgment, nor do I expect anyone to be, really...partly because I don't
believe in a 'last judgment' in just that way....
From this point onward, I will try to remember to trim a.recovery.cath from
postings. Apologies to those in that NG who've been getting the
cross-postings.
am...@snet.net
In article <6fsjlm$b46$1...@orthanc.reference.com>,
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> You absolutely can not blame the Catholic
> Church for what you've just read. Catholics don't corner
> the market on child abuse, you know. That would be the Mormons.
> I'm not saying that that's what you are doing, but your
> post kind of looks that way.
> In my state, Washington, Catholic Community Services is second
> only to the state welfare system(AFDC)when it comes to providing
> children and adults
> with food, clothes, shelter, rides to the doctor and other
> home and health-care needs. There are sick people in all
> religions and professions. If a doctor abuses his child, do you say,
> "Oh, it's because he's a doctor?" No, you say he's a sicko!
And then he loses his license. The clergy that do it are hidden away or
transfered and given the opportunity to do it again. That is the difference.
>
> Jen
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM
> FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
am...@snet.net
In article <01bd5ddf$06a049a0$106d...@darklady.spiritone.com>,
"Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> Cash <ca...@midwest.net> wrote in article
> <01bd5d6a$cf7352c0$2402ebd0@cash>...
> > No gene, I think that if a priest or a nun wanted to get it on, they
> would
> > find a normal way to do it....a parish priest could just seduce a member
> of
> > his congregation or something. No reason to equate celibacy = perverted
> > sex acts
>
> So "seducing a member of his congregation or something" is a "normal
> way to do it?"
> You're creepy.
That was great DL I didn't even think of that. Duh me! AMBAN
> --
> Darklady
>
> http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
RobinOak
(alt.recovery.catholic trimmed)
Darklady wrote in message
<01bd5e16$4bf3c400$226d...@darklady.spiritone.com>...
[]
> Do what I say not what I (etc.)
If you were an initiate in a tradition like mine <witchcraft, btw, not
Catholicism>, and were studying the teachings of this path, the first thing
your teacher might say to you is:
"Cut the crap, stop laying the blame for your own failings on something
external to yourself, and grow up." And if I were your teacher, I would set
you a 'challenge': that challenge would be to spend several months studying
Catholicism. You would then be asked to find eight good things about
Catholicism, and prepare a ritual or a presentation honoring those eight good
things.
Why eight? Why not.... <s> It's a magical number.....
The reason for this kind of challenge would be this: Catholicism is the thing
you fear the most.
So you would be asked to *face it*, deal with it, learn to grow past the
shadow side of it, embrace the goodness that is also in it, and come to a
place of peace in your heart with it.
Whatever we fear retains its power over us. Fear of any kind is a sickness,
and it's one of the biggest spiritual obstacles there is. "Challenges" in the
Craft generally relate to those things we fear the most. Fears of whatever
sort must be faced up to, and overcome. That's the reason why I'd set you that
particular challenge if I were your teacher. Which I'm not. I wouldn't accept
you as a student right now, however. <not that you asked, but I'm just making
a point here...>
[]
>> The reason why I complained about the Robys-bashing is because Robys is a
>very
>> kind and loving human being. She also happens to be Christian.
>
> She may well be kind and loving but her post was full of bullshit and
>hate. I called it like I saw it.
No, you called it as you wanted to see it, and as you need to see it, because
it fulfills a neurotic need of your own and suits your own agenda, which is to
scapegoat the RCC.
Robys has never written anything 'full of bullshit and hate.' It's not in her
to be that way. She is a highly evolved soul who happens to be walking a
Christian path right now.
The bullshit and hate is coming from the posts derviving from you and others
from alt.recovery.catholicism. In psychological terms, it's called
'projection', DarkLady. Happens all the time.
Look in the *mirror* first. <another metaphor from my tradition>
> I also happen to be a "very kind and loving person." I like animals
>and flowers and am kind to children.
Very good. Hopefully you are also recycling and growing at least some of your
own food. <g>
> But if I write crap then I expect someone to call me on it.
I just did.
For the Witchly record, no coven worth its salt would accept you as an
initiate in your present spiritual condition. I hope you will grow past this
spiritual rut you're in soon, because you are in bondage to your own fears.
<and for the Tarot record, the card representing 'bondage' is The Devil. Just
thought I'd mention that...> You have created your own devil, and it's the
RCC. <more metaphor, btw> But The Devil's opposite card is The Lovers. They
have unlocked the chains the "devil" would lay on them, and are at peace with
themselves and with the rest of creation, because they have learned to love.
So if you want to defeat this devil of your own making, find *something* to
_love_ about the RCC.
Grow past it. Overcome that fear, learn to make peace with the past and with
the Catholic tradition. Because if you don't do it in this lifetime, you will
only reincarnate as a Roman Catholic again and again, until you can overcome
this problem.
(Apologies to Catholic readers for the off-topic elements of this part of the
discussion. I have been approaching this discussion from a Craft perspective
rather than a Catholic one deliberately, because it is abundantly clear that a
Catholic perspective is going to cut no ice whatsoever here.)
RobinOak
alt.recovery.cath trimmed
Darklady wrote in message
<01bd5de1$b418f080$106d...@darklady.spiritone.com>...
>Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
><6fufgg$oim$1...@orthanc.reference.com>...
>
>> Oh, come on now...you think they didn't know what
>> they were signing up for when they joined seminary?
>
> I think that very few of us "know" what we're signing up for when we
>do much of anything. Marriage? Who knows what it is until they're
>married... and even then all they know about is what *that* marriage is
>like. How many soldiers know what they're signing up for? Would you deny
>them the right to claim damages from being exposed to battle?
>
>What, are
>> they dogs that can't cotrol their behavior?
>
> They're humans who shouldn't have to deny their nature.
Agreed. Our natures were created this way by God, and they are 'incarnate,'
sexual natures. That's got to be okay, because that's the way we were
designed.
And people can do a lot of changing over the course of fifteen or 20 years,
from the time the seminary is entered to the midlife point of around 40, when
a lot of them seem to leave....
>> I don't think so...celibacy is a gift from God.
>
> And sexuality is what? A burden given by Satan?
> Celibacy isn't a gift... it's the denial of a gift. It's telling
>"god" that what he gave us is dirty and of no value unless it's being
>denied.
*Totally* agreed.
>> That's what they are there for.
What? Genitalia? <g>
Agreed!
<s>
>> And if that doesn't help, then
>> he needs to leave the priesthood. It's a personal decision and
>> it isnt exactly a big surprise. They know what is expected
>> of them...and for good reason. I've been to a protestant church
>> and I can say that there is a subtle difference between married
>> and celibate. I prefer the Catholic Trad. any day of the
>> week.
The pity of it is that celibacy is made a precondition of priesthood. I know a
lot of men who'd be good priests, but who are barred from the priesthood
because they're married. And a lot of the very best priests leave the
priesthood because they just need to be married. That's the tragedy, really,
that they make the one a condition of the other....
<....is it only me, or has anyone else noticed that there is indeed a
connection between spiritual wholeness and *human wholeness in general*,
including sexual health and activity? That at those times in your life when
you're closest to the loving Divine Fire, you also find yourself... well...
full of 'fire' yourself? Hmmm....>
> Then why don't you go become a priest of nun since you think it's so
>great?
How useful is a remark like that in this discussion?
> "But That's Different!"
> You seem to have absorbed the absolutists tendencies of the bad parts
>of the RCC quite effectively. You exhibit the ability to be steadfastly
>judgmental and unconcerned with human feelings without any problem.
>Congratulations.
>You keep it up and what little soul you started with will
>be totally destroyed.
Mirror.....
am...@snet.net
In article <6fufgg$oik$1...@orthanc.reference.com>,
Dee...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 14:28:57 -0500, "Amban" <amba...@snet.net> wrote:
> > If you would be able to Cash you should take a survey. Ask them how it
> > feels to deny themselves. Ask them how it feels to loathe themselves for
> > those feelings. Ask them how it feels to know that they would be sinners
> > in the eyes of their "shepherd" and the eyes of their flocks. Ask them
why
> > they can't leave their priesthood. They might go to hell, they wouldn't
> > have a job, their families might reject them. Ask the many suffering
> > priests out there who struggle with this issue day in and day out. You
> > have no clue what these men suffer through. You have Bing Crosby in mind
> > not a real human being. Mandatory Celibacy causes this suffering.
> >
> they dogs that can't cotrol their behavior?
> can't handle it, then he needs to get help from his elders.
> That's what they are there for. And if that doesn't help, then
> he needs to leave the priesthood. It's a personal decision and
> it isnt exactly a big surprise. They know what is expected
> of them...and for good reason. I've been to a protestant church
> and I can say that there is a subtle difference between married
> and celibate. I prefer the Catholic Trad. any day of the
> week.
>
> some secret order. They know when they sign on
I think this is a common misconception. Take a child let say 4 who just
discovers the pleasure or comfort he can recieve from his own body. Then
Mommy comes in and slaps his hands and tells him no no no! That is a sin.
This child goes to a church, school, CCD classes where a virgin is the most
special person because she is a virgin. And the smiling guy up at the front
who everyone adores is a celibate. Hmmmm?
Oh while married sex is okay (as long as you are procreating it is not okay
if you have sex just to be one with another person) being celibate is better
! To be really holy you have to be celibate. And then you can have that
special mark on your soul forever and get to go to the special priest place
in heaven. (By the way I don't think nuns get to go there? FormerRC I am
not sure of this, did you get a special mark on your soul? I know there are
different rules for the religious as opposed to the clergy.) I know that the
poor women who is forced to have 12 children doesn't get to go there because
she had sex. Doesn't matter if she spent 30 years of her life cleaning up
vomit in the middle of the night and sacrificing all her life. (While the
Bishop has someone to put on and remove his hat and hold his stick) That
doesn't cut it she is not a celibate.
This child was raised to love/fear a God who believes to be truly holy you
have to be celibate. And that other stuff you get your hands slapped for
anyway. Then the child goes goes to a seminary high school (all boys). Then
then child goes to the seminary all the while feeling this "pull" to serve
God. The only way this child has been taught to truly serve his God and
truly be holy is to become a celibate.(Remember these are probably not your
normal everyday casual teenagers these are teenagers with a passion who want
to make a difference. They just haven't been aware of their choices.) No
one tells the child - sex is good sex is life affirming, sex is a gift from
the very person you want to serve. Part of the reason being none of the
teachers ever had any experience with a life affirming conjugal
relationship. No that would get their hands slapped.
I don't know about this new improved RC in other parts of the country but as
little as 3 years ago I heard (from my husband then a priest) of a priest
telling young men that were considering the priesthood that the priesthood
was a much better place than a marriage. He pointed out all the divorce
rates and having a nagging wife and kids to take care of. Why would you want
that mess?
I don't think they knew what they were getting into. They were brainwashed
all their lives to think sex is bad celibacy is good. They want to be the
best that they can be. They really have no clue what that means or what they
are getting into until they start that lonely life. It is silly and archaic
to think only a person who does not have sex is good enough to be a spiritual
leader. It is cruel to the person. It is cruel to the people they serve.
My husband says he had absolutely no idea of the heartache or the joys of
living with a family and he is embarassed that for so many years he stood at
the pulpit and tried to advise people how to live their lives.
And those of us on the outside can not understand them either. The catholic
way is twisted.
AMBAN
Stephanie Rendino
In article <6fum1g$vtc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <gene...@penn.com> wrote:
>In article <6ftgi4$9...@stratus.CAM.ORG>,
> be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>>
>> In article <01bd5d6a$cf7352c0$2402ebd0@cash>, Cash <ca...@midwest.net> wrote:
>> >No gene, I think that if a priest or a nun wanted to get it on, they would
>> >find a normal way to do it....a parish priest could just seduce a member of
>> >his congregation or something. No reason to equate celibacy = perverted
>> >sex acts
>>
>>
>> Gotta agree with Cash here. People keep blaming celibacy for priestly
>> child abuse, but that's completely wrong. If that were true, single guys
>> would routinely go after kids, not women in singles' bars, right?
>
>You are equating single guys with celibates? What planet are you living on?
>That is a statement that is either incredibly stupid or naive.
Um, why?
>Priests
>> are surrounded by adoring adult parishioners; a psychologically normal
>> priest who wasn't up to keeping celibacy doesn't need to go to kids.
>
>OK, expert, why do they?
Because they're not NORMAL, buttmunch. The Church _has_ been admitting
perverts for years. I don't deny it; I just want to see them stopped!
>> I think the fact that sexual abuse by priests is the result of shabby
>> psychological screening in the past. Plus, you have to figure that a lot
>> of men who became priests were victims themselves, and they're continuing
>> the abuse that was done to them. It _can_ be stopped, and it has to be
>> done with the same tactics for stopping sexual abuse in family. It's a
>> painful process, but it has to be done.
>>
>
>Was that an answer? Sounds like more bullshit excuses to me.
No excuse, sir. None whatsoever.
>Oh, as for a "...psychologically normal priest..." just where do you find one
>of those anyway?
In class with me.
Stephanie Rendino
In article <6fuo2a$8...@news2.snet.net>, Amban <amba...@snet.net> wrote:
Don't you think that I know what goes on? I went _back_ because I knew
that all the bitching in the world wouldn't help. Let me let you in on a
secret, Amban. Guess who's starting to teach in the seminaries? WOMEN.
Not just a token here and there either.
The priests I go to school with were all ordained over the age of 25. The
"if you leave it will shame your family and you will have no job" scenario
is long gone. The latest guy ordained here in Montreal is 50, distinctly
not a virgin, and knew what he was getting into.
I went back to the Church because I want to be on the side against the
Mother Angelicas of the world. They've had their day, they've done enough
damage. Change is happening, and I figure I'd better help midwife it
along.
I won't say "and you have to be part of it too!" Just be aware that
there's actually hope for once.
Stephanie Rendino
In article <01bd5ddf$89384b60$106d...@darklady.spiritone.com>,
Darklady <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> Steph? Amban is married to an ex-priest. I think she has some
>insights that the rest of us lack.
Yeah, I know. But the old is starting to pass away, which is why I'm
here. If I stand by and let the old start to creep back, I'll feel
partly responsible for the return of the ugliness.
> And these new priests don't appear to be the ones committing acts of
>violence against kids.
> And, for what it's worth, "erotic poetry" doesn't sound like something
>sanctioned for priests. Must be part of that New! Improved! RCC thinking
>I've heard so much about. :)
Depends on how you slice it. I've been reading some 12th century writing
about Mary that made my socks steam! The commentary is always, "This
should be read as metaphor." Yeah, right. Look over there, it's Elvis!
srr
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.96.98033...@demeter.sunyit.edu>,
> robys <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote: > > > >Yeah, yeah, Padraic, we know: It
wasn't the Church, it was > >just a bunch of silly nuns. > > I am not
Padriac, however I fail to see how your illustration proves > anything
other than those individual human beings, regardless of their > vocation,
need to repent and get their lives in order with the most high > living
God.
> You just don't get it do you.
>
>We were told that Nuns and Priests were specially holy people. They had
>given
>their lives to God therefore they were holier than the rest of us mere
>mortals
>and were therefore to be looked up to and respected.
I don't know who told you that nuns and priests were, because of their
choice of vocation, were especially special and holy. Poppycock.
The ministry in the Catholic church, as well as other traditions, is an
avenue to dedicate one's life to minister to people God's love. It does
not confer holiness -
only a true commitment to God and living for Him brings about that
sanctification. Apparently, those nuns were not. They, just like the
rest of us, must repent. They are on even footing with the rest of us.
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never
forgotten this....
Amban
Main Entry: 1scape·goat
Pronunciation: 'skAp-"gOt
Function: noun
Etymology: 1scape; intended as translation of Hebrew `azAzEl (probably name
of a demon), as if `Ez 'OzEl goat that departs--Lev 16:8 (AV)
Date: 1530
1 : a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people
after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom
Kippur
2 a : one that bears the blame for others b : one that is the object of
irrational hostility
We are not scapegoating. The RCC should bear the blame for its crimes. To
be angry at an organization that has committed crimes is not irrational.
RobinOak wrote in message <6g08h4$gk4$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
>
>People cherish their own paths, their own traditions, because that is how
they
>are approaching the divine at a given time. There has to be diversity in
>belief systems, because there is so much diversity among individuals. Has
to
>be this way. And those differences & paths deserve respect, so long as they
do
>not invade the freedom of others and cause harm. My intention here was not
to
>defend Mama Church at any and all costs: my intention is to attempt to
inject
>a note of fairness and balance here.
Sure there needs to be a diverstiy in belief systems. But we are discussing
crimes. Mama church does invade the freedom ot others and does cause harm.
You may have been lucky. But these crimes are ongoing and many persons are
to blind to see them or they are hidden by the RCC. Maybe gene is trying to
protect the future of others and prevent these crimes. If everyone sat back
and said "oh well" all their lives, we would still have slavery, women
wouldn't have the vote and husbands would still be able to beat their wives.
I think that the point you have missed is the crimes are real. You were
fortunate but that does not mean everyone else in the world is/was. Open
your eyes amd look beyond your own experiences and stop judging others
experiences with that light.
AMBAN
Darklady
srr <ro...@sunyit.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.98040...@persephone.sunyit.edu>...
> >We were told that Nuns and Priests were specially holy people. They had
> >given
> >their lives to God therefore they were holier than the rest of us mere
> >mortals
> >and were therefore to be looked up to and respected.
>
> I don't know who told you that nuns and priests were, because of their
> choice of vocation, were especially special and holy. Poppycock.
Well, in Former RC's case I suspect it was the folks who processed her
application when she BECAME A NUN.
Your "poppycock" was her vocation for more than a decade. I'm going
to bow to her knowledge in this matter as opposed to you.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
> You've evidently got a major agenda here, and that is to pin all your
ills,
> frets, and the heartbreak of psorasis on the RCC.
> No, Gene, that wasn't the point at all. The point was:
>
> "Let's find every last thing we can to illustrate just how baaaaaaaad the
> Roman Catholic Church is. Then we can pin the blame for whatever is wrong
with
> us on something _external_ to ourselves, instead of taking responsibility
for
> our own actions, failings, and neuroses."
Thanks for the news flash because we sure the hell wouldn't have known
that was our agenda if it hadn't been for your infinite wisdom and insight.
Which, of course, has no agenda attached to it...except to judge people
you know very little about, make grand sweeping statements about them and
do the usual pathetic job of blaming the people you don't agree with. You
assume that Gene has some action, failing and neuroses" which he's not
taking responsibility for. I've never seen this to be the case. I've also
never seen him "pin the blame for whatever is wrong" on the RCC.
There's a real pattern among Catholic apologists (witchy or not) and
that's to make sure the eye turns away from the organized evil and onto the
individual who MUST have committed SOME naughtiness they can be guilted
for. It's typical of the abusive mind set. The moment the abuser is
called on their behavior they just make their accused feel guilty about
some (real or imagined) lack on their own part. How can any of us point
our fingers at wife and child beaters? Who among us is without sin?
And they say atheists are immoral. I'm disgusted, frankly.
> I'm not trying to change you back into a Catholic--no longer one myself.
I
> don't believe in anyone attempting to shove dogma or religion down
someone's
> throat via aggressive proselytizing or any kind of coercion whatsoever.
That
> stuff gives me the willies. I jumped into this primarily because a trc
regular
> was herself being jumped upon, and I complained.
She crossposted and she got what she asked for.
Maybe she should take responsibility for her actions? Why are you
blaming US for what she did? Or does your argument only work when it's
dealing with the amorphous "them?"
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
Darklady
> I disagree with your here. The church you know, the church of
"self-loathing",
> is a recent innovation. The whole point of historic christianity was that
> every single person had a dignity that could not be destroyed. Think
about
> it: the message of christianity is that every single person is offered
> the unique chance of sharing in the one life that is eternal, the life of
> God.
Recent as in... during the past 1500 years?
God became man so that man could become God. Now, as an atheist you
> won't believe this and that's fine. But how can a religion with such a
core
> belief be based on self-loathing?
Because that's not necessarily it's core belief. The core belief is
"I'm not worthy as a sinner to accept the gift of eternal life given to
this unworthy sinner by precious and perfect Jesus who died for my sins."
You know... "I'm not worthy to receive you but say the word and I shall be
healed?"
--
Darklady
gene...@penn.com
> >> Gotta agree with Cash here. People keep blaming celibacy for priestly
> >> child abuse, but that's completely wrong. If that were true, single guys
> >> would routinely go after kids, not women in singles' bars, right?
> >
> >You are equating single guys with celibates? What planet are you living on?
> >That is a statement that is either incredibly stupid or naive.
>
> Um, why?
see answer below
> >Oh, as for a "...psychologically normal priest..." just where do you find
one
> >of those anyway?
>
> In class with me.
>
Well, if you equate single guys who pick up women in singles bars as being in
a state of celibacy(ROTFLMAO), which, from your previous statement you
evidently do, I've REALLY got to question your basic ability to adequately
judge if anyone might be "psychologically normal," priest or not... Seems to
me a guy picking up a girl in a singles bar is looking for some action, ;\you
know, getting laid, which is not exactly what you would call a celibate
state, do catch my drift? Maybe you need to do some field research in a
singles bar so you can find out just what goes on there.
As far as the "psychologically normal priest" thing goes, well, that is an
oxymoron. The condition of being a priest is the furthest thing from what
might be characterized as "normal."
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On 2 Apr 1998 15:24:34 -0500, am...@columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett)
wrote:
>In article <01bd5e17$c4d69d60$226d...@darklady.spiritone.com>,
>Darklady <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>Anthony M Annett <am...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
>><6fvake$11o$1...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>...
>>
>>> From what I've heard, the seminaries are trying hard to develop a healthy
>>> attitude towards sexuality. That at least means recognizing it. The older
>>
>>> crop of priests were simply taught that all sexual impulses were
>>occasions
>>> of sin; this led to the self-loathing and other psychological issues.
>>
>> If so, I'm glad.
>> However, this makes you wonder what was wrong with the old way. I
>>mean, as an atheist and a free thinker I certainly know what *I* think was
>>wrong... but the teachings of self-loathing were parts of Catholic
>>doctrine. How can those have been wrong (assuming you buy the idea that
>>the RCC was created by God and its policies came from God)? By becoming
>>more enlightened about these issues the church certainly becomes more
>>ethical and humane... but it becomes less and less the Roman Catholic
>>Church and becomes more and more something new. I have no problem with
>>this new entity... but I think it is hypocritical for it to continue to
>>claim to still be the One True Church and to have a tradition of remaining
>>true to its original teachings. I just like things to be consistent or to
>>be honest... both if possible.
>
>I disagree with your here. The church you know, the church of "self-loathing",
>is a recent innovation. The whole point of historic christianity was that
>every single person had a dignity that could not be destroyed. Think about
>it: the message of christianity is that every single person is offered
>the unique chance of sharing in the one life that is eternal, the life of
>God. God became man so that man could become God. Now, as an atheist you
>won't believe this and that's fine. But how can a religion with such a core
>belief be based on self-loathing? I am not denying that is not what it
>denegenerted into, but relatively recently. In a sense, the reforms of
>Vatican 2 were designed to restore the emphasis on the fundamental dignity
>of the person, and move away from unquestioning obedience, obsession with
>sexual morality, clerical authoritarianism and all the other negative
>aspects.
>
What do you mean by recent? Do you mean since St. Augustine one of
the Fathers of the Church? Augustine was certainly a master at
self-loathing. Self-loathing and disgust with things sexual has been
an integral part of the Church since its beginnings. Besides the
consistent anti-sexuality the Church has always taught that we are
worthless sinners given value through the generosity of the sacrifice
of Jesus - a sacrifice made necessary by the sins of our first
parents. A common characteristic of the saints held up to us as a
model was their sense of unworthiness. Self-loathing is a sign of
holiness.
Thomas P.
>Tony.
>
>--
>"We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams"
> ---Willy Wonka.
>
Amban
Well bravo Stephanie. I don't know what it is like in Canada but in 1993 in
Rome the pope decided that he did not have the authority to ordain women
based on his search of the gospels. In 1996 his crony, cardinal Ratzinger
with the endorsement of the pope issued a statement declaring the 1993 papal
decision to be an infallible teaching. That my dear means women will never
have the hope of being ordained. So your midwifing days are over before
they started.
Yes, I do know priests who opted for the priesthood as a second career but
they were financially set and did know what they left behind. Most of them
were widowers. They had a family, that is, children and grandchildren.
My husband left only 2 and a half years ago and things must have changed so
much! He lost his pension from the church. He was sent back his student
loans for the seminary. And being over 40 with a bachelors in philosophy
and a masters in divinity there were not a lot of job opportunities. He had
to go back to school and still has yet to secure a full time position.
As for family, his family all rejected and blamed me until he told them that
they would never see him again unless they accepted me and his new family.
That fortunately is in the past and now that they know me they know it was
the best decision for him and I love them. He heard things like I wanted my
priest for my death bed, what are we going to do for anniversary masses and
baptism etc.? His mother is honest with me, she says "I hated you but that
was before I knew you."
Sad to say we have mutual friends who now have a year old child and his
family still will not accept his wife.
We know some former friends that are clergy that will look the other way
when they see us coming on the street. The principal of the church school
no longer acknowledges my husband. The Bishop told us we would be
ostracized by the community and we would have to move because the children
would be made fun of in school. But the funny thing is that most lay people
come up and congratulate us and the kids in school don't care. Of course
there was the continual rumor that I was definitely pregnant (started by the
ushers). Of course they probably think that is the only reason a priest
would leave was because he was trapped. Longest pregnancy in history. Then
there was the petition to kick my children out of CCD classes. Never got
off the ground though because after our experience of the Bishop wanting to
hide my husband away from us we never wanted our children in those classes
or that building.
So I am glad there has been so much progress where you are Stephanie and you
are in the know.
AMBAN
Stephanie Rendino wrote in message <6g0jr9$3...@stratus.CAM.ORG>...
Amban
Amban
Stephanie Rendino
In article <6g13t7$qc7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <gene...@penn.com> wrote:
>Well, if you equate single guys who pick up women in singles bars as being in
>a state of celibacy(ROTFLMAO), which, from your previous statement you
>evidently do, I've REALLY got to question your basic ability to adequately
>judge if anyone might be "psychologically normal," priest or not... Seems to
>me a guy picking up a girl in a singles bar is looking for some action, ;\you
>know, getting laid, which is not exactly what you would call a celibate
>state, do catch my drift? Maybe you need to do some field research in a
>singles bar so you can find out just what goes on there.
Ah, I see what you mean. (I thunk myself on the head with the nerf bat.)
I don't like guys enough to ever bother going to a singles bar. I wear
sensible shoes much of the time, doncha know.
>As far as the "psychologically normal priest" thing goes, well, that is an
>oxymoron. The condition of being a priest is the furthest thing from what
>might be characterized as "normal."
A lot of people other than Catholic priests go for the lifestyle, so there
must be something in it. Not for me, though.
Stephanie Rendino
In article <6g1f97$b...@news2.snet.net>, Amban <amba...@snet.net> wrote:
>Well bravo Stephanie. I don't know what it is like in Canada but in 1993 in
>Rome the pope decided that he did not have the authority to ordain women
>based on his search of the gospels. In 1996 his crony, cardinal Ratzinger
>with the endorsement of the pope issued a statement declaring the 1993 papal
>decision to be an infallible teaching. That my dear means women will never
>have the hope of being ordained. So your midwifing days are over before
>they started.
Hey they said that the mass would never be in the vernacular and that non-
Catholics were automatically damned too. Ratzinger can declare things
infallible till the cows come home--he's not authorized to declare
infallibility. He wishes he did.
>Yes, I do know priests who opted for the priesthood as a second career but
>they were financially set and did know what they left behind. Most of them
>were widowers. They had a family, that is, children and grandchildren.
>
>My husband left only 2 and a half years ago and things must have changed so
>much! He lost his pension from the church. He was sent back his student
>loans for the seminary. And being over 40 with a bachelors in philosophy
>and a masters in divinity there were not a lot of job opportunities. He had
>to go back to school and still has yet to secure a full time position.
(snip for length only)
>So I am glad there has been so much progress where you are Stephanie and you
>are in the know.
Was this sarcasm? Financial viability depends a lot on the priest; if
they have degrees in social work they are more viable than ones who have
nothing but theology--like me! After Vatican 2 oodles of priests left and
got married. Many are living normal lives, waiting for the rules to
change so they can go back. Course, all they have to do is go
Episcopalian and then make the return, sigh.
But yeah, I'm in an archdiocese headed by a cardinal who favours womens'
ordination. So if he's elected pope....
gene...@penn.com
In article <6g08h4$gk4$1...@nw003t.infi.net>,
"RobinOak" <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
> >Did those sweet nuns teach you to read?
>
> Gene, I have a master's degree in English, and taught college for six years.
> Had I not married and moved to Europe, I would have finished a PhD in
> Victorian lit, because I was about 2/3rds finished, and had gone far beyond
> the master's level.
>
> Yes, they taught me to read.
>
>
> > Maybe you missed the words "not all
> >of them..." in my post. Gee, touchy, aren't we...?
Good. Now I know that I'm dealing with an educated asshole rather than an
uneducated asshole. Oh, and one that taught college. Some of the biggest
dumfux I ever knew were college professors (oh, not *all* of them now, don't
say I'm making another of those generalizations you hate so much) so I'm
suitably underwhelmed. I don't care how much paper you have, you still didn't
correctly read the statement I made. I never said ALL nuns or ALL priests. I
said "not all of them." OK? What the fuck IS your problem with that? You got
a lot of gall to come in here and start accusing people of having an agenda
when you, with the master's degree can't understand a simple sentence.
> >> > Seems it still may be, being as how the church scrambles like
> >> >mad to avoid facing up to this problem when and wherever it surfaces.
> >>
> >> True enough. It's called 'damage control' when it does happen. Politics &
> PR
> >> recovery. Happens everywhere, in companies, in government, and in
religious
> >> institutions. And yes, abuse sometimes happens.
> >>
> >> But it is *not* the norm, not by a long shot!
Well, for ninety fucking years it was the norm in that orphanage. That's a
long time. Or, does it have to make it to en even hundred before it's a
"norm" Or 500? A thousand?
> >>
> >> Aren't you ignoring the many *married* <and presumably sexually active>
> >people
> >> who are found to have been abusing children? It's not only a phenomenon
of
> >> celibates, not by a long shot.
> >>
> >
> >Hmmm...I didn't realize we were discussing them too. Anxious to change the
> >subject? Take the heat of the pedophile preists and sadistic nunz? Kinda
> >makes you squirm...doesn't it?
>
> I'm not the one who's squirming, Gene.
>
> You are.
You are the one who can't stick to the subject. I'm not injecting irrelevant
material into this, you are. But, OK, so if married people do it, it's OK for
the clergy to do it too? No, don't respond to that, I know that's now what
you meant, but that's how that lameass statement looks. Nobody said the RCC
cornered the child abuse market.
>
> You've evidently got a major agenda here, and that is to pin all your ills,
> frets, and the heartbreak of psorasis on the RCC.
>
> You are doing yourself no favors in that.
>
Not at all. If you would get you head out of your ass so you could use that
master's degree and read what is in front of you, (or does it need to be
written in Victorian English?) you would see that I am taking the church to
task for not owning up to the abuses that happen with far too much regularity
in it. I have no agenda regarding the church, except that I want nothing to
do with it.
> >
> >> Aren't we scapegoating here, just a *tad*? <irony on>
> >>
> >
> >Your point? It was RC nuns and proests involved in the specific incident
> >under duscussion. You have a real problem sticking to the subject, don't
you?
>
> No, Gene, that wasn't the point at all. The point was:
>
> "Let's find every last thing we can to illustrate just how baaaaaaaad the
> Roman Catholic Church is. Then we can pin the blame for whatever is wrong
with
> us on something _external_ to ourselves, instead of taking responsibility
for
> our own actions, failings, and neuroses."
>
> *That* was, and is, the underlying point.
You got all of that from my post? Gee, that's more than the regulars on this
NG know about me from reading my posts for months...you really are amazing.
You sure can read a lot of stuff into a few sentences...or are you using your
"witch powers" to scope me out <chill goes up my spine>? You are really full
of shit, you know. Somewhat paranoid, too, I'd say, seeing nonexistent
agendas, reading comments on a specific incident into a sweeping
generalization, specifically NOT reading my exclusion that lets *some* of the
nunz',priests off the hook...
> I'm not trying to change you back into a Catholic--no longer one myself. I
> don't believe in anyone attempting to shove dogma or religion down someone's
> throat via aggressive proselytizing or any kind of coercion whatsoever. That
> stuff gives me the willies. I jumped into this primarily because a trc
regular
> was herself being jumped upon, and I complained.
They need you to stand up for her? Pretty sad when the RC's need defended by
a self-confessed witch! LOL! Gee whiz, I'm sorry they are so fragile...but
hey, we don't mince around here in alt.recovery.catholicism. We call a holy
pedophile a child fucker!
>
> And because "tolerance" is one of tenets of my own path.
>
> Along with 'justice'.
Oh...I get it, that's why you are willing to tolerate institutionalized
child fucking, torture and abuse. OK. If you had one iota of compassion in
your character (or common sense inside your skull) you would stop aplogizing
for an institution that goes out of its way to hide the pedophiles and child
abusers in its midst and feel for the victims. I have to hand it to you, you
do have a lot of tolerance. Anybody fucked your kids lately? Do you have any?
Would you care if they did?
> My intention here was not to
> defend Mama Church at any and all costs: my intention is to attempt to
inject
> a note of fairness and balance here.
>
Bullshit.
> The Church certainly *does* have a Shadow Side.
>
> Don't you, Gene?
Sure do.
I know I have one. But that's not the only side of the
> Church there is...
"Do as thou wilt so an it harm none." I assume you are familiar with that.
The church does as it wills and harms too many. Not all, mind you (well
maybe) but many. Now, I know that nothing can be pure, you never have
absolute good or absolute evil. But the evil I've seen from the church far
outweighs the good. Where is the balance you are talkng about?
You seem to be a pretty confused individual, a "Real"(?) pagan, as you called
yourself in one post, sticking up for the RCC...<shake head, roll eyes> You
are the living proof that person can have an advanced academic degree and not
know their ass from a hole in the ground.
The whole point of this thread, from the point of view of ARC is that we
would like to see these hypocritical fucking true believers have as much
compassion for the child victims as they do for pious child fuckers,
torturers and abusers. It really didn't seem like too much to ask, but I
guess that it is because, in order to be RC, you have to buy into the system
and that means that the clergy are right all of the time. That's why the
church is going through all the motions it is right now to get out from under
judgements levied against it from the child abuse perpetrated by the chronic
child abusers it shields. That's not conjecture, that's fact.
And yes, enforced celibacy *can*, not necessarily *does* lead to sexual
aberrations that can surface as pedophilia, sadism, etc.
That's what this thread is about (or at least started), and it is not about
pinning all the troubles of the world on the RCC. Not at all.
Gene Johnson
HolyF...@vatican.org
Hey, gang, he's back!! PADRAIC42 IS BACK!!
This is his first post under "Look Padraic" since he
answered the original one.
THANK YOU, PADRAIC, FOR BEING THE INSPIRATION FOR
ALL THESE POSTINGS!! YOU RICHLY DESERVE THE AWARD
OF...
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
A S S H O L E O F T H E Y E A R
Congratulations
Tim Murphy
Anthony M Annett wrote some low grade apologistic stuff in message
<6g0s62$h46$1...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>...
including this little gem...
>I disagree with your here. The church you know, the church of
"self-loathing",
>is a recent innovation.
What can he mean by recent? Laugh ...I nearly died...
>The whole point of historic christianity was that every
>single person had a dignity that could not be destroyed.
Oh silly me! .... I thought it was about torture, crusaids, slavery,
conquest, the inquisition, child abuse, sexism, racism, colonialism etc.
>Think about it: the message of christianity is that every single person is
offered
>the unique chance of sharing in the one life that is eternal, the life of
>God. God became man so that man could become God.
Sounds like pyramid selling to me...
>Now, as an atheist you
>won't believe this and that's fine.
Oh good! you are not going to cut me up and burn me
...phew....relief...thank you.. Sir...
>But how can a religion with such a core
>belief be based on self-loathing?
Easy... it is a "meme".
How can you have the core of the US constitution and the contrast of the
reality?
>I am not denying that is not what it
>denegenerted into, but relatively recently.
Boneface is recent?
Agustine is recent?
No man... you are way off here ...this is ancient and fundamental to the
illness (Xtianity).
>In a sense, the reforms of Vatican 2 were designed
>to restore the emphasis on the fundamental dignity
>of the person, and move away from unquestioning obedience, obsession with
>sexual morality, clerical authoritarianism and all the other negative
>aspects.
>
Oh yeah... Well it didn't work then did it?
>"We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams"
> ---Willy Wonka.
>
We are Bullshit makers and weavers of nightmares.
Willy Wanka (RCC).
Also do not Xpost to ARC.
Darklady
> In article <01bd5e7a$9ed4a900$356d...@darklady.spiritone.com>,
> Darklady <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> >God became man so that man could become God. Now, as an atheist you
> >> won't believe this and that's fine. But how can a religion with such a
> >core
> >> belief be based on self-loathing?
> >
> > Because that's not necessarily it's core belief. The core belief
is
> >"I'm not worthy as a sinner to accept the gift of eternal life given to
> >this unworthy sinner by precious and perfect Jesus who died for my
sins."
> >You know... "I'm not worthy to receive you but say the word and I shall
be
> >healed?"
>
> This is indeed the issue. The distortion has shown how much calvinism
> (through jansenism) has infected the church in the last few hundred
years.
> In basic Calvinist theology, we are "totally depraved". We are piles of
> shit and no more.
I don't think you can lay this one at Calvin's feet. I'm no major fan
of Calvin but the nut doesn't drop far from the tree and the RCC has a fine
history of self-loathing.
That
> is NOT catholic and NOt historically christian.
I really disagree with you on this. I think it's very historically
Christian and extremely Catholic. Why did Jesus have to die? Because we
were so unworthy of grace by virtue of our sinful nature.
And let's look at some of the RCC's saints. St. Jerome. He lived in
the wilderness and mortified his flesh, had running sores and was pretty
fucked up because he felt to care for himself was to indulge in undeserved
pampering. He predates Calvin by quite a few years. Many of the saints
engaged in some pretty repulsive personal habits in order to prove their
devotion to god. They didn't need Calvin to make them feel bad.
> catholic theology is more positive-- it states that humanity was created
> by God to share in the life of God. We, created creatures like any other
> animals are offered a share in the eternal Godhead. Unfortunately,
original
> sin got in the way. That merely means we are all sinnners, and indeed not
> worthy of such a reward, but it does not detract from our fundamental
> dignity. We are still created in the image of God.
And you can still have the guts to tell me you don't feel the RCC has
a history of preaching self-loathing? "... we are all sinners and indeed
not worthy of such a reward." Why? Because someone supposedly gained some
forbidden knowledge zillions of years ago? Fuck that. That's like keeping
me as an indentured servant because my great great great great great great
great great great great great (etc.) grandfather did something illegal.
> Jesus did not come to stand in for out sins, as the fundies would tell
> you. They say that because we are all pathetic sacks of shit, we can do
> nothing for ourselves and deserve death. God is pissed off and Jesus
> agrees to die in our place. God is satisfied. How monstrous! God is
> not some tyrant who can be placated with innocent blood.
You want monstrous? How about nuns telling school children that every
time they do something "bad" it's like pounding the nails into Jesus' feet.
Now, don't tell me that guilt and self-loathing aren't being taught... and
using the blood sacrifice of Jesus as a tool. Apparently Jehovah needed
another one in a long line of blood sacrifices. The gods of the ancients
(and I mean all gods) seem to have required "sacrifices" of some sort or
other from their followers and blood was the most common one (and requested
by Jehovah at times). So I don't see that interpreting the crucifixion
that way is incorrect at all.
No, God became
> human to teach us how to become God.
Well, he fucked up again, didn't he? You'd think someone as smart as
god claims himself to be could get it right once in a while. Fails with
creating man and woman since they're flawed and can sin and then comes down
disguised as a normal person (except for that virgin mom and walking on
water and healing the dead thing, of coures) and fucks it up again. He
gets quoted very rarely, doesn't leave any written records, gets killed and
then most of his book has to be written by people who never met him and
have their own (sometimes really weird) interpretations of what he said...
or meant to say. Who quotes Jesus? Nobody except for holidays. Everyone
quotes Paul and Revelation and shit like that. Jesus couldnt' even provide
enough soundbytes to keep people's attention.
He died AS A RESULT of sin, and
> by conquering death, shows us what can be in store for us.
Cool. So knowing that the sin of mankind killed Jesus is just part of
the RCC's self-esteem improvement program?
--
Darklady
Padraic42
>Yes, I do know priests who opted for the priesthood as a second career but
>they were financially set and did know what they left behind. Most of them
>were widowers. They had a family, that is, children and grandchildren.
>
<Rationalization snipped>
>So I am glad there has been so much progress where you are Stephanie and you
>are in the know.
>
Progress????? Disobedience to the Church? Making oneself above the Church?
And tell me, if your 'husband' couldn't keep his vow to God, you expect him to
keep his vow to you? He became a preist with full knowledge of what it
entailed, no one hijacked him.
As for Stef's;
>
>Stephanie Rendino wrote in message <6g0jr9$3...@stratus.CAM.ORG>...
>>In article <6fuo2a$8...@news2.snet.net>, Amban <amba...@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>Don't you think that I know what goes on? I went _back_ because I knew
>>that all the bitching in the world wouldn't help. Let me let you in on a
>>secret, Amban. Guess who's starting to teach in the seminaries? WOMEN.
>>Not just a token here and there either.
>>
And therein lies a lot of the problem. Who are these women? Loyal to the
Pope and Magesterium? The teaching authority of the Church? Or rather are
they trying to remake the Church in their own image?
We've been over this before, or do you really want me to repost all those
'enlightened', and unchristian women's teaching?
Progress? Hardly.
Pax Christi, Pat
"Misere Mei, Deus"
(http://members.aol.com/Padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)
RobinOak
gene...@penn.com wrote in message <6g1pc1$i2v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
<snipped, quite a lot of words of Anglo-Saxon origin.>
Or was that Origen.....
Have fun, Gene.
RobinOak
Amban wrote in message <6g1f97$b...@news2.snet.net>...
[]
>Yes, I do know priests who opted for the priesthood as a second career but
>they were financially set and did know what they left behind. Most of them
>were widowers. They had a family, that is, children and grandchildren.
>
>My husband left only 2 and a half years ago and things must have changed so
>much! He lost his pension from the church. He was sent back his student
>loans for the seminary. And being over 40 with a bachelors in philosophy
>and a masters in divinity there were not a lot of job opportunities. He had
>to go back to school and still has yet to secure a full time position.
What's he doing now? Is he still in school?
It seems to me that many priests have gained a good deal of administrative
experience in the course of their careers; if you're responsible for the
budget of a parish, then that translates into managerial experience on a
resume... and since part of the job is learning how to deal with people
<theoretically, anyhow>, that's also administrative/managerial experience.
Yes, a lot of these guys have degrees in the humanities, which aren't terribly
marketable. But they've also picked up resume items in the practical aspects
of their parish work, no? That's how it looks to me, anyhow.
>As for family, his family all rejected and blamed me until he told them that
>they would never see him again unless they accepted me and his new family.
Good lord.
>That fortunately is in the past and now that they know me they know it was
>the best decision for him and I love them. He heard things like I wanted my
>priest for my death bed, what are we going to do for anniversary masses and
>baptism etc.? His mother is honest with me, she says "I hated you but that
>was before I knew you."
How are you reacting to that kind of treatment? How did you respond?
>Sad to say we have mutual friends who now have a year old child and his
>family still will not accept his wife.
>
>We know some former friends that are clergy that will look the other way
>when they see us coming on the street.
Then they never were friends in the first place.
> The principal of the church school
>no longer acknowledges my husband.
Then :PPP to the principal.
> The Bishop told us we would be
>ostracized by the community and we would have to move because the children
>would be made fun of in school. But the funny thing is that most lay people
>come up and congratulate us and the kids in school don't care.
Are they in public school or parochial?
> Of course
>there was the continual rumor that I was definitely pregnant (started by the
>ushers). Of course they probably think that is the only reason a priest
>would leave was because he was trapped. Longest pregnancy in history. Then
>there was the petition to kick my children out of CCD classes. Never got
>off the ground though because after our experience of the Bishop wanting to
>hide my husband away from us we never wanted our children in those classes
>or that building.
Had you thought of moving to a different city, to make a fresh start?
<...some of these people you're describing might want to extract that ten-foot
poker that's evidently stuck up their bee-hinds....>
>So I am glad there has been so much progress where you are Stephanie and you
>are in the know.
Hmm.
Things aren't very rosy for you in many respects, and it sounds like you're
dealing with a lot of rather anal-retentive types. But is it not also true
that the priesthood helped to make your husband into the man he is today? He
wouldn't be the person he is now had he not had those years in the
priesthood..... ?
Stephanie said:
>>Don't you think that I know what goes on? I went _back_ because I knew
>>that all the bitching in the world wouldn't help. Let me let you in on a
>>secret, Amban. Guess who's starting to teach in the seminaries? WOMEN.
>>Not just a token here and there either.
Splash them, Stephanie! <g>
>The priests I go to school with were all ordained over the age of 25. The
>>"if you leave it will shame your family and you will have no job" scenario
>>is long gone. The latest guy ordained here in Montreal is 50, distinctly
>>not a virgin, and knew what he was getting into.
>>
>>I went back to the Church because I want to be on the side against the
>>Mother Angelicas of the world. They've had their day, they've done enough
>>damage. Change is happening, and I figure I'd better help midwife it
>>along.
Ah yes, Mother Athena. If anyone ever asked _her_, she'd probably give them
the rap about mothers and envelopes too.... <well, she didn't like altar
girls, anyhow...> :PPP
<visual: sidelines cheerleader in long white robe and pointy hat, chanting:>
"Stephanie & Janet for Cardinal, Stephanie & Janet for Cardinal!!" ;-)
You'd both look *so* good in red, really.... <hey, and then you'd have pointy
hats *too*.... wow...>
Darklady
Translation: I give up.
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady