UK is atheist nation now (Daily Telegraph headline today 28/10/00)....
Tumbleweed
Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a search
engine, how many hits I''d get?
Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits*. [ And thats just one religion. ]
So, what sort of 'morality' is the archbishop worried about I wonder?
Isn't there a biblical quotation about looking for the piece of wood in your
own eye before searching for a mote in someone else's?
On a wider point, I have to say that personally, I find no evidence that
membership of a religious organisation or claim to belief has any
correlation with the behaviour of the individual claiming such. Only 2 days
ago I came across one of the most unpleasant individuals I've met in a long
while. Yet he was (I assume proudly) draped in the religious clothing of his
type, thus making it known to all what his religion was. What a great
advert!
(FWIW the circumstances had nothing to do with his religion, or my lack of).
Of course, that leaves me with an interesting moral question, should I ever
be in a position where another member of that religion needs some help. I
shall leave it to time and circumstance to determine what my behaviour will
be, but at least it will not be cloaked in the hypocrisy (see above
examples) of a religion.
* As I type, a story on radio 4 reports a priest being investigated for 20
years of abuse.
Surely no ''impossible coincidence'" Ken?,Surely this proves some other
diety is intervening to make a point? Damn, maybe there IS a God after all
<g> (but which one?)
Tw
--
please remove 'spam' before replying by email
Ex. Bro. Tom
> Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a search
> engine, how many hits I''d get?
For 'good' and 'priest' I got 547,000.
Chris Lambert
<8tf3lg$3g6$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>:
For those that are interested the article can be found at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=003712784416653
&rtmo=aq954K4J&atmo=hhhhhhhe&pg=/et/00/10/28/nathe28.html
>...."Archbishop warns of loss of morality" (subheadline)
>
>Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest'
>into a search engine, how many hits I''d get?
>Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits*. [ And thats just one
>religion. ] So, what sort of 'morality' is the archbishop worried
>about I wonder? Isn't there a biblical quotation about looking for
>the piece of wood in your own eye before searching for a mote in
>someone else's?
The article does not mention the archbishop commenting on the state
of the church. I'm sure he would agree that any abuse by
priests/ministers/those in authority is clearly wrong. He was simply
talking about the state of the country - which I believe to be quite
bad.
>
>
>On a wider point, I have to say that personally, I find no
>evidence that membership of a religious organisation or claim to
>belief has any correlation with the behaviour of the individual
>claiming such.
In many cases it does not. However, everywhere I look I see examples
of people living in a way which is damaging to themselves and others.
People's actions are causing pain to others and they don't even think
about it. Clearly Christians are not perfect, and non-Christians are
not all bad, but in general this country is moving away from
Christian teaching to something quite different.
--
Chris Lambert
cd...@ukc.ac.uk
http://www.chrislambert.org.uk/
Dave Hyden
news:8FDCF3FEchri...@194.73.73.116...
> spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk (Tumbleweed) wrote in
> <8tf3lg$3g6$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
> For those that are interested the article can be found at:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=003712784416653
>
> In many cases it does not. However, everywhere I look I see examples
> of people living in a way which is damaging to themselves and others.
> People's actions are causing pain to others and they don't even think
> about it. Clearly Christians are not perfect, and non-Christians are
> not all bad, but in general this country is moving away from
> Christian teaching to something quite different.
I agree but it need not be seen as a moral relapse. For a start lets look
realistically at the time when Christianity had a monopoly. The history
books reveal the immense amount of man induced suffering that went on. I'm
not one of those who blame Christianity for the wars, slavery etc, but it
does show that Christianity and moral living do not necessarily go together.
On the positive side lets look at the many secular movements that I
certainly see as help us focus on moral living, Comic relief, Ecological
movement, Vegetarianism, many non-religious charities etc. I would also
suggest that the secular perspective has liberated society from some
religious baggage that was to me immoral - homosexuality, equality of women,
scientific perspective. I will add, to save others writing that some
Christian groups were also involved in these changes.
In fact despite the inundation with evidence of this sick world that gets
presented to us, I myself feel quite positive about mans current path, in
comparison with his past that is. The population of corncrakes is beginning
to rise again and rarely do I go out walking without viewing a soaring
Buzzard above me. Fantastic. I get so excited that at times I almost feel
like shouting out *Thank you God!*.
Dave
Dave
Gareth McCaughan
> ...."Archbishop warns of loss of morality" (subheadline)
>
> Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a search
> engine, how many hits I''d get?
> Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits*. [ And thats just one religion. ]
> So, what sort of 'morality' is the archbishop worried about I wonder?
Are you saying that because some priests have done bad[1]
things, therefore no Christian of any denomination should
be allowed to make statements about morality?
Why?
As I understand it -- I'm happy to be corrected -- the great
majority of abusing-priest cases come from the RCC, where
priests are required to be lifelong celibates. So here's a
suggestion: The reason why there is quite a lot of sexual
abuse by priests isn't anything to do with Christians being
sexually screwed up; it's because if you force people into
lifelong celibacy, often chosen rather early in life, then
some of them are going to get badly messed up.
This is an argument against the celibacy of the clergy, not
against Christianity. Nor, lest anyone jump to silly conclusions,
against the RCC.
[1] Yes, *very* bad.
[2] Maybe it was more like 600. I forget.
[3] In those days, the Church had a lot of power and wealth.
There was widespread nepotism. Forbidding priests to
marry -- and therefore forbidding them to have children --
reduced this.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Leonard Bown
I would like to add just one fact that the crime rate has gone up, not
down, and in Reading last month in went up by 30%.
Leonard.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.198 / Virus Database: 95 - Release Date: 04/10/00
Tumbleweed
> <8tf3lg$3g6$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
> For those that are interested the article can be found at:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=003712784416653
> &rtmo=aq954K4J&atmo=hhhhhhhe&pg=/et/00/10/28/nathe28.html
>
> >...."Archbishop warns of loss of morality" (subheadline)
> >
> >Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest'
> >into a search engine, how many hits I''d get?
> >Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits*. [ And thats just one
> >religion. ] So, what sort of 'morality' is the archbishop worried
> >about I wonder? Isn't there a biblical quotation about looking for
> >the piece of wood in your own eye before searching for a mote in
> >someone else's?
>
> The article does not mention the archbishop commenting on the state
> of the church. I'm sure he would agree that any abuse by
> priests/ministers/those in authority is clearly wrong.
Maybe. And then again, maybe not. The (recent) history of such events is
full of denials, coverups and so forth.
>He was simply
> talking about the state of the country - which I believe to be quite
> bad.
>
> >
> >
> >On a wider point, I have to say that personally, I find no
> >evidence that membership of a religious organisation or claim to
> >belief has any correlation with the behaviour of the individual
> >claiming such.
>
> In many cases it does not. However, everywhere I look I see examples
> of people living in a way which is damaging to themselves and others.
> People's actions are causing pain to others and they don't even think
> about it. Clearly Christians are not perfect, and non-Christians are
> not all bad, but in general this country is moving away from
> Christian teaching to something quite different.
Since I see no evidence that a country being strongly under the control of a
religion causes a general rise in 'goodness', but to the contrary, allows
abuses of power and corruption, and a decline in freedom, that is probably a
good thing.
> --
> Chris Lambert
> cd...@ukc.ac.uk
> http://www.chrislambert.org.uk/
>
Tw
Tumbleweed
news:8tfblj$fec$0...@dosa.alt.net...
off>
Tumbleweed
news:86d7gk7...@g.local...
> "Tumbleweed" wrote:
>
> > ...."Archbishop warns of loss of morality" (subheadline)
> >
> > Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a
search
> > engine, how many hits I''d get?
> > Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits*. [ And thats just one
religion. ]
> > So, what sort of 'morality' is the archbishop worried about I wonder?
>
> Are you saying that because some priests have done bad[1]
> things, therefore no Christian of any denomination should
> be allowed to make statements about morality?
>
Yes.
> Why?
Because;
1) Motes/eyes/beam etc (ie follow the dictates of your own religion)
2) Its not just the priests but the entire religious establishment, that has
conspired with cover ups, moving such abusive priests to other areas, denial
in the face of overwhelming evidence, etc. (BTW, this applies to just about
any religion you can think of , its not a specific 'Christian' thing.). And
it applies throughput the scale, from large organisations (RC church, Hari
Krishna), to small ones (Children of God)
3) GIiven the archbishop is at the top of one of these organisations, with
such a history, I am less than impressed when he, in effect tells *me*, that
because I am not a Christian, I'm less moral than him or his followers.
>
> As I understand it -- I'm happy to be corrected -- the great
> majority of abusing-priest cases come from the RCC, where
> priests are required to be lifelong celibates. So here's a
> suggestion: The reason why there is quite a lot of sexual
> abuse by priests isn't anything to do with Christians being
> sexually screwed up; it's because if you force people into
> lifelong celibacy, often chosen rather early in life, then
> some of them are going to get badly messed up.
You understand incorrectly, so I'm happy to correct you :-)
Its throughout many religions. RC';s, Hari Krishna, Anglicans, Mohammedans,
minor cults.
> This is an argument against the celibacy of the clergy, not
> against Christianity. Nor, lest anyone jump to silly conclusions,
> against the RCC.
>
See above.
> [1] Yes, *very* bad.
> [2] Maybe it was more like 600. I forget.
> [3] In those days, the Church had a lot of power and wealth.
> There was widespread nepotism. Forbidding priests to
> marry -- and therefore forbidding them to have children --
> reduced this.
I can't see what your 1,2 and 3 refer to. But re your number 3, 'In those
days'???
We are talking about stuff over the past 20 -50 years. Thats these days,
thats *now*. Probably worse prior to that, but covered up effectively and
the perpetrators and victims are dead and so cannot give testimony.
> --
> Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
> .sig under construc
>
Tw
Paul Dean
>
> "Ex. Bro. Tom" <tmhig...@aristophanes.com> wrote in message
> news:8tfblj$fec$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > [Tumbleweed]
> > > Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a
> search
> > > engine, how many hits I''d get?
> > > Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits.
> >
> > For 'good' and 'priest' I got 547,000.
> >
> Great. Lets go and tell those in the 66,800 that its all ok then </sarcasm
> off>
I think you're missing the point. You seem to be judging christians,
and yet Tom just showed you that there are 9 times as many references to
Christian in a good context as to abusive ones. (And how do you know,
by the way, that those pages aren't about Christians /being/ abused?
Isn't that your prejudice?) Here's some research of a scientific
standard of which you seem to be satisfied:
Goodle searches.
---------------
abuse 3,840,000
priest 1,270,000
abuse + priest 66,800
teacher 6,480,000
abuse + teacher 197,000
So for abuse+priest there are 67,000 references rather than about 40,000
if it's the same as abuse+teacher.
Do you really think that this is any indication at all of the morality
of priests? If so, then I think you might be as prejudiced as the
27,000 web-sites who make up the difference.
--
Paul
"There are fools that fear to lose their wealth by giving, but fear not
to lose themselves by keeping it." - John Trapp.
Paul Dean
> Goodle searches.
> ---------------
> abuse 3,840,000
> priest 1,270,000
> abuse + priest 66,800
> teacher 6,480,000
> abuse + teacher 197,000
>
> So for abuse+priest there are 67,000 references rather than about 40,000
> if it's the same as abuse+teacher.
No, lol, actually I got that wrong.
[abuse+priest] = 66,8000 = x * (abuse + priest) = x * (3840000+1270000).
=> x = 0.013.
so [abuse+teacher] should be x * (abuse + teacher) =
0.013*(6480000+3840000)
= 134,000.
But it's one and a half times that! So teachers must be 1.5 times as
immoral as priests! :)
But seriously, you do raise a very good point. A tree is indeed known
by its fruit. But for a proper scientific experiment, you have to look
at the before and after for lots of individual cases. Did person X
change after they claimed to have become a Christian? Did they change
more than a control person Y who claimed nothing? I'd be interested in
that sort of research, but, of course, such things are difficult to
measure and no-one would trust the results anyway.
For an unscientific experiment, you can personally ask those you know
who are born again[1] Christians how they have changed, both for the
worse and for the better, since they became Christians.
Also, you can't expect perfection. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of
people who become Christians do so because they have a deep conviction
of sin. Maybe God did come to save sinners, rather than those who are
naturally good people?
[1] I say "born-again" just because maybe the change is easier to see if
it didn't start at age -0.75.
--
Paul
"Error damns as well as vice; the one pistols, the other poisons."
- Thomas Watson.
Tumbleweed
news:39FC37AC...@redeemed.org.uk...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> >
> > "Ex. Bro. Tom" <tmhig...@aristophanes.com> wrote in message
> > news:8tfblj$fec$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > > [Tumbleweed]
> > > > Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into
a
> > search
> > > > engine, how many hits I''d get?
> > > > Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits.
> > >
> > > For 'good' and 'priest' I got 547,000.
> > >
> > Great. Lets go and tell those in the 66,800 that its all ok then
</sarcasm
> > off>
>
> I think you're missing the point. You seem to be judging christians,
> and yet Tom just showed you that there are 9 times as many references to
> Christian in a good context as to abusive ones.
I'm not judging them, merely pointing out that before the archbishop makes
claims about the immorality of atheists, he should get his own house
(church?) in order.
>(And how do you know,
> by the way, that those pages aren't about Christians /being/ abused?
Good point. Of the first 20, 2 were as you suggest. OTOH, of the 18, many
were multiple abuse, for example one for 111 cases of abuse against a single
priest.
> Isn't that your prejudice?) Here's some research of a scientific
> standard of which you seem to be satisfied:
>
> Goodle searches.
> ---------------
> abuse 3,840,000
> priest 1,270,000
> abuse + priest 66,800
> teacher 6,480,000
> abuse + teacher 197,000
>
> So for abuse+priest there are 67,000 references rather than about 40,000
> if it's the same as abuse+teacher.
>
> Do you really think that this is any indication at all of the morality
> of priests? If so, then I think you might be as prejudiced as the
> 27,000 web-sites who make up the difference.
I have no dount that a majority of priests are not involved in abuse. I also
have no doubt that the organisations for which they work have over the past
?50? years engaged in systematic and widespread denial and cover-ups of such
abuse.
Knowa tree by its fruit, as you said. If a substantial proprtion of the
fruit is rotten,but the tree itself insists its perfectly good (OK, the
analogy is a little stretched at this point) and keeps it hanging on the
bough, what can you conclude?
Edward Green
>
> For an unscientific experiment, you can personally ask those you know
> who are born again[1] Christians how they have changed, both for the
> worse and for the better, since they became Christians.
I definitely changed for the worse when i became born again.
--
Edward Green http://www.khite.co.uk
--
These are the four Laws of Ireland: Patrick's law, not to kill the clergy;
and Adomnan's law, not to kill women; Daires's law, not to kill cattle; and
the law of Sunday; not to transgress thereon. None of these apply in the
Church of England.
Tumbleweed
(of 547,000), 5 were about a 'good priest' (2 of which were the same one).
the others were about various things, for example a book about how to be
one, and a record by Judas Priest!
Tumbleweed
please remove 'spam' before replying by email
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> >
> > "Ex. Bro. Tom" <tmhig...@aristophanes.com> wrote in message
> > news:8tfblj$fec$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > > [Tumbleweed]
> > > > Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into
a
> > search
> > > > engine, how many hits I''d get?
> > > > Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits.
> > >
> > > For 'good' and 'priest' I got 547,000.
> > >
> > Great. Lets go and tell those in the 66,800 that its all ok then
</sarcasm
> > off>
>
> I think you're missing the point. You seem to be judging christians,
> and yet Tom just showed you that there are 9 times as many references to
> Christian in a good context as to abusive ones.
Just to conclude the story, if you go about 100 hits in, just about none of
the references are for 'good priests'. They are all accidental hits where
the words happen to appear. In contrast, for abuse and priest, at least 1/2
are still stories about priests abusing people.
For teacher and abuse, by about 50 stories in they are equally spread
beteween teachers abusing children, and teachers being abused, or
books//stories about how to prevent one or the other.
So, highly unscientifically, that is 1/3 of 197,000 = 66,000 teachers.
and (say) 50% of 66,00 = 33,000 priests.
Of course, teachers have a much higher possibility of abuse than priests,
due to them being with children for much longer, and there being many more
of them. What would you say, at least 10x?
Which makes it 66,000 teachers to 330,000 priests.
So, highly unscientific, but nevertheless, priests come out as far worse
child abusers when adjusted to take acount of these factors..
FWIW, a search on atheist and abuse found 11,000 hits, pretty much all about
atheists being abused, I couldt see any about the other way round -though
that may be because we are not trusted with children, I note that one of the
hits referred to atheists as 'slaves of Satan*' and I certainly wouldnt let
one of those alone with my children!
Tw
--
please remove 'spam' before replying by email
* Amusing when you consider that an atheist can't possibly believe in Satan
any more than God.
David Anderson
> 2) Its not just the priests but the entire religious establishment, that has
> conspired with cover ups, moving such abusive priests to other areas, denial
> in the face of overwhelming evidence, etc. (BTW, this applies to just about
> any religion you can think of , its not a specific 'Christian' thing.). And
> it applies throughput the scale, from large organisations (RC church, Hari
> Krishna), to small ones (Children of God)
> 3) GIiven the archbishop is at the top of one of these organisations, with
> such a history, I am less than impressed when he, in effect tells *me*, that
> because I am not a Christian, I'm less moral than him or his followers.
I don't believe that secular organisations, care homes, etc. have any
better a record. At least my impression is that I've heard as many
stories about abuse in secular organisations as about abuse in Christian
organisations.[1] And although you get headlines saying 'priest
convicted of abuse', the headlines never bother to point out if the
person concerned was a humanist. Net impression given: Christians are
more given to abuse than non-Christians. And all without any dishonesty
or unfair reporting.
(A related example: the last time I saw a report of an RC priest
convincted of abuse on the BBC news, the following report was about
James Mawdsley, who'd just been released by the regime in Burma after
spending a year in solitary confinement for protesting against the
regime. Now there was no reason why the news should have mentioned the
fact that James Mawdsley is a Roman Catholic, and it didn't. Still, the
overall impression given didn't quite reflect the facts.)
David Anderson
Tumbleweed
news:hkZK5.68530$sE.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Paul Dean" <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:39FC46AC...@redeemed.org.uk...
> >
> > For an unscientific experiment, you can personally ask those you know
> > who are born again[1] Christians how they have changed, both for the
> > worse and for the better, since they became Christians.
>
> I definitely changed for the worse when i became born again.
>
David Anderson
> * Amusing when you consider that an atheist can't possibly believe in Satan
> any more than God.
<pedant>
It's theoretically possible. Indeed, Baudelaire may have been a
counterexample. :)
</pedant>
David Anderson
Kim
news:8tf3lg$3g6$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> ...."Archbishop warns of loss of morality" (subheadline)
>
> Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a
search
> engine, how many hits I''d get?
> Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits*. [ And thats just one religion. ]
> So, what sort of 'morality' is the archbishop worried about I wonder?
> Isn't there a biblical quotation about looking for the piece of wood in
your
> own eye before searching for a mote in someone else's?
Quite right, there is.
And you know without anyone labouring the point that anyone with any sort of
job title within the Christian church is not serving Jesus if they abuse
anyone.
Please don't judge Jesus by the weaknesses of his followers.
Kim
Gareth McCaughan
[I asked:]
>> Are you saying that because some priests have done bad[1]
>> things, therefore no Christian of any denomination should
>> be allowed to make statements about morality?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>> Why?
>
> Because;
> 1) Motes/eyes/beam etc (ie follow the dictates of your own religion)
That is addressed to individuals. It means: Don't go attacking
others' actions when you have worse things not sorted out
yourself. I am willing to believe that George Carey doesn't
have such things in his closet.
I don't think it gives any warrant for saying that no one should
complain about anything unless every organisation with which
they're associated is perfect in that regard.
> 2) Its not just the priests but the entire religious establishment, that has
> conspired with cover ups, moving such abusive priests to other areas, denial
> in the face of overwhelming evidence, etc. (BTW, this applies to just about
> any religion you can think of , its not a specific 'Christian' thing.). And
> it applies throughput the scale, from large organisations (RC church, Hari
> Krishna), to small ones (Children of God)
What "entire religious establishment"? There's no such
thing; there are lots of smaller religious establishments.
Since it's the Archbishop of Canterbury you're attacking,
perhaps you'd like to present your evidence that the
entire establishment of the Church of England has been
engaged in cover-ups of child abuse?
> 3) GIiven the archbishop is at the top of one of these organisations, with
> such a history, I am less than impressed when he, in effect tells *me*, that
> because I am not a Christian, I'm less moral than him or his followers.
Is this in fact what he said? (I haven't read what he actually
said; if you can give me a pointer, I'd be interested to know.)
Or did he say, e.g., that society as a whole is morally
messed up in various specific ways and that Christianity
has some answers for those problems? (Which is not the same
thing at all.)
>> As I understand it -- I'm happy to be corrected -- the great
>> majority of abusing-priest cases come from the RCC, where
>> priests are required to be lifelong celibates. So here's a
>> suggestion: The reason why there is quite a lot of sexual
>> abuse by priests isn't anything to do with Christians being
>> sexually screwed up; it's because if you force people into
>> lifelong celibacy, often chosen rather early in life, then
>> some of them are going to get badly messed up.
>
> You understand incorrectly, so I'm happy to correct you :-)
>
> Its throughout many religions. RC's, Hari Krishna, Anglicans, Mohammedans,
> minor cults.
Permit me to seek some clarification.
Are you saying (1) some religious people engage in child abuse,
or (2) religious people are substantially more likely to engage
in child abuse than non-religious people? If the latter, I'd be
interested to know your evidence.
I'm sure that there are Christians and Muslims and Hindus and
Baha'i and Moonies and secular humanists and agnostics and
[fill in as many more here as you please] who abuse children.
That's really bad. I'm sure those figures will include many
of those who get to be in positions of trust -- priests,
choirmasters, teachers, close family members -- because
those are the people who have most opportunity, and probably
also those are the situations in which potential abusers
are most tempted. That's really bad, too.
What it isn't -- so, at least, it seems to me -- is some kind
of terrible thing about the particular religions or non-religions
followed or allegedly followed[*] by the people in question.
It probably *does* indicate that none of these religions fixes
all the serious flaws of all its followers; but I'm not sure
any of them claims to.
Now, if you're saying that in fact religious people are more
often abusers than non-religious people, that would be very
interesting and -- as I said -- I'd be interested to see some
evidence. (The presence of umpteen web pages mentioning the
words "abuse" and "priest" is not evidence for this.)
>> [1] Yes, *very* bad.
>> [2] Maybe it was more like 600. I forget.
>> [3] In those days, the Church had a lot of power and wealth.
>> There was widespread nepotism. Forbidding priests to
>> marry -- and therefore forbidding them to have children --
>> reduced this.
>
> I can't see what your 1,2 and 3 refer to. But re your number 3, 'In those
> days'???
#1 was attached to a description of child abuse as "bad things".
#2 was attached to the figure of 1000 years for how long ago
the celibacy of the clergy in the RCC began. That figure appeared
in a portion of the article that I deleted before I sent it. :-)
#3 was attached to a description of the circumstances in which
the celibacy of RC clergy was introduced. Also deleted before
I sent the article.
As for your query on "in those days": the Church had *much*
more of the money, power and influence then than it has now.
Hugely more.
Perhaps I should explicitly clarify that it doesn't mean "in
the days when child abuse happened". Nothing to do with that.
[*] "or allegedly followed": because those who abuse
children are clearly failing to follow the dictates of
almost all religions and many non-religions, which
gives some reason to doubt their genuine commitment
thereto. This applies just as much to (e.g.) secular
humanism (which is supposed to be based on a deep
respect for humanity, after all) as it does to
Christianity. It's possible that some positions which
offer particular rich pickings to abusers (choirmaster?)
might lead some evil people to feign religious conviction
in order to get into those positions, though I'd guess
this is rare.
Paul Dean
Oh, I knew about *you*! :) Were you a Christian beforehand?
--
Paul
"Chocolate cake is God's love made edible." - Michael Davis.
Paul Dean
> So, highly unscientifically, that is 1/3 of 197,000 = 66,000 teachers.
> and (say) 50% of 66,00 = 33,000 priests.
Well, of course, I took it as read that there was no science involved in
this process :)
> Of course, teachers have a much higher possibility of abuse than priests,
> due to them being with children for much longer, and there being many more
> of them. What would you say, at least 10x?
Well, it's a distasteful subject, and irrelevant. Priests being abusive
will be reported in the media 1000 times as greedily.
> FWIW, a search on atheist and abuse found 11,000 hits, pretty much all about
> atheists being abused, I couldt see any about the other way round -though
> that may be because we are not trusted with children, I note that one of the
> hits referred to atheists as 'slaves of Satan*' and I certainly wouldnt let
> one of those alone with my children!
What journalist would bother to say, "The abuser didn't care to claim a
religious belief."?
--
Paul
"God's center is everywhere, His circumference nowhere." - Thomas
Watson.
Tumbleweed
many would, esp from the bible belt in the US, where 'atheist ate my dog' or
similar is a common story. Indeed, in the US, calling someone an atheist is
a term of abuse by many.A friend of mine over there took some long thinking
before he decided to 'come out' as an atheist. Yet no one here would think
twice about it.
Tw
--
please remove 'spam' before replying by email
> Paul
Kim
> majority of abusing-priest cases come from the RCC, where
> priests are required to be lifelong celibates. So here's a
> suggestion: The reason why there is quite a lot of sexual
> abuse by priests isn't anything to do with Christians being
> sexually screwed up; it's because if you force people into
> lifelong celibacy, often chosen rather early in life, then
> some of them are going to get badly messed up.
I heard one suggestion that some men with non-orthodox sexuality, for
instance, an attraction to children, have taken a vow of celibacy because
they thought they would be able to stay out of trouble. Then they get put
in charge of a youth club.
> This is an argument against the celibacy of the clergy, not
> against Christianity. Nor, lest anyone jump to silly conclusions,
> against the RCC.
>
>
> [1] Yes, *very* bad.
> [2] Maybe it was more like 600. I forget.
> [3] In those days, the Church had a lot of power and wealth.
> There was widespread nepotism. Forbidding priests to
> marry -- and therefore forbidding them to have children --
> reduced this.
I thought at first 'celibacy' only meant 'not-married' - so they could have
children with a mistress, they just wouldn't inherit anything.
Just out of interest, perhaps the RCs can explain the theological grounds
for continuing celibacy?
Kim
Tumbleweed
news:39FC7EB9...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk...
on?
I wouldn't particularily characterise such a person as an atheist, more as
a theist who claims to have particular knowledge of the state of health of
the deity.
Richard Emblem
<Dave....@care4free.net> writes:
>In fact despite the inundation with evidence of this sick world that gets
>presented to us, I myself feel quite positive about mans current path, in
>comparison with his past that is. The population of corncrakes is beginning
>to rise again and rarely do I go out walking without viewing a soaring
>Buzzard above me. Fantastic. I get so excited that at times I almost feel
>like shouting out *Thank you God!*.
Amen :-)
--
Richard Emblem
I'm not OK and you're not OK.
but God says: "that's OK"
_______________________
Richard Emblem
Green" <eb.g...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> I definitely changed for the worse when i became born again.
I think you need to elaborate on that one please Edward!
Tumbleweed
news:dB%K5.27548$h%4.18...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Richard Emblem
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes:
>#2 was attached to the figure of 1000 years for how long ago
>the celibacy of the clergy in the RCC began. That figure appeared
>in a portion of the article that I deleted before I sent it. :-)
>#3 was attached to a description of the circumstances in which
>the celibacy of RC clergy was introduced. Also deleted before
>I sent the article.
Good to see that the art of the footnote persists in ukrc. Please could we see
more postings with footnotes relating to deleted passages :-)
1. St Augustine's Confessions PL 32.796
2. Crex crex the corncrake.
3. Seasoned with salt and black pepper.
Richard Emblem
<spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>Indeed, in the US, calling someone an atheist is
>a term of abuse by many.A friend of mine over there took some long thinking
>before he decided to 'come out' as an atheist. Yet no one here would think
>twice about it.
The question of 'coming out' in the UK probably applies more to 'born again
christians' which may indicate the validity of the Daily Telegraph headline.
Tumbleweed
> "Tumbleweed" wrote:
>
> [I asked:]
> >> Are you saying that because some priests have done bad[1]
> >> things, therefore no Christian of any denomination should
> >> be allowed to make statements about morality?
> >>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because;
> > 1) Motes/eyes/beam etc (ie follow the dictates of your own religion)
>
> That is addressed to individuals. It means: Don't go attacking
> others' actions when you have worse things not sorted out
> yourself. I am willing to believe that George Carey doesn't
> have such things in his closet.
> I don't think it gives any warrant for saying that no one should
> complain about anything unless every organisation with which
> they're associated is perfect in that regard.
Agreed, *except* where that organisation itself claims to be the source of
morality. Such as a church.
>
> > 2) Its not just the priests but the entire religious establishment, that
has
> > conspired with cover ups, moving such abusive priests to other areas,
denial
> > in the face of overwhelming evidence, etc. (BTW, this applies to just
about
> > any religion you can think of , its not a specific 'Christian' thing.).
And
> > it applies throughput the scale, from large organisations (RC church,
Hari
> > Krishna), to small ones (Children of God)
>
> What "entire religious establishment"? There's no such
> thing; there are lots of smaller religious establishments.
OK, I'll rephrase. There is a history of *each* smaller religious
establishment conspiring etc etc.
> Since it's the Archbishop of Canterbury you're attacking,
> perhaps you'd like to present your evidence that the
> entire establishment of the Church of England has been
> engaged in cover-ups of child abuse?
The entire establishment. No, I doubt it. Many at or near the top, more
concerned with repitations than children, certainly.
Do a search, there are lots of links.I see the entire Anglican church in
canada is about to go bankrupt due to this.
"The letter from Archbishop Michael Peers distributed May 28 in all 2,400
congregations in Canada explained that lawsuits filed by victims of physical
and sexual abuse decades ago at church-run schools for aboriginals seek
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages."
''About 100 cases involve the proven abuse of children, and the perpetrators
are in prison,'' Peers wrote. His letter and a column in the monthly
Anglican Journal newspaper acknowledged the church's role in running the
abusive residential schools"
''The facts are that the General Synod is guilty by participation and
association with individuals who physically and sexually assaulted a
substantial number of students at residential schools,'' journal editor
David Harris wrote in a May editorial ."
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,327621,00.html
> > 3) GIiven the archbishop is at the top of one of these organisations,
with
> > such a history, I am less than impressed when he, in effect tells *me*,
that
> > because I am not a Christian, I'm less moral than him or his followers.
>
> Is this in fact what he said? (I haven't read what he actually
> said; if you can give me a pointer, I'd be interested to know.)
> Or did he say, e.g., that society as a whole is morally
> messed up in various specific ways and that Christianity
> has some answers for those problems? (Which is not the same
> thing at all.)
He said, according to the newspaper, which I acknowledge is not necessarily
a reliable source of info, that because society isn't Christian it is
therefore lacking in morals. Sorry, I praphrase because I no longer have the
original. But IIRC it was the lack of Christianty and not being focussed on
etermal life that was the issue.
> >> As I understand it -- I'm happy to be corrected -- the great
> >> majority of abusing-priest cases come from the RCC, where
> >> priests are required to be lifelong celibates. So here's a
> >> suggestion: The reason why there is quite a lot of sexual
> >> abuse by priests isn't anything to do with Christians being
> >> sexually screwed up; it's because if you force people into
> >> lifelong celibacy, often chosen rather early in life, then
> >> some of them are going to get badly messed up.
> >
> > You understand incorrectly, so I'm happy to correct you :-)
> >
> > Its throughout many religions. RC's, Hari Krishna, Anglicans,
Mohammedans,
> > minor cults.
>
> Permit me to seek some clarification.
>
> Are you saying (1) some religious people engage in child abuse,
> or (2) religious people are substantially more likely to engage
> in child abuse than non-religious people? If the latter, I'd be
> interested to know your evidence.
I'm saying [3], that there is no evidence that professed belief in a
particular deity and being a member of a religous arganistion makes one less
likely to commit such acts. I'm also saying [4], that the power structures
that such organisations have, make it easier for perpetrators to commit
their crimes, and for those crimes to be swept under the carpet to avoid
embarassment (or these days, a huge lawsuit that may bankrupt the
organisation)
>
> I'm sure that there are Christians and Muslims and Hindus and
> Baha'i and Moonies and secular humanists and agnostics and
> [fill in as many more here as you please] who abuse children.
> That's really bad. I'm sure those figures will include many
> of those who get to be in positions of trust -- priests,
> choirmasters, teachers, close family members -- because
> those are the people who have most opportunity, and probably
> also those are the situations in which potential abusers
> are most tempted. That's really bad, too.
>
> What it isn't -- so, at least, it seems to me -- is some kind
> of terrible thing about the particular religions or non-religions
> followed or allegedly followed[*] by the people in question.
> It probably *does* indicate that none of these religions fixes
> all the serious flaws of all its followers; but I'm not sure
> any of them claims to.
If they don't fix the flaws, whats the point of them?
>
> Now, if you're saying that in fact religious people are more
> often abusers than non-religious people, that would be very
> interesting and -- as I said -- I'd be interested to see some
> evidence. (The presence of umpteen web pages mentioning the
> words "abuse" and "priest" is not evidence for this.)
Agreed. Though the vast majority of those pages point to a news story about
a religious person abusing a child, rather than just a web page with no
other backing. And whilst its not scientific , thosands of references to
religuous abuse, and few or none to atheistic has got to be saying
something.
I also understand since I've seen it quoted many times,( though I dont have
a source so it may bea myth), that in the US, there are many more people who
profess to be religious in prison, than would be accounted for by
proportion.
An easy get out. "If they do something bad, they are not a 'true believer'".
>It's possible that some positions which
> offer particular rich pickings to abusers (choirmaster?)
> might lead some evil people to feign religious conviction
> in order to get into those positions, though I'd guess
> this is rare.
If it isnt rare, (ie imposters) then doesnt it mean that genuinely religuous
people are committing these crimes?
>
> --
> Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
> .sig under construc
>
I've sort of forgotten where this started now! Oh yes. Religious leaders,
get your own houses in order before pontificating to the rest of us about
how bad we are. Thankyou.
Tumbleweed
Atheists aren't the ones claiming to be better, more moral, or going around
telling other people how to live their lives. Shouldn't the religious
establishments have a *much* better record, if their religion means
anything? Being the same as a bunch of atheists hardly strikes me as a claim
to fame. Must do better......
> (A related example: the last time I saw a report of an RC priest
> convincted of abuse on the BBC news, the following report was about
> James Mawdsley, who'd just been released by the regime in Burma after
> spending a year in solitary confinement for protesting against the
> regime. Now there was no reason why the news should have mentioned the
> fact that James Mawdsley is a Roman Catholic, and it didn't. Still, the
> overall impression given didn't quite reflect the facts.)
>
> David Anderson
>
It certainly should if his religion was relevant to the cause, which maybe
it was. (I dont know)
Tw
Richard Emblem
<kim....@virgin.net> writes:
>Just out of interest, perhaps the RCs can explain the theological grounds
>for continuing celibacy?
There are no theological grounds it is purely a matter of church practice.
There are a few married RC priests in the UK today and many in the Eastern
churches. If the Church authorities changed the rules tomorrow celibacy could
be a thing of the past.
I presume you all know the joke about the Pope going to heaven and reading
through the original writings of the early church only to break down weeping
when he discovered that the word had been "Celebrate" not celibate.[1]
[1] before a pedant responds I realise that this story does not work in Latin
or Hebrew
Edward Green
> Edward Green wrote:
>
> Oh, I knew about *you*! :) Were you a Christian beforehand?
Its taken me 6 years to recleaim my christian past. I think i was definately
a Christian for many years prior to being born again .. but of course one is
encouraged (or was at that time) to reject much of your past when saved. I
assumed my previous faith had been just "religion".
<sigh>
Im getting better now tho'.
Paul Dean
>
> "Paul Dean" <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:39FC88C9...@redeemed.org.uk...
> > Edward Green wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh, I knew about *you*! :) Were you a Christian beforehand?
>
> Its taken me 6 years to recleaim my christian past. I think i was definately
> a Christian for many years prior to being born again .. but of course one is
> encouraged (or was at that time) to reject much of your past when saved. I
> assumed my previous faith had been just "religion".
>
> <sigh>
>
> Im getting better now tho'.
Well I'm glad you've recovered. Respectfully, I might suggest that the
born-again experience you had was a counterfeit one. Though I'm born
again(it's the easiest way to describe a fact) and evangelical(I hold
the bible in extremely high regard) I also go to a high parish church
and greatly appreciate tradition etc. I trust you won't estimate all
evangelicals or born-agains by your negative experiences?
--
Paul
"Knowledge without repentance will be but a torch to light men to hell."
- Thomas Watson.
Tumbleweed
Is that the sound of a can of worms being opened that I hear?
Edward Green
news:20001029173904...@nso-fo.aol.com...
> In article <hkZK5.68530$sE.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Edward
> Green" <eb.g...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> > I definitely changed for the worse when i became born again.
>
> I think you need to elaborate on that one please Edward!
Well, first of all I stopped hanging around with my nice well behaved
friends, and ended up in a Christian youthgroup full of teenagers rebelling
against their parents.
On a more spiritual note the act of being "born again" and saying a "sinners
prayer" has the tendency of encouraging you to reject your previous life and
underestimate its value.
I was brought up by an agnostic family, but regularly attended church with
relatives and at school. I went to Methodist chapel daily for most of my
teenage years, and at the age of 14 or 15 first began to feel a calling to
things i am working out now.
At the age of 16 i changed schools to a non religious school, met some new
people (who were evangelical), got "saved" and got sucked into evangelical
theology; i had to die to the old life, everything before was just
"religion". This summer, 1 year after leaving evangelicalism, and 9 years
since becoming an "evangelical" i realised that this was actually "not
true"(TM), and "restored the years the locust had eaten".
However I'm not going to make the same mistake again this time. My
evangelical years taught me a lot, and a grew and learned whilst caught up
in it all. I recognise that Evangelicalism is a vital part of the Church and
has its part to play, and I certainly maintain a Charismatic spirituality,
links with Evangelical friends, and still read Evangelical theology.
Hmm. Maybe an Ed FAQ is required :0)
Debbie
<spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
<8ti9vs$f0u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>:
<much snippage>
>Though the vast majority of those pages point to a news story about
>a religious person abusing a child, rather than just a web page with no
>other backing. And whilst its not scientific , thosands of references to
>religuous abuse, and few or none to atheistic has got to be saying
>something.
It just doesn't make news. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but atheism,
as far as the media are concerned, is boring. You don't have
priests, nuns or institutions, you have no recognisable central
organisation and you don't have any eccentric beliefs. If one of
your lot commits an appalling and hideous crime, the hacks are not
even surprised - what can you expect from an atheist? It might well
be a good subject for some proper research, actually - you could
investigate the (a) religious affiliation and (b) actual beliefs of
poeple charged with violent and sexual crimes, and actually see
whether any the results vary in comparison with a control population.
But my hunch is that if one christian priest abuses a child, it's
headline news and everybody gets the impression that they're all at it
all the time. If one hundred atheists abuse children, it's not even
news. I'd respectfully suggest that your views have been manipulated
and distorted by uncritical reading of the tabloid press and its
online equivalent.
Regards
Debbie
--
Urban Theology Unit
Sheffield, UK
Tumbleweed
news:39fd4c66...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:50:21 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
> <spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> <8ti9vs$f0u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
> <much snippage>
> >Though the vast majority of those pages point to a news story about
> >a religious person abusing a child, rather than just a web page with no
> >other backing. And whilst its not scientific , thosands of references to
> >religuous abuse, and few or none to atheistic has got to be saying
> >something.
>
> It just doesn't make news. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but atheism,
> as far as the media are concerned, is boring. You don't have
> priests, nuns or institutions, you have no recognisable central
> organisation and you don't have any eccentric beliefs.
I'm surprised about your last point! depends where you are I suggest.
Try mentioning you are an atheist in Iran or the Bible Belt and see if its
viewed as 'eccentric beliefs'!
> If one of
> your lot commits an appalling and hideous crime, the hacks are not
> even surprised - what can you expect from an atheist?
I'm not so sure about that. Its always headlines when there are some
Satanist goings on, and for some reason many associate Satanism with Atheism
(especially Christian fundamentalists, for some reason.)
Though when you do hear about a hideous crime its amazing how often it was
God that 'told them to do it'.(Apparently. Thats what they say.Who am I to
disagree, after all, according to another respondent, if I do something
altruistic, God told me to do that as well)
> It might well
> be a good subject for some proper research, actually - you could
> investigate the (a) religious affiliation and (b) actual beliefs of
> poeple charged with violent and sexual crimes, and actually see
> whether any the results vary in comparison with a control population.
Such was done in the mid 1920's. Atheists were hardly found at all, but a
high percentage of RC's.
> But my hunch is that if one christian priest abuses a child, it's
> headline news and everybody gets the impression that they're all at it
> all the time. If one hundred atheists abuse children, it's not even
> news. I'd respectfully suggest that your views have been manipulated
> and distorted by uncritical reading of the tabloid press and its
> online equivalent.
I dont think the Anglican church in Canada is going bankrupt because of
misleading news stories.
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,327621,00.html
There are of course plenty of atheists who abuse children, its just that
they dont have a large organisation behind them to cover up for them, move
them to another area out of harms way, and so on. Again, my point being that
there is no observable difference between religious people and non, when it
comes to crime (abuse being one particular).
> Regards
>
> Debbie
>
> --
> Urban Theology Unit
> Sheffield, UK
>
Regards
Kim
> "Kim" <kim....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:dB%K5.27548$h%4.18...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > Please don't judge Jesus by the weaknesses of his followers.
> >
> > Kim
> >
> What other measure is there?
>
Jesus has some pretty damn wonderful followers as well, you could look at
them sometimes. Or you could read about the man himself.
Kim
Edward Green
> Edward Green wrote:
> >
> > Im getting better now tho'.
>
> Well I'm glad you've recovered. Respectfully, I might suggest that the
> born-again experience you had was a counterfeit one.
It was certainly an emotional religious experience.
> Though I'm born
> again(it's the easiest way to describe a fact)
Do you thinks so? I think basing a soteriology on one verse is somewhat
tenuous!
> and evangelical(I hold
> the bible in extremely high regard)
Ah you are mistaked. EEvangelicalism is a culture, not a set of beliefs!
I also go to a high parish church
> and greatly appreciate tradition etc. I trust you won't estimate all
> evangelicals or born-agains by your negative experiences?
No more than i do myself. My theology has not changed since i was an
Evangelical. Only my practice and culture.
Paul Dean
>
> "Paul Dean" <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:39FD3B62...@redeemed.org.uk...
> > Edward Green wrote:
> > >
>
> > > Im getting better now tho'.
> >
> > Well I'm glad you've recovered. Respectfully, I might suggest that the
> > born-again experience you had was a counterfeit one.
>
> It was certainly an emotional religious experience.
But it wasn't a conversion.
> > Though I'm born
> > again(it's the easiest way to describe a fact)
>
> Do you thinks so? I think basing a soteriology on one verse is somewhat
> tenuous!
It's not the central facet of my soteiology. It's a phrase which is
useful and which attempts to describe something fundamental.
> > and evangelical(I hold
> > the bible in extremely high regard)
>
> Ah you are mistaked. EEvangelicalism is a culture, not a set of beliefs!
>
> I also go to a high parish church
> > and greatly appreciate tradition etc. I trust you won't estimate all
> > evangelicals or born-agains by your negative experiences?
>
> No more than i do myself. My theology has not changed since i was an
> Evangelical. Only my practice and culture.
I'm not familiar with that culture. I think i can see glimmers of it on
the horizon and, you're right, it's not always a pretty sight. I'm
using the old definition of the word.
--
Paul
"Judas heard all Christ's sermons." - Thomas Goodwin.
Dave Hyden
> Paul Dean wrote:
>
> > Goodle searches.
> > ---------------
> > abuse 3,840,000
> > priest 1,270,000
> > abuse + priest 66,800
> > teacher 6,480,000
> > abuse + teacher 197,000
> >
> > So for abuse+priest there are 67,000 references rather than about 40,000
> > if it's the same as abuse+teacher.
>
> No, lol, actually I got that wrong.
>
> [abuse+priest] = 66,8000 = x * (abuse + priest) = x * (3840000+1270000).
> => x = 0.013.
>
> so [abuse+teacher] should be x * (abuse + teacher) =
> 0.013*(6480000+3840000)
> = 134,000.
>
> But it's one and a half times that! So teachers must be 1.5 times as
> immoral as priests! :)
I think you are failing to take into account the relative populations:their
are more teachers than priests. To illustrate your problem try putting in
deep sea divers and abuse.
Dave
Dave Hyden
news:dB%K5.27548$h%4.18...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> news:8tf3lg$3g6$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Please don't judge Jesus by the weaknesses of his followers.
>
> Kim
I agree that would be illogical. I think Christainity is a very positive
aspect in all the Christians I know. My neighbour never smiled at all until
he became born again. Its now a pleasure to talk to him.
Dave
>
David Aldred
>for continuing celibacy?
>
priests, but it's not the norm.
As to why it's not the norm - there are several practical reasons. The
one which makes most sense to me, and which I think is hardest to
overcome, is that both the priesthood and marriage place a man[1] in a
particular primary relationship before[2] God - in the case of marriage,
to his wife, in the case of the priest to the Body of Christ in the
Church. Fulfilling either of those vocations completely is hard enough:
fulfilling both I suspect goes along with the ability to leap tall
buildings at a single bound[3]. The married Catholic clergy I know
certainly struggle very badly with it.
I also have a nasty suspicion that when the two come seriously into
conflict, which they are bound to do sometimes, the expectation of a
church which does have a horrible popular tendency to value the
priesthood above marriage will be that the marriage comes second - that
the priest's responsibility to his cure comes above his commitment to
his wife and family. That would be evil.
Before anyone jumps in to say that other denominations manage it, there
is the question of whether other denominations take quite the same
approach to the priesthood and to marriage as does the RCC - I don't
think they are quite the same in the intensity implied within the RCC in
commitment to a sacramental vocation.
[1] since this is the RCC we don't have to say 'or woman' at this point,
though in the case of marriage the same applies to both spouses.
[2] before in the sense of 'in the eyes of' rather than 'ahead of'
[3] which is in itself IMO something of a disqualification for either
vocation!
------------------ -------------------------
|\avid Aldred / Da...@aldred.demon.co.uk \ Nottingham, England
|/ --------------------------------
Richard Emblem
Green" <eb.g...@ntlworld.com> writes:
Thanks for that Ed. Fortunately my own "born-again/ charismatic/evangelical"
experience merely confirmed everything that had gone before as an RC and I
delight in the Pentecostal preacher who said at the time "I am not a get-outer
or a stay-inner but a do-what-God-sayser" (the "wisdom" of the time tended to
say that if you were born again or baptised in the Holy Spirit you should leave
your old church).
martin soilleux-cardwell
<spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> mysteriously altered some
electrons to write:
>"Ex. Bro. Tom" <tmhig...@aristophanes.com> wrote in message
>news:8tfblj$fec$0...@dosa.alt.net...
>> [Tumbleweed]
>> > Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a
>search
>> > engine, how many hits I''d get?
>> > Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits.
>>
>> For 'good' and 'priest' I got 547,000.
>>
>Following up on that, I looked at 'good' and 'priest'. Of the first 20 hits
>(of 547,000), 5 were about a 'good priest' (2 of which were the same one).
>the others were about various things, for example a book about how to be
>one, and a record by Judas Priest!
Which just goes to show that web page numbers prove nothing. I don't
have the time to go checking your 66,800 hits on 'abuse' and 'priest'
but I suspect there may be something about rock bands in those pages
too.
If you want to do serious statistical analysis, don't use an internet
search engine.
Martin
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".
<><
(just nabbed that fish from someone else, sorry if it was your idea)
martin soilleux-cardwell
>"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:86d7gk7...@g.local...
>> "Tumbleweed" wrote:
>>
>> > ...."Archbishop warns of loss of morality" (subheadline)
>> >
>> > Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a
>search
>> > engine, how many hits I''d get?
>> > Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits*. [ And thats just one
>religion. ]
>> > So, what sort of 'morality' is the archbishop worried about I wonder?
>>
>> Are you saying that because some priests have done bad[1]
>> things, therefore no Christian of any denomination should
>> be allowed to make statements about morality?
>>
>
>Yes.
<Sigh>.
Such a cynical view of the world. You cannot apply these standards to
only Christians and religious people. If you think all Christians (or
people from all religions) have no right to make statements about
morality because some of them do wicked things, then you must apply
these standards to everyone. Plenty of non-Christians and
non-religious people do wicked things also. By your logic, therefore,
no-one on the planet has the right to make statements about morality,
including yourself.
Clearly this position is untenable. Since there are plenty of people
who have every right to make statements about morality, your statement
is therefore wrong. Therefore your beliefs are misguided or based on
broken assumptions.
No one is perfect. We all do things wrong at times. Some of us do more
bad things than some others. It is all a case of relative merit. I
claim no high ground for Christians or religious people in this. The
facts show that some Christians do very bad things. On the other hand
there are non-Christians and non-religiouis people who do exceptional
good in the world.
Who are we to judge who is able to moralise and who isn't? Who is good
and who isn't? Who does bad and who doesn't? None of us sees any one
life as clearly and as closely as we see our own. None of us can begin
to understand the motives or reasoning behind the actions of others.
Where individuals' actions endanger the common good or the freedoms of
society, then society has put in place legal machinery to deal with
such actions. Other than that no-one has the right to cast the first
stone. By singling out RCC priests and therefore labelling all
religious people as wielding double-standards, you are casting that
stone.
I cannot comprehend that someone truely believes that others have no
right to make statements about morality. I feel you are either
deceiving us, or worse, deceiving yourself.
David Anderson
> > What "entire religious establishment"? There's no such
> > thing; there are lots of smaller religious establishments.
>
> OK, I'll rephrase. There is a history of *each* smaller religious
> establishment conspiring etc etc.
I'll just mention that this was before Rantzen organised Childline, and
brought the issue of child abuse to people's attention. Before that
happened, few people, religious or non-religious, would ever have
considered child abuse to be a serious or widespread problem. The R.C.
church didn't think that paedophilia was a general condition that was
difficult to treat - it believed that offending priests could be cured,
or saved, by a few weeks on retreat. (After the attacks over the
summer, I think it's clear that the pendulum has swung the other way.)
I don't think that the Churches were guiltless or just ignorant on this
matter. In particular, I think the Church took it upon itself to
forgive far too frequently, without considering the needs of the
victims. The Church's internal guidelines have changed considerably
over the past ten-fifteen years, and are now far more concerned with
protecting the children involved.
> The entire establishment. No, I doubt it. Many at or near the top, more
> concerned with repitations than children, certainly.
> Do a search, there are lots of links.I see the entire Anglican church in
> canada is about to go bankrupt due to this.
>
> "The letter from Archbishop Michael Peers distributed May 28 in all 2,400
> congregations in Canada explained that lawsuits filed by victims of physical
> and sexual abuse decades ago at church-run schools for aboriginals seek
> hundreds of millions of dollars in damages."
>
> ''About 100 cases involve the proven abuse of children, and the perpetrators
> are in prison,'' Peers wrote. His letter and a column in the monthly
> Anglican Journal newspaper acknowledged the church's role in running the
> abusive residential schools"
>
> ''The facts are that the General Synod is guilty by participation and
> association with individuals who physically and sexually assaulted a
> substantial number of students at residential schools,'' journal editor
> David Harris wrote in a May editorial ."
>
> http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,327621,00.html
This can hardly be described as evidence that the Church is currently
more concerned with reputations than with individuals.
> > Now, if you're saying that in fact religious people are more
> > often abusers than non-religious people, that would be very
> > interesting and -- as I said -- I'd be interested to see some
> > evidence. (The presence of umpteen web pages mentioning the
> > words "abuse" and "priest" is not evidence for this.)
>
> Agreed. Though the vast majority of those pages point to a news story about
> a religious person abusing a child, rather than just a web page with no
> other backing. And whilst its not scientific , thosands of references to
> religuous abuse, and few or none to atheistic has got to be saying
> something.
That people are more likely to want to publicise stories about religious
people?
For example, an atheist, in reaction to some prominent religious person
pontificating publicly about a perceived decline in morality might
decide to post an article to a Christian newsgroup talking about child
abuse.
If the process is less frequent in the other direction, that might be
explained by fewer prominent atheists in official positions rather than
by fewer cases of abuse. (And also, cases of abuse relating to secular
institutions tend to be related to the institution and not to
secularism.)
> I also understand since I've seen it quoted many times,( though I dont have
> a source so it may bea myth), that in the US, there are many more people who
> profess to be religious in prison, than would be accounted for by
> proportion.
I suspect that's because more Christians are trying practically to
reform people in prison than humanists are. (I can't comment upon the
success rate.)
David Anderson
David Anderson
>
> "Kim" <kim....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:x51L5.69504$sE.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > for continuing celibacy?
>
> Is that the sound of a can of worms being opened that I hear?
Probably. You'll probably have noticed that we spend most of our time
opening cans of worms among ourselves. It's relatively infrequently
that we discuss matters with visiting atheists. (Although you seem to
be growing in numbers recently.)
David Anderson
David Anderson
> > Tumbleweed wrote:
> > > * Amusing when you consider that an atheist can't possibly believe in
> Satan
> > > any more than God.
> >
> > <pedant>
> > It's theoretically possible. Indeed, Baudelaire may have been a
> > counterexample. :)
> > </pedant>
> >
> How so? Unless its someone who believes that God has 'died', but Satan lives
> on?
> I wouldn't particularily characterise such a person as an atheist, more as
> a theist who claims to have particular knowledge of the state of health of
> the deity.
It seems perfectly possible to believe that there's a single malevolent
spiritual being attempting to corrupt humanity, but that there is no
benevolent being that is powerful enough to counteract the malevolent
being's effects.
(I'd better just make clear that I don't believe that secular humanism,
Marxism, etc. are in any way inspired by Satan, and I would far rather
spend time with a secular humanist than with a Christian who believes
such tripe.)
David Anderson
Tony Griffin
>
> In article <8ti7ce$sf5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Tumbleweed"
> <spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Indeed, in the US, calling someone an atheist is
> >a term of abuse by many.A friend of mine over there took some long thinking
> >before he decided to 'come out' as an atheist. Yet no one here would think
> >twice about it.
>
> The question of 'coming out' in the UK probably applies more to 'born again
> christians' which may indicate the validity of the Daily Telegraph headline.
Having lived in both places, I agree with both of you.
To pick just one example, it would be impossible IMO to get elected to Congress
as an admitted atheist, though several "out" gay people have successfully been
elected.
In the UK I think that outward expression of Christianity would make it
difficult to be elected to Parliament. I don't mean simply being a Christian,
but "going on" about it in speeches.
By the way, concerning the main subject of this thread, we coined a word
"apatheist" (a joining of "apathetic" and "atheist") to describe people who
really don't think about religion one way or the other most of the time. No
matter what they may put on a survey about belief in God, they are atheist in
the way they lead their lives, which may be what the Archbishop meant.
Tony
David Anderson
>
> "David Anderson" <ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:39FC7DF7...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk...
> > better a record. At least my impression is that I've heard as many
> > stories about abuse in secular organisations as about abuse in Christian
> > organisations.[1] And although you get headlines saying 'priest
> > convicted of abuse', the headlines never bother to point out if the
> > person concerned was a humanist. Net impression given: Christians are
> > more given to abuse than non-Christians. And all without any dishonesty
> > or unfair reporting.
>
> Atheists aren't the ones claiming to be better, more moral, or going around
> telling other people how to live their lives.
You could have fooled me. I read papers such as the Independent,
Guardian and the Observer: the columnists are telling people that all
the time. Hugo Young (the Guardian's token Catholic) isn't nearly as
preachy as, to pick an example at random, Polly Toynbee.
> Shouldn't the religious
> establishments have a *much* better record, if their religion means
> anything? Being the same as a bunch of atheists hardly strikes me as a claim
> to fame. Must do better......
True. The question is whether or not they do. We don't really have a
fair basis of comparison, since humanists don't have organisations
engaged in pastoral work.
David Anderson
[1] MF.
Gareth McCaughan
> I heard one suggestion that some men with non-orthodox sexuality, for
> instance, an attraction to children, have taken a vow of celibacy because
> they thought they would be able to stay out of trouble. Then they get put
> in charge of a youth club.
Sounds painfully plausible.
>> [3] In those days, the Church had a lot of power and wealth.
>> There was widespread nepotism. Forbidding priests to
>> marry -- and therefore forbidding them to have children --
>> reduced this.
>
> I thought at first 'celibacy' only meant 'not-married' - so they could have
> children with a mistress, they just wouldn't inherit anything.
I don't think having mistresses, let alone having children
by them, was ever officially permitted by the RCC. :-)
Widmerpool
> "Ex. Bro. Tom" <tmhig...@aristophanes.com> wrote in message
> news:8tfblj$fec$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > [Tumbleweed]
> search
> > > engine, how many hits I''d get?
> >
> > For 'good' and 'priest' I got 547,000.
> >
> off>
>
> Tw
I just typed "Tunguska" in AltaVista and got 20268 hits on 8160 pages. Does
that mean there were 20268 Tunguska Events? (or even 8160?)
I also tried "abuse + satanist" (1553 pages), though I think satanist abuse
is a wild scare; "abuse + atheist" (5014) though I think atheist abuse is
something I just made up; and "safe + priest" (2175).
All of which proves? Bugger all.
Widmerpool
Widmerpool
populations:their
> are more teachers than priests. To illustrate your problem try putting in
> deep sea divers and abuse.
Yep - I got 38 hits (using AltaVista).
I still want to know what all this proves.
Widmerpool
Widmerpool
news:x51L5.69504$sE.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> for continuing celibacy?
>
Yes, I think I can. Celibacy is not universally required for Catholic
priests - priests in uniate orthodox churches (eg Maronite or Greek
Catholic) follow Orthodox discipline here, having married priests but not
married bishops (I think I've got that right). Likewise, married clergy from
protestant or orthodox churches who become Roman Catholics are allowed to be
ordained (or preserve their orders) and remain married. So it is a matter of
Church order in the RCC (which we call "the Latin Rite" or "the Western
Church"). Is there a scriptural warrant for this?
In Paul's instructions to the church in Corinth (1 Cor 7) he says that
celibacy for all is his suggestion, but not a rule (v7); he argues that an
unmarried man can devote himself to the Lord's affairs, whereas a married
man is torn both ways (vv32, 33).
Jesus himself (Mt 19:10-12) commends celibacy - admittedly he says "it is
not everybody who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is
granted" but he then goes on to talk about those who make themselves eunuchs
"for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."
So, a summary. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor the RCC, says that celibacy is
for everybody. But the Church does normally require those who wish to be
priests to dedicate themselves to this task wholeheartedly; not to to be
torn both ways; to offer themselves as a sign, a sign of the kingdom, a sign
that the kingdom of heaven can be enough to satisfy the human soul. This is
not required of everyone, but the relationship between a priest and those he
serves can be immeasurably strengthened by it.
Let anyone accept this who can
Widmerpool.
Tumbleweed
news:39fdea9f...@news.screaming.net...
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:42:29 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
> <spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> mysteriously altered some
> electrons to write:
>
> >"Ex. Bro. Tom" <tmhig...@aristophanes.com> wrote in message
> >news:8tfblj$fec$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> >> [Tumbleweed]
> >> > Yet I wonder what would happen if I typed 'abuse' and 'priest' into a
> >search
> >> > engine, how many hits I''d get?
> >> > Oh well, I just tried it, 66,800 hits.
> >>
> >> For 'good' and 'priest' I got 547,000.
> >>
> >Following up on that, I looked at 'good' and 'priest'. Of the first 20
hits
> >(of 547,000), 5 were about a 'good priest' (2 of which were the same
one).
> >the others were about various things, for example a book about how to be
> >one, and a record by Judas Priest!
>
> Which just goes to show that web page numbers prove nothing. I don't
> have the time to go checking your 66,800 hits on 'abuse' and 'priest'
> but I suspect there may be something about rock bands in those pages
> too.
>
> If you want to do serious statistical analysis, don't use an internet
> search engine.
Sigh. I wasn't "doing serious statistical analysis", I was merely pointing
out that maybe the A of C should worry about the morals within his own
community and the wider religious area before concerning himself with the
morals of those outside his sphere of influence. But there were 6,370
references to Judas Priest the rock group, if you are interested!
> Martin
> "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".
Tw
--
please remove 'spam' before replying by email
"Stupid are those who believe in spite of the evidence against"
Tumbleweed
news:_BnL5.30511$h%4.24...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
get its own act sorted out before lecturing non-believers about their
morals.
Tumbleweed
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> >
> > "David Anderson" <ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:39FC7DF7...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk...
> > > I don't believe that secular organisations, care homes, etc. have any
> > > better a record. At least my impression is that I've heard as many
> > > stories about abuse in secular organisations as about abuse in
Christian
> > > organisations.[1] And although you get headlines saying 'priest
> > > convicted of abuse', the headlines never bother to point out if the
> > > person concerned was a humanist. Net impression given: Christians are
> > > more given to abuse than non-Christians. And all without any
dishonesty
> > > or unfair reporting.
> >
> > Atheists aren't the ones claiming to be better, more moral, or going
around
> > telling other people how to live their lives.
>
> You could have fooled me. I read papers such as the Independent,
> Guardian and the Observer: the columnists are telling people that all
> the time. Hugo Young (the Guardian's token Catholic) isn't nearly as
> preachy as, to pick an example at random, Polly Toynbee.
Oh bugger, I hadn't thought of that!
I dont read those!
Paul Dean
What is this "religious community" thing? Everyone is a member of
some community or other, and no community is immune from child abuse.
Does that mean that no-one can condemn child abuse?!? You don't make
much sense - it just comes across as Christian-bashing.
--
Paul
"God's choice acquaintances are humble men." - Robert Leighton.
Ex. Bro. Tom
> That the religious community has a large child abuse problem, and it should
> get its own act sorted out before lecturing non-believers about their
> morals.
[Paul Dean]
> What is this "religious community" thing? Everyone is a member of
> some community or other, and no community is immune from child abuse.
> Does that mean that no-one can condemn child abuse?!? You don't make
> much sense - it just comes across as Christian-bashing.
Besides which, part of the job of the religious community (however
saintly, or however corrupt) is to pass on a message from someone who did
have His own act sorted out.
Jesus only occasionally got explicit about the awfulness of sin -- but
did so in the case of child abuse: Matt 18:5-6.
Tumbleweed
news:m3itq9h...@redeemed.org.uk...
'Religious community' was short hand for the very many different religious
communities, many of whom appear to act (or have acted) as a haven for child
abusers. It is in fact only in the *very* recent past(months) that some of
them(only some, note) have had the courage to stand up, acknowledge this
fact, and try and stamp it out. Until last year, there was a general process
of denial, obfuscation or straight cover-ups. Many of the worst have been
institutionalised, such as homes run by nuns/monks and schools run by
similar (not just Christians).
So when AC said 'if people aren't Christians, they are not moral', I took
exception to this. Judging by what we have seen exposed recently and has
been going on for "god knows " how long, *becoming* religious makes them
more likely to commit abuse, than the opposite.
BTW, its 31st Oct today. makes me glad we are in 2001 and not 1701 or no
doubt people like you would be attempting to burn people like me at the
stake. Thank God we are no longer a nation of Christians (or any other
religion)!
David Aldred
Widmerpool <NoSpamWi...@btinternet.com> writes
>All of which proves? Bugger all.
Possibly not the most felicitous of expressions in the context :-)
Eric Potts
>To pick just one example, it would be impossible IMO to get elected to Congress
>as an admitted atheist, though several "out" gay people have successfully been
>elected.
>
>In the UK I think that outward expression of Christianity would make it
>difficult to be elected to Parliament. I don't mean simply being a Christian,
>but "going on" about it in speeches.
>
It's true that they don't "go on about it in speeches" in quite the
way you mean, but a fair number of MP's make no attempt to hide their
commitment to Christianity or its influence on their thinking; just
thinking quickly I can mention leading politicians such as Tony Blair
himself, and Paul Boateng and (though I hate to admit her) Anne
Widdecombe. It's quite interesting, actually, that Christian faith
these days tends to be more evident among Labour MP's than Tories.
>By the way, concerning the main subject of this thread, we coined a word
>"apatheist" (a joining of "apathetic" and "atheist") to describe people who
>really don't think about religion one way or the other most of the time. No
>matter what they may put on a survey about belief in God, they are atheist in
>the way they lead their lives, which may be what the Archbishop meant.
I like the word "ap-atheist." But we need to read it is "apa-theist"
too, since there are a lot of those around also.
Eric.
--
Eric Potts: Lowestoft, England.
God wants us to learn to love ourselves as he does;
then we have something real to offer our neighbour:
a love equal to that we have discovered in God.
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ericpotts
Eric Potts
<ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
>Tumbleweed wrote:
>>
>> Atheists aren't the ones claiming to be better, more moral, or going around
>> telling other people how to live their lives.
>
>You could have fooled me. I read papers such as the Independent,
>Guardian and the Observer: the columnists are telling people that all
>the time. Hugo Young (the Guardian's token Catholic) isn't nearly as
>preachy as, to pick an example at random, Polly Toynbee.
To which you can add Joan Smith. I like her writings but I do wish she
would learn that there are varieties of Christians.
Eric Potts
<NoSpamWi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>All of which proves? Bugger all.
>
After you! ;-/
Eric Potts
<da...@aldred.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <x51L5.69504$sE.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Kim
><kim....@virgin.net> writes
>>
>>Just out of interest, perhaps the RCs can explain the theological grounds
>>for continuing celibacy?
>>
>There aren't any *theological* grounds - we do have Catholic married
>priests, but it's not the norm.
>
>As to why it's not the norm - there are several practical reasons.
<snip>
>
>I also have a nasty suspicion that when the two come seriously into
>conflict, which they are bound to do sometimes, the expectation of a
>church which does have a horrible popular tendency to value the
>priesthood above marriage will be that the marriage comes second - that
>the priest's responsibility to his cure comes above his commitment to
>his wife and family. That would be evil.
>
This is a real problem in situations where there are married clergy,
as I can testify. I can certainly understand the practical reasons for
an unmarried clergy (though it could be female as well as male) though
I don't agree with them. In fact it seems to me to be wrong almost to
the point of sin to expect a priest (I use the term without prejudice)
to be so committed to the Church or to the parish that s/he is
compelled to neglect those things that make for a fullness of
personality and therfore of spiritual life. Some people may have such
a vocation, but I cannot believe it right to expect it of all.
>Before anyone jumps in to say that other denominations manage it, there
>is the question of whether other denominations take quite the same
>approach to the priesthood and to marriage as does the RCC - I don't
>think they are quite the same in the intensity implied within the RCC in
>commitment to a sacramental vocation.
Now why did I guess you were going to say that? :-)
"Intensity" is a "nice" choice of word, since it carefully avoids
ideas of superiority. But it still won't do, you know. It still
implies that there is a difference of quality in a RC vocation when
compared to a non-RC one, and that I will not buy. Once again it is in
fact, though not in intent, demeaning and insulting to non-Romans. One
day the penny is going to drop, and then the revolution will begin!
:-)
Eric.
Paul Dean
> So when AC said 'if people aren't Christians, they are not moral', I took
> exception to this.
He said no such thing and you know it. He said that there was a lot
of immorality and a lot of tacit atheism. It's you that linked it
together into an alleged grave insult.
> BTW, its 31st Oct today. makes me glad we are in 2001 and not 1701 or no
> doubt people like you would be attempting to burn people like me at the
> stake.
People like me, as in people with two legs and two arms? Or is there
some closer point of comparison that I missed?
(and /are/ we in 2001? I only ask because I'm not entirely sure)
> Thank God we are no longer a nation of Christians (or any other
> religion)!
Isn't secular humanism a kind of religion? or at least a memetic
virus like any other religion?
--
Paul
David Anderson
>
> Kim Tame wrote:
> > I thought at first 'celibacy' only meant 'not-married' - so they could have
> > children with a mistress, they just wouldn't inherit anything.
>
> I don't think having mistresses, let alone having children
> by them, was ever officially permitted by the RCC. :-)
It wasn't ever officially permitted. However, there was a widespread
custom in the Middle Ages whereby the villagers would provide each new
priest with a concubine (on the principle that it stopped him chasing
their wives and daughters.) This custom was prevalent in Southern
Europe: in Northern Europe villagers were implicit Donatists, and tended
to think that their safety was endangered unless the priest was
celibate.
(Source: Bossy, Christianity in Western Europe).
David Anderson
David Aldred
<eric...@bigfoot.com> writes
>>I also have a nasty suspicion that when the two come seriously into
>>conflict, which they are bound to do sometimes, the expectation of a
>>church which does have a horrible popular tendency to value the
>>priesthood above marriage will be that the marriage comes second - that
>>the priest's responsibility to his cure comes above his commitment to
>>his wife and family. That would be evil.
>>
>This is a real problem in situations where there are married clergy,
>as I can testify. I can certainly understand the practical reasons for
>an unmarried clergy (though it could be female as well as male) though
>I don't agree with them. In fact it seems to me to be wrong almost to
>the point of sin to expect a priest (I use the term without prejudice)
>to be so committed to the Church or to the parish that s/he is
>compelled to neglect those things that make for a fullness of
>personality and therfore of spiritual life. Some people may have such
>a vocation, but I cannot believe it right to expect it of all.
Well, in the RC understanding, the sacraments of marriage and of
priestly ordination both confer the grace required to live out the way
of life they involve. We're not expecting people to live that life
without any help: we are expecting God to grant them the strength and
grace to do so.
And after all, why should that level of commitment not be sought? It's
part of the package, known to those seeking priestly ordination before
they take it on - just as the utter commitment and the responsibilities
of marriage are made known to those seeking marriage. And there are
many other means of ministry in the Church, if the utter commitment to
church involved in priestly ordination is not right for the individual.
We could do with a lot more people committed to service of the church at
a level compatible with marriage, alongside the priesthood (which is
currently misused in a lot of ways - why on earth should our diocesan
treasurer be a priest, for example?).
The problem is that to many people, ministry = priesthood: a sad case of
vocational blindness which I am sure leads to much heartbreak. We
certainly have priests who are priests because they had a vocation to
serve the Church and are now caught in a role they were not made for -
but then we have people in marriages like that too (and there are
mechanisms for dealing with both). But we also have, thankfully in
increasing numbers, people who are married ministers, single ministers,
deacons both married and unmarried.
>
>>Before anyone jumps in to say that other denominations manage it, there
>>is the question of whether other denominations take quite the same
>>approach to the priesthood and to marriage as does the RCC - I don't
>>think they are quite the same in the intensity implied within the RCC in
>>commitment to a sacramental vocation.
>
>Now why did I guess you were going to say that? :-)
>
>"Intensity" is a "nice" choice of word, since it carefully avoids
>ideas of superiority. But it still won't do, you know. It still
>implies that there is a difference of quality in a RC vocation when
>compared to a non-RC one, and that I will not buy.
No: it implies only that the RC view of what is bound up in these
particular vocations differs from other views - that we have different
expectations of the way in which these vocations will be lived out.
And in fact, that's confirmed by your comments above - you clearly do
not agree with the RCC in terms of the intensity of commitment involved:
indeed you go so far as to say it's wrong. If you believe what you
wrote above, why do you get upset when I say that you are likely to say
what you do?
Widmerpool
news:qKMrVJAR$v$5E...@ntlworld.com...
> In article <79nL5.71935$sE.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> Widmerpool <NoSpamWi...@btinternet.com> writes
>
> >All of which proves? Bugger all.
>
> Possibly not the most felicitous of expressions in the context :-)
Widmerpool
Gareth McCaughan
> It wasn't ever officially permitted. However, there was a widespread
> custom in the Middle Ages whereby the villagers would provide each new
> priest with a concubine (on the principle that it stopped him chasing
> their wives and daughters.) This custom was prevalent in Southern
> Europe: in Northern Europe villagers were implicit Donatists, and tended
> to think that their safety was endangered unless the priest was
> celibate.
> (Source: Bossy, Christianity in Western Europe).
Gosh!
Gerald Yuen
<spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>There are of course plenty of atheists who abuse children, its just that
>they dont have a large organisation behind them to cover up for them, move
>them to another area out of harms way, and so on. Again, my point being that
>there is no observable difference between religious people and non, when it
>comes to crime (abuse being one particular).
Whoever said that Christians as individuals are any better[1] than non-
Christians? Christians may say Christianity is better than atheism, which is
up for debate[2], but any Christian who says they are better[1] than any
atheist has lost the plot somewhere.
However, I'd be interested in seeing any statistics[3] on groups of people.
(Maybe my next pet project when I get some time).
Gerald.
[1] Innately more moral.
[2] Evidently, the moral character of a person is not necessarily related to
the morality they espouse (and vice versa).
[3] With sources and methods, obviously.
--
Gerald Yuen. e-mail: gc....@ukonline.co.uk PGP key on web site.
Men despise religion; they hate it, and they fear it is true.
Blaise Pascal
Gerald Yuen
<Pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote:
>Isn't secular humanism a kind of religion? or at least a memetic
>virus like any other religion?
If my sources[1] are correct, The US Supreme Court defined it as a relgion in
1961. What you conclude from that is another matter. :)
Gerald.
[1] Alas, my memory - any verification anyone?
--
Gerald Yuen. e-mail: gc....@ukonline.co.uk PGP key on web site.
When men cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, they
believe in anything. G.K.Chesterton
Eric Potts
<da...@aldred.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3a0106b5...@news.freeserve.net>, Eric Potts
><eric...@bigfoot.com> writes
> In fact it seems to me to be wrong almost to
>>the point of sin to expect a priest (I use the term without prejudice)
>>to be so committed to the Church or to the parish that s/he is
>>compelled to neglect those things that make for a fullness of
>>personality and therfore of spiritual life. Some people may have such
>>a vocation, but I cannot believe it right to expect it of all.
>
>Well, in the RC understanding, the sacraments of marriage and of
>priestly ordination both confer the grace required to live out the way
>of life they involve. We're not expecting people to live that life
>without any help: we are expecting God to grant them the strength and
>grace to do so.
>
>And after all, why should that level of commitment not be sought? It's
>part of the package, known to those seeking priestly ordination before
>they take it on - just as the utter commitment and the responsibilities
>of marriage are made known to those seeking marriage. And there are
>many other means of ministry in the Church, if the utter commitment to
>church involved in priestly ordination is not right for the individual.
It may be known to people before they take it on, but may that not
also mean that there are others with a genuine vocation to priesthood
but who also have a genuine vocation to marriage; and who are therby
debarred from fulfilling their total vocation whichever way they
choose? And might not this issue have something to do with the
shortage of "vocations?" - in that some who do have a vocation to
priesthood are not coming forward because of this conflict?
Can not God give the grace to fulfil both vocations to the same
person, and is not the Church trying to ration God's grace by telling
Him they will not let Him do so?
>The problem is that to many people, ministry = priesthood: a sad case of
>vocational blindness which I am sure leads to much heartbreak.
yes, and the Church has a lot to answer for in this matter, as it has
often portrayed the clergy (or the religious life) as the only real
vocation. Protestant Churches as just as guilty in this respect. Many
Christians after conversion start to believe that only in the
professional clergy can they fulfil a real Christian life.
But this is not relevant to the issue of celibacy, IMHO.
>>"Intensity" is a "nice" choice of word, since it carefully avoids
>>ideas of superiority. But it still won't do, you know. It still
>>implies that there is a difference of quality in a RC vocation when
>>compared to a non-RC one, and that I will not buy.
>
>No: it implies only that the RC view of what is bound up in these
>particular vocations differs from other views - that we have different
>expectations of the way in which these vocations will be lived out.
Different certainly, but no less "intense."
>
>And in fact, that's confirmed by your comments above - you clearly do
>not agree with the RCC in terms of the intensity of commitment involved:
>indeed you go so far as to say it's wrong.
And you do not understand what I am saying, David. My vocation to
priesthood is no less "intense" for the fact that I am a Protestant
and married, and I'll knock the block off anyone who tries to say it
is.
>If you believe what you
>wrote above, why do you get upset when I say that you are likely to say
>what you do?
I'll stop getting upset when Roman Catholics finally realise that the
differences between us are ones of detail, not of devotion, and when
they stop trying to imply that the RCC offers something which is
different in quality and validity from what is available elsewhere.
Because, I repeat and will keep repeating, that although I know full
well that you have no intention of being insulting etc, that is
exactly what official RC attitudes are: insulting and degrading. Until
that penny finally drops, we are in for a hard time.
Eric.
--
Eric Potts; Lowestoft, England.
"Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas
if you stop opening presents and listen."
David Aldred
It might - but that still leaves the question of whether the total
commitment required in each case is compatible with the other. If it
isn't, then there is a serious problem with combining both.
> And might not this issue have something to do with the
>shortage of "vocations?" - in that some who do have a vocation to
>priesthood are not coming forward because of this conflict?
>
>Can not God give the grace to fulfil both vocations to the same
>person, and is not the Church trying to ration God's grace by telling
>Him they will not let Him do so?
I don't think so. The problem to my mind is that someone who has the
ability to fulfil both is going to be so far away from the rest of us
that he will be very difficult to treat as a pastor.
>
>
>>The problem is that to many people, ministry = priesthood: a sad case of
>>vocational blindness which I am sure leads to much heartbreak.
>
>yes, and the Church has a lot to answer for in this matter, as it has
>often portrayed the clergy (or the religious life) as the only real
>vocation. Protestant Churches as just as guilty in this respect. Many
>Christians after conversion start to believe that only in the
>professional clergy can they fulfil a real Christian life.
>
>But this is not relevant to the issue of celibacy, IMHO.
It is in that if ministry=priesthood, and priesthood invovles celibacy,
then the option of fulfilling a vocation to ministry which is not a
vocation to priesthood is excluded.
>
>
>>>"Intensity" is a "nice" choice of word, since it carefully avoids
>>>ideas of superiority. But it still won't do, you know. It still
>>>implies that there is a difference of quality in a RC vocation when
>>>compared to a non-RC one, and that I will not buy.
>>
>>No: it implies only that the RC view of what is bound up in these
>>particular vocations differs from other views - that we have different
>>expectations of the way in which these vocations will be lived out.
>
>Different certainly, but no less "intense."
But I though you had criticised the intensity of the RC expectations of
the priesthood? If your church's expectations are no less intense, then
why the criticism?
>>And in fact, that's confirmed by your comments above - you clearly do
>>not agree with the RCC in terms of the intensity of commitment involved:
>>indeed you go so far as to say it's wrong.
>
>
>And you do not understand what I am saying, David. My vocation to
>priesthood is no less "intense" for the fact that I am a Protestant
>and married, and I'll knock the block off anyone who tries to say it
>is.
I didn't say it was. I said that RC attitudes to those in priesthood
were more intense: and judging by your critical response to the
description of those expectations you agree with me. Do I need to keep
saying that over and over again, or will you accept the point this time?
Widmerpool
news:3a014afc...@news.freeserve.net...
<various snips, large and small>
> > In fact it seems to me to be wrong almost to
> >>the point of sin to expect a priest (I use the term without prejudice)
> >>to be so committed to the Church or to the parish that s/he is
> >>compelled to neglect those things that make for a fullness of
> >>personality and therfore of spiritual life. Some people may have such
> >>a vocation, but I cannot believe it right to expect it of all.
> And you do not understand what I am saying, David. My vocation to
> priesthood is no less "intense" for the fact that I am a Protestant
> and married, and I'll knock the block off anyone who tries to say it
> is.
> Eric.
Eric, I think you may have to knock the block off the apostle Paul, when you
see him: 1 Cor 7:32-35
(can I watch?)
Widmerpool
Edward Green
news:39FDA99A...@redeemed.org.uk...
> Edward Green wrote:
> But it wasn't a conversion.
I'm not sure if I really believe in Conversion as NCA (Normative Christian
Experience). I think we sometimes try to pigeonhole ourselves into a revival
style soteriology to keep our spirits up.
> It's not the central facet of my soteiology. It's a phrase which is
> useful and which attempts to describe something fundamental.
I'm not convinced that Jesus was referring to conversion experience when he
spoke of being born again/from above
> > No more than i do myself. My theology has not changed since i was an
> > Evangelical. Only my practice and culture.
>
> I'm not familiar with that culture. I think i can see glimmers of it on
> the horizon and, you're right, it's not always a pretty sight. I'm
> using the old definition of the word.
Evangelical Culture can be found in Christian Unions, and Wesley Owen
bookshops across the country. It stands clear and proud in the pages of
"Christianity" Magazine, and when the last editor started to challenge
people stopped buying it. It is a living breathing thing churning out bad
books (believe i have shelves full of them - being a religious columnist has
its downsides!), and some pretty poor music. It is a stronger tradition than
any I have come across more Roman circles, because it is not acknowledged to
be so. It assumes certain patterns and forms of leadership (maybe we should
do a snap survey "what does the word leader mean to you?") and has
difficulty working outside of those norms.
"When a Person becomes an Evangelical Christian, they are walking into a new
world: they will soon discover an entire sub-culture of church services,
events, festivals, concerts, conferences, magazines, books, merchandise,
record companies, mission organisations, training schemes, holiday clubs and
celebrities. They will also encounter distinctive social attitudes and
behavioural expectations which at best might be interpreted as the right way
to live, and at worst are criticized as being christianised middle-class
conservatism." [1]
What is the "Old" definition of the word Evangelical ? Is it someone who
sees Scripture as the ultimate basis of faith?
I always like to use the "Faith, Reason, Scripture, and Practice" basis (it
amuses me when people leave the last one out). I suppose I still put
Scripture as my main source of inspiration, but I wouldn't satisfy an
Inerrancy Test (do they still do those when you join a church - only
kidding). My favourite theologian is Clarke Pinnock (although Fiddes is
wooing me), an Evangelical ... I still listen to Matt Redman and other such
worship... so why am I not Evangelical? I still hold Creedal Christian
views, and even if i don't fit your (or another's) definition of Evangelical
I can produce other Evangelicals who believe as I do.
That is why i think Evangelicalism is a culture not a set of beliefs. :0)
--
Edward Green http://www.khite.co.uk
--
These are the four Laws of Ireland: Patrick's law, not to kill the clergy;
and Adomnan's law, not to kill women; Daires's law, not to kill cattle; and
the law of Sunday; not to transgress thereon. None of these apply in the
Church of England.
[1] Our friend and now Anglican (IIRC) Dave Tomlinson in his Magnum Opus
(<g>) the Post Evangelical. (although i always found that a rather negative
description .. i like just Post my self <g>)
Ex. Bro. Tom
> It is in that if ministry=priesthood, and priesthood invovles celibacy,
> then the option of fulfilling a vocation to ministry which is not a
> vocation to priesthood is excluded.
And this: the gift of a vocation is not given to an individual, but to
the Church. It is a joint thing between an individual and the rest of the
Church. The individual does their part in discerning the call, and the
Church does its part, too. And those parts may range from 0% to 100%.
God's grace is quite certainly powerful enough for someone to
simultaneously be a mathematical genius, a Formula One race-car driver, a
movie star, and a diplomat of outstanding ability. But if such a person
were also to offer themself as a priest, and propose to give up none of
the other activities, then the Church may use its practical God-given
wisdom to decline the offer, without impugning God.
Because very importantly, a vocation involves a choice which is genuinely
**free** -- the individual can turn down the call without losing the
favour of God, and so can the rest of the Church.
If some societies have no trouble at all producing more than enough
celibate priests, and other societies have trouble, it may be that
something about a society is the problem, and not the celibacy. But in
any case, requiring celibacy is the Church's free choice, and it
exercises that choice without losing the favour of God.
Eric Potts
You can hold my coat. (Acts 7.58) :-)
Seriously, that's a reminder that not even Saul/Paul was infallible!
Paul's view in 1 Cor 7 is interesting but not binding on the Church.
It's just one of the things I mean to take up with him in due course!
:-) As a matter of fact it is also insulting to married people.
Certainly, as a married clergyperson there are many times when it
seems that my responsibility to the Church and to my wife come into
conflict. But it only seems to be so. If I am to be a good "priest," I
must also be a good husband, and vice versa.
Sometimes the Church makes unreasonable demands on the clergy. The
presence of a wife and family mean that you can put those demands into
perspective. It must be very hard for an unmarried priest to do that.
The tendency then is to start down the path of becoming a slave to the
Church, in the wrong sense of that phrase.
Some individuals do not marry, either from choice or vocation or from
circumstances. I respect and honour them. But for most of us marriage
is part of wholeness and to require celibacy is to impose unwholeness
on the clergy. (Of course, we are all broken, and our brokenness is
used of God. But that is not the same thing.
Eric.
>Widmerpool
Eric Potts
<da...@aldred.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3a014afc...@news.freeserve.net>, Eric Potts
><eric...@bigfoot.com> writes
>>And you do not understand what I am saying, David. My vocation to
>>priesthood is no less "intense" for the fact that I am a Protestant
>>and married, and I'll knock the block off anyone who tries to say it
>>is.
>
>I didn't say it was. I said that RC attitudes to those in priesthood
>were more intense: and judging by your critical response to the
>description of those expectations you agree with me. Do I need to keep
>saying that over and over again, or will you accept the point this time?
>
What you actually said was:
> I don't
>think they (other denominations) are quite the same in the intensity implied within the RCC in
>commitment to a sacramental vocation.
and
> you clearly do
>not agree with the RCC in terms of the intensity of commitment involved:
>indeed you go so far as to say it's wrong.
I don't think either of those are quite the same as what you are
saying now.
So let's be clear, if we can:
Perhaps the *attitudes* of Roman Catholics towards those who are
called to priesthood are more intense than the attitudes of non-Romans
to those called to the clergy. Perhaps; sometimes; though I would
still doubt it in most cases. It depends on just what you mean by
intense. Maybe there is a more hot-house atmosphere surrounding the RC
priesthood; and if so, maybe that is one of the reasons why some
priests are real saints but others are downright disasters. If we
expect clergy to be in some sense ultra-human, we are heading for
serious disappointment. Which is not to deny the working of divine
grace, which, praise be, is able to rescue some of those potential
disasters. And even so, in many Protestant circles there are
incredibly (and impossibly) high and intense expectations of the
clergy.
But, whether or not there is this greater intensity, there is most
definitely not any greater intensity of commitment from those called
to RC priesthood than there is from those called to Protestant (or
Orthodox) clergydom. It did sound as if you were saying that there was
such a difference, and I think the earlier quotes from your posts read
that way. And, I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, it does
regularly sound as if Roman Catholic spokespeople are saying this kind
of thing. If they don't mean it, then it's perhaps time they took a
course in good English. If they do mean it...., well, at least we
know.
I am still waiting for a clear and unequivocal statement of what the
RCC thinks about non-Roman churches, clergy, sacraments, and
Christians. Dominus Iesus might be meant to be it, but in so far as it
is clear it is offensive and divisive and degrading; so I'll assume
that it is not clear and unequivocal in the hope that something better
might turn up.
Meanwhile, of course, one is aware of many Roman Catholics, including
some in important positions, who are just getting on with ecumenical
bridge building and simply ignoring what Rome says. Maybe Rome should
take note of the fact that its intransigence means it is losing
control of its own people.
Nick Milton
<spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> enhanced the collective
wisdom with:
>Agreed, *except* where that organisation itself claims to be the source of
>morality. Such as a church.
Ah! I wonder if that is where you miss the point.
(A Christian would say that) the source of morality is a relationship
with God. A church can facilitate that relationship, to a greater or
lesser degree, but is not, of itself, the source of morality, any more
than a tap is "the source of water"(1).
This is not to say that atheists have no morality. A Christian would
say that anyone's morality is God-given, through the operation of
conscience, whether they believe or do not believe in any God or
God's.
Nick
1)a purely illustrative metaphor, which I do not intend to defend
Gareth McCaughan
>>> 1) Motes/eyes/beam etc (ie follow the dictates of your own religion)
>>
>> That is addressed to individuals. It means: Don't go attacking
>> others' actions when you have worse things not sorted out
>> yourself. I am willing to believe that George Carey doesn't
>> have such things in his closet.
>> I don't think it gives any warrant for saying that no one should
>> complain about anything unless every organisation with which
>> they're associated is perfect in that regard.
>
> Agreed, *except* where that organisation itself claims to be the source of
> morality. Such as a church.
I know of no church, with the possible exception of the RCC,
that claims to be "the source of morality". *God*, perhaps,
is the source of morality; the church, or any particular
church, may claim to know various things about what God
wants, and therefore to be a source of *information* about
morality. That's not at all the same thing as claiming to
be "the source of morality".
[The Archbishop of Canterbury...]
> He said, according to the newspaper, which I acknowledge is not necessarily
> a reliable source of info, that because society isn't Christian it is
> therefore lacking in morals. Sorry, I praphrase because I no longer have the
> original. But IIRC it was the lack of Christianty and not being focussed on
> etermal life that was the issue.
I would be rather surprised if he had said exactly that.
I would not be surprised if he had said that society (1)
is not Christian and (2) lacks morals, or that society
(1) is lacking in morals and (2) would be improved by
looking to Christianity for moral guidance.
This is a rather futile line of discussion: your memory of
a newspaper article's report of the ABoC's speech, versus
my unreliable intuition about what sort of things he's likely
to have said. I wonder whether the actual words are available
somewhere.
>> Are you saying (1) some religious people engage in child abuse,
>> or (2) religious people are substantially more likely to engage
>> in child abuse than non-religious people? If the latter, I'd be
>> interested to know your evidence.
>
> I'm saying [3], that there is no evidence that professed belief in a
> particular deity and being a member of a religous arganistion makes one less
> likely to commit such acts.
It's certainly possible that no religion has succeeded in
doing much to make its adherents less likely to abuse
children. That would be sad, if it's true.
I suspect you think that if this is true then it completely
discredits all religions' claims to have anything to say
about morals. I think that's wrong. If it were shown that
no religion has succeeded in doing *anything* to improve
the moral standards of its adherents, that would be more
to the point.
(Consider, for instance, the possibility that whatever it is
that makes people want to abuse children is much more like a
disease than like the commoner moral failings. Is a religion
useless if it doesn't cure the diseases of its followers?)
> I'm also saying [4], that the power structures
> that such organisations have, make it easier for perpetrators to commit
> their crimes, and for those crimes to be swept under the carpet to avoid
> embarassment (or these days, a huge lawsuit that may bankrupt the
> organisation)
I don't think the "power structures" of religious organisations
have anything much to do with how easy it is for clergy (and
corresponding people in non-Christian religions) to abuse
children.
And I'm not sure what it is about the "power structures" of
religious organisations that you think makes it easier for
such crimes to be swept under the carpet. Child abuse has
been being swept under the carpet by pretty much everyone
for ages. Now that's happening less; I'm not aware of any
evidence that there's less openness now in church organisations
than in secular organisations.
For what it's worth, all the Christian organisations that
deal with children and of which I have any experience are
very careful about keeping children safe from abuse.
>> What it isn't -- so, at least, it seems to me -- is some kind
>> of terrible thing about the particular religions or non-religions
>> followed or allegedly followed[*] by the people in question.
>> It probably *does* indicate that none of these religions fixes
>> all the serious flaws of all its followers; but I'm not sure
>> any of them claims to.
>
> If they don't fix the flaws, whats the point of them?
Perhaps they fix some of the flaws.
>> Now, if you're saying that in fact religious people are more
>> often abusers than non-religious people, that would be very
>> interesting and -- as I said -- I'd be interested to see some
>> evidence. (The presence of umpteen web pages mentioning the
>> words "abuse" and "priest" is not evidence for this.)
>
> Agreed. Though the vast majority of those pages point to a news story about
> a religious person abusing a child, rather than just a web page with no
> other backing. And whilst its not scientific , thosands of references to
> religuous abuse, and few or none to atheistic has got to be saying
> something.
I don't think so. There are lots of people who have jobs that
(1) bring them into contact with children and (2) are explicitly
religious. There are hardly any people who have jobs that (1)
bring them into contact with children and (2') are explicitly
atheistic.
It's already been noted that web searching will find plenty
of cases in which teachers have abused, or are said to have
abused, children in their charge. I dare say many of those
teachers are atheists, and many are agnostics. You won't
find that fact mentioned in the articles.
> I also understand since I've seen it quoted many times,( though I dont have
> a source so it may bea myth), that in the US, there are many more people who
> profess to be religious in prison, than would be accounted for by
> proportion.
It would be interesting to know how many of them were religious
when they first entered prison, and how many were converted (or
claimed to have been converted) in prison.
Consider that
- a claimed religious conversion might be, or be thought to be,
a good way to make the prison authorities think one's reformed;
- someone who lands in prison is going to be brought forcibly
to the realisation that the way they've been living has
landed them in a mess, and will have plenty of time for
taking stock -- just the sort of situation in which you
might expect conversions of various kinds to be common;
- many religious organisations are particularly concerned
with people in prisons, so imprisoned criminals may be
in more contact with religions than typical people outside;
- Christianity, at least, is explicitly and deliberately a
religion for those who know that they are far from perfect.
>> [*] "or allegedly followed": because those who abuse
>> children are clearly failing to follow the dictates of
>> almost all religions and many non-religions, which
>> gives some reason to doubt their genuine commitment
>> thereto. This applies just as much to (e.g.) secular
>> humanism (which is supposed to be based on a deep
>> respect for humanity, after all) as it does to
>> Christianity.
>
> An easy get out. "If they do something bad, they are not a 'true believer'".
I very deliberately did not say that. Plenty of true believers
do bad things. Some do very bad things. None the less, doing
very bad things is some evidence that one is not a true believer
(at least in any religion that says you mustn't do very bad
things).
>> It's possible that some positions which
>> offer particular rich pickings to abusers (choirmaster?)
>> might lead some evil people to feign religious conviction
>> in order to get into those positions, though I'd guess
>> this is rare.
>
> If it isnt rare, (ie imposters) then doesnt it mean that genuinely religuous
> people are committing these crimes?
I am sure that there are genuinely religious people committing
terrible crimes.
> I've sort of forgotten where this started now! Oh yes. Religious leaders,
> get your own houses in order before pontificating to the rest of us about
> how bad we are. Thankyou.
There aren't all that many religious leaders reading uk.r.c,
I believe. The ones I know of don't tend to pontificate about
how bad non-Christians are, at least in uk.r.c .
Tumbleweed
news:3a027248...@news.demon.co.uk...
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:15:28 -0000, "Tumbleweed"> >> Please don't judge Jesus by the weaknesses of his followers.
> >>
> >What other measure is there?
> >
> The direction in which they are headed, rather than their progress
> along the road
>
Given the type and variety of them, its more of a spreading circle than an
actual direction.
David Aldred
I don't think it's down to individual RC's - I think it is in fact the
way the Church sees the vocation.
> Perhaps; sometimes; though I would
>still doubt it in most cases. It depends on just what you mean by
>intense. Maybe there is a more hot-house atmosphere surrounding the RC
>priesthood; and if so, maybe that is one of the reasons why some
>priests are real saints but others are downright disasters. If we
>expect clergy to be in some sense ultra-human, we are heading for
>serious disappointment.
Which is exactly why I wouldn't expect them to manage two all-consuming
vocations simultaneously.
>But, whether or not there is this greater intensity, there is most
>definitely not any greater intensity of commitment from those called
>to RC priesthood than there is from those called to Protestant (or
>Orthodox) clergydom. It did sound as if you were saying that there was
>such a difference, and I think the earlier quotes from your posts read
>that way. And, I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, it does
>regularly sound as if Roman Catholic spokespeople are saying this kind
>of thing. If they don't mean it, then it's perhaps time they took a
>course in good English. If they do mean it...., well, at least we
The fact is, Eric, that I for one am simply giving up saying here why I
believe in the Catholic Church.
If I actually admit, shock horror, that I'm a Catholic because I think
the RCC is right, that I find its doctrines deeper and more satisfying,
its understanding of Scripture immensely greater, its valuing of
vocation more rewarding and its call to each individual within it to
perfection to be utterly enthralling, then either you or someone else
will throw a tantrum and start accusing me of doing them down.
I'm completely fed up with it: frankly, I don't see the point of
discussions in this sort of atmosphere. If we can't honestly share what
means the most to us about our own faiths, why bother? All we get is
the carping and the pedantic dissection of minutiae. I have better
things to do.
David Anderson
>
> In article <3a014afc...@news.freeserve.net>, Eric Potts
> <eric...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >also mean that there are others with a genuine vocation to priesthood
> >but who also have a genuine vocation to marriage; and who are therby
> >debarred from fulfilling their total vocation whichever way they
> >choose?
>
> It might - but that still leaves the question of whether the total
> commitment required in each case is compatible with the other. If it
> isn't, then there is a serious problem with combining both.
Is the total commitment required of marriage compatible with the
less-than-total commitment required to be a computer programmer or an
advertiser or a farmer or a hairdresser?
> >Can not God give the grace to fulfil both vocations to the same
> >person, and is not the Church trying to ration God's grace by telling
> >Him they will not let Him do so?
>
> I don't think so. The problem to my mind is that someone who has the
> ability to fulfil both is going to be so far away from the rest of us
> that he will be very difficult to treat as a pastor.
Except that if someone is married then the marriage should be as much of
a support as it is a duty.
> >And you do not understand what I am saying, David. My vocation to
> >priesthood is no less "intense" for the fact that I am a Protestant
> >and married, and I'll knock the block off anyone who tries to say it
> >is.
>
> I didn't say it was. I said that RC attitudes to those in priesthood
> were more intense: and judging by your critical response to the
> description of those expectations you agree with me. Do I need to keep
> saying that over and over again, or will you accept the point this time?
If I can distinguish: if you're saying that Roman Catholic priests have
more pastoral duties, and so have a more difficult job, than other
priests, then you're being insulting. If you're saying that Roman
Catholic priests are supposed to perform those duties with no support
from their families, then, yes, you are saying that it's more intense.
David Anderson
David Anderson
>
> "Kim" <kim....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:dB%K5.27548$h%4.18...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Please don't judge Jesus by the weaknesses of his followers.
> What other measure is there?
You know, Sleepalot accused me of special pleading, and defending
invalid arguments, when I said this was a valid argument.
David Anderson
Nick Milton
<spamtum...@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> enhanced the collective
wisdom with:
>> Please don't judge Jesus by the weaknesses of his followers.
>>
>What other measure is there?
>
Sleepalot
>Tumbleweed wrote:
>>
>> "Kim" <kim....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:dB%K5.27548$h%4.18...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> > Please don't judge Jesus by the weaknesses of his followers.
>
>> What other measure is there?
>
>You know, Sleepalot accused me of special pleading, and defending
>invalid arguments, when I said this was a valid argument.
>
>David Anderson
Hmmm. I don't remember that. MID please !
(I ummed and arred about this, but I think you're
giving me a bad name (which I can probably
manage by myself. ;-)
It looks to me like Tw is asking a question. No
special pleading there.
Kim is making a request; "Please don't", not an
argument; "You can't".
(Not all pleading is "special". ;-)
--
Sleepalot (an atheist)
Nick Milton
>"Nick Milton" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3a027248...@news.demon.co.uk...
>Given the type and variety of them, its more of a spreading circle than an
>actual direction.
More like a converging circle, I would say. Sure they are in different
places and seem to be heading in different directions, but you need to
plot out the vectors in spiritual spacetime.
Nick
Eric Potts
<da...@aldred.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm completely fed up with it: frankly, I don't see the point of
>discussions in this sort of atmosphere. If we can't honestly share what
>means the most to us about our own faiths, why bother? All we get is
>the carping and the pedantic dissection of minutiae. I have better
>things to do.
In the hope of a new beginning, I have moved this conversation to a
new thread - "Unity or bust."
Eric Potts
<da...@aldred.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The fact is, Eric, that I for one am simply giving up saying here why I
>believe in the Catholic Church.
>
>If I actually admit, shock horror, that I'm a Catholic because I think
>the RCC is right, that I find its doctrines deeper and more satisfying,
>its understanding of Scripture immensely greater, its valuing of
>vocation more rewarding and its call to each individual within it to
>perfection to be utterly enthralling, then either you or someone else
>will throw a tantrum and start accusing me of doing them down.
>
>I'm completely fed up with it: frankly, I don't see the point of
>discussions in this sort of atmosphere. If we can't honestly share what
>means the most to us about our own faiths, why bother? All we get is
>the carping and the pedantic dissection of minutiae. I have better
>things to do.
I am truly sorry that I have made you feel like that. It was not my
intention. But in a way this is the point. By stating what I believe,
I have, unintentionally, made you feel besieged. By stating what you
believe, you have unintentionally made me feel insulted. So where do
we go from here?
I do not think that I am "throwing a tantrum," even if it seems like
that to you. I thought we understood each other now well enough for us
to be honest with each other without offence. Obviously I was wrong.
I am trying to establish two things:
1. My own position, which is that we are all sisters and brothers in
Christ, of equal value and standing in the eyes of God and therefore,
I would hope, in the eyes of each other and of our Churches.
Obviously there are many areas of disagreement. Some of those
disagreements are on matters which are central. Clearly, we each
believe that we, and our Churches, are right and that the other is
mistaken. Clearly we each have been enabled to find grace where we are
and, even though we might privately or publicly think that there are
things in our Church which could be better, we feel it is right to be
where we are.
That's fine. I don't want to fight over that, and I do want to
understand just what it is that makes you feel that way about your
Church; just as I hope you would want to understand the same about me.
I have no doubt that I have much to learn from the Roman Catholic
Church. I honour that Church and have great admiration for much of
what it stands for. I also believe that the Roman Catholic Church has
much to learn from Methodism, and from the other non-Roman Catholic
Churches.
2. I also want to understand just what the Roman Catholic Church
believes about me and my Church. I am finding it incredibly difficult
to do this. I read, say, Dominus Iesus, and I think I have found the
answer. But whenever I try to say what I think DI means, Roman
Catholics rush in and tell me I have misunderstood it, that it doesn't
mean what to my mind it clearly does mean.
You tell me that it doesn't imply "superiority",(for want of a better
word); but whenever you try to say what it does mean, it still
*sounds* to me, and I think to many other non-Romans, like a claim of
superiority. So I am puzzled.
I earnestly hope that the attitude is not one of claimed superiority;
becuase if it is then I do find that demeaning and insulting, and it
is only honest to say so. But if that is in fact the official teaching
of the Roman Catholic Church, and your attitude, then so be it. I
won't like it and I will say so, but at least we will understand each
other. That is the pre-requisite for useful dialogue - to know where
we are coming from.
Inevitably, assuming for the moment that the attitude *is* one of a
claim to "superiority," that will shape the manner of the dialogue and
of co-operation. It doesn't mean that we cannot talk or work together
or that, within certain limits, we cannot honour each other and
respect each other's faith. But it seems obvious to me that our
relations are going to be different, and difficult, if you (and by
"you" I mean here any defender of the official RCC position) start
from the position of saying not just that you find your Church better
- that is obvious - but that you believe that it is intrinsically and
inevitably and permanently better and that *we* can only partake of
that betterness by closing down and joining the RCC; with the
implication that there is nothing that could be gained by Roman
Catholics recognising non-Romans as equal recipients and channels of
God's grace.
The big question, IMO,is:
Do we go back to the days of mutual incomprehension and hostility?
(I remind you that we were there only 40 years ago, and Ireland is
still reaping the whirlwind.)
Or do we say, "Hang that for a lark. We have gained too much since
then to want to go back. We will honour our past, yes, but we'll be
d*mn*d if we'll let that past prevent us from moving towards the unity
to which Christ calls us. We will leave our entrenched positions and
turn what was No Man's Land into a Rendezvous of Joy."
To be together or not to be together. That is the question.
Peace.
David Aldred
<ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> writes
>David Aldred wrote:
>>
>> In article <3a014afc...@news.freeserve.net>, Eric Potts
>> <eric...@bigfoot.com> writes
>> >also mean that there are others with a genuine vocation to priesthood
>> >but who also have a genuine vocation to marriage; and who are therby
>> >debarred from fulfilling their total vocation whichever way they
>> >choose?
>>
>> It might - but that still leaves the question of whether the total
>> commitment required in each case is compatible with the other. If it
>> isn't, then there is a serious problem with combining both.
>
>less-than-total commitment required to be a computer programmer or an
>advertiser or a farmer or a hairdresser?
Yes - because any other commitment which is not total can come second to
it.
>
>> >Can not God give the grace to fulfil both vocations to the same
>> >person, and is not the Church trying to ration God's grace by telling
>> >Him they will not let Him do so?
>>
>> I don't think so. The problem to my mind is that someone who has the
>> ability to fulfil both is going to be so far away from the rest of us
>> that he will be very difficult to treat as a pastor.
>
>Except that if someone is married then the marriage should be as much of
>a support as it is a duty.
>
>> >And you do not understand what I am saying, David. My vocation to
>> >priesthood is no less "intense" for the fact that I am a Protestant
>> >and married, and I'll knock the block off anyone who tries to say it
>> >is.
>>
>> I didn't say it was. I said that RC attitudes to those in priesthood
>> were more intense: and judging by your critical response to the
>> description of those expectations you agree with me. Do I need to keep
>> saying that over and over again, or will you accept the point this time?
>
>If I can distinguish: if you're saying that Roman Catholic priests have
>more pastoral duties, and so have a more difficult job, than other
>priests, then you're being insulting.
Why? If the expectations of the RCC in relation to its priests are
greater than those of other denominations, then it's a quite reasonable
statement. ISTM that the RCC is, as a norm, asking for a total
commitment, lying in priority above all others to the extent that it is
incompatible with marriage; whereas other denominations are asking for a
very deep commitment but one which is compatible with marriage and thus
evidently cannot lie above all others.
(Someone's going to say 'what about the commitment to God?'. One's
sacramental vocation is the expression of one's commitment to God, be it
priestly or to marriage, so talking about total commitment to one's
Christian vocation as a first priority is tautology rather than
contradiction.).
Unless, of course, you are saying that the commitment level asked for is
the same, in which case <Eric> you are being deeply insulting to
Catholics since you are implying that Catholics are not good enough to
deal with two total commitments at once, whereas everyone else can
</Eric>.
> If you're saying that Roman
>Catholic priests are supposed to perform those duties with no support
>from their families, then, yes, you are saying that it's more intense.
So you see the function of a clergy family as being to support the
clergyman in his primary vocation to his parish. How beautifully you
make my point: if the priestly vocation is primary, the marriage
vocation is necessarily downgraded to secondary.
Richard Emblem
Potts) writes:
>The big question, IMO,is:
>Do we go back to the days of mutual incomprehension and hostility?
>(I remind you that we were there only 40 years ago, and Ireland is
>still reaping the whirlwind.)
>
>Or do we say, "Hang that for a lark. We have gained too much since
>then to want to go back. We will honour our past, yes, but we'll be
>d*mn*d if we'll let that past prevent us from moving towards the unity
>to which Christ calls us. We will leave our entrenched positions and
>turn what was No Man's Land into a Rendezvous of Joy."
>
>To be together or not to be together. That is the question.
Thank you Eric for bringing us back to the real point. I agree with what David
and Mitch and others have felt about the recent "atmosphere" around ukrc, but
for me you have just hit the nail on the head. IMHO the recent statements from
Rome have (probably unintentionally) done a great deal of unneccessary harm to
the vital unity process of the last 40 years and the sooner we all get back on
track towards what Jesus called us to the better.
--
Richard Emblem
I'm not OK and you're not OK.
but God says: "that's OK"
_______________________
David Aldred
<eric...@bigfoot.com> writes
>On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:23:58 +0000, David Aldred
><da...@aldred.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The fact is, Eric, that I for one am simply giving up saying here why I
>>believe in the Catholic Church.
>>
>>If I actually admit, shock horror, that I'm a Catholic because I think
>>the RCC is right, that I find its doctrines deeper and more satisfying,
>>its understanding of Scripture immensely greater, its valuing of
>>vocation more rewarding and its call to each individual within it to
>>perfection to be utterly enthralling, then either you or someone else
>>will throw a tantrum and start accusing me of doing them down.
>>
>>I'm completely fed up with it: frankly, I don't see the point of
>>discussions in this sort of atmosphere. If we can't honestly share what
>>means the most to us about our own faiths, why bother? All we get is
>>the carping and the pedantic dissection of minutiae. I have better
>>things to do.
>
>I am truly sorry that I have made you feel like that. It was not my
>intention. But in a way this is the point. By stating what I believe,
>I have, unintentionally, made you feel besieged. By stating what you
>believe, you have unintentionally made me feel insulted. So where do
>we go from here?
>
>I do not think that I am "throwing a tantrum," even if it seems like
>that to you. I thought we understood each other now well enough for us
>to be honest with each other without offence. Obviously I was wrong.
So did I - but then when I said what I believed it produced an immediate
negative reaction.
>
>I am trying to establish two things:
>1. My own position, which is that we are all sisters and brothers in
>Christ, of equal value and standing in the eyes of God and therefore,
>I would hope, in the eyes of each other and of our Churches.
>Obviously there are many areas of disagreement. Some of those
>disagreements are on matters which are central. Clearly, we each
>believe that we, and our Churches, are right and that the other is
>mistaken. Clearly we each have been enabled to find grace where we are
>and, even though we might privately or publicly think that there are
>things in our Church which could be better, we feel it is right to be
>where we are.
>
>That's fine. I don't want to fight over that, and I do want to
>understand just what it is that makes you feel that way about your
>Church; just as I hope you would want to understand the same about me.
>I have no doubt that I have much to learn from the Roman Catholic
>Church. I honour that Church and have great admiration for much of
>what it stands for. I also believe that the Roman Catholic Church has
>much to learn from Methodism, and from the other non-Roman Catholic
>Churches.
I think there is probably a significant difference, though, in that only
the RCC claims to have within it the primary source of Christian
teaching. Given that fact, those of us who believe in it are
necessarily in the position of saying that the RCC has in some very
significant areas a massive advantage.
>
>2. I also want to understand just what the Roman Catholic Church
>believes about me and my Church. I am finding it incredibly difficult
>to do this. I read, say, Dominus Iesus, and I think I have found the
>answer. But whenever I try to say what I think DI means, Roman
>Catholics rush in and tell me I have misunderstood it, that it doesn't
>mean what to my mind it clearly does mean.
>
>You tell me that it doesn't imply "superiority",(for want of a better
>word); but whenever you try to say what it does mean, it still
>*sounds* to me, and I think to many other non-Romans, like a claim of
>superiority. So I am puzzled.
I don't think I've said it's not a claim of superiority. What is
definitely is not is a statement that individual Christians are superior
to other individual Christians by virtue of being members of the RCC.
However, I don't for one moment think anyone can represent DI as not
saying that the RCC *as church* has at least a form of superiority over
other denominations. As I said, that's what I believe, and it's why I'm
a Catholic.
Frankly, I don't see how it could be otherwise: The RCC recognises
within itself the infallibility in doctrine which arises from being the
Body of Christ. No other denomination makes that statement. There are
only two options: the RCC is wrong, or it is right. If it's right - and
naturally its own teaching documents are based on that assumption - then
its definitive teaching role provides it with a necessary superiority in
that aspect of its work.
>I earnestly hope that the attitude is not one of claimed superiority;
>becuase if it is then I do find that demeaning and insulting, and it
>is only honest to say so.
...yet unless you honestly believe the RCC is going to abandon its
central basis of teaching, you surely could not expect the situation to
be otherwise, could you?
> But if that is in fact the official teaching
>of the Roman Catholic Church, and your attitude, then so be it. I
>won't like it and I will say so, but at least we will understand each
>other. That is the pre-requisite for useful dialogue - to know where
>we are coming from.
>
>Inevitably, assuming for the moment that the attitude *is* one of a
>claim to "superiority," that will shape the manner of the dialogue and
>of co-operation. It doesn't mean that we cannot talk or work together
>or that, within certain limits, we cannot honour each other and
>respect each other's faith. But it seems obvious to me that our
>relations are going to be different, and difficult, if you (and by
>"you" I mean here any defender of the official RCC position) start
>from the position of saying not just that you find your Church better
>- that is obvious - but that you believe that it is intrinsically and
>inevitably and permanently better and that *we* can only partake of
>that betterness by closing down and joining the RCC; with the
>implication that there is nothing that could be gained by Roman
>Catholics recognising non-Romans as equal recipients and channels of
>God's grace.
I don't think that implication follows at all: and in fact I think the
fact that you think it does follow is a resurgence of the sort of
reaction which triggered this discussion.
>The big question, IMO,is:
>Do we go back to the days of mutual incomprehension and hostility?
>(I remind you that we were there only 40 years ago, and Ireland is
>still reaping the whirlwind.)
>
>Or do we say, "Hang that for a lark. We have gained too much since
>then to want to go back. We will honour our past, yes, but we'll be
>d*mn*d if we'll let that past prevent us from moving towards the unity
>to which Christ calls us. We will leave our entrenched positions and
>turn what was No Man's Land into a Rendezvous of Joy."
I don't think there's any question of going backwards - unless we are
forced into the position of concealing what our faiths are about in
order to paper over the cracks and avoid upsetting people. If that
happens, the unity will be impossible. Unity has to be underlaid by
honesty, or it will fall apart as soon as reality hits.
David Anderson
>
> In article <3A034632...@central.susx.ac.uk>, David Anderson
> >Except that if someone is married then the marriage should be as much of
> >a support as it is a duty.
[David Aldred did not reply to this point, but it will be important
later on]
[snip]
> >If I can distinguish: if you're saying that Roman Catholic priests have
> >more pastoral duties, and so have a more difficult job, than other
> >priests, then you're being insulting.
>
> Why? If the expectations of the RCC in relation to its priests are
> greater than those of other denominations, then it's a quite reasonable
> statement. ISTM that the RCC is, as a norm, asking for a total
> commitment, lying in priority above all others to the extent that it is
> incompatible with marriage; whereas other denominations are asking for a
> very deep commitment but one which is compatible with marriage and thus
> evidently cannot lie above all others.
Yes, but what do you mean by 'a total commitment'? Do you mean someone
gives more time to the job? Or do you mean that the commitment excludes
other commitments.
Someone works on the computer for fifty hours without sleep. After
about twenty hours his work is becoming shoddier and shoddier. Another
person goes home, eats, reads a book, and sleeps. Which of them is
making a more useful commitment to the work?
> Unless, of course, you are saying that the commitment level asked for is
> the same, in which case <Eric> you are being deeply insulting to
> Catholics since you are implying that Catholics are not good enough to
> deal with two total commitments at once, whereas everyone else can
> </Eric>.
I'm not saying that the Roman Catholic priests can't do so. I'm merely
saying that the Roman Catholic hierarchy seems to think that the Roman
Catholic priests can't do so.
Let's put it like this: are you saying that non-Catholic ministers are
making an inadequate commitment to their congregations? Or to their
families?
If you're not, then what are you saying?
> > If you're saying that Roman
> >Catholic priests are supposed to perform those duties with no support
> >from their families, then, yes, you are saying that it's more intense.
>
> So you see the function of a clergy family as being to support the
> clergyman in his primary vocation to his parish. How beautifully you
> make my point: if the priestly vocation is primary, the marriage
> vocation is necessarily downgraded to secondary.
Clearly you're misunderstanding me. You're assuming that the family is
either a commitment or a support, but not both. You either get support
from God or you serve God but not both. You either benefit from your
friends, or they benefit from you. That's obviously ridiculous.
David Anderson
Kim
news:sbl60tsg84rqvbjtl...@4ax.com...
It's a valid argument, whether the pleading is special or not. I'd like to
think I'm special, but never mind!
Put it another way then - the subject under debate then, is 'Christians are
all stupid, and you can prove that by their large number of failed O
level/GCSEs'.
Possible answers:
What about the number of exams Christians pass?
What about the Christians who fail some subjects and pass well in others?
Don't judge us by how we are at our worst - look at the whole picture.
Kim
David Anderson
> I don't think there's any question of going backwards - unless we are
> forced into the position of concealing what our faiths are about in
> order to paper over the cracks and avoid upsetting people. If that
> happens, the unity will be impossible. Unity has to be underlaid by
> honesty, or it will fall apart as soon as reality hits.
'Marry me.'
'That would be saying that we were married, and we aren't married, so it
would be dishonest and will fall apart as soon as reality hits.'
That bit which makes one married is that you say that you're married.
Before you say that, you aren't married. Still, it isn't dishonest to
say you're married. And even if you still disagree on important
subjects that doesn't make the marriage invalid.
In short, marriage is a performative. (Now, it might be the case that
in some circumstances marriage would be unwise. But if those
circumstances consist of the one party's claims that, although they'd
like to get married, marriage is impossible, then those are not an
insurmountable obstacle.)
Similarly, for the churches to say that they are united would be a
performative act, which would enact the unity that was declared. As
soon as we say that the problems are not insurmountable, then the
problems cease to be insurmountable. The reality would be that we
believed that we were united. And we would be. At least as much as the
Church of England is united, and although the Church of England has
considerable arguments within it, it still holds together by the grace
of God. Without which, I might add, no Church would hold together.
David Anderson
Ex. Bro. Tom
> In short, marriage is a performative.
> Similarly, for the churches to say that they are united would be a
> performative act, which would enact the unity that was declared.
Easy to say. But if the two individuals contemplating union firmly
disagree on the mechanics of having babies, then any "marriage" is going
to be frustrating and fruitless. Some believe that that *is* the case
today, and see any premature unity as analogously fruitless.