The Pope Arrives In Canada

[trilingual]

P.S. On the Jews being "holier than thou," I would just note that from a religious standpoint we're quite aware that the Bible is a record of nearly 4000 years of our being less than holy, and our struggles to achieve holiness, beginning with Abraham. Hello? We INVENTED the entire concept!!! The Bible is replete with examples of the human failures of our forebears, often of a sexual nature. Western civilization, in large part, consists of our attempts to answer the moral and ethical questions raised by these difficult problems. These were hard issues thousands of years ago, and many of them are still being debated today, I might point out. There aren't always easy answers to difficult questions. But this is one reason that the Jewish tradition has survived longer than any other: because it has always struggled to find answers to these hard questions, it has always been open to inquiry, and it has always been willing to accept multiple streams of opinion about the answers. And, God willing, the process will still be going on and Jews will still be asking these questions and seeking answers another 4000 years from now, even though the context will be entirely different, just as ours is different from the time when, after destroying their idols, the ancient Hebrews first set out on the road to Canaan from Ur of the Chaldees.

[BewareofNick]

>de-fen-sive (di fen'siv) adj.

>1. serving or done for the purpose of resisting attack.

>2. of or pertaining to defense.

>3. sensitive to the threat of criticism or injury to one's

>ego.

>n.

>4. a position or attitude of defense: on the defensive

>about one's mistakes.

 

I have to agree with you, ad rian. This definition of defensive certainly jives with your postings of late.

 

(On a side note, every time I see ad rian's name, I am reminded of the South park episode where the kids visited the planet arium.)

 

In any case, throughout your arguements, you have equated holding the Catholic priests responsible for their actions with an anti-Catholic agenda or Catholic bashing. That's about as illogical as you can get. The only way it can be equated with Catholic bashing is if you operate off the presumption that Catholics condone the behavior of the priests. We already know that the leadership of the Catholic church DID (and I emphasize the past tense), but the average Catholic does not.

 

You also want to know why people are not chastising the rabbis that molest children. Besides revealing a very anti-Senitic streak, it seems to say that you can justify the horrors of what these priests have done because "every else does it". I remember when I was child, when i wanted to do something that parents denied, I often said, well, everyone else does it!! My parents invariably responded, "If all your friends were going to jump off a bridge, would you do it to?"

 

What we can glean from your posts is that you support the priests, because no to do so is anti-Catholic and Catholic bashing. You hate the Jews. The Jews have launched yet another conspiracy to destroy the Catholic church. You will brook no rational discussion of this topic and instead will try to turn the discussion away from the topic at hand.

 

Oh, you never told me what you thought of Dogma, either

[BewareofNick]

>Well, it seems that some deny it, some say ignore it, and

>others say even if it is true, it s not on a moral par.

>That is precisely why I stepped into the breach, as I often

>do on this Board, to retrn a bit of logic and balance to the

>debates.

 

I believe we're all still waiting for you tos tart. Feel free. THe floor is open.

 

>In my view the goal is to end all abuse. To do so, one

>achieves nothing by centring on the RC church to the

>exclusion of others. That is my only point. The witch hunt

>is counter-productive because other abusers in other

>denominations are ignored.

 

The sidetracking that Thunderbuns mentions is deliberate on ad rian's part. He wants to steer the covnersation away from the subject at hand because it is an embarrassment to all good Catholics. That unfortuantely is part and parcel of the problem within the Catholic Church. The higher-ups have always swept this problem under the rug and for the first time, they are being forced to deal with it in a way they never have before. NO one is ignoring abusers in other denominations. We are simply focusing on the issue at hand.

 

 

>First, what do you mean he controls the world;s populations

>of Catholics? I thought that line of thinking went out of

>fashion with Kennedy's election in 1960, or if not then

>after the Second Vatican Council. Second, what exactly does

>zero tolerance mean. Fire all those accused? Fire only

>those where abuse has been "proven"? What will the standard

>of proof be? A balnce of probabilities? Proof beyond a

>reasonable doubt? Will we have a mechanism to compensate

>those who are falsely accused? You see, once you get past

>the slogans, the complexities of the issue rise to the

>surface.

 

And still he defends the priests over the victims, much like the heirarchy of the Catholic Church itself. Maybe if you actually admitted that there IS a problem. It IS wrong, and the Catholic Church was wrong to cover it up, we could have some meaningful dialogue. But you can't do that, can you?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>And still he defends the priests over the victims, much like

>the heirarchy of the Catholic Church itself. Maybe if you

>actually admitted that there IS a problem. It IS wrong, and

>the Catholic Church was wrong to cover it up, we could have

>some meaningful dialogue. But you can't do that, can you?

 

I once heard, many years ago, that the RC church's theory concerning the retaining of their flock went something like this.

 

Give me a child until he/she is 8 years of age, and I'll give you a Catholic for life.

 

I think ad rian must have been "got at" real early and so consumately brainwashed that there is just no hope for him.

 

Thank god they don't also advocate drinking Cool-Aid.

 

Thunderbuns

[ad rian]

>In any case, throughout your arguements, you have equated

>holding the Catholic priests responsible for their actions

>with an anti-Catholic agenda or Catholic bashing. That's

>about as illogical as you can get.

 

No, it looks like you have joined Deej's club for folks with terminal reading comprehension problems. My consistent point here is that in order to root out all abuse by religious orders, we need to focus on the problem acrosd denominations, not engage in witch hunts against only one religion.

 

>You also want to know why people are not chastising the

>rabbis that molest children. Besides revealing a very

>anti-Senitic streak, it seems to say that you can justify

>the horrors of what these priests have done because "every

>else does it".

 

Wrong again, it is patent nonsense to say that highlihting incidents of abuse by some jews (as I have with links to Jewish sources) amounts to anti-semitism, and to do so is to cheapen the word, and to discredit your cause. If you believe that it is possible to talk about abuse by RC priests without being anti-catholic, why do you not also believe that it is possible to talk equaly of abuse by rabbis without being antisemitic? Some of us are more interested in roting about abuse, rather than re-fighting the crusades.

 

>What we can glean from your posts is that you support the

>priests, because no to do so is anti-Catholic and Catholic

>bashing. You hate the Jews. The Jews have launched yet

>another conspiracy to destroy the Catholic church. You will

>brook no rational discussion of this topic and instead will

>try to turn the discussion away from the topic at hand.

 

Strike three, you are out! No, my friend, it is possible to talk about the large numbers of Blacks in prison or in professional sports without being racist. So too, it is possible to talk about the large numbers of jews in the media without being antisemitic. One does not have to believe in an international conspiracy of jews in Holywood or network shuls plotting the scripts of movies to believe that there is a problem, rather one can believe that like any homogenous community, there is a natural tendancy to focus on what is comfortable and familiar, and to avoid what is uncomfortable. So it might be easier to focus on the actions of a few priests than those of a few rabbis. All I want to do is to focus on both so we can end the problem, not erect a new temple of vanity.

[ad rian]

>Weighing in for the Jewish camp in this little mud-sling,

>let me also point out that issues of sexual abuse certainly

>come up from time to time in the rabbinate. The Jewish

>community certainly isn't immune, any more than any other.

 

Thank you for that admission.

 

>Cases of abuse involving young boys tend to be unusual,

>however. The rabbinate, unlike the the Catholic priesthood,

>does not involve vows of celibacy and chastity. In fact,

>rabbis traditionally have been encouraged to marry and have

>families. Therefore, the rabbinate hasn't been the kind of

>refuge for young men confused about their sexuality that the

>Catholic priesthood has been.

 

I think the problem I have with your post is that it is packed with so many assumptions that are not backed by science or survey evidence. First, I hope we all agree that abuse of young boys is "unusual" with respect to both Catholic priests and rabbis, or we really do have a stereotyping problem. Second, while there is a lot of conjecture about the role of celibacy in abuse, it des not stand up to analysis. If celbacy were the cause of RC abuse, researchers would find higher incidents of abuse among RC priests than in other denominations. (It also might explain why the problem among the orthodox congregations is getting increasing attention within the Jewish community as indicated in one of the links I provided earlier.) I think abuse is about "power", more than about sex. I am not sure you would want to argue, "hey my guys are better than yours, because mine jut beat their wives, but yours molest their children", would you?

 

>Cases of sexual impropriety in the Jewish community probably

>don't become as notorious as they do among Catholics because

>a) we are less numerous; b) our clergy aren't supposed to be

>sexually abstinent, so their falls from grace may seem

>somewhat less shocking; and c) Judaism is organized on a

>congregational, not hierarchical, basis, so when something

>happens it usually is an issue within an individual

>congregation and doesn't achieve widespread publicity.

 

I agree with all of this, but I am not sure why any of it should matter if the object is to end all abuse, rather than take down easy prey.

 

....

 

>So there are a few examples for those of you who are under

>the illusion that the Jews are somehow "holier than thou."

>I haven't the foggiest idea where anybody got that idea,

>because we're not. We certainly don't compare in "holier

>than thou-ness" to a certain large organization based in

>Rome with an infallible misogynistic leader who pontificates

>on just about everything. . .

 

You were doing so well about not being holier than thou until now, but hey, nobody is perfect, n'est ce pas?!

[taylorky]

adrian and beware of nick seem to be having a rational debate;and i appreciate that.my experiences as a non-practicing jew that is the product of practicing jewish parents with a catholic b/f. is that any debate is sullied when insults,stereotyping,and plain obvious irrational hatred is part of the dialogue.so ad rian and beware of nick....i believe,although they disagree are debating this subject with integrity and thought as are some others.but one "person" here is so full of irrational hatred for both catholics and jews and god knows what other groups.i bet he has an autograped copy of "the turner diaries"........anyway just my OPINION

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>Cases of sexual impropriety in the Jewish community probably

>>don't become as notorious as they do among Catholics because

>>a) we are less numerous; b) our clergy aren't supposed to be

>>sexually abstinent, so their falls from grace may seem

>>somewhat less shocking; and c) Judaism is organized on a

>>congregational, not hierarchical, basis, so when something

>>happens it usually is an issue within an individual

>>congregation and doesn't achieve widespread publicity.

>

>I agree with all of this, but I am not sure why any of it

>should matter if the object is to end all abuse, rather than

>take down easy prey.

 

But surely the hierarchy of the Church and its response to the abuse it knows is a huge part of what's at issue. Isn't part of what's being alleged is that a substantial majority of American bishops have been reassigning priests who abused children, opting for an expedient, scandal-avoiding response rather than a just and honest one? Furthermore, one of the positive outcomes of this crisis, as I understand it, is likely to be a greater assertiveness on the part of the laity that they are the Church and that they want a greater role in running it. Look at how many practicing Catholics openly defy the Church's teachings on birth control. There has been a disconnect between Rome and the American laity for quite some time that this scandal is underscoring and bringing to the surface. If this is true, than perhaps the reason for singling out Catholic abuse is not that it is more common than in other religious dominations, but rather that it is, institutionally, the Catholic Church's moment to deal with this.

 

This is not to say that some people won't use this as an occasion to denigrate Catholics and perpetuate unfortunate stereotypes. But to change the subject to Jewish abuse, Baptist abuse or whatever seems like just that -- changing the subject. So does trying to reframe the issue as a pan-religious one. Religions with congregational cultures are obviously going to have different means at their disposal to solve their problems than the Catholic Church, with its particular hierarchy. And regardless of whether you think Catholic priests abuse more or less frequently than rabbis, etc., it does seem clear that the way the Catholic hierarchy has dealt with this (or not) up until now is part of the problem.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>but one "person" here is so full of irrational hatred for both

>catholics and jews and god knows what other groups.i bet he

>has an autograped copy of "the turner diaries"........anyway

>just my OPINION

 

If you haven't got the balls to name the "one person" you should just shut up. Such ambiguous posts are as bad as unsigned letters letters from snitches. Perhaps's it really isn't Catholics and Jews he hates but Johhny-come-latelys from Kentucky who don't know what the hell they are talking about.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Chazzz69]

>>She has weathered many things much

>>worse in her more than two thousand year history than this

>>current scandal. Each time she has emerged stronger, the

>>same will be true this time around.

>

>Hmmm...the Catholic Church is a woman? Then how come there

>aren't female priests?

 

 

Rick, have you seen those vestments??!!

Speaking as a former alter server, there is not a woman on earth that would look good in those things.:+

 

And this reminds me of a legendary story about Taluah Bankhead. High Mass, St. Patrick's Catheral, New York City, 1950's.

 

Francis, Cardinal Spellman, is celebrating the mass and is carrying the censer (which holds the insense) while proceeding up the asile to the alter. Taluah says....

 

"Love the dress girl but your purse is on fire!"

 

Not sure if this story is even true. Have heard it from a number of people and even one priest. Me, I have my doubts but still enjoy the laugh.

 

 

Chazzz69

[Guest gentle guy]

>I once heard, many years ago, that the RC church's theory

>concerning the retaining of their flock went something like

>this.

>

>Give me a child until he/she is 8 years of age, and I'll

>give you a Catholic for life.

>

>I think ad rian must have been "got at" real early and so

>consumately brainwashed that there is just no hope for him.

>

>Thank god they don't also advocate drinking Cool-Aid.

 

 

Okay, this is the reason why the last time I posted on this site was 2 1/2 years ago: I am too sensitive.

 

Guys, what pedophiles do is abhorrent. What many in the RC hierarchy have done (or not done) in response is disgusting. However, please do not condemn all Catholics for what some have done. Similarly, don't associate pedophilia with homosexuality, because they are apples and oranges. It makes it very difficult for gay men who work with children and youth, because many people have the mindset of gay male = potential pedophile.

 

It is apparent that some posters--myself included, and not just ad rian--feel that other posters have expressed anti-Catholic sentiment. The above quote is an example. It's not warranted. I have grown up with both anti-gay prejudice and anti-Catholic prejudice (such as parents telling their kids not to play with me because I was a "dirty Catholic"). I'm sick of it. I do not care for J2P2 myself--in fact, I think he's to the right of Attila the Hun. I myself believe there should be married priests and gay priests and women priests. I work for change in my own way, but unfortunately the RC Church takes decades to change.

 

There was a recent conference on anti-Catholic bias held in NYC (BON, I'll let you do the investigation!), and some preliminary research reported that a significant proportion of non-Catholic Americans hold negative stereotypes of Catholic Americans. This was particularly true of students at a certain military college, who also believed that there was nothing wrong with disliking Catholics simply because they are Catholics.

 

Anyway, I am not being paranoid, perhaps a little defensive. I do think I will save my postings for fun topics from now on...

[ad rian]

>But surely the hierarchy of the Church and its response to

>the abuse it knows is a huge part of what's at issue....Furthermore, one of the

>positive outcomes of this crisis, as I understand it, is

>likely to be a greater assertiveness on the part of the

>laity that they are the Church and that they want a greater

>role in running it....If this is true, than perhaps the

>reason for singling out Catholic abuse is not that it is

>more common than in other religious dominations, but rather

>that it is, institutionally, the Catholic Church's moment to

>deal with this.

 

First, I think the heirarchy issue is not as straight forward as you suggest. A congregationalist church less centred in natural law traditions would probably not have been a moral leader on civil rights, poverty, war or the death penalty. Does this country really need one more hang'em high protestant religion?

 

Second, I know that in the says of Ashcroft and roses, it is easy to forget civil liberties, but some of the issues that the heirarchy are defending raise important principles of the rights of the accused. Maybe now that we are dispensing with them in the civil realm in the name of a holy war on terrorism, it is important for the church to remind us of their importance in another realm.

 

Third, by all means let the RC church deal with the scandal, but I don't see what is to be gained by the targeting of the RC church to the exclusion of others. I guess I do think that people are using this as a vessel to attack the RC church for a lot of other things, some of which may be legitimate, and some of which as demonstrated by some posts here, are clearly not.

[phage]

>There was a recent conference on anti-Catholic bias held in

>NYC (BON, I'll let you do the investigation!), and some

>preliminary research reported that a significant proportion

>of non-Catholic Americans hold negative stereotypes of

>Catholic Americans.

 

Oh, come on, GG, you can’t just hit and run like that. Don’t you think it is fair to say that there is an anti-everything bias? No matter what religion you are, there is a significant number of people with different beliefs who are ready to think the worst of you.

 

I’ve mentioned before that I come from a Mormon family. You should hear the crazy things people say about Mormons. Most of us have no problem when someone starts cracking on those crazy fundamentalists, and how many Jehovah Witness jokes have you heard?

 

I think we are all a bit sensitive about our particular group, but some of the responses to the admittedly tacky comments here, do sound a little paranoid. I never even knew there was such a thing as anti-Catholic bias until reading this thread (and I’m still not convinced.) I have always thought of Catholicism as a completely mainstream religion and the only stereotype I’m familiar with is the large families. (And I’m only familiar with that one because I have seven brothers and sisters and all my life people have said, “You’ve got to be either Catholic or Mormon.”)

[Guest gentle guy]

>>There was a recent conference on anti-Catholic bias held in

>>NYC (BON, I'll let you do the investigation!), and some

>>preliminary research reported that a significant proportion

>>of non-Catholic Americans hold negative stereotypes of

>>Catholic Americans.

>

>Oh, come on, GG, you can’t just hit and run like that.

>Don’t you think it is fair to say that there is an

>anti-everything bias? No matter what religion you

>are, there is a significant number of people with different

>beliefs who are ready to think the worst of you.

>>

>I think we are all a bit sensitive about our particular

>group, but some of the responses to the admittedly tacky

>comments here, do sound a little paranoid. I never even

>knew there was such a thing as anti-Catholic bias until

>reading this thread (and I’m still not convinced.) I have

>always thought of Catholicism as a completely mainstream

>religion and the only stereotype I’m familiar with is the

>large families. (And I’m only familiar with that one

>because I have seven brothers and sisters and all my life

>people have said, “You’ve got to be either Catholic or

>Mormon.”)

 

Sorry, didn't mean to hit and run :-) The reference is not an on-line one (some of us do read hard text, lol); therefore I could not provide a link.

I totally agree with you--there is anti-everything prejudice. Name the group, and there are people who hate it. But there seems to be an ignorance that there is such an entity as anti-Catholic prejudice. You admitted to this lack of awareness yourself. (The US actually has a long history of anti-Catholic feeling among its leaders and people, much of which was rooted in anti-immigrant feeling.) I gave you one example I experienced; there have been many others, some of which are recent. They are personal and don't belong here. My point is that there is such a thing as anti-Catholic bias, some people here are experiencing it, and that sensitivity should be recognized and not called "paranoid." So, please respect my experiences and the similar experiences of others.

Back to more fun fantasies!

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>A congregationalist church less

>centred in natural law traditions would probably not have

>been a moral leader on civil rights, poverty, war or the

>death penalty.

 

Wait a minute. Martin Luther King was a Catholic? And what about the Quakers? Weren't Jews moral leaders during the civil rights movement?

 

>Does this country really need one more

>hang'em high protestant religion?

 

Not particularly. What made you think I was calling for one?

[ad rian]

>Wait a minute. Martin Luther King was a Catholic? And what

>about the Quakers? Weren't Jews moral leaders during the

>civil rights movement?

 

That's a fair point, but I was purposefully excluding the Black churches because they represent a completely different historical context, one that may well be closer to heirarchy than congregationalist. Individual jews were helpful in civil rights, but I don't think that the jewish religious institutions per se were particularly helpful, or the ones that were then were the kind of reform jews whose beliefs would barely be recognizable today as "jewish" beliefs. Contrast that with the institutional role of the Catholic church in the civil rights struggle, as distinct from that of its members. (The same holds true with respect to the death penalty today.) The Quakers played an important role in the abolitionist movement, but were never the mainstream of American protestant thinking.

 

>>Does this country really need one more

>>hang'em high protestant religion?

>

>Not particularly. What made you think I was calling for

>one?

 

My contention is that the greater the degree that a religious order panders to public opinion, the more difficult it will find it to stand up against the majoritarian preferences f its adherents even when those preferences are wrong and contrary to some natural law view of humanity. Obviously, there are a lot of ideas telegraphed here, but even I am growing tired of this thread!

[BewareofNick]

But what did you think of Dogma? Especially Rufus, the 13th apostle!!!

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I’ve mentioned before that I come from a Mormon family. You

>should hear the crazy things people say about Mormons. Most

>of us have no problem when someone starts cracking on those

>crazy fundamentalists, and how many Jehovah Witness jokes

>have you heard?

 

This is a good point. Part of me tends to be less offended by anti-religious sentiment than by other -isms because so much of what religion is about is idea and institutions, both of which, it seems to me, should be subject to criticism.

 

>I never even

>knew there was such a thing as anti-Catholic bias until

>reading this thread (and I’m still not convinced.)

 

In some parts of the country Catholicism is almost an ethnicity and I think it's fair to say there's a bias. But it's tricky to define what counts as bias and what counts as fair game. I mean, couldn't Voltaire and Mark Twain both be characterized as anti-Catholic? Couldn't it just as fairly be said that they had some reason to be?

 

There seems to be a movement these days toward Catholics taking a more activist stance with regard to perceived media bias and generally taking a page from the (Jewish, gay, etc.) anti-defamation groups' playbooks. If it's true that some non-Catholics use embarrassing moments for the Church as an excuse to attack Catholics, it's also true that the anti-defamation card gets overplayed -- like when the Catholic League complains about art by CATHOLIC artists being anti-Catholic.

[BewareofNick]

You'd probably be surprised Taylor to know that I grew up in the Catholic Church, most particularly St. Mary Magdelan in Maitland, Fl. We had a satellite church that we transferred to years later, the Church of the Annunciation in Altamonte Springs. I received a lot of help from that church in trying times, including spending a night in the rectory at the age of 15. Nothing untoward ever happened. It was a very positive experience. I simply stopped going to the Catholic Church because I found the reptition boring. I even went to a Catholic school from Kindergarten through 2nd grade. Yes, we had the stereotypical Attila the Nun there, but there were so many more sisters than her that made up for it. Other than the pedophilia scandal, I've always had a favorable opinion of the Catholic Church

[trilingual]

>That's a fair point, but I was purposefully excluding the Black churches because they represent a completely different historical context, one that may well be closer to heirarchy than congregationalist. Individual jews were helpful in civil rights, but I don't think that the jewish religious institutions per se were particularly helpful, or the ones that were then were the kind of reform jews whose beliefs would barely be recognizable today as "jewish" beliefs. Contrast that with the institutional role of the Catholic church in the civil rights struggle, as distinct from that of its members. (The same holds true with respect to the death penalty today.) The Quakers played an important role in the abolitionist movement, but were never the mainstream of American protestant thinking.>

 

Huh? Sorry, Ad rian, but your ignorance is showing, big time. Or your bias. With the exception of the African Methodist Episcopal church, most of the black churches are organized congregationally. Of course, such churches are usually parts of national organizations of churches of the same denomination, which act in concert on issues of common concern. The same is true of many of the mainstream, non-black Protestant churches. Which, by the way, are not, to my knowledge, members of the "hang 'em high" contingent, although I don't know the current specific positions on the death penalty issue of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, United Church of Christ, etc., although I suspect most oppose it.

 

You absolutely DON'T know what you're talking about with respect to the Jewish contribution to the civil rights movement. To this day, the civil rights movement resonates profoundly among Jews, who for thousands of years have celebrated, as one of our most important holy days, the Passover, which commemorates God's deliverance of the Israelites from our slavery in Egypt. (By the way, as you sort of keep running down things Jewish, this is probably where I should toss in a reminder that Jesus was a Jew, as were all those guys he used to hang out with, and his Last Supper was a Passover Seder.) The Jewish community was thoroughly involved in supporting the civil rights movement, with participation by the national denominational movements as well as local congregations, rabbis and individual congregants. Temples and synagogues in the South often served as rallying or assembly points for demonstrators or marchers, and more than a few were bombed or torched for their troubles. Jewish student civil rights supporters were murdered by white supremacists in one of the notorious crimes of the era. Where on earth were you while all of this was happening, Ad rian?

 

As for social justice, I'm sorry Ad rian, but again, we invented the concept millenia before anyone ever heard of Jesus, Christianity, Catholicism or Rome. To do justice is a fundamental Jewish tenet, whether you're Orthodox, Conservative or Reform, so it would be recognizable as a Jewish belief by anybody minimally familiar with Jewish teaching. Try reading the Hebrew Bible (available in English, of course) which is infused with the concepts of doing justice to the poor, the weak and the unfortunate. Turn especially to the Prophets, where the clarion call to do justice first emerged in world civilization. For thousands of years Judaism has taught that people must not just passively submit to misery and injustice and hope for a better life in the hereafter, but must fight evil and actively pursue justice in this existence, in keeping with God's message as revealed through Her (yes, Judaism recognizes God's omnisexual nature) prophets. That's why Jews have always been "dangerous." We're taught to fight for justice and work for "tikkun olam," the "repair of the world." Put less delicately, we're shit-disturbers. Why do you think Jesus got into such red-hot trouble with the Romans? He challenged their rule, and their cozy arrangements with the establishment Temple priesthood. Jesus was calling for justice, in the long-standing Jewish prophetic tradition, and some people were starting to listen, so the Romans offed him before he could stir up big trouble. Later, some of his followers decided to deify him, but that's a whole other story which leads straight to the establishment of that large organization in Rome. But the social justice teachings of the prophetic tradition, as well as Jewish memory of our own bondage in Egypt and, more recently, in places like Czarist Russia and Nazi Germany, lead directly to the wide-scale involvement and support of the American Jewish community in the civil rights movement.

 

Furthermore, where do you get off with assuming Catholics have a monopoly on the social justice issue? A little reminder that the Prophetic teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures were profoundly influential in the civic and legal culture of the Protestant English colonies in America, and led to the creation of the the concepts of freedom of speech, religion and individual conscience that we know today. It is not a coincidence that civic mottos and public buildings (especially courthouses) are inscribed with sayings from the Prophets, like "Justice, justice shalt thou pursue," or "Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God," or "Let justice well forth like the waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." Granted, when it came time to bite the big bullet on the issue of slavery, the founders failed. It was only later in America's history that the influence of the Prophetic teachings helped spur the abolitionist movement to success. All of these advances in human and civil rights, rooted in the teachings of the Hebrew Prophets, were brought to the world courtesy of a mostly Protestant society during the 18th and 19th centuries. Just to keep the record straight. And here endeth this lesson. . .

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>Give me a child until he/she is 8 years of age, and I'll

>>give you a Catholic for life.

>>

>>I think ad rian must have been "got at" real early and so

>>consumately brainwashed that there is just no hope for him.

>>

>>Thank god they don't also advocate drinking Cool-Aid.

 

>However, please do not condemn all Catholics for what some

>have done.

 

>It is apparent that some posters--myself included, and not

>just ad rian--feel that other posters have expressed

>anti-Catholic sentiment. The above quote is an example.

>It's not warranted.

 

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that appear in Gentle Guys post as well as others that have been alluded to in various posts throughout this somewhat lengthy thread.

 

When I originated the thread I could hardly have known that it would expand to almost 100 posts - albeit a goodly portion are my own ;-)

 

For what it's worth - and you can believe this or not as you wish:

 

1: I don't hate Catholics.

2: I don't hate Jews.

3: I don't hate Mormons.

4: I don't hate any members of any religion based solely on their religious beliefs.

5: I don't hate anyone based on their race, colour, age, religious beliefs, political beliefs, sex or sexual orientation.

 

I am not a religious person. I waver between being an agnostic and an athiest. I know that somewhere out there the answer lies as to who is responsible for our creation and every other unexplained mystery of the universe. But I also know that if I were to spend every waking moment of my life trying to come to a conclusion that I could believe in, it simply would never happen. Being a somewhat praticle person, or perhaps it is becaue I am lazy, I don't see the point in exerting the effort when I know my chance of success is less than zero.

 

Gentle Guy, I do not feel that I, have condemned all Catholics. Just because I vehemently disagree with the Pope (who you yourself have described as Attila the Hun) failing to take responsibility for the illegal acts of his underlings, does not equate to what I have been accused of.

 

You said that the quote from my earlier post was uncalled for. Why? I think it is factual. It is exactly the approach the church takes with regard to indoctrinating young children into it's religion. And by and large it works. If they get them young enough, they seldom stray.

 

Ad rian is an example of a Catholic who believes in what he has been taught to the exclusion of all logical arguments against it. I don't think he will ever change. Score one for the Church! I admit my Jonestown referance was a bit tacky - but think about it - they were also a group of people who believed in what was told to them without questioning it.

 

Now for the good news. This will be my last post on this thread. Even if it should go one for another 100 posts - God forbid - I have had my final say on the matter.

 

Thunderbuns

[taylorky]

>You'd probably be surprised Taylor to know that I grew up in

>the Catholic ChurchOther than the pedophilia scandal, I've always had

>a favorable opinion of the Catholic Church

...............................................not surprised at all.i enjoy passioned debate,and LOL you and ad rian are debating with passion,and y'all strongly believe in your individual positions.so this is not directed at either of y'all,but one poster is making statements that are borne from ignorance and hatred.and that he is so atypical of the hate mongers that seem to slither throughout this great country of ours........just the opinion of a little ol' hooterville boy

[ad rian]

>But what did you think of Dogma? Especially Rufus, the 13th

>apostle!!!

 

You know, the funny thing is that I have never been a very religious catholic, but I always rise to defend those who are scapegoated or witch-hunted! I guess that is why I am a lawyer.

[ad rian]

>Ad rian is an example of a Catholic who believes in what he

>has been taught to the exclusion of all logical arguments

>against it.

 

I was not taught by catholics, by the way. As for logical arguments, there has been very little direct attempts to refute my one and only thesis here that abuse is about power, not sex, and that we shouls work to eradicate it in all religious denominations since there is no evidence that there is any higher rate of abuse among RC priests than is the case in other denominations. I have heard a lot of thunder here about catholicism, but very little explanation for targeting RC abuse which as I have pointed out could well be counter-productive.

[ad rian]

>Huh? Sorry, Ad rian, but your ignorance is showing, big

>time. Or your bias. With the exception of the African

>Methodist Episcopal church, most of the black churches are

>organized congregationally. Of course, such churches are

>usually parts of national organizations of churches of the

>same denomination, which act in concert on issues of common

>concern. The same is true of many of the mainstream,

>non-black Protestant churches. Which, by the way, are not,

>to my knowledge, members of the "hang 'em high" contingent,

>although I don't know the current specific positions on the

>death penalty issue of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians,

>Lutherans, United Church of Christ, etc., although I suspect

>most oppose it.

>

>You absolutely DON'T know what you're talking about with

>respect to the Jewish contribution to the civil rights

>movement.

 

The comment has to do with the historic role of thee pastor dating from the time of slavery. I am not equating the Black churc with Catholicism, just saying that organizationally the fusing of the political/religious mission of the Black pastors historically makes it logicly distinct from its white American protestant counterparts. That is hardly a controversial idea.

 

?To this day, the civil rights movement resonates

>profoundly among Jews, who for thousands of years have

>celebrated, as one of our most important holy days, the

>Passover, which commemorates God's deliverance of the

>Israelites from our slavery in Egypt.

 

Yrs, I admitted that, but if you read what I said, my comment was not about the role of jewish individuals, but institutions in the civil rights struggle. Again, I don't think thatr is at all controversial, especially when contrasted with the role of catholic institutions as opposed to the laity itself.

 

>As for social justice, I'm sorry Ad rian, but again, we

>invented the concept millenia before anyone ever heard of

>Jesus, Christianity, Catholicism or Rome. To do justice is

>a fundamental Jewish tenet, whether you're Orthodox,

>Conservative or Reform, so it would be recognizable as a

>Jewish belief by anybody minimally familiar with Jewish

>teaching.

 

Try reading Michael Lerner's Tikkun if you believe that the ideas of reform judaism trepresent the centre of gravity of American jewish thought today. I don't think that anybody seriously questions that it has moved more to the right in terms of politics and religion in the last 20 years.

 

>Furthermore, where do you get off with assuming Catholics

>have a monopoly on the social justice issue?

 

I never claimed that monmopoly as aganst jews, but rather as against other forms of American (read white) protestant churches.