It’s okay folks, all that child rape mostly happened in the 70’s. And they weren’t all pedophiles.

well then, you might expect a cease-and-desist demand letter from Defensoris Fidei as well for your unauthorized use of the term "Real Catholic" (TM)

🙂

nah they dont have to. i denounced my catholicism. I am now a non-denomination christian. theistic-agnostic or catholic-agnostic.

I worship God, but i just cannot accept the teachings of those who represent him.

If you ask me, excommunication by the church hierchy is no different from the corporate world, where a manager of a company (or a follower of a religious institution), who doesn't toe the line or strictly follow management's directives (or doesn't adhere to its teachings), are either asked to resign (the humane option, just like transferring an offending priest to another place) or simply terminated (excommunicated or damned to eternal hell). No difference really…

You mean it's hard to argue with non-delusional folk who actually follow the news, and aren't gullible enough to be sucked in by the sort of cognitive dissonance that tries to pretend that the RCC is a force for good in the world, when all the evidence so far indicates that it's the opposite.

The ad hominem argument exists when you make an argument that is based on the person's qualities and characteristics. In this case, someone who takes my carefully crafted statements and calls these "ramblings" is stooping to an ad hominem argument because they can not "rip" it apart.

I'm not being a tone troll. And neither am I an apologist. I'd like to hope that you can read through what I wrote and understand what I'm saying.

[In this case, someone who takes my carefully crafted statements and calls these "ramblings" is stooping to an ad hominem argument because they can not "rip" it apart. ]

Carefully crafted maybe, but your argument is still poor, and attempted to rationalize somebody attempting to protect a known rapist. And before you go wagging your tongue at ad hominems, do read a bit more:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"A criticism is also not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. For example, "You're drunk," might be an ad hominem if used in an argument about epistemology. On the other hand, it would be a quite persuasive argument if used to support the proposition, "You shouldn't drive." Also, pointing out a religious figure's moral failings or obvious lunacy is a valid response to the contention that that person's ideas of morality should inform our own. "

Did you get all that? I can also read it out SLOWLY if you still haven't figured it out.

Not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Ad hominem arguments are always used in court, are they not?

When you attack a person's reputation and the attack is not relevant to the discussion, then an ad hominem is a fallacy. But an ad hominem is valid when it provides a good case that the interlocutor is not worth listening to or that the opinions of an interlocutor regarding a certain subject is not trustworthy given his personal agenda.

Precisely.So that's why I wonder how calling my musings “ramblings” contributes to the discussion…

[So that's why I wonder how calling my musings "ramblings" contributes to the discussion… ]

Do we need to spell it out?

[The Church protects the sinner because the very nature of the authentic Church, and the charism of the true apostolic tradition, calls us to be able to forgive the sinner. We damn the sin, but we forgive the sinner. ]

Your statements reflect a mind that does not grasp the reality of the situation, and instead assumes that the RCC is somehow acting in everybody's best interests by hiding rapists, when all evidence (criminal investigations) prove that this is not the case.

You said something stupid, ergo, you were rambling.

The reality of the situation is that even the Church hierarchy sometimes does not remain faithful to her original nature.

That's what's meant by the apostolic tradition – the original nature of the Church that the apostles founded.

That being said, again, the way that members of the Church have acted is not in accordance with this charism. How can true forgiveness happen when you hide the sinner? So how is it in everybody's best interest to hide the sinner? It isn't.

Maybe it does not. But pointing out that you are blinded by your religious beliefs and that you have been completely brainwashed by your church to think that it is the best organization in the world (it's certainly one of the worst, in my opinion) weakens the force of all your claims.

By showing that you are a drone or one of the soldiers in the zombie army of your church, it can be thus argued that your capacity to assess the gravity of your church's heinous crimes objectively is greatly compromised. This leads to the conclusion, maybe valid, maybe not, that your "arguments" are merely "ramblings".

[By showing that you are a drone or one of the soldiers in the zombie army of your church, it can be thus argued that your capacity to assess the gravity of your church's heinous crimes objectively is greatly compromised.]

In light of your explanation, I confess that I might be wrong in calling it "rambling"

"Parroting," or "Regurgitating" might be better choice of words

And there's that ad hominem argument – you dismiss my arguments simply on the basis of my being Catholic.

But the same can be said of your arguments, that your anger and hatred clouds your judgement.

Given that the Church has committed numerous crimes in the past, how do you suggest she go about and fix it? Should the Church, after 2,000 years and over 1B members, just close shop? Can she even just close shop?

Now that's an interesting topic.

[you dismiss my arguments simply on the basis of my being Catholic. ]

I wouldn't care less if you were Catholic. You made a poor argument and, among other things, claimed that the church was NOT downplaying the sin and trying to hide its offenders. I have already pointed out that you were wrong by citing at least two reports from two credible news sources.

And instead of tackling the evidence presented, you went on rambling about how the church makes mistakes, and that you would still be devoted to God.

I am not stating an argument. I am stating a matter of fact.It will bear repeating, again:the Church does not downplay the sin in order to protect the sinner. The Church protects the sinner because the very nature of the authentic Church, and the charism of the true apostolic tradition, calls us to be able to forgive the sinner. We damn the sin, but we forgive the sinner.This is official Church Dogma. I am stating a matter of fact.The ignorant and misinformed party in this discussion is not me.

If the church truly cared for the sinner, there are far better ways of handling it then. One course of action could have been to subject the offending priest to extensive psychiatric treatment to help them come to terms with their urges and their consequences.

And while doing that, they could have extended the same to the priest's victims. The fact that they are able to spend billions today in just settlement cases over the sex abuse incidents is testament to the fact they have the resources to do so.

But they did neither. At virtually every turn, they attempted instead to hide the incident from the public by threatening and blackmailing the victims, while transferring the offending priests to different parishes, as if the sex abuse never happened.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/28/us-belg…

Parishes, I might add, that also have children that the priest can approach with no restrictions whatsoever, with the community not being told of his past.

To put it another way, if you had a relative who has a criminal record for armed robbery, would you seriously put him in charge of a bank, at least not without putting him though therapy and rehabilitation first?

I disagree with you. I think you are indeed ignorant and misinformed.

These incidents are incontrovertible. But so is the fact that I am just reporting the teaching of the church.And so too is the fact that some actions by the leaders of the church does not co-incide with their teaching.You are turning a blind eye on the truth of what I'm saying by labeling me ignorant when in fact it is you who refuses to open your mind.The fact that I believe does not make me stupid.The fact that I believe means that I have taken the leap of faith and realized that there are matters which lie beyond my ken.

[And so too is the fact that some actions by the leaders of the church does not co-incide with their teaching.]

So you're now using the No True Scotsman fallacy?

[You are turning a blind eye on the truth of what I'm saying by labeling me ignorant when in fact it is you who refuses to open your mind.]

I label you ignorant because I have presented evidence, and you ignored it. Your selective dyslexia is getting irksome.

[The fact that I believe does not make me stupid.

Not necessarily, but that makes you delusional, and potentially gullible.

You were willing to be sold into the lofty promises of an organization after all, nevermind that its upper ranks have engaged in an extensive shell game spanning decades to hide sex offenders, among other misdeeds.

I am not sold on the lofty promises of an organization.I am sold by the reality that Jesus lives in my heart, forever.

[I am sold by the reality that Jesus lives in my heart, forever. ]

Are you sure that's not just heartburn?

Nope. 🙂

[But so is the fact that I am just reporting the teaching of the church.]

Then the teaching is stupid, and anybody who follows them without realizing how pointless they are are fucking stupid.

Strict logic never takes into account the identity of the speaker. So I have to disagree. All ad hominem arguments are fallacious in nature because they presuppose the validity of an argument based on who said it. Therefore an idiot arguing for or against an issue should always be granted the same courtesy that's so easily given to an intellectual, because both of their arguments should only be judged based on its merits.

Convenience however dictates that we streamline certain discourses. That is the case in the courtroom, as it is in the case in the scientific community, where the reputation and the merits of a speaker gives his/her listeners the security to presume that what they're going to hear is valid, sound and true . But it doesn't necessarily provide any guarantee that a speaker with a PhD will live up to the listener's presumptions and not spout bullshit.

This isn't a courtroom, and it isn't a scientific publication either. We have no need to streamline discourses here because we can simply ignore some or all of the comments.

We have to grant everyone the courtesy of lending our ears even if we don't agree with what he/she is saying. How can we be called freethinkers if we shoot down everyone whom we disagree with without first weighing his/her arguments?

@MCCDC24

I agree with you on the matter of giving due process and equal treatment to both an intellectual and an idiot.

At least until one of them says something blatantly false or ignorant. Maybe it is just my low tolerance to such these things, but I will not stand by and let somebody make a baseless claim that the church is not downplaying the sins committed, or that they are acting in the best interest of the victim.

There is a wealth of information on the net disproving this assertion, and instead of tackling them head on, Noni instead resorted to crying because he didn't like being confronted.

And these men have been allocated a special circle of hell in the Divine Comedy.

That isn't justice for the victims.

Since it appears you don't get the gist of what I wrote, I will explain it. And hopefully that'll be the end of this discussion.

I am not defending the pedophiles. I am not saying that the offending priests shouldn't be put to justice. I am not saying that the Church is perfect. The only thing I'm saying is that the notion that the church "downplays the sin, protects the sinner and screws the victim" is wrong. I believe that we damn the sin, not the sinner. I know that we seek for the reformation and renewal of the sinner and offender, not just blind "protection". I believe that we want the ultimate healing and forgiveness of the victim.

Because the forgiveness of sin is the hallmark of the life of Jesus and that is what we strive to follow. The understanding that we are not perfect, and that no one is perfect, protects us from the hubris of self-righteousness and arrogance. The understanding that we are not perfect allows us to put ourselves in the shoes of other people and to have true empathy. The understanding that we are not perfect allows us to be able to forgive others and forgive ourselves.

The study doesn't exonerate the priests. The study, although suspicious in its integrity, attempts to explain and tries to help us understand the social context surrounding these events. The ancient Greek warriors were gay pedophiles also. Two thousand five hundred years ago, that wasn't a socially and morally reprehensible concept. But norms change as society changes. Does understanding this mean less accountability? No. But understanding the context lets us make a more informed decision and allows us to appreciate each other better.

What I find hard is arguing with people who don't understand that faith is a matter of personal conviction and not mere belief in superstition. I am coming from a place of applying my faith and my knowledge in my life. I participated in this forum because, as the title says, it's for "Filipino Freethinkers". People who lambast what I'm thinking and label it as "ramblings" are not arguing on the merits of what I wrote and don't give me the decency of reading and understanding what I wrote. I'm not expecting that you agree with what I wrote. I'm just hoping that we could have a civil and respectful and intelligent discussion.

Cursing and profanity, in any conversation, only serves to drum up emotion. It sometimes works to make a point in an argument, but lacing your arguments constantly with expletives doesn't make you look smarter. It makes you look angry and not in control.

Goodbye.

Very well said. Though as a way to explain an issue that I myself have been accused of, people sometimes unwittingly refer to the people (priests, bishops, etc.) who run an institution (church) with the institution itself. Heck, I've been guilty of that too in some of my posts (using church when referring to priests and bishops). I'm most certain that the attacks here against the church, of which I am a member, are actually a condemnation against the wrongdoings of the people who run it.

[offending priests shouldn't be put to justice. I am not saying that the Church is perfect. The only thing I'm saying is that the notion that the church "downplays the sin, protects the sinner and screws the victim" is wrong.]

I've already proven you wrong by providing you with links to investigative reports that confirm that the church not only attempted to downplay these incidents by either threatening the victims, but also by transferring offenders to different parishes to avoid prosecution by local authorities.

So either you failed to read them, or you're going into denial mode.

[But norms change as society changes. Does understanding this mean less accountability? No. But understanding the context lets us make a more informed decision and allows us to appreciate each other better. ]

These incidents did not happen two thousand five hundred years ago, as you tried to explain using a red herring with the Greek example. These incidents happened in the 70s, and I'm willing to bet you that pedophilia was as reprehensible thirty years ago as they are today.

[Cursing and profanity, in any conversation, only serves to drum up emotion. It sometimes works to make a point in an argument, but lacing your arguments constantly with expletives doesn't make you look smarter. It makes you look angry and not in control.]

Noni, stop being a passive-aggresive, whining pussy.

Your idea of defending your is invoking your faith, instead of presenting evidence. And when that does not work, you cry persecution and rudeness because we decided to call out your lack of reasoning.

That does not make you look smart or civilized. That makes you look like a naive, know-nothing moron who can't accept reality.

Cry me a fucking river.

The wonderful thing about the internet is the anonymity this provides someone.

So you can go and call people names and curse and swear all you want and hide behind a username.

I have been nothing but courteous and civil. Would it be too much to expect all other people would be the same?

And to keep it on track (at least my track) I will repeat for the umpteenth time: The notion that the church "downplays the sin, protects the sinner and screws the victim" is wrong. It is theologically wrong. That's all I said.

Now, whether or not you get it is immaterial. The concept is wrong.

[The wonderful thing about the internet is the anonymity this provides someone.

So you can go and call people names and curse and swear all you want and hide behind a username. ]

Antonio Pe Yang III. You can't miss it. It's plastered on my Twitter and Facebook account.

[I have been nothing but courteous and civil. Would it be too much to expect all other people would be the same? ]

I'll stop swearing if that's what you mean. However, if you say something stupid again, I won't hesitate to lay down the hammer, and I will be perfectly blunt. I have plenty of ways of thrashing a bad argument without having to use an F-bomb.

[The notion that the church "downplays the sin, protects the sinner and screws the victim" is wrong. It is theologically wrong. That's all I said. ]

And yet this is exactly what the church is doing, while still continually claiming the moral high ground it has no business interfering in.

Thank you, because there is no need to be rude or crass just to make a point.But it is also intolerant to call someone stupid just because they don't agree with you.Man, the Jesuits must've really screwed you up…

[But it is also intolerant to call someone stupid just because they don't agree with you.]

You're right. Calling somebody who formulates a bad argument "stupid" is offensive to all people who truly suffer from learning disorders.

[Man, the Jesuits must've really screwed you up… ]

Then you don't know the Jesuits. One of the lessons I learned from them is that I should never blindly follow other people, that I should always question and study so that I may have a better grasp of what is happening around me.

The theo classes in particular were half about the actual teachings, and half about how to deconstruct them. And even if we didn't agree with the theology, we were given a good grade during debates if we were able to properly assert our reasons as to why.

What do you think convinced me to leave Catholicism?

[Thank you, because there is no need to be rude or crass just to make a point.]

I disagree.

Foul language is the metaphorical equivalent of slapping somebody in the face.

It works well against self-entitled dumbfucks who think that their religion's theology is always right regardless of the sort of inhumanity it demands, and think that the world is obligated to treat them like royalty.

It is apparently impossible to debate sensibly with a self-righteous atheistic Atenean.Get down from your own high horse too, sir. Just because you realized something different DOES NOT make you superior to anybody. A lot of other people older and wiser and dead-er than you have come to the same conclusion you have.I remain a Catholic because I love my faith and I love my Church. I know that she did wrong but I am not leaving her because of that. I am staying with her because I love her and I want to help her.My teachers taught me well.The tragedy with you is that you don't seem to have any love left to give.

[It is apparently impossible to debate sensibly with a self-righteous atheistic Atenean.]

Hey fuckface, don't bitch and moan about your shortcomings by blaming your opponents.

It's not our fault you're a bloody git who doesn't have the balls to face reality.

[Get down from your own high horse too, sir. Just because you realized something different DOES NOT make you superior to anybody. A lot of other people older and wiser and dead-er than you have come to the same conclusion you have.]

I'm not the one rationalizing away a cult's actions now, am I?

Nor am I the one acting as if the Catholic church remains a bastion of morality, despite the rank hypocrisy it continually exhibits despite its claims to the contrary.

[I remain a Catholic because I love my faith and I love my Church. I know that she did wrong but I am not leaving her because of that. I am staying with her because I love her and I want to help her.]

Are you sure it's not for other reasons? 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_synd… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

My friend, you need help. You don't have to be shy.

[The tragedy with you is that you don't seem to have any love left to give. ]

I don't have any love left to give to bigots and self-righteous prats.

I reserve that, along with my respec,t for people who truly deserve it, such as our aggrieved women, the LGBT community, and humanists who do good not because they are willed by God, but because they truly care for people.

You don't seem to get how your anger has blinded you.I am not ignoring or rationalizing the negative actions of the church. I am balancing these actions against the the positive contributions of the church. You have to look at the whole picture, child. You're just focusing on the trees. Look at the forest. Look at the entire landscape. The world is beautiful. Your contention is that the Church as a whole is a force for evil. You disregard the charities, the schools, the hospitals, the orphanages and the other works that the church and people who believe in the church have done and are doing to help. You think that everyone who believes is suffering from mass dementia and you belittle and disregard their faith, our faith. Never mind how this faith has helped so many people. Never mind that this faith has contributed, and is still contributing, to society. Never mind that we are who we are, including you, because of this faith.Do you honestly think that Western Civilization would exist if it weren't for the Church? When I earned my AB in Philosophy (yes I have a philosophy degree, not just a few classes in college), one of the exercises we have is to think of the alternative situation, to anything. It helps guard us from making assertions and contentions that have no real application in the world. What you are, my dear apathetic atheistic Atenean, is also an anarchist.You're Tyler Durden. And you are blinded by hate and anger. You're in the dark side.Good luck with your fight club.

[Tyler Durden]

Actually, I consider myself to be more of a Samuel Vimes.

time-out guys 🙁

can you take this spat offline for now? I think this has gone way off-topic already. Now who's going to be the bigger man between the atheist and the catholic, just let things be and agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

No use with arguing with somebody who claims anybody who cites the misdeeds of the RCC is angry and an anarchist. I may as well let him marinade in his fantasy world.

Now, off to reality…

And for the record, I'm a deist.

I never called anybody names.

I never accused anybody to be ignorant, or stupid.

I never used profanity.

I just posted a statement of fact disagreeing with the post because some elements were wrong.

[I participated in this forum because, as the title says, it's for "Filipino Freethinkers". People who lambast what I'm thinking and label it as "ramblings" are not arguing on the merits of what I wrote and don't give me the decency of reading and understanding what I wrote. I'm not expecting that you agree with what I wrote. I'm just hoping that we could have a civil and respectful and intelligent discussion.]

Kindly review what it means to be a freethinker. Part of being a freethinker is not to hold ay idea up as an untouchable sacred cow that cannot be criticized upon.

Religion in this case is a favorite target because it claims infallibility on matters of morality, when the reality is that faiths like the Catholic Church only exist today because of a long history of politics, murder, oppression, and backdoor dealings with despots
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/05/30/its-ok…

Since it appears you don't get the gist of what I wrote, I will explain it. And hopefully that'll be the end of this discussion.I am not defending the pedophiles. I am not saying that the offending priests shouldn't be put to justice. I am not saying that the Church is perfect. The only thing I'm saying is that the notion that the church "downplays the sin, protects the sinner and screws the victim" is wrong. I believe that we damn the sin, not the sinner. I know that we seek for the reformation and renewal of the sinner and offender, not just blind "protection". I believe that we want the ultimate healing and forgiveness of the victim.Because the forgiveness of sin is the hallmark of the life of Jesus and that is what we strive to follow. The understanding that we are not perfect, and that no one is perfect, protects us from the hubris of self-righteousness and arrogance. The understanding that we are not perfect allows us to put ourselves in the shoes of other people and to have true empathy. The understanding that we are not perfect allows us to be able to forgive others and forgive ourselves. The study doesn't exonerate the priests. The study, although suspicious in its integrity, attempts to explain and tries to help us understand the social context surrounding these events. The ancient Greek warriors were gay pedophiles also. Two thousand five hundred years ago, that wasn't a socially and morally reprehensible concept. But norms change as society changes. Does understanding this mean less accountability? No. But understanding the context lets us make a more informed decision and allows us to appreciate each other better.What I find hard is arguing with people who don't understand that faith is a matter of personal conviction and not mere belief in superstition. I am coming from a place of applying my faith and my knowledge in my life. I participated in this forum because, as the title says, it's for "Filipino Freethinkers". People who lambast what I'm thinking and label it as "ramblings" are not arguing on the merits of what I wrote. I'm not expecting that you agree with what I wrote. I'm just hoping that we could have a civil and respectful and intelligent discussion.Cursing and profanity, in any conversation, only serves to drum up emotion. It sometimes works to make a point in an argument, but lacing your arguments constantly with expletives doesn't make you look smarter. It makes you look angry and not in control.Goodbye.

Definitely.I am not equating forgiveness with lack of accountability. And I am not advocating a blind pardon either. Personal atonement is definitely necessary.I am not saying that criminals shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. But you have to remember that the penal system's focus is reforming these criminals. That's the reason why we have prison terms for criminals. Incarceration shouldn't mean punishment. Incarceration should be a time for penance.And penance and atonement is part of true reform. Understanding that we are not perfect allows us to be able to accept people who have reformed back into society.

[That's the reason why we have prison terms for criminals. Incarceration shouldn't mean punishment. Incarceration should be a time for penance.

And penance and atonement is part of true reform.

Understanding that we are not perfect allows us to be able to accept people who have reformed back into society. ]

And once again you are intentionally sidestepping the issue.

The issue isn't about whether or not the child-raping priests should be jailed. The issue is that the Church has hidden them, preventing proper prosecution to begin in the first place. You placed yourself in that position by trying to rationalize the RCC's act of hiding them as some sort of protective measure. All it does is protect the offender from being properly punished.

And on that point, I have said that I think the Church did wrong.

But what I'm saying is I understand where it's coming from, and that I understand the concept.

I was just trying to help other people understand that also.

But a heart closed by hate also clouds the mind.

[And I am not advocating a blind pardon either. Personal atonement is definitely necessary.]

But you are defending a study that basically downplays the responsibility and accountability of the rapists/priests? Your capacity for self-contradiction is astounding.

If you are for accountability, then you should call the dangerous "study" for what it really is: a pathetic attempt to justify evil and crime and lessen the guilt and liability of your church's rapists/priests.

I am not defending the study. If you read my initial comments, I called the study's integrity suspect and unreliable.

You also claimed that the church was not downplaying the sin. We are still waiting for you to back that up.

I never said that the Church wasn't downplaying the sin. Again,”The Church does not downplay the sin in order to protect the sinner. The Church protects the sinner because the very nature of the authentic Church, and the charism of the true apostolic tradition, calls us to be able to forgive the sinner. We damn the sin, but we forgive the sinner.”The sinner is more important than the sin. The lost sheep must be found.This is official teaching. This is original charism. This is apostolic tradition.

[The sinner is more important than the sin. The lost sheep must be found.]

It's hard to find lost sheep if the RCC intentionally loses them in a new parish.

[This is official teaching. This is original charism. This is apostolic tradition. ]

It seems to me that the church is more concerned about the condition of the "sinner" than it is with the condition of the victims.

The Church has always had a consistent approach with the victims. It's always been to help them.Feed the hungry.Clothe the naked.Heal the sick.They sometimes just forget to do it.

Feed the Hungry: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/georgia-…

Clothe the naked: http://thirdsector.co.uk/Channels/Governance/Arti…

Heal the sick: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703442 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,188… http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2515…

I agree with you. The RCC is remarkably consistent with their outreach for each of these activities. Would you like a colostomy bag? If seems you're becoming full of it. Again.

[The Church has always had a consistent approach with the victims. It's always been to help them.]

The victims would beg to disagree. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/53…

[The Church has always had a consistent approach with the victims. It's always been to help them.]

Said help includes burying them with a bullldozer. While they're still in the church. Just ask Father Athanase Seromba. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/20…

To this day, the RCC has yet to retract their defense of this monster's actions during the Rwanda Genocide. Did they "forget" about him as well, as they did their hand that atrocity?

Pass the RH Bill and pass Divorce! Everyone else is doing it anyway and it is the modern times.

They justified what they did as signs of the times and done by the majority, why not accept two progressive concepts that are also signs of the times and is practiced by billions of people.

[Heck, you are not even contented with throwing stones, you often resort to hurling flaming boulders from you religious catapults. ]

*Geek mode on*

Actually, if you want to be more accurate, the word you're looking for is Trebuchet, a subset of catapults. They were used extensively by crusaders.

I lie down corrected. Thanks!

What Noni fails to recall with that verse is that those who wanted to do the said stoning were Pharisees, and that the person Jesus was protecting was a woman.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am fully cognizant about the details of that passage. That passage is entirely appropriate because it reminds us to not rush to judgement.

How is what you're doing any different from the pharisees? You want to punish the priests and condemn the church much the same way that the pharisees wanted to do to the woman.

Was the woman innocent? No. She was caught in the act with a man who wasn't her husband.

Jesus did not disagree with the pharisees. Jesus did not say that the woman shouldn't be stoned. All Jesus did was question the righteousness of the men who wanted to do it.

The law may be the law, but what right does one man have to take the life of another person?

I'm not arguing for the innocence of the priests. I am NOT DEFENDING the church's actions. But you are rushing to label the entire Church as complicit and to label it a degenerative institution.

Don't.

The passage also reminds us that so-called religious leaders should never be taken at face value, or be followed blindly. More than that

[You want to punish the priests and condemn the church much the same way that the pharisees wanted to do to the woman.]

Now who's putting words in somebody's mouth? When exactly did I say we should stone these priests (not that it didn't cross my mind)?

[Was the woman innocent? No. She was caught in the act with a man who wasn't her husband.

Jesus did not disagree with the pharisees. Jesus did not say that the woman shouldn't be stoned. All Jesus did was question the righteousness of the men who wanted to do it. ]

So you don't have any probems with stoning being considered a valid punishment for adultery?

[But you are rushing to label the entire Church as complicit and to label it a degenerative institution.]

Well, what else is it?

Aside from the sex abuse cases, the Church is systematically attacking the gay community just because they don't fit into their narrow-minded concept of sexuality and love, and has attempted to railroad attempts in this country for not just Reproductive Health, but also women's rights.

And in case you think I am making this stuff up, I am more than happy to provide my sources: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/220983/unwed-pregna…
http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-cbcp-…
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.co…
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sex-crimes-and-the…

[The law may be the law, but what right does one man have to take the life of another person? ]

Your own faith seems to take exception to this assertion. A lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torque… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades http://mb.com.ph/articles/281411/friar-power-pala… http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html

I agree. It is the duty of everyone to discern the truth of the statements or actions of any person in power. A good friend of mine asked if I'm Pro-RH, and I replied to him that like any discerning Catholic, I am.Don't take things too literally. But isn't that what you wanted to do, to punish the priests and the church because of their sins? And you want to do it now. My next question would be, how? What would be the proper punishment for the priests, aside from defrocking (which I support) and jail time (which I also support) and perhaps public humiliation (by posting their pictures on websites like other sexual predators)? What about the Church? How would you punish the Church?But after the punishment, there should be healing and reconciliation. I worry that people may stop at the punishment level and not move on to the healing part because they do not appreciate that the bigger picture, at least according to the teaching of the Church, is all about the forgiveness of sin.To label the entire Church as complicit and to want to punish every. single. one. of its members is just hasty generalization and is a fallacy, again.Stoning a woman guilty of adultery was the Mosaic law. The only people who still practice Mosaic law are the fundamentalist Jews and Muslims.Wouldn't it be contradictory (at worst) or relativistic (at best) to apply the norms from two millennia ago to today, and vice-versa?A long time ago, masturbation was considered a greater sin than rape because the science at that time pointed to the sperm being the sole source of life. Masturbation was thus an active exercise in mass murder because with every drop, you kill the little people present in the sperm. Science has since changed that perspective for the better.For the record. Yes, I am a Catholic, and I've been Catholic for 32 years. And yes, I agree that the Church, as an institution, has been backward and slow, particularly about women's rights. But you have to understand that there are just some things that the Church can't support with official teaching that would sanction it.Like murder.Or divorce.Or pre-martial and extra-martial sex.Or gay marriages.Even if the Church as an institution is hypocritical or contradictory, in that the actions of its leaders do not always jive with their teaching, it doesn't make their teaching any less correct or relevant. It would be a fallacy to disregard the truth of the magisterium because of the foibles of several men.But to call the Church, my church, a worthless and senile and evil institution would be tantamount to calling each and every person I love worthless and senile and evil. That just doesn't make sense to me.

[What would be the proper punishment for the priests, aside from defrocking (which I support) and jail time (which I also support) and perhaps public humiliation (by posting their pictures on websites like other sexual predators)? What about the Church? How would you punish the Church?]

I think that matter is best left to authorities. A defrocking would be a good start though, along with a non-liftable excommunication. I'd personally prefer a castration, followed y a lobotomy.

[But to call the Church, my church, a worthless and senile and evil institution would be tantamount to calling each and every person I love worthless and senile and evil. That just doesn't make sense to me.]

What you feel is irrelevant to the facts, which indicate it IS a senile and evil institution that is more concerned with control than compassion. You really need to read more news – your denial complex is beginning to show.

What doesn't make sense to me is how you jump hastily to conclude that 80% of everyone you know, assuming that you are Filipino and you grew up in the Philippines, and that you have sufficient social skills to warrant having friends IRL, these 80% of the population who, in Lumen Gentium, are defined to be the body of the Church and constitute part of the Church, are all worthless and senile and evil.By your assertion, you believe that ALL CATHOLICS are worthless and senile and evil.Please try to tell me how that isn't hasty generalization. And please tell me how you aren't using your anger to blind you. You're the one who's not sticking to the facts.The Church, if you'll remember your theo classes, is not a building. And nor is it the leaders of this building. it is the people of God, the laos theou.Be angry at the Pope, be angry at the Bishops, be angry at the priests. Just don't drag the whole church along with your anger.

Technically, the Pope and the Bishops ARE the leaders of the Catholic church. And I do remember my theo classes, enough to know that unless you believe in papal infallibility or the bishop's authority, you cannot consider yourself a Catholic.

A Christian perhaps, but not a Catholic.

[What doesn't make sense to me is how you jump hastily to conclude that 80% of everyone you know, assuming that you are Filipino and you grew up in the Philippines, and that you have sufficient social skills to warrant having friends IRL, these 80% of the population who, in Lumen Gentium, are defined to be the body of the Church and constitute part of the Church, are all worthless and senile and evil.]

If you read my comments carefully, you will find that I call evil and senile is the church itself, along with its upper echelon of bishops, priests, an the pope himself.

It is a separate entity from from the people who follow it. I don't necessarily judge a Catholic by their faith, unless they wear their faith on their bloody sleeve and engage in apologetics and tone-trolling as you have in the last several posts.

I don't assume that every one of the Catholics I know is a delusional self-righteous prick like you, who seems to think that putting words in somebody's mouth is good practice for discussions. Most of the ones I know have taken their faith in stride, and unlike you, haven't exactly resorted to rationalizing away the RCC's excuses for its child abuse.

Seriously, where did I even mention that I treat RP's 80-percent Catholic population like you – like shit?

I am not tone-trolling.I just don't like rude people.Or foolish people who don't recognize that you can not divorce the head from the body without killing the being. If you call the head evil, you're calling the whole body evil as the body can not exist without the head. Now, since the laity is the body of the Church, logically, you are calling all of the over 1B Catholics in the world, and everyone you know, evil.BTW, treating people like shit is a reflection of how you treat yourself.As Mr. T said – I pity the fool.

[I am not tone-trolling.

I just don't like rude people.]

And as your past few replies have indicated, you have intentionally avoided addressing any of the links I have provided as evidence against your assertion, while selectively pointing out every time I decided to use foul language.

That is being a tone troll.

[Now, since the laity is the body of the Church, logically, you are calling all of the over 1B Catholics in the world, and everyone you know, evil.]

Following your logic, since the Philippine gov't is rotten and corrupt, I could say that all Filipinos are rotten and corrupt as well.

I don't. I am mature enough to tell the difference between the gov't and its people, as I choose to with my dealings with the Church and its members.

Now kindly knock off your obvious attempt at a guilt-by-association game.

[BTW, treating people like shit is a reflection of how you treat yourself.]

Assuming I treat all people like shit. I only do that when I catch them lying, or continually deny facts even when it's presented to them repeatedly.

I replied to your comments already about me ignoring your assertions.These are anecdotal incidents, exceptions to the rule. You're like the parent who doesn't want to give their child vaccines because they know someone who knows someone who read on the internet that a child developed autism because of the vaccines. That's just plain stupid. I ignore your foul language because I don't want to stoop to your level. Slapping people is never a good way to get them to talk to you and get your point across. You're acting like a bully.What precisely about the concept of the church being the ENTIRE BODY OF BELIEVERS don't you understand? That's how the Church is and that's how it's defined. The Roman Catholic Church is not just like any other organization or religion. Call the popes, the bishops, the priests misguided, bad, selfish, egotistical, power-hungry, self-serving, evil even, but stop calling it the Church.You treat people like shit because you are arrogant and intolerant.I treat arrogant and intolerant people better because I have been taught better.Do your school and yourself justice, please. Nakakahiya ka na.

[These are anecdotal incidents, exceptions to the rule.]

Not quite. A look several independent criminal indicates that these incidences repeat themselves across several countries worldwide. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10407559

And even then, the point isn't the about rapes taking place. The issue is that the church is systematically hiding these offenders under official authorization by its own bishops, while claiming the moral highground on matters of moral superiority.

And given the cover-up was officially enacted by the Vatican, it cannot be classified as an exception to the rule. I'd go as far as say that your own church's leaders treat hiding sex offenders as the norm .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/child… http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/I…

If any other organization claimed to be the foremost on an issue, and was found to be double-dealing.

[I ignore your foul language because I don't want to stoop to your level. ]

You've also ignored just about every link I've sent your way, claiming they're "anecdotal." Did you even read them?

Yes, I read your links. And I've read all the previous links and all the previous news reports and all of these studies when I was taking up my MA in Theology.I know that the Church isn't perfect. And I agree that the Church hierarchy, and by extension the Church as a body, is wrong to hide the priests. Who in their right mind would agree that hiding fugitives is proper?I wasn't even talking about that in the first place. I was talking about dogma. I was talking about the forgiveness of sin being a hallmark of the faith. I was talking about how the sinner is valuable also. The Church shouldn't have hid them, yes, but the Church doing that doesn't necessarily mean that the Church is evil or that the Church promotes sexual abuse as a matter of principle.For instance, you added the link where Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote instructions that seem to be a way to obstruct civil justice from proceeding. But the other links also talk about how he, now as Benedict XVI, has castigated the priests, accepted their resignations, apologized for the process and has met with the victims.You cry hypocrisy. And you are correct. Some actions may seem hypocritical. But seeing these actions in context helps us understand them. Not that understanding anything would make it right, of course.But you go and rattle your saber at the entire church without understanding. You pick up these bits and pieces of the picture and use this to generate a picture of evil.

Ratzinger only started castigating the priests after the church was being prosecuted by authorities and a rightfully angry public.

Had the RCC been genuinely been acting with the interest of the victims in mind, it would have acted long before criminal investigations took place.

In the case of the Murphy Report for example, the sex abuse took place in the 60s and 70s, with the RCC only reacting and imposing sanctions on its priests AFTER the document went mainstream.

And stating that thus explains that…… the Church has been been remiss and slow. That doesn't make her evil.

Maybe you Perhaps missed my point that the Church only started clamping down AFTER it was threatened with legal prosecution and public outrage.

But what part of that makes the Church evil? If the Church didn't do anything about it even after the outrage, then your argument for the Church being evil could start holding water. But that's a big IF.Evil is the absence of good. It is absolute zero.

An organization that claims itself to be morally good would have acted immediately upon hearing of these incidents. It would not give a damn if the authorities didn't hear about them yet, or what the public outcry will be. It will simply do the right thing.

And in the case of these sex abuse cases, the RCC started cracking down on the offenders after tremendous pressure from authorities.

To use an example: If I killed somebody, even accidentally, if I were a good man, I wouldn't have to wait for the police to start chasing me down. I'd turn myself in asap.

Your church had over 30 years to voluntarily do the right thing, and did nothing.

Correction, my Church has had over 1,700 years to voluntarily do the right thing at the moment that it happened.But, and I am not rationalizing, I am just explaining (again), the Church has been led by misguided, misinformed and mistaken men. As it has also been led by good, god-fearing, holy men.Let me cite a local example.Several years ago, DLSU voluntarily gave up the UAAP Men's Basketball championship when it was revealed, by their own internal investigation, that one of their players was ineligible to play, thus rendering all of their games forfeit. DLSU got suspended for one year and every other UAAP school had a field day hitting them about it. By your assertion and logic, and by everyone's also, DLSU did the right thing. DLSU is good, and by extension, all DLSU students are good.A year back, AdMU BOT Chair MVP delivered his plagiarized speech. (Refresh your memory here -http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/04/03/10/mvp-admits-mistake-speech-offers-retire-ateneo). He offered to resign but the Ateneo leadership refused to accept and chose to protect him and chose to have an internal investigation. Sounds familiar? By your logic, Ateneo is then bad, and by extension, all Ateneans are bad.It's too simplistic to determine the merits of one organization, an organization that spans the world and has 1/6 of the world's population, just on these instances.Let's just keep things in perspective.

[But that's a big IF.]

A big if that was categorically confirmed by the Murphy Report, and other related criminal investigations worldwide regarding the Church and its sex abuse cases.

Short version: The Church hid rapists and was wrong and hypocritical but I remain Catholic and defend the organization because… well, you lost me there.

Because there's more good than bad present.Because being Catholic is more than following the priests and the bishops and the Pope.Because I believe.

1. Many people would disagree
2. I guess so, but how do you institute reforms? Or do you just pray that god gets around to enlightening them before more kids get raped?
3. You say that like it's something to be proud of =))

1) Yep. And many more would agree. Let's agree to have our differing opinions and be tolerant of each other.2) Good question. Vatican II tried to bring the Church back to its original form but failed. The same question can be asked about any reform in any big organization. How can we reform the Philippine gov't, also? But I don't abandon my country because the leaders are inept and corrupt and evil. There's so much more that I can do inside than outside. So I guess reform has to really be a personal thing – be a better Filipino for a better Philippines. Be a better Catholic for a better Church. However, the question about the definition of a “better” catholic can be up for debate, but that's not the issue now, is it?3) It is, because if you think about it, we are what we believe. Your convictions create your identity. I am proud of who I am. As I am sure you are proud of who you are.

Then you're not a Catholic. You're a Christian.

Semantics. I choose to still be part of the Roman Catholic Church. Only the Pope can throw me out. With a written Bull of Excomm, like what Martin Luther had.

Read up on Governor General Bustamante – he would love to disagree with you, on account he was murdered by an angry mob of friars. I'd also recommend you read up on the crusades, the inquisition, and the Jewish pogroms.

2. On the matter of gay marriage, your church's opposition and constant attempts to demonize the LGBT community with outright lies reveals their bias. I am surprised that you failed to see that, despite being a Catholic for 32 years.

Pope Ratzinger himself has claimed that the issue of homosexuality was as bad as the destruction of rainforests. You call if official teaching, I call it fucking insane, bigoted, and stupid.

[Was the woman innocent? No. She was caught in the act with a man who wasn't her husband.

Jesus did not disagree with the pharisees. Jesus did not say that the woman shouldn't be stoned.]

So basically, you have no problem with assuming that stoning is somehow a just punishment to adultery?

Ayun, malinaw na. Sorry 🙂

Meaning regardless of what the faith's doctrine says, at the end of the day, they are still obligated to obey a country's laws?

You of all people will agree with me when I say "Of course." Given of course that those laws aren't religion-based in the first place (or at the very least that they should be rationally justified).

Examples of laws that are flimsily justified: Saudi Arabian pork banning, Iran laws governing adultery where the woman is buried shoulder-deep while the man is buried hip-deep before stoning, 1952 prosecution of Allan Turing for illegal homosexual acts, etc.