Catholicism pushing alcohol on kids

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Is it counterfactual that orders came from the very highest authority in the Vatican, that instead of expelling bad apples from the priest hood, they'd shift them from diocese to diocese to hide the bad acts of these Catholic Priests.

The very highest authority in the Vatican is the Pope. Do you have evidence that Pope John Paul II (or his p ...[text shortened]... ance), I'll just have to comment that this is more politikal rhetoric than an argument.[/b]

There is no assumption that top level Catholics were involved in finding alternative dioceses for paedophiles. This is fact! Do you think a lowly bishop was able to engineer this on their own? And you accuse me of fantasy?

Studies into how many got caught abusing children? "Got caught" is the key phrase.

The Magdelene Sisters Laundries kept girls who got pregnant out of wedlock under lock and key, so that they could work the laundry. They could never leave unless a family member signed them out. The promotion of this sickness where society gives up their own family under pressure from the Catholic church so that Catholic Church could get free labour is absolutely despicable in my minds. It might be fine in yours.

LOL. A Catholic priest being obliged to say mass? Now that's laughable. You obviously haven't met some local Irish priests, who are too mean to turn on heating during christenings (even after collecting payment), so that the child gets pneumonia. The same priest drives an SUV. Poor fella.

Political rhetoric? You have got to be joking? Again, you've already accused me of fantasy?

D

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But that's exactly how your rage (there's no other word for it) is coming across.

Please don't transfer the way the voice in your head reads my posts onto me. I have no rage. You should try reading my posts in a mock Joe Pasquale voice to get the true effect.

D

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What's wrong with a church deciding who it does and does not want to give its communion to?

As to "fanning the flames of AIDS in Africa", do you want to present statistics to back your claim, Doctor? This claim is even more ridiculous because the Church is one of the largest organisations taking care of AIDS patients in Africa; its campaigns with similar minded partners have been the most successful ones at turning the tide.

Does he really have to present statistics.

Again, you're dealing in abstract fantasies.

The church is promoting abstinence and not protection. In a perfect world, this would be great, unfortunately as most people know, we don't live in a perfect world.

Your beloved church fans the flame of AIDS onto innocents, because the following scenario is not uncommon... Dutiful, loving, faithful wife is married to a truck driver. On his lonely trip, he once falls into loneliness and lies with a prostitute. As he is a good catholic he doesn't use protection.

His wife then becomes infected without ever straying while remaining faithful and a good catholic.

You are absolutely deluded if you believe that preaching no protection is actually helping the matter.

D

Let me remind people again. Non-alcoholic wine is often used. This demonstrates that the fact wine has an alcholic content is of little significance. The choice of wine is simply because that was on hand when Jesus was explaining his ever-lasting life. Giving a personal example my 72 year old aunt was only recently informed of the alcholic nature of wine- by the way this women was not naive about the use of alchol, just her uncatholic alcholic husband preferred spirits.

As for placing marijuana in the same category as alchol I think this is unfair. One is a banned substance the other is only a de-merit good when abused.Although please lets not get side-tracked in the issue of the morality of alcohol.

Regarding the comment about getting drunk on too much communion wine, let me explain less than half a pint is used to serve a mass of hundreds. In most sunday service less than 5 people receive wine. Older adults who are Eucharistic Ministers. I want to point out during the Sacrament of confirmation children (normally at the age of 11) promise to God to abstain from alchol until thay are past 18. Although I do admit this pledge is increasingly beginning broken as young catholics distance themselves from there faith and conform to secular values.

Oh what I meant when I mentioned slave tradery. Was think of the thousands of Africans who were stolen then sold, did that happen at the hands of Catholics. No.

You are right about the laundries being closed less than 2 decades ago. But as time went the conditions in the laundry were no longer bad as the horror stories of the 60's.

Ragnorak I ask how much insight you have into the Catholism and Ireland. Statistics cannot explain the reality.

Originally posted by 123roco
As for placing marijuana in the same category as alchol I think this is unfair. One is a banned substance the other is only a de-merit good when abused.

Legal status aside, the substances are very similar, except marijuana doesn't cause as much heartache around the world as alcohol, doesn't cause as many deaths and it isn't as addictive. As you say the relative merits is outside the scope of the discussion.

Please answer the question as though the legality of the two drugs, marijuana and alcohol, was the same. I can probably answer the question for you.

If I exhalted marijuana and smoked it in front of your children, week in week out, you wouldn't be happy. Why? Because you'd be afraid that I might influence the children to become "addicted" to marijuana.

How does this not work the other way?

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Ireland is a nation of drinkers. It is also a nation of Catholics.

For centuries man has pondered why the Irish drink so much. I think I may have an answer.

Since birth, every Irish child has had to go to a cult meeting, whereby a man in a fancy dress tells us how good it is to drink alcohol. He also shows us how to consume alcohol.

Are there an ...[text shortened]... cy and use of slave labour are well proven, and require no further discussion.

Thanks,

D

I haven't the patience to read the whole thread, and someone may have already suggested this, but if children were made to drink real blood instead of its effete symbolic equivalent, then that would remove any risk of alcoholism through inadvertent ritualistic exposure.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Does he really have to present statistics.

Again, you're dealing in abstract fantasies.

The church is promoting abstinence and not protection. In a perfect world, this would be great, unfortunately as most people know, we don't live in a perfect world.

Your beloved church fans the flame of AIDS onto innocents, because the following scenario is not tely deluded if you believe that preaching no protection is actually helping the matter.

D

Happily, then, heterosexual intercourse may not even be the main vector for HIV transmission:

Potterat, J.J., Brewer, D.D., Muth, S.Q., & Brody, S. (2007). Converging evidence suggests nonsexual HIV transmission among adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 290-293.

Brewer, D. D., Gisselquist, D., Brody, S., & Potterat, J. J. (2007). Investigating iatrogenic HIV transmission in Ugandan children. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 45, 253-254.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I haven't the patience to read the whole thread, and someone may have already suggested this, but if children were made to drink real blood instead of its effete symbolic equivalent, then that would remove any risk of alcoholism through inadvertent ritualistic exposure.

Excellent point. Now we're thinking outside the box.

D

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Happily, then, heterosexual intercourse may not even be the main vector for HIV transmission.

Maybe not the only vector but in my experience most definitely the main vector (except mother to child).
Where I come from HIV prevalence is very high and it is noticeable how the more sexually promiscuous are more likely to get it. Also when a man gets it his wife invariably develops it also but not necessarily other members of the household.
Also there is plenty of hard evidence that condom use is an effective preventive measure.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
There is no assumption that top level Catholics were involved in finding alternative dioceses for paedophiles. This is fact! Do you think a lowly bishop was able to engineer this on their own? And you accuse me of fantasy?

Studies into how many got caught abusing children? "Got caught" is the key phrase.

The Magdelene Sisters Laundries kept girls ...[text shortened]... al rhetoric? You have got to be joking? Again, you've already accused me of fantasy?

D

There is no assumption that top level Catholics were involved in finding alternative dioceses for paedophiles. This is fact! Do you think a lowly bishop was able to engineer this on their own? And you accuse me of fantasy?

1. Earlier, you claimed that "the very highest authority in the Vatican" (i.e. the Pope) gave "orders" that abusing priests be moved between dioceses. Now you've changed it to "top level Catholics" (I presume you mean heads of Curial departments) were "involved".

a. Do you agree that your current claim is weaker than your earlier one?
b. Do you agree that you do not have any evidence to establish as "fact" that the Pope ordered the transfer of any abusing priest between dioceses?
c. Consequently, do you agree that this weakens your assumption that "the Catholic Church not only hides, but supports ... paedophilia and child abuse" since, by your own admission, it is based on the "fact" that "orders came from the top"?

2. Under canon law, all that is required to effect the transfer of a priest between dioceses is the written consent of the two bishops involved (Can. 267). The Congregation for the Clergy becomes involved only if the priest appeals against the decision of his bishop (Can. 270, Pastor Bonus - Art. 93).

a. Do you agree that "lowly bishops" can "engineer" the transfer of priests between dioceses on their own?
d. Consequently, do you agree that your inference that "top level Catholics" (i.e. Curial HODs) were "involved" is unjustified?
c. Do you agree that you do not have any positive evidence to establish as "fact" that heads of Curial departments were involved in "finding alternate dioceses for paedophiles"?
d. Do you agree that you cannot establish as fact the weaker claim you made this time around?


I'm not accusing you of fantasy -- I'm demonstrating that your position consists of unsubstantiated allegations and possibly wild speculation.


Studies into how many got caught abusing children? "Got caught" is the key phrase.

There are studies into those convicted, found guilty in civil proceedings or even simply accused. There are also studies with in-depth confidential personal and peer interviews where priests revealed their own crimes. As I said, why don't you get some facts to back you up? Shouldn't be that hard.


The Magdelene Sisters Laundries kept girls who got pregnant out of wedlock under lock and key, so that they could work the laundry. They could never leave unless a family member signed them out.

Under the rules of Magdalene asylums, non-consecrated residents were free to leave when they wished it. Do you have substantiation for your "could never leave unless a family member signed them out" claim? If you look at the Wikipedia Talk page you will see that such claims have been removed because they cannot be substantiated.


LOL. A Catholic priest being obliged to say mass? Now that's laughable.

Regardless of whether it's "laughable" to you, they are indeed obliged by canon law (Can. 213, Can. 843.1, Can. 848).


You obviously haven't met some local Irish priests, who are too mean to turn on heating during christenings (even after collecting payment), so that the child gets pneumonia. The same priest drives an SUV. Poor fella.

"Some" (not all?) local Irish priests? Tell me, how many Catholic priests have you met in your lifetime? What % of them fit this description?


Political rhetoric? You have got to be joking?

I'm clearly not. Until you can start putting up some facts to justify your allegations that's the most charitable way to describe it.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Does he really have to present statistics.

Again, you're dealing in abstract fantasies.

The church is promoting abstinence and not protection. In a perfect world, this would be great, unfortunately as most people know, we don't live in a perfect world.

Your beloved church fans the flame of AIDS onto innocents, because the following scenario is not ...[text shortened]... tely deluded if you believe that preaching no protection is actually helping the matter.

D

Does he really have to present statistics.

If he wishes to move beyond speculation and innuendo into rational argumentation then, yes, he does.


The church is promoting abstinence and not protection... Your beloved church fans the flame of AIDS onto innocents, because the following scenario is not uncommon... Dutiful, loving, faithful wife is married to a truck driver. On his lonely trip, he once falls into loneliness and lies with a prostitute. As he is a good catholic he doesn't use protection.

So you're telling me that a Catholic who doesn't bother with the Sixth Commandment (which I knew as a child) is going to get all conscience-struck by its teaching on condoms (which I didn't even know about till my university years)?

Also, you say this situation is not uncommon. Please name a few real-life cases.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Please don't transfer the way the voice in your head reads my posts onto me. I have no rage. You should try reading my posts in a mock Joe Pasquale voice to get the true effect.

D

Then clearly Joe Pasquale doesn't know his facts from his speculation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So you're telling me that a Catholic who doesn't bother with the Sixth Commandment (which I knew as a child) is going to get all conscience-struck by its teaching on condoms (which I didn't even know about till my university years)?

Also, you say this situation is not uncommon. Please name a few real-life cases.

So you're telling me that a Catholic who doesn't bother with the Sixth Commandment (which I knew as a child) is going to get all conscience-struck by its teaching on condoms (which I didn't even know about till my university years)?
Who said he was going to get conscience struck? If he has been taught that condoms are unnecessary, then conscience doesn't come into it. Catholic induced ignorance does.

Also, you say this situation is not uncommon. Please name a few real-life cases.
Your pedantry is annoying. Any commentator on AIDS in Africa writes about truck drivers helping spread AIDS. Now, unless you're saying that no truck driver in Africa has a wife, then your pedantry is totally misplaced.

Here's one person who works with AIDS infected people in Swaziland's comments..."‘'Single sex hostels were always a necessary evil. They were unnatural environments where men had to live without wives or female companions, so they became incubators of sexually transmitted diseases when workers engaged the services of prostitutes. These sex diseases returned home with the workers, to infect wives, fiances and girlfriends,'' said Gladys Simelane, who counsels people living with HIV/AIDS. "

Are you so pedantic that you'd like me to get in touch with Gladys to actually get names of women who have come to her from help after catching AIDS from their truck driving husbands?

Your delusion knows absolutely no bounds if you believe teaching people not to use condoms is actually helping the fight against AIDS. This is the type of promotion of ignorance by the Catholic church which I referred to earlier.

D

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not accusing you of fantasy -- I'm demonstrating that your position consists of unsubstantiated allegations and possibly wild speculation.

I'm not accusing you of fantasy -- I'm demonstrating that your position consists of unsubstantiated allegations and possibly wild speculation.

How does a document with the Pope's seal telling bishops to cover up cases of sex abuse, or risk expulsion do you to demonstrate that my assertions are correct and that you are foolishly too reliant on your faith, and in your faith you actively support child molestors?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html

The history of the Christian Brothers around the world shows that Bishops all over the world used the blueprint very well in aiding child abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_of_Christian_Brothers

D