Pope Francis wishes Muslims a happy Ramadan

"Two Tacos wrote:

That's because the church followed his statement up with, "but you're still going to hell." the same day. Which seems kind of judgmental to me.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

Oh okay, I do not exactly follow what the RC does day to day.

"padre31 wrote:

Oh okay, I do not exactly follow what the RC does day to day.

To be fair, he also said that gays should not be marginalized in society. Which, upon reflection is a more profound and important sentiment. At least, I think it was the pope that said that.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

"padre31 wrote:

It would be both, he'd accept his current condition and be redeemed by Christ once he passes on.

Ok, I just wanted to understand where you were coming from. I hope that gives you comfort then.

To Redeem" is to "buy back". One of the understandings of "sin" is to be "indebted" to God (the other most common definitions are to "miss the mark" or to "trespass"). This comes from our understanding that God created humanity to freely be in community with God, praising Him as creator. When we "sinned" it was by looking to self instead of God and others. Thus we owe a debt to the creator for not being what we were created to be. Keep in mind in Middle Eastern culture a family was obligated to pay the debts of its fellow family members.

We Christians understand that in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection He "bought us back", paying our debt.

Hope this helps you understand the underpinnings of how we think.

As to "forgivable" vs. "unforgivable" it goes back to what I say about being loving. Sometimes the most loving thing you can do for a community is to take a person out of it. I am talking about jail not vigilante murder. The community needs to be loved as individuals and as a group. I can accept that someone is in relationship with God and still want them separated away from folks.

"Fin D wrote:

If the next priest suspected pedophilia is not turned over to the police and defrocked when found guilty, then the Church has not yet learned its lesson.

The next time society lets free a pedophile I'll blame non-Catholics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

"Finphreak wrote:

The next time society lets free a pedophile I'll blame non-Catholics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Hmmmmm. That's the same thing for sure.:pity:

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

To Redeem" is to "buy back". One of the understandings of "sin" is to be "indebted" to God (the other most common definitions are to "miss the mark" or to "trespass"). This comes from our understanding that God created humanity to freely be in community with God, praising Him as creator. When we "sinned" it was by looking to self instead of God and others. Thus we owe a debt to the creator for not being what we were created to be. Keep in mind in Middle Eastern culture a family was obligated to pay the debts of its fellow family members.

We Christians understand that in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection He "bought us back", paying our debt.

Hope this helps you understand the underpinnings of how we think.

As to "forgivable" vs. "unforgivable" it goes back to what I say about being loving. Sometimes the most loving thing you can do for a community is to take a person out of it. I am talking about jail not vigilante murder. The community needs to be loved as individuals and as a group. I can accept that someone is in relationship with God and still want them separated away from folks.

I've never heard it put that way. Very interesting. Thank you.

"Fin D wrote:

Hmmmmm. That's the same thing for sure.:pity:

Sure it is. Blaming all Catholics for individual actions is like blaming all non Catholics for individual actions. I assume you blame all Muslims for 9/11?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

"Finphreak wrote:

Sure it is. Blaming all Catholics for individual actions is like blaming all non Catholics for individual actions. I assume you blame all Muslims for 9/11?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

I never blamed all Catholics. I blamed the Church. And I'm blaming them for covering up the pedophilia by their priests, the moving of child rapists from one perish to another endangering a whole new set of kids, and I'm also blaming them for strong arming and paying off families so these priests can avoid secular prosecution. All of that makes your analogy stupid.

Don't start crap in here.

"Fin D wrote:

I never blamed all Catholics. I blamed the Church. And I'm blaming them for covering up the pedophilia by their priests, the moving of child rapists from one perish to another endangering a whole new set of kids, and I'm also blaming them for strong arming and paying off families so these priests can avoid secular prosecution. All of that makes your analogy stupid.

Don't start crap in here.

^^ That.

For those outside the Church the word "Church" is often used to describe the hierarchical structure of a denomination or tradition. For those inside it more often describes all the people, the "Body of Christ". We can end up talking past each other using the same language.

Clearly some Roman Catholic bishops here in America, in Ireland and some other places for a variety of reasons, some honorable and some very much not honorable, played a shell game with predatory priests. Many of us would not say the "Church" did something however, because we understand the meaning of that word differently.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

For those outside the Church the word "Church" is often used to describe the hierarchical structure of a denomination or tradition. For those inside it more often describes all the people, the "Body of Christ". We can end up talking past each other using the same language.

Clearly some Roman Catholic bishops here in America, in Ireland and some other places for a variety of reasons, some honorable and some very much not honorable, played a shell game with predatory priests. Many of us would not say the "Church" did something however, because we understand the meaning of that word differently.

Fair enough, but I also think its fairly common knowledge that non-Catholics refer to the hierarchy as "the Church", since that's how its referred to in the papers and media. That's why I think that was an attempt to start an argument in here.

"Fin D wrote:

Fair enough, but I also think its fairly common knowledge that non-Catholics refer to the hierarchy as "the Church", since that's how its referred to in the papers and media. That's why I think that was an attempt to start an argument in here.

I am not going to rule on another's intent. You are correct regarding the popular usage. I was just giving breadth to the use of language not defending or attacking.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

I am not going to rule on another's intent. You are correct regarding the popular usage. I was just giving breadth to the use of language not defending or attacking.

I know, i was just explaining my thought process to you, so you understood my intent.

"Fin D wrote:

I know, i was just explaining my thought process to you, so you understood my intent.

All good! :wink2:

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Clearly some Roman Catholic bishops here in America, in Ireland and some other places for a variety of reasons, some honorable and some very much not honorable, played a shell game with predatory priests. Many of us would not say the "Church" did something however, because we understand the meaning of that word differently.

Not trying to be a dick here, but the question begs to be asked...

How - in any way, shape or form - was ANY reason to play a shell game with predatory priests "honorable"???

"Pagan wrote:

Not trying to be a dick here, but the question begs to be asked...

How - in any way, shape or form - was ANY reason to play a shell game with predatory priests "honorable"???

It seems likely that not every person involved in relocating the pedo priests knew of those priests' predilections. It would be harder to keep a lid on it the more people that knew, so through no fault of their own some people may have been made accomplices without their knowledge.

"Fin D wrote:

It seems likely that not every person involved in relocating the pedo priests knew of those priests' predilections. It would be harder to keep a lid on it the more people that knew, so through no fault of their own some people may have been made accomplices without their knowledge.

Simply put: If I heard there was a trend of kids somehow getting molested at say, KFC, can you guess which place I would be avoiding like the plague?

Now, are the drumsticks and gravy great, the staff friendly and courteous MOST of the time? Sure. Wouldn't risk going there no matter how great the service. Especially when you know they simply relocate the offending cooks.

Sent from my phone using Fapatalk 2

"lmeister3 wrote:

Simply put: If I heard there was a trend of kids somehow getting molested at say, KFC, can you guess which place I would be avoiding like the plague?

Now, are the drumsticks and gravy great, the staff friendly and courteous MOST of the time? Sure. Wouldn't risk going there no matter how great the service. Especially when you know they simply relocate the offending cooks.

Sent from my phone using Fapatalk 2

I'd say there's a gulf of difference between tasty food* and someone's core belief system.

* Author's Note. I'm in no way saying KFC is tasty. it is not. It is horrible, horrible food. Popeye's is the best.

"Pagan wrote:

Not trying to be a dick here, but the question begs to be asked...

How - in any way, shape or form - was ANY reason to play a shell game with predatory priests "honorable"???

Not to worry Pagan, I know you are just being yourself! :wink2:

I would suggest the more "honorable" reasons had to do with some bishops simply wanting to believe in the remorse and repentance of their priests. Many times these were friends and colleagues of very long standing. A number of the predators were doing otherwise excellent parish ministry. The Bishops were caring for their priests.

Keep in mind also, when the bulk of these incidents happened, pedophilia as a disease, was little known or understood. It was thought to be an episodic transgression rather than the hard core compulsion we now understand it to be. Little was also known of the horrific, long term impact on victim's lives.

Sure, some Bishops swept it under the rug to guard the "establishment". Others were callous. But some were horribly, horribly misguided and, dare I say, naïve.

"Fin D wrote:

It seems likely that not every person involved in relocating the pedo priests knew of those priests' predilections. It would be harder to keep a lid on it the more people that knew, so through no fault of their own some people may have been made accomplices without their knowledge.

This I can accept as a reason.


I would suggest the more "honorable" reasons had to do with some bishops simply wanting to believe in the remorse and repentance of their priests. Many times these were friends and colleagues of very long standing. A number of the predators were doing otherwise excellent parish ministry. The Bishops were caring for their priests.

This I cannot.

Sorry bro, but I don't care WHO the person is. If my own father were molesting children I'd turn him in. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING "honorable" about covering up the defiling of children. Not. A. Thing.

I don't care WHAT kind of "excellent parish ministry" they were doing. Once your dick goes into a child, the scales tip FAR in the other direction. Basically you're saying that these bishops cared more for their own than their flock. Disgusting, despicable, and the lot of them should be banished.

If they wanted to believe in the "remorse and repentance" of their priests, then make them man up and pay for their crimes and THEN ask for forgiveness. In my opinion, and I dare say in the opinion of ANYONE with a moral conscience, by covering up for those priests those bishops were as guilty of the crime as if they had done it themselves.

Not to worry Pagan, I know you are just being yourself! :wink2:

Pagan, I hear you. Keep in mind though you are talking with the knowledge we all have in 2013. When these horrors were largely happening in the 50's and early 60's we did not have this understanding. Back then even if it was made known, it was hushed up by all concerned. We know better today.

I am not trying to defend this men or the ones who covered them up. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

What I am trying to do is understand the motivations at the time they were happening and to learn from them so as not to make the same motivational errors today. History has often taught us not to make the same factual errors but when we ignore the reasoning behind those errors we risk repeating the same flawed logic.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Pagan, I hear you. Keep in mind though you are talking with the knowledge we all have in 2013. When these horrors were largely happening in the 50's and early 60's we did not have this understanding. Back then even if it was made known, it was hushed up by all concerned. We know better today.

I am not trying to defend this men or the ones who covered them up. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

What I am trying to do is understand the motivations at the time they were happening and to learn from them so as not to make the same motivational errors today. History has often taught us not to make the same factual errors but when we ignore the reasoning behind those errors we risk repeating the same flawed logic.

That's what I'm having a tough time digesting bro. I don't care what year it was, wrong is wrong. Is there any reasoning behind slavery that we should understand now? It was accepted back then but it was still heinous.

I'm not saying you're defending them, but man...I don't even want to "understand" why. And even if that was the reasoning. There were the 70's, 80's and 90's where these priests were still in their respective churches and no one did a thing. There's no excuse for that.

There really isn't much to learn from so's not to make the same mistakes. It's pretty simple....

Don't touch kids, and if you know someone who does, fry his ass.

Understanding why people thought slavery was acceptable in its time helps me avoid that same mindtrap of their logic. That's what I am trying to explain though I guess not very successfully. We are on the same side of the argument as to how things should be handled today. I am trying to mine the history for my own lessons.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Understanding why people thought slavery was acceptable in its time helps me avoid that same mindtrap of their logic. That's what I am trying to explain though I guess not very successfully. We are on the same side of the argument as to how things should be handled today. I am trying to mine the history for my own lessons.

I guess the word "honorable" just threw me off.