People who take one doctrine of a religion wildly out of context...

[afleitch]

And people who decide to create a thread about it

Non undue offence but theres no need to create this. BRTD, king of useless threads at least brought up a valid point for discussion and an ability to refute his view of it. Best to fight your ground in there.

[afleitch]

Well, perhaps you would be more exacerbated if you had been spending the last two months combating soundbytes and misrepresentations with long elocutions the way I have

As if I don't have any experience in having to do that

The Catholic Church is fair game - any autocratic, debate stifling institution is. Catholicism is another matter and I don't think anyone here is attacking the Catholic rite.

And yes the Church does give the impression of being outdated boyf#ckers. It's their fault, it's their failing and it's ordinary Catholics who have to distance themselves from the Churches lumbering inactivity and dispel any notions that lay Catholics and the Catholic faith is a f#cked up as the Church.

[afleitch]

Well, perhaps you would be more exacerbated if you had been spending the last two months combating soundbytes and misrepresentations with long elocutions the way I have

As if I don't have any experience in having to do that

The Catholic Church is fair game - any autocratic, debate stifling institution is. Catholicism is another matter and I don't think anyone here is attacking the Catholic rite.

And yes the Church does give the impression of being outdated boyf#ckers. It's their fault, it's their failing and it's ordinary Catholics who have to distance themselves from the Churches lumbering inactivity and dispel any notions that lay Catholics and the Catholic faith is a f#cked up as the Church.

The Church gives the impression of being outdated "boyf--kers" because a few priests have chosen to do so and some people tried to cover it up? They give the impression that they are corrupt and want it covered up but that doesn't give the impression that they promote "boyf--king."

That's what I'm saying Phil. The Churches inaction or indifference breeds these impressions. But theres a lack of transparency, from simply 'moving' guilty priests around or putting pressure on parishioners and victims not to report past cases of abuse. At times like that the apparently 'universal' Church suddenly calls it a 'local problem.'

When in reality, that plus priests running off with women (a staple in Scotland) is a byproduct of non negotiable celebacy and the phsychological impact of that.

So people like myself end up having to explain; 'We're not a communion of boyf#ckers, the Church is wrong, the Church is not transparent and hasn't dealt with the problem, most Catholics are unhappy with their inaction and for the record I believe celibacy should be an optional vow.' Basically lots of 'and, and, and's'

[afleitch]

So people like myself end up having to explain; 'We're not a communion of boyf#ckers, the Church is wrong, the Church is not transparent and hasn't dealt with the problem, most Catholics are unhappy with their inaction and for the record I believe celibacy should be an optional vow.' Basically lots of 'and, and, and's'

Well, I disagree with a lot of that. Being a "boyf--ker" and supporting celebacy are two totally different things. The Church has acted on the molestation issues and celebacy should not be optional. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Well it acted late and under pressure and has still left the issue broadly unsettled. I also think that celibacy; the suppression of sexual desire is psychological unhealthy unless you can cope with it. Many people cannot and nor do I think there is good reason to expect them to. When put in positions of authority and trust some have stepped the line. I'm not solely talking about sexual abuse of minors, I also mean 'inappropriate' relationships with male and female parishioners.

But on another point, I'll give you an example of the sort of actions taken by Church authorities that lead to what can only be described as an 'image problem'

I have, in the past attended mass said by two priests in who parishes. One had a sexual relationship with a female church worker who was then murdered and he was charged with perverting the course of justice. He admitted his relationship. The other told a gay parishioner who was married in an failing relationship, to consider leaving his wife rather than remain in a loveless marriage and living a lie.

Take a guess at which of the priests was 'removed' from his parish (despite protests from his parishioners) And now wonder why non Catholics who are aware of this bring this up when I discuss Catholicism with them?

I'm not going to slovenly back the Church when people attack it. But I will stand up when they attack the Catholic rite or deliberately misinterpret the symbolism within.

I'll quote myself on this one;

However I've came to realise that that encapsulates Catholic dogma more than anything. It is better to suffer and follow doctrine than to break it, and be relieved of suffering because what comes after death is more important than the 'short term' conveniences of life. It is better to get pregnant when you can't afford it, or to catch an STD that ravages your body when you can prevent it, because to use any form of contraception is sinful. It is better to suppress your sexuality than to express it and suffer mentally as a result because life is fleeting and after death comes eternity. How horribly patronising. How dare the Church say we cannot suspend long standing irrational dogma in order to preserve the physical and metal health of ourselves and our fellow man when it is willing to do so at the drop of a hat in order to fight the conversion battle in Africa?

Now if I had said that as non-Catholic, I would hope that was not interpreted as an attack on the faith, just the dogmatism of the Church.

[afleitch]

That's a shame and it only feeds into the stereotype. However, I don't believe this is the norm. The priest who had the straight affair would have been removed also.

He wasn't.

I don't think either of them should have been removed for the record as both were immensely popular, well liked and above all good priests.

[afleitch]

He wasn't.

Ok, I understand that. I was saying that it would have been the norm to remove both priests. I'm sorry that you have one example of the contrary happening.

I could provide many, many more. But that's not the point. At what point does the Church cease to be a universal communion and then calls problems amongst it's clergy and it's organisation 'regional' or 'local'?. Answer; when it is convenient for it to do so.

Ultimately this thread is about things being 'out of context' Unfortunately it is the Church itself which provides a breeding ground for misconception and in doing so puts lay Catholics in a vulnerable defensive position.