CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[T.Lex]

The fact that the just now makes reporting mandatory is news. As in, WTF wasn't that standard operating procedure? Why was the solution to sweep it under the rug and send the predator to a new place with an unsuspecting flock?

Speaking of sweeping, meritless generalizations, that was not "the solution." It was left to individuals' discretion, from a clerical perspective. Now it is not.

Secular laws - like mandated reporting - would still have applied.

 

[Mark 1911]

The fact that the just now makes reporting mandatory is news. As in, WTF wasn't that standard operating procedure? Why was the solution to sweep it under the rug and send the predator to a new place with an unsuspecting flock?

My dislike for the RCC is no secret, but I wouldn't describe this as "Catholic bashing".

That wasn't the comment I was referring to, and I kept my comment generic enough so that I wasn't pointing at any one individual's post but to a general trend. But if you want to get into specifics, what triggered my comment this time was Post #1438. The sarcasm is not exactly subtle.

All that aside, isn't my point a valid one? Isn't the point of this thread to discuss religious topics, instead of taking every passing news story as another opportunity to take a swipe at one religion? How is that civil to members here who happen to love that religion? Are we not welcome to discuss here? And if we are, why take offense if someone takes exception to being singled out in a thread that bears the title, "Civil"? Especially while there are so many and varied topics that we could have some civil discussion on that might actually be helpful. I could easily come up with a long list. What about discussing Salvation, can we lose it? Differing customs of baptism and marriage? Sola Scriptura? Sola Fide? What about sin? Are they all the same in God's eyes, or are some worse than others? What about current topics as relates to interpretation of scripture, gay marriage? Abortion? With so many topics that we could discuss and actually learn from each other about, why do we always seem to end up with "RCC is bad"? We don't disrespect all police officers because some are corrupt or abusive, we shouldn't disrespect any church because some of the people they offer salvation to are still struggling with sin. And which of us is without sin, that he can cast the first stone? Out of 100 souls, Jesus cares about 100.

Don't take my comments personally. They were not directed at you personally. You are not the only one who does the anti-Catholic thing. If you don't believe me, take a read through the last #1,440 posts in this thread and look look at the percentage of those that are anti-Catholic. I don't think that's what this thread was intended for. And I don't think that's a controversial or hostile thing to say. I am more than happy to start off a respectful discussion on some great topics. I don't think I'm the only one here who tends to avoid this thread for the reasons I've stated, and I've seen some excellent discussion here when it remains on point. There are some very devout and knowledgeable people on INGO who have a lot to share. I have many friends outside the RCC who I have maintained close friendships with over many years. Baptists, Jews, Mormons, and Catholics. None of these religions would have been around for so many years if they didn't teach at least some element of truth, and as such all are deserving of respect, despite the fact that men are sinful and in need of God's salvation. As Jesus said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (MK 2:17).

 

[HoughMade]

The fact that the just now makes reporting mandatory is news. As in, WTF wasn't that standard operating procedure? Why was the solution to sweep it under the rug and send the predator to a new place with an unsuspecting flock?...

So now that there's a rule, people who were determined to do the wrong thing will now do the right thing.

Excellent!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That wasn't the comment I was referring to, and I kept my comment generic enough so that I wasn't pointing at any one individual's post but to a general trend. But if you want to get into specifics, what triggered my comment this time was Post #1438. The sarcasm is not exactly subtle..

I took that post a different way, and almost included my own GIF with the story. The story link posts, also, are not "anti-Catholic". They're just informational.

I think what the Pope did is... I dunno... pointless? Like an anti-gun sign on a bank meant to deter a bank robber. What's the purpose of it? People intent on doing bad things are going to self-report?

 

[Mark 1911]

I took that post a different way, and almost included my own GIF with the story. The story link posts, also, are not "anti-Catholic". They're just informational.

I think what the Pope did is... I dunno... pointless? Like an anti-gun sign on a bank meant to deter a bank robber. What's the purpose of it? People intent on doing bad things are going to self-report?

I'm not disagreeing with you. But then again, I wasn't referring to what the pope said.

 

[T.Lex]

I took that post a different way, and almost included my own GIF with the story. The story link posts, also, are not "anti-Catholic". They're just informational.

I think what the Pope did is... I dunno... pointless? Like an anti-gun sign on a bank meant to deter a bank robber. What's the purpose of it? People intent on doing bad things are going to self-report?

The abuse scandal was not about the abusers. The child abuse instances were individual, and collective, tragedies.

The scandal was that people in authority knew of the abuse and took minimal actions to prevent or rectify it. They were allowed to rely on their own individual sense of the appropriate thing to do, as a matter of conscience. (Notwithstanding laws about mandated reporting, which really only came about in the late 1990s IIRC.) Many did report abuse to police and other authorities as a matter of conscience, but not enough did.

That is no longer the case.

As a matter of clerical responsibility, they must report abuse (and ostensibly allegations of abuse). It is unclear to me, but that could include confessional admissions. That would be a significant policy change.

ETA:
Some dioceses and parishes already had that rule in place, like the ones I'm familiar with. A grassroots effort to mandate reporting. What is new is that it is now the universal policy of the global church. A top-down policy, rather than the other way 'round.

 

[NKBJ]

The real story is the planned and executed infiltration for the purposes of destroying the Christian faith.

 

[foszoe]

I think Mark is correct. Reading this thread, there is an anti Roman Catholic flavor. Sometimes it's regarding theology where the discussion can bear fruit and sometimes its against the ancient Christian theology of a visible Church with which modern day Protestants disagree. The latter is what gets most of the modern day press so it is natural that it is what implicitly appears here. Now I can be anti (against) without being negative and that is the fine line all try to walk.

Protestants in our time have a real mote/speck problem when it comes to problems inherent with a visible Church and the sexual abuse issue is a symptom. For them if it happens in the Methodist Church it's a Methodist Problem. If it happens in a Presbyterian Church it's Presbyterian problem. If it happens in a Baptist church....as long as it doesn't happen in MY church. Protestants tend to view things as a denominational problem not as a Christian problem. That's why they can simply change churches, several times, over their life.

I have here, in the past, cited examples of pastors in protestant churches moving from one church to another after an abuse allegation and do not plan to redo that work but its out there for anyone who is willing to find it.

I would like to see examples of bylaws and guidelines from every Protestant body as to how sexual abuse is to be handled for that is where the difference will lie. For the Roman Catholic Church there is one person that sets policy for the entire Roman Catholic Church. There is no such thing in the Protestant world. Usually it's the guy at the pulpit with perhaps a few elders/deacons sitting on a church board. I would venture to say that mainline Protestant bodies probably do have some statement they could offer, but every non-demoninational "Christian" church? I doubt it. Does that mean when abuse takes place in any of the variety of Protestant denominations, I believe a statement would have stopped it? No.

 

[foszoe]

As a matter of clerical responsibility, they must report abuse (and ostensibly allegations of abuse). It is unclear to me, but that could include confessional admissions. That would be a significant policy change.

I very much doubt it would go that far, depending on the interpretation of what you are saying plays out. The confessional should be an absolute theologically. Or to put in another way. When a Protestant ( I need a new word for Protestant since most no longer know what they are protesting) confesses his sins in a closet to Jesus alone and receives forgiveness theologically its exactly the same in the Orthodox Church and, I believe, in the Roman Catholic Church. The priest is the icon of Christ. He is not there to think or do things on his own. He is neither judge nor jury.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Good Protestants know that you must also ask forgiveness from those whom you have wronged. The answer from each party as to whether you are forgiven and can go to heaven if you omit that last step may differ. Does my closet or confessional prayer get me into heaven on its own or not?

 

[foszoe]

So that is how you avoid meetings...

"Sorry, I'm still working off the Julian Calendar."

\

Too bad you aren't working off the Julian Calendar. Then you wouldn't be having certainty over your eternal destiny.

"Live each day as if it were your last" means a lot more when viewed from a Christian worldview free from a Calvinistic perspective. It becomes an eternal question instead of a modern day hedonistic one.

 

[historian]

\

Too bad you aren't working off the Julian Calendar. Then you wouldn't be having certainty over your eternal destiny.

I would not be. However, I would have the same, false security I had before I adopted Calvinism. The phrasing would be different, but the outcome would be the same.

 

[historian]

Back on the topic of the thread at hand. I'm not sure why the Catholic stuff gets put in here. It really should be over in the General Christianity thread. This is much more of a catchall.

 

[T.Lex]

Back on the topic of the thread at hand. I'm not sure why the Catholic stuff gets put in here. It really should be over in the General Christianity thread. This is much more of a catchall.

I think it reflects the notion that Catholicism is not Christian.

 

[JettaKnight]

I think it reflects the notion that Catholicism is not Christian.

Do I, or don't I? Do I, or don't I? Do I, or don't I?

 

[foszoe]

Not sure what you mean by false security. I am assuming you are saying there is a point where one can say because I am Orthodox, I am going to heaven. That would NEVER be true. When the judgement is left to the Almighty alone, which is biblical, then there is no place for the human being to say "I am saved!" or "I am not saved!".

You get no sense of security on the Julian Calendar. At best you get to say, "I hope to be saved!" Being Orthodox does, however paradoxically for Orthodoxy is paradoxy, let one be comfortable with that.

I would not be. However, I would have the same, false security I had before I adopted Calvinism. The phrasing would be different, but the outcome would be the same.

 

[Dead Duck]

Back on the topic of the thread at hand. I'm not sure why the Catholic stuff gets put in here. It really should be over in the General Christianity thread. This is much more of a catchall.

You're right...
but INGO doesn't have a "CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: Idolatry, Witchcraft and False Prophets..." thread.

 

[BugI02]

I think it reflects the notion that Catholicism is not Christian.

I think you might be overthinking this in thinking that people are overthinking which of the two threads they think they'll post in

 

[JettaKnight]

I think you might be overthinking this in thinking that people are overthinking which of the two threads they think they'll post in

Well, these issues are organizational, not theological.

 

[BugI02]

Speaking only personally, I occasionally peruse both threads and respond to the thread where something is posted that inspires a response. I don't give which thread any thought at all (I know ... go ahead and tell me it shows) as what i'm replying to determines location

 

[foszoe]

Only if you're a modern day Christian.

The organization is theology expressed in the world and was one of the defining differences theologically during the formative years of Protestantism.

Well, these issues are organizational, not theological.