- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Religion IS crazy!
- Thread starter Sean K
- Start date
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
+1.Sorry sails, that must have been devestatiing, we're with you.
They cover themselves so cunningly. Awful for you, sails.
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
Sorry sails, that must have been devestatiing, we're with you.
Thanks Mr Burns and Julia - yes it was awful but a long time ago now so much of that pain has passed with time and a happy marriage to a very decent man for almost 25 years now. However, seeing that post brought it back and the sickening hypocrisy of how these people use religion as a cover for their depraved (imo) activities. I found the deception of it all unbelievable.
Sadly, this sort of thing happens more than we realise.
It's the kids I feel for most - not just my own who also took it pretty hard but their friends to whom he helped himself. I still wonder if they managed to put it behind them or has it affected them for the rest of their lives. So very sad.
Perhaps this is why I still have a heart for children and why I keep sticking up for kids who are probably doing it tough. I learned to see more through the eyes of kids because of my experience and so that's been a positive, imo.
pixel
DIY Trader
- Joined
- 3 February 2010
- Posts
- 5,359
- Reactions
- 344
Sorry sails, that must have been devestatiing, we're with you.
I echo Mr B's and Julia's sentiments, and feel saddened for you keeping those memories.
Question though: Is your ex's behaviour evidence of a sick religion? Or is it mainly his inability to control himself in spite of his religion? I'd say it's his un-Christian behaviour that's crazy. The result is sickening regardless; so the distinction may be a moot point.
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,922
- Reactions
- 1,591
- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
What about the belief of efficient markets, and rational consumers?
A lot of economics and the finance industry are built around beliefs that are beyond crazy to me.
Then we have so many people who know they should be saving for their future, but hope she'll be right mate when the time comes.
Personally, I blame:
* the protozoa that just had to double in size, and it's still super sizing itself in the USA
* meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs
* the Romans - but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Right, it's off the stoning for me.
A lot of economics and the finance industry are built around beliefs that are beyond crazy to me.
Then we have so many people who know they should be saving for their future, but hope she'll be right mate when the time comes.
Personally, I blame:
* the protozoa that just had to double in size, and it's still super sizing itself in the USA
* meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs
* the Romans - but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Right, it's off the stoning for me.
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,922
- Reactions
- 1,591
Well, it has started.....
(sorry, wont let me embed liveleak)
(sorry, wont let me embed liveleak)
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,022
- Reactions
- 11,016
The Catholic Church is on a roll! 
Claiming any moral authority in our society takes at least some common sense.
Claiming any moral authority in our society takes at least some common sense.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,022
- Reactions
- 11,016
Interesting Andrew Bolt is defending the church on this one. I've noticed that when he comments on religious issues he tends to sway to the church's side. He must be Catholic.The Catholic Church is on a roll!
Claiming any moral authority in our society takes at least some common sense.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/horror_two_adults_have_sex_for_years/
While I loathe and abhor the catholic church for it's apalling hypocrisy in dealing with paedaphile priests, I have to say I tend to agree with Andrew Bolt on this one. The woman was not a minor - she must be regarded as a consenting adult. (Please do not read this as my condoning the priest's behaviour - I don't.)
She is not the first young woman who has found herself compromised by a man who wields some sort of authority over her - both inside and outside the church.
Hmm! Anyone remember the 1960's when male bosses used to touch up their young female staff with impunity????
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
I haven't listened to Bolt or heard anything about the case other than what was given above. But it appears to me that anyone classed as "a disabled and vulnerable woman" could not be a consenting adult.
According to the report she has a physical disability which causes her to walk with an abnormal gait. She is a high school teacher and doesn't have a mental disability. I don't know why she was classified as 'vulnerable' or by whom. Why could she not be a consenting adult? (Once again, I stress that I don't condone the priest's behaviour, but surely a 22 year old woman of sound mind must take responsibility for her actions too?)
We don't know what the real circumstances were. Perhaps they fell in love - two adults, only 8 years apart in age - quite a normal occurrence..... and then perhaps at a later date it went sour/ she changed her mind/he changed his mind..... all sorts of things may have happened. If that was the case it puts the whole issue in a different light.
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,922
- Reactions
- 1,591
The Catholic Church is on a roll!
Claiming any moral authority in our society takes at least some common sense.
Terrible.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
I'm with Ruby on her being a consenting adult. She allowed it to go on for fourteen years.
Don't see how her physical disability made her psychologically incapable of rejecting his advances.
That doesn't mean the church should allow him to be still functioning in a pastoral role imo.
Don't see how her physical disability made her psychologically incapable of rejecting his advances.
That doesn't mean the church should allow him to be still functioning in a pastoral role imo.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,022
- Reactions
- 11,016
In regard to the above, yes, the facts are a little bare. I don't think we know enough. It could be deemed she had her full faculties and wasn't in fact groomed and taken advantage of by an authority figure.
However, the church paid her out $100k accepting responsibility for her suffering due to the relationship. An acceptance that it was inappropriate.
Even disregarding the age difference, people in authority relationships in any sense such as teacher-student, doctor-patient, parishioner-priest, must not engage in sexual relationships.
The church sets themselves up as the moral guardians of society and expects to have a say in what is morally right and wrong. In fact, they demand it. Catholicism also demands that there is no sex before marriage, for a start. The fact a celibate priest is having it off with a partitioner and is allowed back into the fold to continue preaching right and wrong, sets the bar of their moral authority.
However, the church paid her out $100k accepting responsibility for her suffering due to the relationship. An acceptance that it was inappropriate.
Even disregarding the age difference, people in authority relationships in any sense such as teacher-student, doctor-patient, parishioner-priest, must not engage in sexual relationships.
The church sets themselves up as the moral guardians of society and expects to have a say in what is morally right and wrong. In fact, they demand it. Catholicism also demands that there is no sex before marriage, for a start. The fact a celibate priest is having it off with a partitioner and is allowed back into the fold to continue preaching right and wrong, sets the bar of their moral authority.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
All you say is right, kennas. I just think there are two separate issues here.
1. the utterly inappropriate behaviour of the priest.
2. the reality that, at 22, the woman had the capacity, surely, to reject him. Instead she allowed the relationship to persist for 14 years.
1. the utterly inappropriate behaviour of the priest.
2. the reality that, at 22, the woman had the capacity, surely, to reject him. Instead she allowed the relationship to persist for 14 years.
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,922
- Reactions
- 1,591
Thank you Julia, you have summed it up very succintly, as always.
pixel
DIY Trader
- Joined
- 3 February 2010
- Posts
- 5,359
- Reactions
- 344
Her disability appears to have been physical (hip dysplasia (sp?)) and she can hardly claim mental disability, having worked as a high school teacher. Having said that, I find that any person, who has been brought up in a strict Catholic environment, ought to be considered "mentally disabled" at least to the extent it takes to resist an ordained church authority. It is part and parcel of "Faith" that clerics are figures of authority and in direct connection with God. Indoctrination from earliest childhood is definitely blunting mental facilities when it comes to recognising the difference between good and evil in a relationship of trust and faith.
PS: That relationship of trust and faith is not limited to Catholic priests. Lutheran teachers of religion are just as susceptible to "hormonal urges", as are young pastors, who have to prepare a class of 14 and 15 year-old girls for their upcoming confirmation.
- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
I knew a few ex Edmund Rice College boys and the stories they told of the behaviour of the male staff there was shocking. Quite few devoutly Catholic Italian families sent their boys there, so when ever things got reported the families were basically brow beaten into silence.
I cannot understand how a parent could let someone else tell them what to do when their child's safety is at risk.