Essay talk:Sorrow for children or just hatred against the Church?

The heirarchy worked incessantly to cover up the rape of children by priests, most of whom still walk free, and even worse, so do their supervisors who covered up the rape and transferred the rapists to fresh sources of innocent children. I don't "hate" the RCC, I hate the criminals who are walking free and the "supervisors" who covered up their crimes. ħuman 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are still saying that it is the systematic work of the whole Church. I'm not surprised, since the Useless Junk systematically covered up everything that could have showed the Church in a good light. Noone payed attention to the explanations Vatican made. You can read an analysis of NYT's lies here.

Plus, I demonstrated that the problem is far worse in secular schools and in other Churches, so that even if you were right, the target of your hate still speaks of your hypocrisy. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The hierarchy did do massive cover ups. Nothing is to be gained from denying this. Especially here in Ireland, they behaved disgracefully. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence please. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My evidence is a decade of reading Irish newspapers, practically every day, listening to Irish radio shows every day, watching Irish TV shows every day, reading irish books every day, reading Irish current affairs magazines every day, and knowing some of the survivors of child sexual abuse. Our parish priest is now in jail for decades of sexual abuse. My local congregation could haunt you with stories of relatives unlucky enough to have went to an industrial school (Essentially borstals run by priests) Ireland didn't know where the state ended and the church began, our education system, our penal system and practically every other national institution is permeated by Catholic infestation. MarcusCicero (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's both the hypocrisy and the cover-ups that got to people, quite apart from the abuse itself. If you set yourself up as some institution which holds the high moral ground then people are, not unnaturally, going to hold you to a higher moral standard. When you fail to meet this they are, shall we say, disappointed.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I stopped going to mass about 4 years ago (though I stopped believing about 8 or 9 years ago) MarcusCicero (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Abusing a position of trust is heinous, no matter who it is, and people are always equally shocked and disgusted with it. Some organisations get selectively reported more than others, however, this is expect because of the nature of these organisations. We get a double whammy from those in the Church doing it because they're the ones that insist on trying to get the monopoly of what constitutes right and wrong. Full-on Catholics hold that their blessed leader, The Pope, is infallible, so you don't expect to turn around and find him covering up abuse scandals. The rates of abuse may be equal or greater in the secular world, but you don't tend to see large cover-ups there where the perpetrators aren't brought to justice and merely just moved on and buried. So you have the cover up AND the hypocrisy of declaring to be the One True Faith and moral compass for the world. It's both wrong, AND total, utter, bullshit. ^narchist 17:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How wrong can someone get it? Stupid wannabes, you didn't even read what I wrote.

• Armondikov, your claim that "Full-on Catholics hold that their blessed leader, The Pope, is infallible" only reveals how little you know about Catholic faith. Pope is only infallible if he proclaims something ex cathedra, and the dogma of papal infallibility certainly doesn't mean that everything Pope says is by its nature absolutely true.
• As demonstrated in my essay, New York Times was wrong when it claimed that Pope tried to cover up something. You actually should read this article. It makes perfectly clear that NYT had very poor sources and that it got the story flatly wrong according to even its own evidence. Reading junk articles and listening to junk radio is not quite enough.
• The real problem lies in some local priests and bishops, and noone denies that. What the haters tell is that RCC is some kind of global union of perverts and the cover-ups are the systematic work of the whole church, that is simply a lie.
• There are sinners in every organization. Why should the nature of RCC mean that every sin of every Catholic throughout the history should be remembered, but the real danger that isover 100 times more likely to happen shouldn't be even mentioned? Remember that those sinners, those pedophiles become priests not because they share the Catholic faith but because the job simply offers many easy ways to abuse young boys.
• And oh, why noone ever pays attention to Vatican's actual explanations that can be easily found on their website? Here, for example.

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So do you think that the church should be held to a higher moral standard then secular organisations or not?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it should. But the problem doesn't lie in the Church itself but only in some of its members, who probably aren't even true Catholics. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why then does your essay seem to object to the church been held to a higher standard? As for your "not true Catholics" see the logical fallacy: No True Scotsman. This is the best example I have seen in a long time.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew you would come up with that bullshit. What I meant was that those pedophiles became Catholic priests only because this job offers many easy ways to abuse young boys, and not because they had any actual interest in Catholic Faith. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So you maintain they "aren't even true Catholics"? Which was your point above. And why does your essay complain about the church being held to a higher standard when you agree it should be? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't complain about that. Church has done nothing wrong, but liberal atheists insist that it has. Big difference. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But a large part of your essay is about other institutions being "worse". Your section "Pedophilia in secular schools and other churches is far more likely" is all about complaining about the church being held to a higher standard.

But if we go with your other point that the Catholic priests involved in the Catholic church sex scandals were not, in fact, Catholics - then I suppose there is no problem for the church.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's an open question if they should be held to a higher standard. I'd postulate yes, if only because they claim to be a moral authority. And as such, a moral authority damn well better do as it tells everyone else to do. Also, Idiot's idiotic nit-picking with infallibility just smacks of having an escape clause from arguing, it doesn't really add anything. As far as evidence suggests, anything the Pope says when he's claiming "divine revelation" is just coming from his own head (or very earthly discussions with cardinals) and nowhere else. Therefore claiming special conditions where he is and isn't allowed to be wrong is fundamentally meaningless. Nevertheless, your supposedly refutation doesn't actually address the point; that the Pope, given that he has the ability to be infallible in the eyes of millions if he so chooses to declare it as such, he should be held to a higher standard than many other sources. We expect our politicians, teachers, scientists, public figures to be good, yet when they're not they are hauled through metaphorical coals for it. Yet nothing similar happens for Catholic priests and the Pope has just covered up the abuses. It doesn't matter if other religions are similar/worse, or secular institutions are similar/worse or even if the Nazi's were similar/worse - this is about the Catholic Church, the cover-up and the fact that as a supposed absolute moral authority, they're happy to bend the rules. No other organisation should enter the argument at any time because that is, at best, just a mere distraction from the issue and hardly an intelligent or admirable form of defence. ^narchist 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the relevant facts (such like that Pope hasn't covered up anything) over and over again apparently doesn't change anything. I quit this stupid conversation. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Abandoning a losing argument and attempting to declare a moral victory is not very convincing.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You started it. The Pope brought Bernard Law to the Vatican for a sinecure to safeguard the protector of rapists from US law. Deny that and lose all credibility. ħuman 10:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, mere nit-picking, I call it a white-washing cover up, he probably calls it his sacred duty, you probably call it something idiotic. The fact is, he signed orders obstructing dealing with a situation essentially for the Church to save face, now it's paying for the fact that it didn't act and kick the situation in the balls when it could have. Now, does Idiot intend on addressing these points or just continuing to squirm through nit-picking at wordings, and claiming that this constitutes ignorance? ^narchist 10:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)