Sins of Our Fathers: The Missing Link…

collarpriestI’ve just watched the Newsnight Scotland discussion on the BBC documentary Sins of Our Fathers – exposing physical and sexual abuse at Fort Augustus Abbey, the prestigious Catholic school in the Highlands – broadcast last night, and available to watch for the next six days.

Throughout the entire documentary (and again on Newsnight Scotland) there wasn’t a single acknowledgment, not a mention of the fact that these were manifestly homosexual attacks by homosexual priests on boys.

And yet, we have Pope Francis widely reported as taking a lax approach to the homosexuals becoming priests. Gimme strength.

Throughout all the handwringing of the TV journalists and their bewildered Catholic interviewees (who, to date have said nothing to inform the discussion that a member of the Orange Order couldn’t have said even better!)  nobody thought to suggest that the Church in Scotland might make a start in clearing out the filth in the Church (to quote Pope Benedict) by instructing all Bishops and seminary rectors  to screen out men who might be tempted to sexual liaisons with other men and boys in much the same way that a supermarket manager would screen out kleptomaniacs.

It’s not exactly the stuff of a first class Degree, is it?  It’s really only common sense.

So, why the avoidance of the terribly obvious? Why has this issue not been hinted at, let alone raised by the BBC and their various commentators? Is it the case that we are not, for a single second, to think that homosexuals abuse children? Or that, perhaps, given the scale of the problem within the Church, homosexuals should not be ordained to the Catholic priesthood? Surely, if the BBC is serious about exposing the extent of this rot, the journalists would wish to exhaust every possible avenue, if not to assist the Church to put its own house in order, then, at least, to protect children?

I am, therefore, particularly disappointed that Mark Daly (an excellent investigative journalist) ducked this issue. I’ll send him the link to this thread in the hope that this little bit of less than subtle flattery just might prompt him to think afresh about the whole sordid business.

Well, you can’t blame a girl for trying, can you?

261 responses

  1. Well, the brainless twits in the media and the looney liberals in the Church will attempt to use these accusations of abuse to question and attack clerical celibacy, but what I want to ask is this: would a man interested in molesting young boys really be interested in Marriage? No, he wouldn’t. Why not? Because this is a homosexual problem.

    • No. It is the fault of a dangerous and unhealthy attitude to sex and sexuality. Just like the Catholic Church… It’s always someone else’s fault!

      • Garry Otton,

        What’s dangerous and unhealthy about the Church insisting on obedience to the revealed teaching that God intended sexual intimacy for marriage?

        Name me anyone with a sexually transmitted disease who obeyed God’s will in this matter.

      • Gary Otton,

        The Church has a completely balanced and healthy attitude towards sex. It’s a pity that her critics are so obsessed with sex, that they cannot see by their own carnal desires. Blinded by perversion, I call it.

          • That’s the most unintelligent thing I’ve read on this blog.

            1. Our Lord was celibate. How on earth could God made man be “perverted”?

            2. Didn’t St Paul praise the celibate life?

            “1 Corinthians, Chap. 7- “Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband… But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself [unmarried]: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I…”

            3. Didn’t Our Lord say that some remain unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom?

            “[11] Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’ s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. “

      • Hi Gary:

        In 2011, the NHS reported that homosexual men – who comprise approx. 0.5% of the population, (according to the ONS) – caused 67% of all new cases of HIV in Scotland.

        In 2012, the figure had risen to 71% of all new cases of HIV in Scotland occurring amongst homosexual men.

        I await this years figure with baited breath, I figure they will likely be trying to beat 75% this year.

        These kinds of statistics are repeating across the developed world, where homosexual men in large cities now have worse HIV infection rates than do the worst affected African nations.

        The US Govt Centre for Disease control recently forecast that, in approx. 30 years, more than half of all homosexual men in the USA will have HIV, based on current infection rates. (This is already the case in San Francisco).

        Tell us again – who is it that you think takes a dangerous and unhealthy approach to sex and sexuality?

        The reality of public health statistics clearly indicates that it is homosexual men – no?

        And do tell us, why are the freely available condoms and millions spend on health campaigns for homosexual men not having any effect on these trends?

        Its because homosexual acts are inherently risky and damaging to health, isn’t it?

        You would do well to drop this silly secular rubbish and concentrate on addressing the rampant and incurable disease which is sweeping through those who insist there is nothing unhealthy about homosexuality. Its beyond parody.

        One would almost think that secularist campaigns and demonstrations outside the Russian embassy are desperate diversion tactics, to divert the attention of homosexuals away from what their lifestyle is doing to their health.

        • WOW! Irrefutable facts and figures – from the NHS, no less, hardly a “bigoted” body!

          Will YOU be unpopular with the PC Brigade, Gabriel Syme!

          Get your tin helmet on and await the fallout!

        • Gabriel, why do you quote the statistics so inaccurately? In the first quarter of 2013, there were 91 new cases of HIV, and the probable route of transmission was 18 cases of male sex with a man. If 0.5% of the Scottish population is gay male, then that is roughly 0.07% of the gay male population.

          http://www.hivscotland.com/data-and-research/fast-facts/

          Also, the ONS does not say that 0.5% of the population were gay male. They record what percentage in their survey said they were straight, gay, other/don’t know/no response. Given that fewer people identify as gay in Northern Ireland than in London, people appear afraid to admit they are gay, because of bigoted hostility. Consider that only about 94% said they were heterosexual, and few have been ashamed of that.

          http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_280451.pdf

          When people quote statistics on blogs, facebook, etc, a quick google is often a useful eye-opener.

          • Naughty, naughty Clare, Sugar Plum. Gabriel Syme cited stats from 2011 and 2012. He specifically said he was awaiting this years figures with bated breath.

            You lot really do need to watch those Specsavers ads. Like, soon.

          • If 0.5% of the Scottish population is gay male, then that is roughly 0.07% of the gay male population

            Hi Clare,

            I am afraid the above is “what-aboutery”. You cant seek to suggest there is no problem, because only some homosexual men have HIV currently.

            Its like saying drink driving is no big deal, because only a few people do it.

            I mentioned the US Govt CDC report, which clearly states that HIV will become the norm among homosexual men in only a few decades, so the way ahead is very clear. Here is some press coverage of it:

            “If HIV continues to spread at current rates, half of college-aged gay men will have the infection by the age of 50

            http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/03/gay-community-won-battles-on-marriage-but-may-be-losing-war-on-hivaids

            Its frankly amazing that a group of people is being consumed by incurable disease, and yet all they want to talk about is “marriage” and boycotting the Winter Olympics.

            I don’t think their priorities are quite right, do you? Its pure escapism.

            Currently 1 in 5 homosexual men across the USA has HIV, rising to 1 in 2 in San Fransisco. In the UK, the figure is 1 in 20, rising to 1 in 12 in London.

            By the time I am an old man, the majority of homosexual men will have HIV and will require daily medication, just to stay alive.

            Are homosexual people happy about this? I can only assume they must be, given they do their best to ignore the matter and quickly foam at the mouth if anyone has the audacity to mention it.

            Also, the ONS does not say that 0.5% of the population were gay male

            In the largest ever survey to include sexual orientation – a survey which took in nearly half a million responses – it was found that:

            “The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says 480,000 (1%) consider themselves gay or lesbian, and 245,000 (0.5%) bisexual”.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629

            So, if 1.0% say they are homosexual, then its reasonable to assume roughly 0.5% will be homosexual males.

            people appear afraid to admit they are gay, because of bigoted hostility

            I don’t buy that for a minute.

            So, homosexuals are happy to dance down a public road in these Pride parades, wearing nothing but their underpants – or in drag even – while making as big a spectacle of themselves as possible, but……..

            ……at the same time, they are afraid to admit they are homosexual, in an anonymous survey?

            Absolute rubbish.

            Efforts to grossly inflate their numbers is a old and tired tactic of the homosexual lobby.

            The fact of the matter is that homosexual men will always dominate HIV statistics; because homosexual acts misuse the human body, they are at a higher risk.

            The anus is not a sexual organ. Unlike the Vagina – which is strong and pliable, to withstand the rigours of childbirth and intercourse – the anus is delicate and easily damaged. It is not meant to be penetrated by any object, and when it is, it is easily cut or torn. This exposure of the bloodstream in this way is a major factor as to why homosexual men are so badly affected, as is the introduction of sexual fluids into the absorbent intestinal area, where they are not meant to be.

            I notice the NHS have changed their website, rather than give yearly figure for HIV among homosexual men, they now give a running average from the past years. This is because this method plays the statistics down (stats are increasingly yearly, so including older, lower, figures, allows them to drop the average, to hide the reality).

            It now says:

            “In the last five years, two-thirds of HIV transmission in Scotland has occurred in men who have sex with men”

            http://www.hiv-wakeup.org.uk/

            Last year it gave a single figure of 71%.

            By the way – “men who have sex with men” – that’s homosexual men its talking about. I don’t care for these fast-changing nicknames, designed to hide the nature of what is being discussed.

            So, from above, if we know ~0.5% of the population are homosexual men, the elephant in the room is, why are homosexual men over-represented in the HIV stats by such a massive amount?

            That is the correct analysis, not “oh, well, its only a few of them currently”.

            It is grossly irresponsible for the Government and NHS to portray homosexuality as holding no specific or exaggerated risks to health.

            Indeed, if smoking gave you HIV, we would hear all about it, but not a peep currently amid their incoherent approach to public health.

            When people quote statistics on blogs, facebook, etc, a quick google is often a useful eye-opener.

            I would never seek to deceive or fool anyone, by fibbing or distortion. I have no agenda other than the simple truth.

      • Garry Otton,

        It’s only unhealthy to someone who has no grasp of the soul and man’s supernatural vocation. Of course it’s madness to worldlings who live only to satiate the animal passions. But for Christian’s, for celibate priests and religious in particular, it’s the sacrifice of all human gratification for higher pleasures and joys that you cannot begin to comprehend.

  2. Petrus,

    I agree totally.

    As for why didn’t Mark Daly highlight the homosexual connection, well, I suppose it’s the fear of being labelled “homophobic” – that label shuts down all discussion of any problems with the gay lifestyle, its associated health problems etc. Since it was removed from the list of mental health disorders, no such discussion is tolerated.

  3. Petrus,

    I absolutely agree with you.. The media will use this scandal to start another campaign against celibacy, when the problem isn’t celibacy it’s homosexuality.

    I also agree with Jacinta that it’s the fear of being called “homophobic” that prevents journalists from identifying the issue. In fact, the time will come when anyone who dares to say the things we’re saying just now, will be locked up. So much for democracy and free speech!

  4. The assumption that priests abusing boys and young men is indicative of their homosexuality is possibly unwarranted.
    I have heard it said that men – and maybe women, I don’t know – who are in a situation where normal sexual relations are not available to them will participate in what ever sexual activity IS possible. Examples might be prison, where men who would have nornmal relations with wives or girfriends on the outside will sometimes engage in homosexual acts when in jail. I think something of the kind has also been said about sailors on long voyages.
    Priests in parishes who cannot or will not live a celibate life as they ought, would probably be able to find willing female partners if that is what they want, although they may feel “safer” with boys who are less likely to tell. In the more enclosed, single sex, worlds of monasteries and boys boarding schools, it may be that it’s a case of taking what is available.
    Probably some abusing priests are homosexual and probably some are not.

    • I’m afraid I disagree. The men I know are disgusted at the very idea of same-sex relations and wouldn’t dream of engaging in such. I know one young man who was in prison for a time and he screwed up his face when I put your argument to him, and said “no way!” Maybe some would, of course, but I don’t think so on any scale worth talking about. I think it stretches the imagination to think that (taking the example of Fort Augustus alone) so many priests would be doing this in the same place, over a period of years, unless they had that homosexual orientation.

      Also, nobody forces anybody to be a priest, so it’s not accurate to speak of “a situation where normal sexual relations are not available to them” – why did they become priests in the first place, and why choose a monastery? It seems quite obvious to me that these men were / are homosexuals. It is also unthinkable that, even if your argument was correct, that they would be actively homosexual due to normal relations being unavailable, that they would abuse boys.

      The shocking website Sebastian’s Angels (USA) for homosexual priests had many comments from those men expressing a preference for boys and the younger the better. Their descriptions of the boys, as cute etc and joking about new altar boys, were disgusting. The site was pulled after it was exposed by Roman Catholic Faithful, run by a layman.

      I really think there cannot be any link between celibacy, which is freely chosen by those who wish to be priests, and child sexual abuse. Even if celibacy is not freely chosen, for example, someone who just doesn’t meet the right person or can’t marry for whatever reason (perhaps caring for sick parents etc.) it doesn’t mean they are bitterly frustrated and a danger to kids. The link is homosexual orientation and that is why gays should not be accepted into seminaries. It’s a lack of charity to put temptation in their way, which is what happens when they are working closely every day and living with other men (and later with children).

      I am not saying every homosexual is a danger to kids, BTW. That’s not what I’m saying. I hope that comes across clearly enough, but same-sex attraction means that if they are attracted to others of the same sex, boys will be at risk.

    • I just don’t buy that argument. I don’t think there’s any evidence to support it, except anecdotal. This is a homosexual issue, plain and simple. A priest with a true vocation would be horrified at the thought of homosexual acts. This is why the Church forbids those who have a strong homosexual inclination from ordination. They are incompatible.

      A lot of people tend to think that all sexual indiscretions by a priest are equally bad. I can’t agree. A priest who has sexual relations with a woman commits a serious sin and causes scandal, but I firmly believe that a priest who engages in homosexual acts does something much, much worse. Homosexual acts cry out to Heaven for vengeance!

      • Petrus, your assumption that homosexuality and paedophilia are intrinsically linked is quite simply untrue. As much as you may wish it to be, so that you can use it as an excuse to vent your homophobic bigotry.
        Most paedophiles are in fact heterosexual men/woman who frequently are known or related to their victims. Your comments suggest to me that you your self have unresolved anger issues and at best a paranoid dislike of homosexuals and at worst a pathological hatred of such people.
        Perhaps you are a homosexual, unable to come to terms with the gift of sexuality that God has in His mercy bestowed on you, and therefore feel frustrated and angry at being unable to reconcile yourself with your catholic faith. You may be living a lie covering up your true nature, and this of course becomes very difficult and energy consuming as time goes by.
        You seem to need a good Spiritual Director, who can guide you through these areas on a spiritual level and a good counsellor to help you come to terms with your reality. I suggest the Garnethill counselling Centre would be a good place to start on both counts.
        In the meantime I will pray that the Holy Spirit will be with you and guide you through this time.
        God Bless you.

      • Freud,

        You use all the old caveats to try to intimidate Petrus into silence. You should at least try to be original with your argument.

        It may also profit you to learn the difference between paedophilia and pederasty, the latter being a sexual attraction of male adults to pubescent boys and by far the more widespread sin of our time, a kind of return, if you like, to ancient pagan practices. This kind of thing was rife in old Greece, Rome, Persia, Sparta, etc.

        Now, you tell us what such a male/male sexual attraction is if not homosexuality.

        Here’s a wee quote from St. Paul to help you figure it out:

        “…Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

        For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error…”

  5. I am struck by the lessons you draw. I consider this abuse shows the corrupting power of priests in the RC church, and the damage the celibacy rule does. Gay men often have the gifts which make them excellent pastors: do not deny the vocations you have. I read there are 2566 parish churches in England and Wales, and ordinations in 2012 to the priesthood were 31, a ten year high but clearly not sufficient to maintain ministry to those parishes.

    • Clare Flourish,

      The celibacy rule only damages those who do not have a true vocation. The priesthood is a very noble vocation and anybody who wants to live a worldly life alongside a priestly life just doesn’t understand what the priesthood is all about.
      The first apostles (priests) left everything, everything, to follow Jesus, and that sets the bar for the priests who followed them right down to our present day priesthood.

      The Catholic Church has a rich history of priest-saints down the centuries. The problem is that today there is a crisis of faith in the Church where Catholics, even some priests, want the Church to bend to the ways of the world.

      You say to these homosexuals not to “deny” their vocation, calling to the priesthood, but, to use the example in this blog post, would you say that to a kleptomaniac who wanted to work in a shop?

      • Brilliant! You have the answer, not just for the Catholic church but for all other Christian churches. We need more Saints! Congratulations!

        But- 31 new priests for 2500 parishes. Given that we have so few saints, er, do you have another answer?

  6. Clare Flourish,

    Er… there ARE no other “Christian churches”. Christ founded only one. And “we” have thousands of saints, dating back 2000 years.

    Next question?

    • Er, just for the avoidance of doubt…

      Do you mean the “Roman Catholic Church” as the only one Christian church, all of it recognising the Pope as its head, or do you include the Orthodox church as well?

    • Sorry, but there are other Christian churches. The individual dioceses of Orthodoxy are churches because they have a valid apostolic succession and therefore a valid celebration of the Eucharist. And it is the Eucharist that makes the Church. (The documents of the Second Vatican Council are very careful never to apply the term ‘church’ to Christian realities in which there is not a valid celebration of the Eucharist, e.g. to the Anglican Communion.)

      • Firmiter,

        I suggest you read the excellent article on The Eastern Churches by Peter Mackin published on p.12 of the current edition of Catholic Truth, online now at our Newsletter page. That may help clarify things for you.

    • It is the ‘Orthodox Church’ which does not and cannot exist. But, for the reasons I have stated above, Orthodox Churches do exist.

      • Firmiter,

        I repeat – I suggest you read the excellent article on The Eastern Churches by Peter Mackin published on p.12 of the current edition of Catholic Truth, online now at our Newsletter page. That may help clarify things for you.

  7. On today’s lunchtime news on BBC Scotland they said that more victims have come forward since seeing the programme and another three priests supposedly abused boys. This is like an epidemic. I thought Scotland had escaped this scourge, but it seems not.

    No wonder Pope Benedict talked about the filth in the Church. It looks like the BBC are going to have to clear it out, though, since nobody in authority in the Church seems to be doing a thing about it. That is just about as shocking as the original allegations. I know the Benedictines were directly answerable to Rome but as Mark Daly keeps saying, the Scottish hierarchy made a lot of how important the Abbey school was to the Scottish Church, so they can’t have it both ways. They should assist the police in every way they can and I think, in all fairness, they are doing that. The whole thing leaves a horrible taste in the mouth though, but the poison has to be brought out before the medicine can work.

  8. I keep meaning to put in my comments an observation about the BBC, that they are regarded as being anti-Catholic so they might have their own ulterior motives for putting out this documentary and carrying on this investigation. I know it doesn’t change the truth of the content, and it’s wrong to shoot the messenger, but we shouldn’t forget about it. They have to put their own house in order as well after the Jimmy Saville scandal so they can hardly take the high moral ground.

    • The idea that the BBC cannot investigate or report on sexual abuse scandals because of their own bad history, is about as credible as saying that Cardinal O’Brien should not have propounded Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality because of his own weakness in that area. It also means most of us couldn’t speak about ANYTHING – as St Francis de Sales said, if we had to speak better than we act, we’d ALL have to remain silent!

      Whether we like it or not, the BBC is doing us a service (whatever their own motives) – as Pope St Gregory the Great said: “It is better that scandal should arise, than that the truth be suppressed”.

      Only those who would be quite happy in the knowledge that their own children were in the care of any of these alleged abusers, could possibly object to the BBC investigation.

  9. Clare Flourish,

    “How serious is being “schismatic”? If we are only in Protestant Churches”, are we saved from the fires of Hell?”

    Being “schismatic” is very serious – it means being cut off from the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope and it was the first pope, St Peter, who Jesus put in charge of “the keys” – i.e. deciding who gets into Heaven, to put it simply. From the beginning the “experts” in the Church believed that “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” so it’s obviously very serious indeed to be in schism.

    Anyone who is not a member of the visible Church on earth might not end up in Hell but if they don’t end up in Hell it’s because of the graces coming to them through the Catholic Church, although not sure I’m explaining it very well. Speaking personally, I would not feel safe in a church of only 400 years or so, I’d want to be in the one founded by Christ.

    We’re off topic, though, so will get a rollicking!

  10. Clare Flourish/Margaret Mary,

    Please, if you wish to switch topic, go to the General Discussion thread. Thank you.

    There is, it seems, a promise by the Benedictine Order to investigate – it was difficult not to feel sorry for their Superior on the film, as he struggled to find excuses for not doing so to date.

    The reluctance of the Scottish hierarchy to speak out may be for fear of being sued, although technically the Order is self-governing. Not sure how much weight that would carry in a secular court of law.

    In fact, though, one of the things that has impressed me about the victims in this scandal – unlike other claimants – is that they have expressed no interest in seeking compensation. I’ve found each of them credible, unlike certain others who shall remain nameless (in case they sue me!)

    God help them – what a dreadful experience. Notably, their current religious status was not mentioned on the film, so we don’t know if they have abandoned the Church as a result of the abuse they suffered, of if, as adults, they were clear minded enough to know that they were not abused by “The Church” but by very VERY bad priests.. Let’s hope and pray so.

    Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for them.

  11. I find the constant showing by the BBC of processions of “concelebrants” and mitred gents which accompanies the story every time, rather nauseating. I begin to have some sympathy with the beata simplicitas of the Church of Scotland. (sshhh!)

    • Leo Hayden-Clarke

      the processions of bishops and priests is not usually nauseating – our Catholic ceremonial, vestments etc is enriching. It’s knowing that there has been such a cover-up which is nauseating.

      • I agree. Why on earth someone would focus on what bishops are wearing and call THAT nauseating when the real issue is homosexual child abuse is beyond me. Truly unbelievable.

  12. I expect you all know about this latest scandal in Galloway Diocese, but here is the link anyway
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/paul-moore-catholic-sex-abuse

    I think it is all very depressing. Pope Francis is showing no sign of seeing any crisis at all, and all the cavorting bishops at WYD just underlined the “emperor’s new clothes” approach of the hierarchy, pretending all is well when everything is wrong.

    The devil is having a field day. We need to pray extra hard for the good priests right now – they must be finding all this very tough indeed.

    • Galloway Diocese has been dying for thirty years or more, certainly under the stewardship of Emeritus + Maurice Taylor, one who even preached against the ordained priesthood [I was present] in favour of lay-led/house churches.

      He closed one parish, with which I was acquainted, and the congregation facilitated to attend Mass at a nearby Protestant venue, the pastor at which was an ex-Catholic. The parish was run by a priest from an adjacent parish by a priest, who was an ex-Protestant Minister – later prosecuted for some child pornography offence. That same priest was allowed to acquire a Free Church chapel, in another town – when a convent closed, furnishing it at great cost. There was no altar, only two or three large tables joined together, around which the congregation were seated. Old Rite anathema.

      +Maurice Taylor had been rector of the Scottish Seminary in Spain, one has to speculate what that seminary spawned in the way of clergy.

    • Josephine see this:

      JULY 31, 2013, 3:11 PM
      Conservative Catholics and the New Pope
      A number of Catholics of my acquaintance are resistant to the idea, raised in my last post on Pope Francis, that there might be real daylight between the new pontiff’s emerging program and the approach of his two predecessors. In their view, the possibility that Francis intends to be a social-justice pope who deliberately soft-pedals debates over doctrine and morals is just a media creation, reflecting press caricatures of the church’s divisions rather than Francis’s actual statements and intent.
      They might be right: I don’t think anyone can doubt that Francis differs from Benedict XVI stylistically and liturgically, but beyond that sweeping conclusions are as yet unwarranted. But I still want to elaborate on a brief aside from my earlier post, and explain why it might actually be good for conservative Catholics in America to have a pope who makes them a little more uncomfortable, and (what’s left of) the American church’s liberal wing a little more enthusiastic, than either John Paul II or Benedict did.
      The first reason involves a point made by R.R. Reno, the editor of First Things, in a recent symposium on that religious journal’s future. Writing about the American Christian situation in an age of secularization and political polarization, Reno observed:
      When First Things was founded, Richard John Neuhaus could presume a broad range of religiously engaged people who had diverse political commitments … We saw ourselves speaking on behalf of the majority and against a narrow secular elite.
      This is no longer true. Over the last twenty years, the percentage of Americans declaring themselves religiously unaffiliated (the Nones) has grown dramatically, now having reached 20 percent. Moreover, this group has become politically powerful and is now a large and favored constituency in the Democratic party. The Obama campaign calculated that it could energize this base of support (remember the “war on women”) without damaging its electoral chances …
      The consequences? First, religiosity now strongly correlates with partisan loyalty. Nones are overwhelmingly Democrat. Regular churchgoers, especially but not exclusively Evangelicals, trend ­Republican. This politicizes religion. Second, religious people are becoming more and more dependent on the Republican party to protect their interests (religious liberty, for example). We could easily become a taken-for-granted base largely irrelevant to the party’s larger policy debate, as African-Americans often are in the Democratic party. Third, religion, especially orthodox Christianity, may end up implicated in the inevitable failures and corruptions of the Republican party. We may be in danger of recapitulating in some ways the disastrous alliances of the Catholic Church with the European right in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
      I think this analysis suggests a positive case, in the American context at least, for a papacy that simultaneously calls U.S. Catholics away from a too-close entanglement with the fortunes and platform of the Republican Party, and that consistently reminds non-Catholics and non-Christians that there is more to Christianity than the particular set of issues that have (understandably) kept many American believers in a right-of-center political orbit. This is, again, something that the last two popes did as well — but if Pope Francis’s public profile continues to come across as more “liberal” than theirs, it might actually play a helpful role in complicating the “partisan captivity” scenario that Reno sketches out.
      So that’s the positive case. The more negative case is that to the extent that conservative Catholics in the United States find themselves actively disagreeingwith Pope Francis’s emphases, whether on political issues or matters internal to the church or both, it might help cure them/us of the recurring Catholic temptation toward papolatry.
      This temptation was sharpened for many Catholics by John Paul II’s charisma and Cold War statesmanship and then Benedict’s distinctive intellectual gifts, and by their common role as ecumenical rallying points for orthodox belief in an age of heresy. But if the tendency is understandable, it’s also problematic, because the only thing that Catholics are supposed to rely on the papacy for is the protection of the deposit of faith, and on every other front — renewal, governance, holiness — it’s extremely important for believers to keep their expectations low.
      At various points during the last two pontificates, of course, it’s been liberal and heterodox Catholics who have consoled themselves with precisely this perspective, and with the belief that (as the writer Paul Elie put it, in an Atlantic article on the election of Joseph Ratzinger) “much of what is best in the Catholic tradition has arisen in the shadow of an essentially negative papacy.” But conservative Catholics need not agree with the liberal theological program to recognize that there is truth to the underlying insight. The papal office has been occupied by many more incompetents than geniuses, and there’s a reason why so few occupants of the chair of Peter show up in the litany of the saints. Or at least until so few until now — and here I agree absolutely with this point from Michael Brendan Dougherty, in a piece about the overlooked aspects of Francis’s now-famous post-Brazil interview:
      For one thing, Pope Francis not only touted the impending canonizations of Pope John XIII and Pope John Paul II, but also the “causes” of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul I. Are we seriously to believe that every recent pope was a saint, even when the church has experienced unbelievable contraction and criminal scandal under their pontificates? Seems like the Church needs an “Advocatus Diaboli” again to point out the faults of candidates for sainthood …
      So popes are not all saints, and the pope isn’t identical with the church — and it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for conservative Catholics to reckon with this fact. Maybe this pontificate won’t be the time for that reckoning. But if the historical record is indicative, it won’t be permanently delayed.

      • CrofterLady,

        Is there a link to that article, or can you at least tell us the source? I’m presuming, for reasons I won’t go into here (although not being sued is one of them) that you ARE quoting from an article: the above fluent thought-process did not come from out of your own head – surely?!

  13. Sixupman,

    Thank you for that overview of the life of former Bishop of Galloway, Maurice-The-Terror-Taylor. It’s getting easier by the second to see what Pope Paul VI meant when he said: “from somewhere…the smoke of Satan has entered the holy temple of God (the Church)” Wish I’d been there to suggest “possibly – at least in part – from your brand new Mass, Holy Father?”

    • Editor, that article was sent to me by an Irish friend. It’s by a Ross Douthat in the New York Times. I don’t have a direct link but if you look at the New York times on that date you should be able to find it. Otherwise, I can write to my friend and ask for the link.

      I’ll ignore your “comment”……..

  14. Not to clutter up the General Discussion thread and since this is on the subject of homosexuality, I thought I would post this little jewel here.

    Is this a surprise or what… Or rather, NOT!

    Don’t know about you, but I thought they’d be canny enough to wait a bit. So much for the “guarantee” that churches would not be sued. Like just about every other government “guarantee” – the only guarantee we have at elections is that we are electing another bunch of guys and gals who are ultra economical with the truth…

    • Editor,

      There was no “reply” button next to Freud’s post, so I’m going to reply here instead.

      Freud,

      Thank you so much for your concern about my spiritual and mental well being. However, I must admit I yawned when I read it. It seems if anyone dares to criticise homosexuality then they must be homosexual themselves! Hilarious. My wife, particularly, found your post funny.

      Athanasius is absolutely spot on. The majority of these reported cases are, in fact, pederasty. Older men abusing young teenage boys.

      In fact, there’s a strong link between pederasty and homosexuality. Homosexual militants are quite open about this. Just take a look at Peter Tatchell’s websites and you will see. There was also a well known homosexual priest in the Diocese of Motherwell, not sure if you know him, who had links with the paedophile information exchange. So, I’m basing my conclusion on what homosexuals have said – and lobbied for – for many years.

      • Freud,

        I think the facts speak for themselves. Peter Tatchell’s campaign for the lowering of the age of consent to 14 (and then, what? Even younger?) speaks for itself and the “youth oriented” nature of homosexual activity is explained in this very interesting and very well documented article.

        What is particularly noticeable about “gays” and their proponents – as Athanasius already pointed out – is that their immediate response to any critic, is to accuse them of being a “closet gay”. If I thought it worked that way, I’d find a list of all the winners of the Miss World competitions since their inception, and vociferously criticise every last one of them. Gerragrip.

      • Petrus, I am very pleased your wife was amused! I note you tell me very quickly you have a wife !!!!! Please please don’t quote Peter Tatchell as having ANYTHING valid to say. Most right thinking homosexuals would not give him house room or agree with ANYTHING that muppet has to say. He does not now nor ever has been an acceptable spokes person for the Homosexual population. Rather like the editor, and this site,he spouts a great deal of rubbish , is very noisy in his opinions and stamps his foot when he doesn’t get his own way. A very poor example! My point still remains Homosexual persons are not paedophiles in the main and to couple paedophilia and homosexuality as linked is very wrong of you

  15. Freud,

    I have searched through this thread trying to find where I said there is a link between paedophile and homosexuality. I didn’t.

    The vast majority of abuse by priests has been pederasty, not paedophilia. However, I stand by what I said: the problem is clearly homosexual priests. A priest who is not homosexual is not going to abuse boys.

    I note you noting that I have a wife. This is another tactic of homosexuals. When someone clearly shows that they are not homosexual, they immediately cry “denial”. It really is a wicked lifestyle!

    • Petrus, your link is very much implied, I think you said commenting on the abuse of boys, that it was a homosexual problem, it simply is not. The fact that you wont except that correction is sad but true. It just means that that you are unable to accept – like it or not – that God created homosexual and Heterosexual in His Divine plan. Like it or not Homosexuality is a fact of life. There is no such thing as a’ Homosexual lifestyle’ anymore than a ‘ Heterosexual lifestyle’; except in the in the fertile imagination of those who really don’t know what such a phrase actually means. Perhaps in your wisdom you could explain the phrase to me

      • Chardom/Freud,

        Did you READ the article I provided? Here’s the link again.

        God created human beings, made it very clear that marriage is between a man and a woman and that those humans who engage in pseudo-sexual relations with others of the same gender are doing something that is gravely disordered. That’s what the experts who have studied Scripture, Tradition, human biology and psychology have long concluded. Let’s stick with it. It’s been tried and tested and it seemed to work just fine until Adam & Steve came along to tell us differently. Gerragrip.

      • Chardom,

        And you clearly have not read the above link by editor @ 2.40pm. Nor, it appears, have you digested my quote from St. Paul which rather undermines your take on God’s Divine plan.

        And if you think St. Paul is frank about that “gravely disordered” tendency, then you should try reading St. Peter Damian on the subject. Believe me, no one who reads Letter 31 of the Book of Gomorrah would ever again contemplate the ludicrous notion that God looks benignly on the homosexual act.

      • I can’t accept that God creates men or women “homosexual”. He makes us to know Him, love Him and serve Him. Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It would be impossible for God to create a human being with an inclination that could possibly lead to eternal damnation. Impossible.

        Homosexuality must, therefore be either a lifestyle choice or an acquired disorder. There’s no other explanation.

  16. Petrus, we agree, break out the champagne!!!!!!! God created us all to know him, love Him and serve Him. And yet some of those created are homosexual!! The Divine Creator certainly loves variety doesn’t HE/SHE. The states of Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are states of being, they are not ‘choices’ per se and in themselves are therefore not sinful. The sin comes from the way in which we all at times abuse God’s gifts i.e. when they are not used to build the Kingdom of God here on earth. God endows His creatures with many blessings which we don’t always appreciate.
    Nothing and no one created by God is disordered. God loves His creation so much that He sent His only Son to save us from the effects of original sin, caused by the fall from grace of Adam and Eve, (or Adam and Steve) for those who insist in believing mythological stories.
    We are all recipients of that act of redemption and therefore of Gods love.
    Perhaps the disorder stems from those who persistently refuse to accept that God’s love is for ALL, His redemption is for ALL . If a person cannot accept this then I would suggest that homosexuality is not the acquired disorder, but rather the refusal to accept Gods creation in all its forms and beauty is the acquired disorder with all the confusion which comes from that.

    • Freud,

      You’re right, God does not create disorder, the devil does that through fallen human nature. Homosexuality, says the Catholic Church, the only true Church, is “Gravely disordered.” What does that tell you?

      Despite ignoring my previous posts, I refer you again to St. Paul, St. Peter Damian and the moral teaching of the Church. Let me just say that all sex outside of marriage, either between two men, two women or a man and a woman, constitutes a breaking of the Commandments of God (adultery) which will lead the unrepentant to Hell for all eternity.

      That leaves homosexuals completely without justification for their behaviour, since marriage, despite modern idiocy, is between a man and a woman. No other union is recognised by God. Good grief! even the old pagan cultures, debauched as they were, recognised only a man and a woman in marriage.

      Finally, you constantly refer to God as though you believe in Him, although the “He/She” references really do raise serious doubts on that front.

      Anyway, it would pay you to remember Our Lord’s own words, who said: “Not all those who say Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. But those who do the will of my Father, they shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, one can hardly claim to be doing the will of the Father if one breaks His Commandments and teaches others to do likewise. What that kind of Christianity amounts to is superficial hypocrisy.

    • Freud,

      If the story of Adam and Eve is, as you claim, “mythological,” then what need was there for the Redemption of Christ? Take out the source of Original Sin and there’s no sin at all and consequently no requirement for a Redeemer. You see where your error leads you?

      Furthermore, all human beings in this world can be traced back genetically to a common mother. How do you explain that?

    • Freud,

      Athanasius has written some really good replies. Let me add some thoughts.

      You are right – homosexual inclinations are not in themselves sinful. However, they are gravely disordered. It is a heavy cross for the person with this disorder to carry. However, the reward will no doubt be great for those who persevere.

      God does not create disorder, therefore it is impossible or God to create a soul with this awful orientation. Therefore, it must be an acquired disorder. I believe it is primarily a spiritual disorder that can be acquired by exposing the soul to evil. The antidote to this spiritual disorder is prayer and mortification.

      However, I believe it can also be a psychological disorder. Irregular upbringing and possible abuse, either physical or sexual, must play a part. Indeed, early exposure to sexual material/pornography – clearly an abuse – can be very damaging.

      Sexual relations are how we play a privileged part in God’s creation. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil because they pervert God’s creation.

  17. Petrus, how do you explain the physical appearance, i.e. the obvious masculinity/femininity of many homosexuals, including their actions? Surely no one can desire or acquire these from the very day they are born, or conceived even.

    • God does not create disorder, therefore those who have the God given gift of homosexuality are not disordered, its not difficult to understand. As I have already stated it is the way in which we use the gifts of
      God which cause problems, and it is in the way WE ALL misuse those gifts in every sphere of our lives that fracture our Godly relationship and is therefore sinful. We are all exposed to evil one way or another so how come the world is not 100% homosexual?
      Once we can clear the hurdle of misused words and phrases such as disordered or grave orientation or awful affliction and stop wrongfully pitying such ‘persons afflicted’ etc. and see the individual, as a child of God, and Heir to the Kingdom; Son or Daughter of God through Jesus Christ, and therefore very precious in His eyes then and only then can we move forward. Until then homosexuals will always be subject to the bigotry, fear and prejudice of those who refuse to accept God’s will, sad but true!!!

      • Again, you ignore Holy Scripture. Saint Paul says homosexuals cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. By on earth would God create someone whose inclinations would mean they couldn’t enter Heaven? Doesn’t make sense. God created us to be “happy with Him in next world”. Homosexuality is not God given – it is demonic.

  18. Prionsais,

    It’s odd that you should ask that question because I have been reading this thread and asking myself a slightly different question. How is it that gay couples always have a “male” and “female” role-player. One is always dressed and acting like a man, the other like a woman. The redefinition of marriage legislation is allowing them to use the terms “husband” and “wife” as well I think I’m correct in saying.

    So, why are they doing this if it’s perfectly natural for two men and two women to have such intimate relationships as that between a male and female?

    • Petrus, why indeed would God create His Sons and Daughters
      with a homosexual orientation only to refuse them entry to heaven. It is the will of the Father that all men(women) should be saved…….Something for you to think about!!!

      • Well, Freud, we’re ALL born with an inclination to sin – that’s the effect of Original Sin. Doesn’t mean God wants us to sin. We need to use the Sacraments of His Church, especially Penance, to build the life of grace in our souls, to enable us to overcome temptations, whether that temptation is to steal, kill, or engage in unnatural sexual activity.

        Simple really…

        Fancy have a “Freud” on the blog. Shucks. Now’s the time to have that nervous breakdown folks!

      • Freud,

        As I stated earlier from the gospel, Our Lord says: “Not all those who say Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. But those who do the will of my Father, they shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

        Committing adultery breaks the Commandments of God. Those who act thus and do not repent of it will NOT go to heaven. Do you have some difficult comprehending this truth?

  19. Marietta-Anne, I just feel that it is difficult to believe that these unfortunates are not born with these inclinations. As the saying goes “it’s in the genes”. Even the horrible comedian, Frankie Howard, stated that he was ashamed and disgusted after indulging in these acts, so it certainly didn’t seem that he acquired them voluntarily

    • I believe these mannerisms are acquired or put on. The way a child is brought up can influence the way he acts. Also, I’ve seen many homosexuals acting normally when in mainstream company and then putting on a real show when in the company of other homosexuals.

      I also believe that the female hormones in soya products (a large ingredient of formula milk) and drinking water can have a negative effect on behaviour.

    • Prionsais,

      I think the debate about the origin of these inclinations is a bit of a red herring thrown in by homosexuals to muddy the waters. The fact is that regardless of the origin of the inclination, God expects us all to bear our individual crosses and not consent to mortal sin.

      Sexual sins are only one way of losing God’s grace. There are other ways of ending up in Hell relating to breaches of the other Commandments. The fact is we either try to live by the Commandments or we willfully break them and blind ourselves to the fact, which is about as serious as it gets.

      Our Lord’s admonition is very clear, who said: If you love me you will keep my Commandments.” Active homosexuals, like all others who live in habitual mortal sin, need to acknowledge this truth and start detesting their sinful indulgences instead of trying to justify them as wholesome and Christian, which of course they are not.

      • Athanasius,

        I completely agree – the talk about origin of inclinations is a red herring. Whatever the origin, the orientation is a bad thing to be overcome. The trouble with homosexuals is that they don’t think their activities are sinful. That’s the big difference, there’s a blindness there and because the Church is in crisis with so many priests falling into that grievous disorder, they are not being challenged by the charity of clerics preaching God’s law on the subject. Consciences are dead as a result of this crisis. We ought to pray that Our Lady of Fatima intervenes soon.

  20. Petrus,

    To avoid confusion, especially for any genuine enquirers about Catholicism who might drop in, could you please clarify / correct your statement that “Saint Paul says homosexuals cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
    I don’t think that is what you meant to say.
    Thanks.

  21. Eileenanne,

    “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates {malakoi}, nor homosexuals {arsenokoitai}, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

    Practising homosexuals, like all mortal sinners, cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. However, chaste persons with a homosexual inclination certainly can.

    • Heavens going to be a very empty place Petrus!!!!! Do you know the greek words for thieves, idolater,s adulterers, greedy and drunkards, revilers, robbers (aren’t they the same as thieves). You seem to know the words for effeminates and homosexuals, but not the others; what does that suggest I wonder?. Doesn’t St. Paul say something about where sin abounds there is grace???……….

      • Freud,

        Yes, St. Paul does indeed say that where sin abounds grace also abounds. But he meant that grace abounds in order to combat sin.

      • Not sure what you mean, Freud when you say “what does that suggest?!” Explain.

        For the record, I have no idea what the Greeks words are for theives etc. I had no idea what the Greek words were for effeminate and homosexual until I found that passage in a Google Search. Simple.

        As for your simplistic “Heaven’s going to be a very empty place” you know fine well that St Paul was writing about unrepentant sinners. Perhaps he meant sinners who thought homosexuality was a gift from God!

        Are you homosexual, Freud?

      • Not sure what you mean, Freud when you say “what does that suggest?!” Explain.

        For the record, I have no idea what the Greeks words are for theives etc. I had no idea what the Greek words were for effeminate and homosexual until I found that passage in a Google Search. Simple.

        As for your simplistic “Heaven’s going to be a very empty place” you know fine well that St Paul was writing about unrepentant sinners. Perhaps he meant sinners who thought homosexuality was a gift from God!

  22. Petrus I am a Son or perhaps a Daughter of God and a member of the Royal Priesthood of Jesus Christ; what else matters!!!

  23. Freud

    If you aren’t yet sure whether you’re a son or a daughter, seek help, my dear. Seek help.

  24. MAGDALENE says:

    If a priest is a child-abuser and is in a state of sin whilst offering Holy Mass, does Transubstantiation still take place? Also, in the case of Cardinal O’Brien, I have attended many of his Masses in the past – given his admitted sexual sin, were these Masses valid?

  25. Magdalene,

    I think we have always to presume that a Mass is valid unless we actually see something wrong, such as the wrong matter being used, say a biscuit instead of the unleavened bread, or form, say if the priest changes the words of consecration. We were always taught that the personal condition of the priest’s own soul does not change the validity of the Mass. So you wouldn’t need to think about the state of Cardinal O’Brien’s soul, or any other priest in fact, but I’m sure if you listened to his sermons you would detect something awry in his faith.

    A more interesting question is really how many of us would knowingly attend the Mass of such a priest as you describe? Frankly, I wouldn’t.

  26. Yes, we were taught that the personal condition of the priest’s soul does not change the validity of the Mass, but I have great difficulty in accepting that teaching now. I think it is a sacrilege for a priest to offer Mass while he is aware that he is in a state of grave sin.

    I doubt if anyone would knowingly attend the Mass of such a priest.

    • Magdalene,

      We have to distinguish between the validity of the Mass so that the rest of us do not suffer any lack, and the priest’s guilt before God, for which he will undoubtedly answer at his judgment, as will anyone else to “eats and drinks unworthily” – that’s a given.

      And those priests and bishops who – in false charity – refuse to rebuke, however gently, those “manifest public sinners” who cause scandal through reception of Holy Communion despite their public sin, will also have to answer for their neglect. And these days, there’s a lot of it about…

  27. Reblogged this on violetwisp and commented:
    I posted recently about an abuse scandal in the Catholic Church in Scotland. In the interests of balance, I think it’s only fair I draw attention to some other opinions out there on this topic. Enjoy!

  28. If you buy into the erroneous idea that clerical homosexuality is exacerbated by mandatory celibacy, and insist on admitting married men to Holy Orders, doesn’t that mean, according to the same logic, we’ll still be left with a predominantly homosexual episcopacy?

    • What it really means, Miles Immaculatae, is that everyone has to get married. In Islam that is the expectation – Catholics were always left free to choose marriage or not, but it seems the alleged liberals think that it’s celibacy that is disordered, not homosexuality so excuse me while I go shopping for my wedding dress.

  29. While I recognise this is a Catholic blog site I am a tad sickened that most commenters seem more concerned with attaching the correct P.C. label to the animals that have perpetrated these heinous crimes.

    If I were a parent of one of these children, whether they were still attending such a catholic institution or a former pupil, I would be in a state of high anxiety. Because sure as it will rain in Edinburgh, there will be more cases. And fresh cases, too, not just pupils coming forward revealing past abuse.

    I would pull my child out as a matter of course. In fact the ‘Christian’ thing to do would be for the church to recommend all children be removed from single sex institutions run by the church until further notice and a plan can be formulated to prevent/limit these cases of abuse.

    Furthermore,

    That outside investigators have had to expose this scandal – and there are plenty similar ones- is indicative of the shameless and let’s make this point absolutely clear, CRIMINAL negligence of the Catholic Hierarchy for not sparing any expense in rooting out this filth.

    In fact, because this has been going on for so long and has been known to have been going on those in charge should be prosecuted as accessories after the fact.
    And, as head of the Catholic church the authorities should first level charges at the Pope.

    He KNEW….and did nothing.

    • Arkenaten,

      Please do not think for a second that anyone here condones any sexual or other abuse carried out by any Catholic, whether cleric or lay. We utterly condemn all such activity.

      However, very few people who express themselves (rightly) appalled by these abuses, actually go to the trouble of discovering the truth of the matter.

      One such person who did so, a prominent American businessman who just could not believe that the Church had fallen so low, decided to investigate the matter himself. That he is not a Catholic – in fact, he is a Jew – gives all the more weight to his research. You can read it here…

      And here’s another interesting report which demonstrates that Catholic priests are well down the scale of offenders – despite their portrayal in the media as being, almost to a man “paedophile priests”.

      The fact is, those who offend are almost exclusively homosexual men targeting boys and young men. And the Church prohibits the acceptance of homosexuals in seminary for the very obvious and very charitable reason that it would be extremely difficult for them to fight their temptation to same-sex activity if surrounded by men day in and day out. That is the fact of the matter. On one Panorama programme exposing the abuse of an Irish priest who’d abused both boys and girls, the presenter concluded by asking the priest if he had a preference, boys or girls? After a few seconds, the man looked up and said “boys”. Clearly, this is a homosexual problem within the Church. Not a celibacy problem.

      Even if only one case existed of one priest abusing a child or anyone else, for that matter, it would be reprehensible in the extreme. But don’t let’s target the Church as being infested with abusers while every other organisation on the face of the earth is whiter than white. OR without facing the fact that the Church’s own entrance (to seminary) rules were flouted by “gay friendly” seminary rectors and bishops. Not only is the Church’s record on abuse nothing like it is portrayed in the media, it is nothing like as bad as the record of all those other institutions (some of them Government institutions). It’s a little known fact, for example, that there has been very much more child abuse in Irish state-run homes than in any Church institution yet you won’t find the Irish media revealing that little nugget. They’re having way too much fun savaging the Catholic Church. Check the facts – but no need to apologise; just be more aware in future when the news bulletins spew out their “another paedophile priest” report.

      • ”Please do not think for a second that anyone here condones any sexual or other abuse carried out by any Catholic, whether cleric or lay. We utterly condemn all such activity.”

        At NO point did I even allude to any commenter on this post condoning the sexual abuse. Please make sure you read my comment correctly and not interpret them.

        ”But don’t let’s target the Church as being infested with abusers….”
        That you then go on to try and tell me that I’m suggesting the church is “Infested” with abusers, (which I did NOT) then yet again try to teach me the difference between homosexuals and paedophiles (which I did not even raise) and deftly avoided the main points that I DID raise,namely: the church’s absolute dereliction of duty in protecting these children over the years AND shielding the criminals involved.
        This is what needs to be addressed.
        Those involved in this cover-up should also be charged as accessories after the fact, and the first person without question of a doubt should be the Pope.
        I reiterate, he as head of the church knew this was going on and yet did nothing.
        I am quite happy to let his god judge him when the times comes.
        In the earthly realm there is the criminal justice system.

        That was the thrust of my previous comment. If you care to address this issue then fine.

  30. Arkenaten,

    Keep the heid! I didn’t accuse you of saying anything you did not say. I addressed the usual criticisms made by those who don’t bother to check the facts – and you are clearly one of those. I have to say, too, you must have been behind the door when they handed out the patience not to mention diplomacy. Gerragrip.

    I didn’t address your daft blame-game, naming the Pope (or rather not naming him, so I presume you want them all locked up – how egalitarian…) precisely because it IS such a daft idea and one that has already been binned, if you recall, when the latter-day atheist Christopher Hitchens & Fellow Clowns tried to have Pope Benedict arrested during his visit here in 2010. Bunch of numpties.

    As for “the Church” being to blame: well, “the Church” is Christ, so you’ll have a problem there.

    I do agree that churchmen – bishops, for example – who have neglected their duty and indulged in cover ups should, of course, be brought to justice where they have broken the law, but nobody can accuse any pope of such a thing. In fact, the most criticised of all in this respect was Pope Benedict and that for a letter written when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, a letter only ever partially quoted and completely misunderstood by the ignorant and hapless hacks in the media (see my previous response to reach some level of realisation about how reliable “the media” is on this topic).

    You make the wholly uncharitable presumption that the pope(s) deliberately covered up abuse that they knew was going on. Produce the evidence – hard, irrefutable evidence – or, take a hike.

    And take that hike into some of the state institutions (no, not just the hallowed BBC, try some orphanages) and Protestant communities (they’re not technically “churches” of course – Christ founded only one) and see how much cover-up has been going on in those in relation to child abuse – not least by the ever-so self-righteous and smug media: self-righteous when it comes to the Catholic Church but not one bit bothered about the much greater volume of child abuse in other institutions.

    • ”Keep the heid! I didn’t accuse you of saying anything you did not say. I addressed the usual criticisms made by those who don’t bother to check the facts – and you are clearly one of those. I have to say, too, you must have been behind the door when they handed out the patience not to mention diplomacy. Gerragrip.”

      Yes you did: You said I had suggested that commenters were condoning the sexual abuse. A point I did not make. Again read the comment correctly.
      Which facts have I not checked? I did not raise a single issue that is not fact nor did I cast aspersions on any of those member of the church that are innocent.
      Your policy rules clearly state that you will delete inappropriate comments or remarks and immediately in this first paragraph you use an ad hominum attack.
      Is you comment policy reserved solely for visitors?
      Maybe you might feel differently about this whole issue if it were your child that was one of the abused?
      ”I didn’t address your daft blame-game, naming the Pope (or rather not naming him, so I presume you want them all locked up – ”

      My comment was addressed toward the members of the clergy involved in the cover ups over the years. I did NOT say I wanted them ‘…all locked up – ”
      If the headmaster of your child’s school was aware of a teacher/s that was actively shielding staff that had sexually abused children would you consider him just as guilty as the abusive teacher/s?

      ”You make the wholly uncharitable presumption that the pope(s) deliberately covered up abuse that they knew was going on. Produce the evidence – hard, irrefutable evidence – or, take a hike.”

      I did not say he deliberately covered it up. Although it has been proved that cover ups took place.What I say is this:

      The Pope is the head of the organisation. As this has been going on for years and has been brought out into the open years ago, then yes, the Pope , past and present, must have known about it. There have been enough investigations and a few prosecution. It would appear he did nothing to stamp it out. Thus, through his negligence, and the negligence of others these crimes continued unabated.
      And still do. Please be mindful of this.
      My comment in this regard still stands. He is answerable for the crimes of those in his organisation.

      ”And take that hike into some of the state institutions (no, not just the hallowed BBC, try some orphanages) and Protestant communities (they’re not technically “churches” of course – Christ founded only one) and see how much cover-up has been going on in those in relation to child abuse – not least by the ever-so self-righteous and smug media: self-righteous when it comes to the Catholic Church but not one bit bothered about the much greater volume of child abuse in other institutions.”

      At no time have I suggested that child abuse is solely a Catholic Priest problem or that it isn’t rife in other areas.
      The topic of discussion is ”Sins of Our Fathers’.The missing link.”
      Thus, I am addressing solely this topic.
      You made it abundantly clear that visitors were to stick to the topic at hand, did you not?
      And yet you tell me (again) “Take a hike” because I address the topic.
      if you feel so sensitive over this topic, why raise it on your blog?

      Do you want to discuss other areas of child abuse?

  31. I’m genuinely confused by a lot of the opinions in this post and the following comments. I wonder if you can help with just a couple of points.

    1. I would be interested to know where the ‘fact’ the homosexual priests being the cause of these sex abuse scandals is coming from. In answer to your question about the BBC programme, I’m quite sure the issue wasn’t raised because child abuse has never been linked to either homosexuality or heterosexuality.
    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

    2. Do you or any of the other people who share your opinion actually know any gay people? I could be completely wrong but your opinions seem so far removed from reality, that I can only conclude that you’ve never had the opportunity to attach the ‘gay’ label to someone you know as a friend – a living and breathing person in a loving relationship with another consenting adult.

      • Check out the scholarly articles on the Narth website on the subject of homosexuality and child abuse. Obviously, nobody claims that every homosexual is a child abuser (any more than every Catholic priest is a child abuser) but there’s a fair body of evidence to give all intelligent and fair minded people, pause for thought.

    • violetwisp

      You wrote:

      “I would be interested to know where the ‘fact’ the homosexual priests being the cause of these sex abuse scandals is coming from. In answer to your question about the BBC programme, I’m quite sure the issue wasn’t raised because child abuse has never been linked to either homosexuality or heterosexuality.”

      The simple fact that every single case on the BBC report, featured men molesting boys suggests homosexual activity to me, but then I ‘m a simple gal… Thus, even if it were true that child abuse has never been linked to homosexuality, wouldn’t the intelligent reporter have at least noted that fact that here we have a bunch of men, sexually abusing boys?

      You then asked if I know any homosexual people. Answer: yes. As editor of Catholic Truth, I received a letter from a homosexual man who happens to live not far from me, and in his letter he begged me to continue to promote the Church’s teaching, that although he had been actively homosexual for years, he knew it was unhealthy (in every sense) and was trying to live a chaste life. I published his letter. He then appeared at one of our meetings in town and stood up to “out” himself, repeating his hope that we would not be cowed into silence on the issue (as if…)

      I’ve also met and befriended other young men (not women, as far as I know) who are homosexual and I got on fine with them, without in any way condoning homosexual behaviour.

      I’ve also met “living and breathing” people who’ve done all sorts of things they shouldn’t have – I get on fine with them all, but the fact that they may have found a “consenting adult” with whom to break God’s law (whether it’s the commandment not to steal , kill, lie or indulge in impurity) doesn’t lessen their objective sin and guilt one bit.

    • ” child abuse has never been linked to either homosexuality or heterosexuality”

      ———–

      “Gay rights” doyen Peter Tatchell has spent his entire life campaigning for the age of consent to be abolished. If he doesn’t advocate adults having sex with children, why would he do that?

      Up until the 1980s, the UK gay rights movement openly included paedophile-rights groups PAL and PIE.

      An organisation, NAMBLA, exists in the USA, which campaigns for the “right” of homosexual men to have sex with children and minors.

      A former homosexual candidate to become President of Ireland had to withdraw after blurting about a sick fantasy about sexually “mentoring” young boys, during an interview.

      Scratch the surface and you quickly see that there is a strong correlation. Which is not in the least surprising, because if someone has a confused sexuality and is attracted to the “wrong” gender, then its hardly a big leap of faith to understand that such sexually confused people can also be attracted to the “wrong” age group.

      The character of the “chicken hawk” – that is, a predatory older gay man who exclusively prefers teenage boys as sexual partners – has long been well known and celebrated in homosexual culture.

      ~90% of abuse cases in Catholic institutions have been shown to involve an older man abusing a younger male (usually teenagers, as old as 17), as shown by the John Jay report and others.

      To suggest there is no element of homosexuality involved here really is crazy, especially amongst a backdrop where a large proportion of priests are regularly accused of being homosexual.

  32. Arkenaten.

    It is YOU who need to read MY posts carefully. Please quote anywhere in my original or subsequent post, where I said that YOU ” had suggested that commenters were condoning the sexual abuse.” Rubbish. There is no such statement or anything remotely like it in either of my posts. You are looking for a fight – and wow have you come to the right place! In case you haven’t noticed, our knees do not buckle at the bullying tactics of the PC brigade – not for a second.

    You wrote:

    “I did not raise a single issue that is not fact nor did I cast aspersions on any of those member of the church that are innocent.”

    Nonsense. Your entire premise is based on the media reports of child abuse in the Catholic Church and, as the research I put your way reveals, the media reports are way off the mark. As for “innocent” – you made no reference to even the remotest possibility that there could be any innocent priests in the Catholic Church.

    You then wrote:

    “Your policy rules clearly state that you will delete inappropriate comments or remarks and immediately in this first paragraph you use an ad hominum attack. Is you comment policy reserved solely for visitors?”

    Sort of. At least, put it this way… I’m exempt. Annoying isn’t it?

    You wrote:

    “Maybe you might feel differently about this whole issue if it were your child that was one of the abused?”

    What a nasty remark. Where in anything I have written do I give the remotest impression that I do not think child abuse is a serious matter, to put it mildly? Where? Quote me. You can’t, so stop being silly, not so say insulting.

    You wrote:

    “It would appear (the pope) did nothing to stamp it out. Thus, through his negligence, and the negligence of others these crimes continued unabated. And still do. Please be mindful of this. My comment in this regard still stands. He is answerable for the crimes of those in his organisation.”

    Well, apparently, the courts have decided differently – only this week I believe. Check it out. See what I mean about getting your facts straight?

    As for the rest of your post, there is a difference between straying from the topic and refusing to acknowledge related facts. A huge difference. You have come on here apparently deliberately seeking to attack the Church and her priests, APPARENTLY having fallen for the media line that the Church is full of abusing priests, and that, obviously calls for perspective.

    So, it’s not about “discussing other areas of child abuse” – it’s about perspective; recognising that, shocking as it is that any priest would abuse any child (or anyone else for that matter) it is important to recognise that the media have their own agenda here; they appear to deliberately NOT report the scale of abuse in other institutions while perpetrating the fraud that the Catholic Church is rife with such abuse. That’s to lie.

    Don’t you think it’s important to expose lies?

    • Ah..so are you suggesting you want to bare knuckle? Lol….No thank you.

      I am aware of what the courts decided. Does this mean I am not entitled to my own point of view?
      I stand by what I wrote. He should be called to account. Period.

      No, I did not single out your blog post at all. This is an issue that spans the globe and is a issue wherever the Catholic Church has set up shop. The rot runs deep as well you should know. It is only fairly recently that it has been brought to light. But you seem to be taking it personally.
      Why? You said that the abuse of one child was bad enough yet we have have hundreds in not thousands of cases and you seem to be taking a rearguard action? (‘scuse the pun)

      I am not attacking the Church as a whole over this issue. I am stating the blame lies with those who perpetrated the crimes, and those who knew about it and covered them up.
      Are you truly suggesting it is all media hype?
      And to suggest the media have their own agenda smacks of Special Pleading.
      Perhaps if the Catholic Church was not so damn arrogant it might receive more respect.

      I would have thought your or any Catholic’s first priority was toward the kids, but it seems you have your own agenda, and that is defend the church first.

      And I must say, you might not be a good example of a decent Christian but you are sure as heck doing a great job defending the church.
      The kids would be proud of you.

      I sincerely hope the day never arrives that you have a kid that is sodomized or subject to similar abuse in such an institution. I would hate to be in your position if your kid turned to you and said , “But you KNEW, and you still sent me to that school. Why?”

      What will you say I wonder, hmm?

      • Arkenaten,

        You wrote:

        “I am stating the blame lies with those who perpetrated the crimes, and those who knew about it and covered them up. Are you truly suggesting it is all media hype?”

        Let’s be clear. I thought I had made my position very clear in my very first paragraph of my very first response to you which reads: Please do not think for a second that anyone here condones any sexual or other abuse carried out by any Catholic, whether cleric or lay. We utterly condemn all such activity.

        Crystal clear, surely? I do not for a second think that what has or is happening in the Church is to be condoned and I am on public record saying so. Saying, too, that it all needs to be brought out into the open. Our newsletter, website and blog is very unpopular in Church circles precisely because of our policy of bringing out “the filth” as Pope Benedict called it – whether that be the kind of sexual filth we are witnessing through various scandals including the child abuse scandals or whether it is the filth of priests and bishops who are actually apostates, men who have lost the Faith, but pose as believers, thus misleading people and taking them away from God and His law.

        And no, I do not think it is all media hype. Of course not. But I think only a fool would pretend that the media don’t have their own agenda – for one thing, they chase after stories with any kind of “sexual” aspect, like men and women demented. Unfortunately our old blog is now deleted but if you’d read it you would have read many comments from me and from others, in praise of the media for exposing such scandals.

        Where we part company, however, is your charge that the popes should be held personally accountable. Given the size of the Church, the numbers and vast territories involved, that would be a major injustice. And before you jump to the conclusion that we would defend the pope wouldn’t we, again, if you read our newsletter, website and blog you will see plenty of criticism of the popes. Where criticism is called for and justified, we are not afraid to criticise even the Pope, as Canon Law allows. But I do NOT hold to the view that because someone happens to head an organisation that he/she is to be personally responsible for every action carried out by every member of that organisation. Who, in their right mind, would take on any major office under those conditions?

        We’re unlikely to agree on this anyway, Arkenaten, so I bid you farewell, and if you’re ever north of the border, keep going. Aberdeen’s nice! Kidding!

        Now, it’s Friday night so I need to head for the pubs and clubs. Nite!

  33. ” it’s not about “discussing other areas of child abuse” – it’s about perspective; recognising that, shocking as it is that any priest would abuse any child (or anyone else for that matter) it is important to recognise that the media have their own agenda here; they appear to deliberately NOT report the scale of abuse in other institutions while perpetrating the fraud that the Catholic Church is rife with such abuse. That’s to lie.

    Don’t you think it’s important to expose lies?”’

    This needs to addressed separately.

    One of the reasons the abuse perpetrated by Certain priests is considered ‘particularly abhorrent” is because the Church is viewed as the bastion of morals an ethics. That it is above Secularism and is the only way for individuals to find salvation and the keys to heaven(if you will excuse the metaphor)
    That it has set itself up to be viewed in this fashion makes their crimes even more heinous as it a trust that has been broken. A trust placed in it not only by its flock but by God himself.
    When such a trust is broken and broken again and again the pain is that much deeper. That much more incredible.

    People can accept this behavior outside of the church – it is after all the Devil’s hand, yes?
    But the Church? My goodness,when this fails/falls where can one place ones trust?’

    And how do we know which Priest to trust?

    THIS is why there is often a feeding frenzy. And that the Church still attempts to hide it, makes it more heinous still.

    When you appreciate this you will understand that it not only the trust of followers that has been broken but the trust placed in it by God.

    “”Suffer the children to come unto me.”
    Maybe you will recall who said this line?

    Now tell me I am being unreasonable. No, don’t tell me, tell the children.

  34. Arkenaten,

    I agree with all of what you say in your most recent post. It’s because the Church IS a divinely established body that the child abuse is so grave. Of course.

    And that’s a good question – how do we know which priest to trust. The answer is easy. You will never EVER find a fully believing Catholic priest abusing anyone. Incidentally, Christ’s words from Matthew’s Gospel about millstones round the necks of those who cause scandal to one of these little ones, refers to those who take the innocent away from Christ, His Church, the Faith. Don’t make the common mistake of thinking that refers merely to child abuse – although I think a millstone will seem an easy sentence to those who are faced with such sins and crimes at their Judgment.

    Those who preach a different Faith – they are the ones to watch, Arkenaten.

    But now I really must get on my way or those pubs and clubs will be too jam packed to let li’l ole me in – that and the diet Cokes will be sold out – Nite!

    • ”And that’s a good question – how do we know which priest to trust. The answer is easy. You will never EVER find a fully believing Catholic priest abusing anyone. ”

      Shame they didn’t work this out when St. Paul first set about establishing your church.
      But this is a wonderful quote, and i thank you for it. In fact I might even use it for a blog post of my own. You are welcome to visit of course….

  35. ”And that’s a good question – how do we know which priest to trust. The answer is easy. You will never EVER find a fully believing Catholic priest abusing anyone. ”

    And how do we discern the good from the bad?How do you know which is a Fully Believing Priest.
    ( I can envisage a Monty Python sketch here.)
    ”So, you Fitzpatrick,how much do you believe?”
    “A lot!”
    ”Right, you’re in.And no buggering the boys, okay.”
    ”Oh, no sir. I’m not like that at ALL.”

    Phew…problem solved.

    No doubt every priest that entered seminary was considered a good Priest.
    Do you suggest a questionnaire: “Have you or are you likely to sodomize children in your care? Please answer truthfully.”
    Hmm, I can see this will work a treat, don’t you reckon?

    Maybe go down the local and ask a few regulars if they are aware of any illicit liaisons concerning Young Father McGinty?”

    Oh, right…we must wheedle out the Gays, yes?

    Maybe throw them in a local Mill Pond and see if they float?
    Perhaps we could start with the Pope?

    • You see, Arkenaten, your ignorance of this subject is, with respect, monumental.

      Any Catholic who has stepped inside a Catholic church in the last fifty years will tell you that Father X denied this doctrine or that one – it’s really quite easy to pick out the non-believers.

      For example, visit any modern parish around Christmas and listen for the priest telling the congregation that Our Lady, Mary, was “an unmarried mother”. An educated, believing priest knows that this is nonsense, that in first century Judaism the wedding ceremony was in two parts and that Mary & Joseph had undergone the first part, betrothal, which made them technically, legally married. The second part was when the husband took his wife to his home to live as husband and wife. But the numpties who equate “betrothal” with “engagement” don’t know that Mary & Joseph were legally married at the betrothal ceremony. Hence they fall into the error of thinking that Mary was an unmarried mother, their theology being so weak that they do not appreciate that God would never allow evil to be perpetrated in HIs name, for any purpose.

      That’s one example of how we would recognise an educated, fully believing priest -if he knows his doctrine and moral theology. But in case that example might not work through genuine lack of education in the seminaries (this crisis in the Church has been going on for fifty years, remember) there are plenty of other examples where priests dissent from the teaching authority and various dogmas of the Church and this comes through in their weekly homilies and other conversations. So, Arkenaten, for a practising, i.e. Mass-going Catholic, it is relatively easy to spot the “dangerous” priests – they are quite free with their dissenting opinions where Catholic dogma ought to be. Oh, and unsurprisingly, they are not fans of Catholic teaching on chastity, purity, modesty – that sort of thing.

      In summary, the crisis in the Church is a crisis of apostasy. Priests and bishops who not only reject dogmas of the Faith, but who don’t believe in God at all. Atheists, by definition, Honey Bunch.

      They’re fairly easy to identify in the Catholic priesthood, Sugar Plum – and they are those who are most likely to be dangerous to children, if you get my ‘they and those’ drift.

      • You are trying to lecture me 1st Century Jewish custom? RFLMAO.
        While I will grant you seem to have boned up on the customs, the fact is this whole NT narrative is ridiculous and utterly false and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, so what on earth are you babbling on about?

        How would being clued up on Catholic Doctrine prevent a Priest from abusing a child, for your god’s sake?
        This sort of abuse has been going on since Grandad fell off the bus,never mind fifty years. And where the hell do you come off citing such a figure without providing any sort of citation…you numpty.
        Therefore, what the Hell has moral philosophy or got to do with anything?
        I’ll venture some of the worst offenders have been the most revered and savvy Priests in the community and considered faultless to a ‘T.’

        I think you are losing your marbles…Sugar Plum.

        • Arkenaten,

          Your panic is showing Honey Bunch. You asked a question (again) which I answered (again) and then you say “what has this to do with anything” (again)

          Gerragrip.

          You want to talk about the big bad Catholic Church being bigoted against “gays” and abusing children. You want to ask a barrage of (pretend) questions and when you don’t like the answers (cos you thought there wouldn’t BE any) you indulge in abuse yourself.

          See if I care…

          • Panicking? Lol…. Surely you jest…Honey Bunch, Sugar Plum
            You are beginning to sound a tad petulant.
            The questions I posed in the initial comment were obviously rhetorical….only a numpty (I LOVE this word, by the way. Never heard it before) could fail to see this.

            I am just stunned that an apparent educated woman as yourself could possibly state that a Priest’s fallibility in Doctrinal Understanding is the Number One Clue as to whether they are likely to abuse kids.
            This sounds like an off-colour sketch one might find disregarded by the Producer’s of Father Ted.

            One might as well haul out the Catholic Church’s manual on Witch Finding.
            Totally gobsmacked.
            If they nominated you for the job I would crap myself and run a mile…and I am neither Catholic, gay, a child molester or a priest, yet I would want to be as far away from you as possible.
            The Ark shudders…..

            I reckon even the Pope might have a silent chuckle at such an absurd idea.

            • Arkenaten,

              Here’s a NON-rhetorical question for you:

              Is it likely that a Catholic priest who believes in every single doctrine of the Church – from the belief that in the Mass he is bringing down Christ, sacramentally, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity onto the altar; a priest who believes that at our Judgment we face Heaven or Hell for all eternity… who knows that throughout Christian history Sodomy has been believed to be a sin “which cries to Heaven for vengeance” (not to mention millstones and the depths of the sea for those who scandalise) – here’s the question…

              Do you actually believe such a fully-believing priest would abuse a child? Yes or No?

              ps

              You wrote: “I am just stunned that an apparent educated woman”

              should be “apparently…” but we’ll write it off as a typo, Poppet…

              NOT to mention that, since we know not each other, I can’t think how you can possibly know whether I’m “educated” or not. I mean, when did I tel u ah wiz edyoukatid? In fact, I used to be dyslexic but right I now am all

              If I knew how, I’d insert one of those little smiley faces here…

              • ”Do you actually believe such a fully-believing priest would abuse a child? Yes or No?”

                Oh, yes indeedy. And you are incredibly naive to think otherwise.
                Seriously, if this is your criteria, then the gods help any children you leave in such a one’s care.
                Furthermore, I will adjust my statement re your education.
                I believe that whatever formal education you received has taken a back seat to the Catholic Inculcation you have been brought up on.

                I hope there are others reading this thread that will be able to correct such a fallacious and potentially dangerous belief.

                • Arkenaten,

                  You asked me a specific question. I gave you my answer.

                  You didn’t ask me if fully believing priests ever sinned or did anything wrong. They do. We all do (except “gays” of course) that’s why priests, religious and laity alike, confess our sins.

                  I would certainly entrust a child to the care of a fully believing Catholic priest long before I’d ever leave him with a man (priest or otherwise) who believes that it’s fine to engage in intimacy, including of a homosexual nature, outside marriage and who wants the age of consent for homosexual activity lowered to 14.

                  Priest Vs Tatchell & Followers? No contest. Sugar Plum.

                  • Well I have no beef with anyone’s sexual preference, providing it is between consenting adults.

                    And I am an atheist.Married with two children. Does this count me out then as a baby sitter?

                    Still not going to solve your abusive priest problem s it?
                    You are deftly moving the topic away from it’s original theme and making it about your own personal preference/feelings.
                    Not going to help the kids, now is it?

                    Open discussion of this nature should be about finding a solution to the Catholic Church and its naughty Priests not about who you would leave your kid with. And I challenge to admit that in light of the scandal you wouldn’t feel just a teensy weensy bit on edge about leaving your young son in such an institution.
                    In fact I would go as far as saying you would be telling Porky Pies if you said No Worries.

                    • You keep shifting the goal posts. You ask questions and makes statements and when I pick you up on them, you say I’m moving the topic.

                      Thus, since I’m up to my eyes in just living my life, I’ll have to leave you to your prejudices.

                      I can’t solve the problem of a minority of abusing homosexual priests – they don’t listen to me. In fact, when I reported on homosexual sympathising priests way back in 2006, I was attacked and abused in the press, not least on “gay” websites, nominated for the award of Bigot of the Year – and those were the nice things that happened to me.

                      But I can’t resist answering your question about baby-sitting. Count yourself out, if for no other reason that I wouldn’t dream of exposing any children related to me to anyone who would show them bad example in terms of tolerating others and being courteous and kind to one and all (even Catholics).

                    • ”Count yourself out, if for no other reason that I wouldn’t dream of exposing any children related to me to anyone who would show them bad example in terms of tolerating others and being courteous and kind to one and all (even Catholics).”

                      Are you suggesting I am too tolerant of eveybody or intolerant of everybody?
                      Your comment is ambiguous.

                    • Not exactly original, Sugar Plum.

                      One thing that puzzles me, however, is why atheists are so preoccupied with religion – Catholicism in particular.

                      I mean, I have never, not once in my entire life, sought out an atheist website. Couldn’t care less.

                      After all, they have only one feast day – April 1st.

                      I’m sticking with Catholicism – that way we get loads of holidays…

                    • Ah, well the reason atheists concern themselves with religion, is because what you preach is lies and can be classified as child abuse.
                      It’s that simple, really.

  36. Know a lot about sexual abuse of minors do you? No, didn’t think so.

    If you did, you would be aware of the fact, recorded by psychologists, that the vast majority of paedophiles who prey upon little boys are in fact heterosexuals. Most of them are married men with families of their own. In fact, figures suggest that homosexual men are far less likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals.

    I know this all too well. I was sexually abused as a child by a family friend who was a himself a father of three.

    Paedophilia actually has very little to do with sex. It is an abuse of power carried out by weak individuals seeking control over others. Children are therefore easy targets for these individuals. And this is one of the reasons why so many paedophiles (and other abusers) join the clergy, be it Roman Catholic clergy or otherwise – they seek power over others.

    Abuse of any kind, be it sexual, physical, verbal, emotional or psychological, is in fact a form of violence, carried out by inadequate adults seeking to assert authority over those less able to defend themselves. It is in fact bullying, and in the true nature of the bully, paedophiles – like any other abusers – are essentially cowards at heart.

    • @XANDRAD
      Excellent, well thought out and erudite.

      A far cry from these bunch of Wallys who will do anything to divert the focus of attention.
      “It’s the Shirt Lifters!!”
      And, according to Sugar Plum Honey Bunch, The Editor in her last comment, one can apparently spot a potential abusive Priest from whether he knows his doctrine.

      Phew…amazing. Who would have guessed, right?
      Go figure?

      • Well, Arkenaten, if you think Xandrad’s post is “well thought out and erudite” when there wasn’t an original thought or a single verifiable fact in there, I rest my case..

        And since you cannot see that a priest child abuser just might be identified with a priest who does not actually believe in God and who mocks Catholic teaching on sexual purity then there’s not a lot more I can say to help you, Popcorn Sugar…

        • Listen Fruitcake, you complain about her lack of originality yet all you have done since you opened this thread is espouse polemic from the Catholicism 101 handbook. And considering the mess your Church is in that doctrine is as about as worthwhile in preventing these abuses as a Dab of Chanel Number 5 would be in a Skunk Factory.

          Maybe you would garner just a little respect if you made a comment or two about the children and some sort of genuine idea to promulgate a solution rather than continually focusing on the ”Shirtlifters” who you are hell bent(sic) on damning as homosexual.

          Oh…and rather help yourself. Charity begins at home and all that. You could get on your knees and pray I guess.
          It won’t do any good but at least there won’t be a Priest behind you…if you’re lucky.

  37. We are dealing with pederasty – not paedophilia. I’m sorry, although there may be isolated cases, I just can’t accept that a non-homosexual man would abuse a teenage boy. Anyone can find research for anything, so no amount of obscure links to obscure research – probably written by homosexuals themselves, will convince me that this is not a homosexual problem in the Catholic priesthood.

    • ”I just can’t accept ….’ No, you probably can’t.

      ”Anyone can find research for anything, so no amount of obscure links to obscure research – probably written by homosexuals themselves, will convince me that this is not a homosexual problem in the Catholic priesthood.”

      Ah, yes. Spoken like a true bigot. Well done
      .

      • Isn’t it amazing that when you dare to oppose evil you are immediately called a bigot? Would I be a bigot to condemn murder?

        • No, but then murder isn’t the topic of conversation.
          Let me refresh your memory…

          ” I just can’t accept that a non-homosexual man would abuse a teenage boy”

          Now, if you had produced a single citation,just one, then I would not have called you out. Furthermore, if you can produce a citation to back that utterly stupid homophobic claim then I will unreservedly apologize.You have my word.

          Which is more than you would get from those child abusing priests; that you can count on.

          So, you up for it? The floor is yours….

          • Freud and Constantine disappear and up pop two replacements of the troll manque. CT is being targeted me thinks. We might be better employed considering the three Eucharistic Miracles currently under investigation, not to mention the case of the vanishing priest at the motor accident. Far more interesting than the circular argument with which CT is currently embroiled.

            • If you have any valid objections to any of my comments please feel free to offer up any evidence to refute.
              I welcome any open discussion to do with religion. If one is not prepared to discuss, even if the ‘fur flies’ on occasion how on earth are we ever to discover the truth behind anything?.

            • I find it somewhat odd that many of the commenters here have no blog, and what links are available – like yours, for instance- lead to an empty page or nowhere at all. Now THAT is the sign of a troll.

            • I agree Sixupman. That’s why I’ve ended my exchange with the latest two unfortunates, Arkenaten and Holly. Waste of time!

          • I don’t need a citation. It seems to make perfect sense. Why would a straight man abuse a teenage boy?

            • Why indeed?
              In fact why would a normal human being rape/abuse ANY child?
              And why would a parent put their child in the care of an institution notorious for abusing children?

              Hence me asking for a citation.

              If you are not prepared to make the effort to back your claim with at least some sort of scientific qualifier then why should anyone take what you say seriously?
              You just comes across as prejudicial and bigoted.

              • Which institution are you talking about? Because if you had a brain you would know that less than 1 percent of Catholic priests have been accused of abuse. An even smaller number have been convicted. So….which organisation is “notorious”?

                • You know which institution as you mention it in the next sentence, you silly person.

                  So now it is a question of percentage that is a qualifier is it?
                  So what do you consider acceptable?
                  O.5% ?
                  Yes, notorious, as it is only relatively recently that these vile abuses are coming to light which clearly suggests they have been going on for a lot longer, and any attempt to play down this horrendous abuse of trust by you or anyone else is simply unacceptable.
                  Your attempt to sidestep the horrors of these events says more for your unflagging support for the corrupt church and the fact that so many attempts have been made to hide this from the public eye.
                  That you show so little sympathy for the children is disgusting.
                  May the gods preserve any kids you have…

              • A phobia is a fear. I am not frightened of homosexuals.

                I treat homosexuals the same way I treat anyone else. But I don’t condone their unhealthy and sinful lifestyle.

                I do believe that a man who abuses a teenage boy must be a homosexual. This isn’t rocket science. If you don’t agree, tell me this: why would a straight man abuse a teenage boy?

                So, what’s your point???

                • ”A phobia is a fear. I am not frightened of homosexuals.”
                  Now you are just being a plonker…go and read. You can d that, yes?
                  Click the button….

                  Again…provide a citation that no straight bloke would sexually abuse a boy.

                  If you can, I will unreservedly apologize fo calling you a bigot.
                  Until then, my comment stands…

                  • Ah now you show your lack of intelligence and your limited powers of debate when you stoop to name calling.

                    I had a similar situation recently when a former friend, someone who likes to think he’s a Traditional Catholic, used quite foul, crude and abusive language just because he had lost the argument. Sad.

                    I don’t believe I have shown any hatred of homosexuals, or antipathy. What I say is that I can’t see how a straight man would abuse a teenage boy. Why would a non-homosexual commit a homosexual act?

                    I don’t think for one minute that all homosexuals are capable of abuse. Of course not. But a man who abuses a boy is committing a homosexual act. It’s what’s called a no brainer.

                    So…where have a displayed hatred or fear?

                    • Hmmm where would I find a citation for something I think?

                      One difference between you and I is that I have original thoughts, whereas you base your thought on what you tea on Wikipedia! Haha.

                    • Now who’s getting ‘catty’ and verging on name calling? Tut tut….
                      You obviously haven’t had an original thought since becoming Catholic, and once again, LOOK for qualified people who will back your assertion that ONLY homosexual men will sexually abuse boys.
                      Let me make it simple, you know its not rocket science is it? Imagine you are on the witness stand in a court case and you uttered your little trope.
                      What do you honestly think the defense would do to you,hmm?
                      I am not sure that ‘It’s not rocket science” would pass muster.

                      Once more…citation Please.

                    • Last comment doesn’t make any sense. Why on earth would I give this opinion in a court case? Strange.

                      Now….why don’t you lay your cards on the table. Why are you here and what is your REAL issue with the Church?

                    • And for what its worth, hot shot,THIS is what you should be concentrating on.

                      There are two much bigger issues here than anything related to homosexuality:
                      a. institutional cover up allowing sexual abusers to move from victim to victim
                      b. allowing sexually frustrated people, who believe most forms of sex (outside of a breeding marriage) are evil and that a bad angel is tempting them to ‘sin’, to be left alone with individuals from vulnerable groups.

                      When you are prepared to address these issues then you might be worthy of respect.

                      Meantime….I don’t think so..

                      T’raa, and may your god go with you.

                    • So….you bring out all the old chestnuts but ignore my questions.

                      1. Are you anti-family because more abuse happens in families than anywhere else?

                      2. Why do you hate the Church so much? What is it about your life that the Church challenges?

                      3. When dealing with a sickness, the doctor will always look for the underlying cause. So, what is the underlying cause of an adult man abusing a teenage boy?

                      Claiming that it is not homosexuality, is like denying that alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver!

                    • And that comment and your obvious reluctance to admit the rot within Catholicism merely cements the belief why so many people outside the church have such reservations about it sincerity to make a determined effort to root out this problem once and for all.

                      ”When dealing with a sickness,….”
                      Religion is a sickness. A sickness of the mind.

                      Not only are you a bigot but a hypocrite as well.
                      We are done.

                    • so to go back to topic of OP:
                      in response to Petrus:
                      you ask Ark these questions:
                      “1. Are you anti-family because more abuse happens in families than anywhere else?
                      2. Why do you hate the Church so much? What is it about your life that the Church challenges?
                      3. When dealing with a sickness, the doctor will always look for the underlying cause. So, what is the underlying cause of an adult man abusing a teenage boy?
                      Claiming that it is not homosexuality, is like denying that alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver!”
                      **************my response***************

                      We would only be anti-family and not anti church/authority IF families hid years of abuse without turning in, or pursuing the law on such and so many abuses, and rapes.
                      the church has protected their own, for far to long and attempted to squirrel around the law and justice.
                      Then (as you are obviously NOT a doctor…and appear to know nothing about homosexuality) you miss the underlying cause. Pedophilia is NOT homosexuality. Homosexuals are equally dismayed and offended by children being raped and abused by the priests. (and such priests not immediately facing justice for their crimes against humanity)
                      I do not hold the catholic church any higher than other churches where abusers have been drawn because of lack of background checks and easy trust with children.
                      I do hope that parents at least learn from this and never allow their children to be alone whether in church, sunday school, or catholic things. I will never did and never would allow my children to attend functions without my presence. ESPECIALLY when back ground checks /fingerprinting are not done on those working with children.
                      There needs to be accountability, AND stricter requirements for safety.
                      NEVER NEVER let your children be led to the wolves parents. ***************

                      POINT TWO:
                      re: cause
                      Please reconsider the effects of sexual abstinence:

                      “The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III.-
                      Nyström vigorously sums up his views. He includes among the results of sexual abstinence orchitis, frequent involuntary seminal emissions, impotence, neurasthenia, depression, and a great variety of nervous disturbances of vaguer character, involving diminished power of work, limited enjoyment of life, sleeplessness, nervousness, and pre-occupation with sexual desires and imaginations. More especially there is heightened sexual irritability with erections, or even seminal emissions on the slightest occasion, as on gazing at an attractive woman or in social intercourse with her, or in the presence of works of art representing naked figures. Nyström has had the opportunity of investigating and recording ninety cases of persons who have presented these and similar symptoms as the result, he believes, of sexual abstinence. He has published some of these cases (Zeitschrift für Sexualwissenschaft, Oct., 1908), but it may be added that Rohleder (“Die Abstinentia Sexualis,” ib., Nov., 1908) has criticized these cases, and doubts whether any of them are conclusive. Rohleder believes that the bad results of sexual abstinence are never permanent, and also that no anatomically pathological states (such as orchitis) can be thereby produced. But he considers, nevertheless, that even incomplete and temporary sexual abstinence may produce fairly serious results, and especially neurasthenic disturbances of various kinds, such as nervous irritability, anxiety, depression, disinclination for work; also diurnal emissions, premature ejaculations, and even a state approaching satyriasis; and in women hysteria, hystero-epilepsy, and nymphomaniacal manifestations; all these symptoms may, however, he believes, be cured when the abstinence ceases.”

                    • Holly,

                      As I said earlier on, you can find research to support anything. I’m very sceptical about research on sexual abstinence and the so-called problems associated with it. Usually, the research is written by someone with a vendetta against the Church.

                      I find it hilarious when critics claim the Church is obsessed with sex. The Church’s teaching on sex is clear, concise and consistent. Then we look at the tomes of “research” on sex by the secular world ! Isn’t that ironic?

                      Let’s be clear about this. Sex is not the centre of our existence. That is what the secular world tries to claim but it is simply not true. You, Holly, and the other proponents of your ridiculous argument, owe an apology to the millions of celibates out there, men and women, religious and secular, who live a fulfilled celibate life. Shame on you.

                      Think about this – most abuse happens within the family. There’s no requirement for sexual abstinence within most families. Most fathers, uncles and grandfathers do not practice sexual abstinence. So, how can you logically conclude that abstinence is an underlying cause of abuse?

                      Now, you say that there has not been cover ups within the family. How do you know? Don’t you think that many families have kept this to themselves for fear of public scandal?

  38. Of course it’s a homosexual problem. By definition, a man engaging in sexual intercourse with another male is engaging in a homosexual act.

    If it were simply a matter of exercising power over a vulnerable child, then a heterosexual paedophile/ephebophile would select a victim of the opposite sex.

    A man may choose to marry and father children. It doesn’t necessarily follow that he is a heterosexual. He may be confused about his sexuality and attempting to conform to a social norm….he may be a repressed homosexual seeking to balance his life as best he can by outwardly conforming to a social norm, while engaging in illicit homosexual activity…..he may be omnisexual.

    There is a number of possibilities, none of which include balanced heterosexuality.

    • Since we’ve run out of reply buttons at Holly’s and then Petrus’ posts, I’m replying to them here…

      Holly, since I cannot improve on Petrus’s response to you re. sexual abstinence, I single out only this comment from your latest post above for correction:

      “We would only be anti-family and not anti church/authority IF families hid years of abuse without turning in, or pursuing the law on such and so many abuses, and rapes. the church has protected their own, for far to long and attempted to squirrel around the law and justice.”

      As I’ve said before, individual churchmen not “the Church” are responsible for cover-ups and that is not an issue here. We are all agreed that to perpetrate and then to cover-up such abuse is shocking and indefensible. But that it happened and was covered up is not an argument against “the Church” (which is holy – one of its four marks) any more than it would be logical to boycott Marks & Spencer because some of their staff had been caught with their hands in the till or even been found guilty of child abuse.

      Arkenaten

      Your posts are nasty and personal – please stop calling the bloggers “bigots” or “stupid” or anything else. We do not mind some light-hearted banter but don’t be nasty unless you want to find your way into the moderation queue. If you don’t like the answers and responses we give which are factual and to the point, don’t ask the questions. In other words, gerragrip.

      • ”If you don’t like the answers and responses we give which are factual and to the point, don’t ask the questions. In other words, gerragrip.”

        Factual? Oh my goodness.
        Not a single point that Petrus made during his exchange with me regarding homophobia and his outlandish remarks were factual.
        It was all opinion, and unsubstantiated at that. And when given the opportunity to back his erroneous claim with a simple citation, he refused to even bother looking.
        This is the mark of a bigot, Sugar Plum.

  39. Arkenaten

    Are you familiar with Catholicism and the history of the Church at all?

    If you were, you might be aware of the widespread corruption of the seminaries since the 1930s….which seminaries are relatively “safe” and which are so utterly corrupted by those who control entry to them that any priest formed in them is closely studied.

    You might also know that Catholicism is quite a small world and things are generally – although not always – “known”.

    You might even know about discernment….

    There are no hard and fast guarantees, any more than there are any guarantees that an employee of the BBC, the police, the judiciary or the local social work department isn’t a paedophile.

    What is important is that checks and balances are put in place to screen out paedophiles and to deal with them appropriately. The Church is far from perfect – it was never promised that it would be – but at least it is taking steps to screen candidates for the priesthood psychologically and to dismiss from the priesthood those who fall short of the minimum standards of morality.

    Which is rather more than the BBC, the self-appointed scourge of religion, is managing to do. Perhaps you might consider including secular institutions in your condemnations, if you wish to be seen as anything other than someone attacking the Church for the sake of it.

  40. There is no denying the very grave nature of the crisis in the Church caused by the truly vile behaviour amongst a small number of priests and bishops, and the reprehensible way the “filth” was dealt with, or rather not dealt with in various dioceses. Frankly, it’s a disgusting and repulsive subject, but one that absolutely has to be addressed by the Church.

    As an aside, those who rely on the secular media for information on this subject might be forgiven for being unaware of the fact that liberal, dissenting bishops were involved in some of the worst cases of cover up. I believe that in one relatively small US diocese, sodomy was widespread amongst the clergy.

    This scourge may have really metastasised in recent decades but, sad to sad, it is not a complete novelty for the Church. In previous times, She took an appropriately serious view of immorality amongst the clergy.The Code of Canon Law undertaken at the initiative and encouragement of Saint Pius X, and published in 1917 by his successor Pope Benedict XV, says this:

    “So far as laymen are concerned, the sin of sodomy is punished ipso facto with the pain of infamy and other sanctions to be applied according to the prudent judgment of the Bishop depending on the gravity of each case (Can. 2357). As for ecclesiastics and religious, if they are clerici minoris [that is, of the degree lower than deacon], let them be punished with various measures, proportional to the gravity of the fault, that can even include dismissal from the clerical state (Can. 2358); if they are clerici maiores [that is, deacons, priests or bishops], let them ‘be declared infamous and suspended from every post, benefit, dignity, deprived of their eventual stipend and, in the gravest cases, let them be deposed’ (Can. 2359, par. 2)”

    If we go back to the sixteenth century, we can see how Pope Saint Pius V dealt with the abomination among the ranks of the Church, in his Constitution, Horrendum Illud Scelus:

    Pius, Bishop (St. Pope Pius V)
    Servant of the Servants of God

    For perpetual memory of the matter.

    A ghastly crime, by which the joined (papal) states were polluted enflamed by God’s fearful judgment, flares up our bitter sorrow, and gravely moves our soul so that we lend now our attentions to repress it as much as possible.
    1. It was properly denoted by the Lateran Council, that whatsoever Cleric will have been discovered to suffer from that incontinence which is against nature, on account of which the wrath of God falls upon the sons of disobedience (cf. Vulg. Eph. 5,6), is to be ejected from the ranks of the clergy and be reduced to do penance in a monastery.
    2. But lest the contagion of such a scourge, from the hope of impunity which is the greatest lure of sinning, more confidently grows in power, We determine that clerics guilty of this execrable crime are to be quite gravely punished, so that whoever does not abhor the ruination of the soul, the avenging secular sword of civil laws will certainly deter.
    3. And thus because We have made a decree in this matter at the beginning of Our Pontificate, now in a fuller and stronger way intending it to be followed strictly, every and all priests, whoever they are, and other secular clerics, and regular clerics of any grade and dignity, busy at such a detestable monstrosity, We deprive of every clerical privilege, every office, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefice by authority of the present legal instrument. So it is enacted that once they are degraded by the Ecclesiastical Judge, they be handed over immediately to the secular arm, which will exact upon them the same (death) penalty, which is ascertained to have been constituted by legitimate sanctions against laymen who have slid down into this ruin. Nothing to the contrary withstanding, etc.

    Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, 30 August in the Year of the Lord’s Incarnation 1568 during the third year of Our Pontificate.

    I think that’s all very clear. Note the mention of the death penalty. Pope Saint Pius V obviously didn’t hail from the “who am I to judge” school.

    As for more recent times, I think the following link to a 2010 article entitled “Homosexuality and the Church Crisis” which appeared in RenewAmerica should help bring a lot of clarification to discussions on this appalling evil. If it is evidence people want, here it is:

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100424

    • Leo,

      Brilliant summary. I have often wondered why the authorities at the present time harp on about having “child protection measures” in place now that weren’t in place before, when all the time Canon Law could and should have been applied to the point of dismissing these abusers from the clerical state, once guilt has been proven.

      We should not forget, of course, that, in the rush to be seen to be doing something (in order to please the media) innocent priests have been wrongly punished and their reputations in tatters.

      In the context of Pope Francis’ ridiculous “who am I to judge gays” comment to journalists, this, of yours, Leo, is a classic:

      … Note the mention of the death penalty. Pope Saint Pius V obviously didn’t hail from the “who am I to judge” school.

      Game, set and match!

  41. Arkenaten,

    We’ve used up the number of “reply” buttons available to respond to you, so I need to add something here.

    (1) one of our bloggers said recently that he didn’t believe there is any such thing as a genuine atheist. They know full well that there has to be a God but they jes think they can get out of living according to His rules. So, I don’t buy your excuse that you want to fix all the “lies” religion tells. Catholicism is the only true religion and there ain’t no lies in any of our doctrines.

    (2) Where you ask if I would trust you to baby-sit children – the answer HAS to be “no” not least because MOST abuse, the research allegedly shows, takes place in the home. NOT in a priest’s house.

    So, I’m sorry Honey Bunch, Sugar Plum, Popcorn, Poppet (whatever) you fall at that very important hurdle…

    PS does your fear of exposing your children to abuse mean that you don’t send them to school – there’s been quite a bit of teacher-abuse uncovered in recent years as well as elder-abuse in nursing homes. You gonna live like a recluse rest of your blankety blank life, Arkentutem or whatever you’re called, Sugar Plum?

    • LOl…dear, you really need help.
      The choice was between a person like me babysitting; a married atheist with children or sending your son to an Catholic institution like the one reported on the news.
      And like all inculcated fundamentalists you did a really swell job of avoiding the central issue. You must sit there hugging yourself, you are so clever.

      ”…one of our bloggers said recently that he didn’t believe there is any such thing as a genuine atheist. ”

      You’re an atheist, you silly girl, you just believe in one more god than I do. Don’t you understand?

      ”Catholicism is the only true religion and there ain’t no lies in any of our doctrines.”

      Catholicism has been corrupted since the time of Constantine and Eusebius.
      It is riddled with lies and liars.
      I wouldn’t give you diddly squat for your knowledge of the history of your religion or your church. You are so funny….truly.
      And you would fall at every hurdle…the church always has.

      This is a perfect example of the idiocy of your religion…bless its cotton socks.
      Go and enlighten yourself for five minutes, then come back with just a little humility.

      http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cancer-drug-trials-specialists-say-church-has-no-right-to-interfere-25960684.html

  42. You’re an atheist, you silly girl, you just believe in one more god than I do. Don’t you understand?
    […]
    Catholicism has been corrupted since the time of Constantine and Eusebius.
    It is riddled with lies and liars.
    I wouldn’t give you diddly squat for your knowledge of the history of your religion or your church. You are so funny….truly.
    And you would fall at every hurdle…the church always has.

    atheist:-

    From the Greek:
    – ‘A’ meaning ‘without’
    – ‘Theos’ meaning God

    By definition, atheists don’t believe in any God. Catholics do.
    Perhaps it’s you that doesn’t understand, Arkenaten.

    As for the Church, it’s been around for 2,000 years and it’ll still be around when you’ve been 6 feet under for a millennium or so. It was never meant to be perfect – it’s composed of saints and sinners: always has been, always will be. Perhaps if you bothered to inform yourself before inflicting your ignorant prejudices on the blog readership, you’d know that.

    Personally, I struggle to understand why, so often, atheists cannot engage in intelligent debate or argument without resorting to rudeness. If you can’t make a point without insulting your interlocutor, then perhaps you don’t actually have a worthwhile point to make.

    It certainly looks that way.

    • ”Personally, I struggle to understand why, so often, atheists cannot engage in intelligent debate or argument without resorting to rudeness. If you can’t make a point without insulting your interlocutor, then perhaps you don’t actually have a worthwhile point to make.”

      I am generally quite neutral, until such time in the discussion that my intelligence is insulted by those ignorant believers who would try and ‘educate’ me on religion. A topic most are woefully ignorant about. Yourself included, it seems.

      ”One tiny correction….the Church knew corruption well before Constantine and Eusebius. Before the Crucifixion, in fact.

      Without corruption, there would have been no Crucifixion….see if you can work it out for yourself, Arkenaten.”

      And this is what I mean by ignorance. You resort to polemic.
      Firstly, it is doubtful you would even have had a church if it were not for Constantine, (who the church in all its twisted logic made a saint), and later, Theodosius.Who, of course criminalized religious freedom and thus began his purge of so-called heresies. A real choice piece of work he was, right?
      Chances are, under Theodosius even you would have had a hard time practicing your interpretation of the faith.
      As for Eusebius. Well now, there’s a liar for Jesus if ever there was one.
      Tootle off and read some history.Then come back and I’ll be more than willing to have an adult conversation, preferably devoid of church dogma.

      • Arkenaten,

        I don’t believe there is such a thing as a true born atheist. My experience is that they who call themselves atheists usually have some deep malady of soul which they refuse to acknowledge or which they think so serious that think themselves beyond God’s grace and mercy. This phenomena tends to express itself in public ridicule of God and religion, a sort of self-detestation mirrored onto God, if you like.

        Yes, I know it all sounds very psychological but it is actually purely spiritual. Sort out that problem in your soul and you’ll feel so much better for it. But please don’t try to convince me that you’re an atheist because I know there is no such thing, not if we’re being perfectly honest.

        • Lol, You really are ridiculous.
          Let me explain.
          I was brought up in a very liberal Cof E family.
          Later as an adult I never really gave religion a thought one way or another. Yet, when I was writing a piece on Moses and was doing research for historical background: culture, language, geography, etc, I quickly found there was nothing outside of the bible. Nothing.
          So, I then set about reading the bible cover to cover( something few so called Christians ever do)
          I marked ever piece of text I found odd or difficult to understand. I made notes of every geographic location, I felt relevant,prominent people etc and afterwards set about doing more research.
          Eventually there was only one conclusion to be drawn.
          It is fiction. A work of palpable nonsense.
          And if you care to name any part of the text, Old or New, I will tell you why.

          • Well, Arkenaten,

            Thanks for that. As someone who taught A Level Theology (Old and New Testaments) I wish I’d known you before handing over data to my students from archaeologists, historians and other deluded souls who said their research confirmed the content of the Bible front to back. For example place names (one archaeological dig dug up (so to speak) 4,000 year old UR – the place where Abraham reputedly lived, common names of people at the time (eg. Abraham, Isaac and Johnny Smith), you get my drift…

            So, you ought to write a book, Arkenaten. You’d make a fortune – I mean, you marked every piece of text you found difficult etc and then concluded it was entirely a work of fiction. WOW! That’s some research project and conclusion. Find a publisher right away. The world needs you!

            ps I can’t help noticing that all these new-fangled atheists are former Anglicans. You need to set up your own Foundation – the Christopher Hitchens-Arkenaten Foundation sounds good. I’ll buy a raffle ticket to kick start the collection…

          • Well now, Arkenaten, isn’t it the most incredible thing that you have been so intellectually gifted above all the great scholars before and after you to discover that the Scriptures are just so much “palpable nonsense”? And to think that humanity has believed in the truth of Sacred Scripture for more than two thousand years. Wow!

            Actually, I think it’s your reasoning that’s at fault and not the historical accuracy of Scripture. You shouldn’t read too much into things you don’t understand!

            • Well you read/believe the bible, and look where that got you.
              By the way, Finkelstein and Herzog are two of the foremost archaeologists in the world, and if you are too ignorant and rude to even research then that is your loss. They and I could care less. Ignorance is a choice. You have clearly made yours.

              • Arkenaten,

                Ignorance is only a choice for some (the indifferent). Others are ignorant by force of circumstance.

                Much worse than ignorance, though, is blindness. And willful blindness is about as fatal as it gets.

                As I said before, search your own conscience (the worm of conscience that none can escape) and admit to whatever malady of soul it is that keeps you from God. Repent of it and return to God. He will receive you back with open arms. But please, do not continue to argue that there is no God. It’s irrational and completely at odds with nature. Human beings are so much more than just dumb beasts of burden with short meaningless lives that end in nothingness.

                • LOL!
                  You are truly hilarious…a real treat. When all else fails fall back on dogma.
                  My, friend, I live a perfectly normal, healthy and relatively happy life.
                  I can truly think of no greater waste of time or effort than to genuflect to an invisible deity following the precepts of a corrupt organisation called church -any church that preaches I am damned and will go to hell.

                  You need to open your window and smell the coffee.
                  Every single fundamentalist deconvertee has expressed the sentiments you are expressing here, and everyone will smile, possible with understanding, possible with pity.
                  I am not one of those, I am sorry to say.

                  Read the bible like any other book. It is heinous and ridiculous.

  43. One tiny correction….the Church knew corruption well before Constantine and Eusebius. Before the Crucifixion, in fact.

    Without corruption, there would have been no Crucifixion….see if you can work it out for yourself, Arkenaten.

  44. Here’s an interesting little piece of news that came to me by email from a reader in Ireland today. I don’t recall seeing it reported on the news – either UK wide or Scottish news.

    Can you imagine any Catholic priest being awarded such a huge amount (or any amount – getting to court would be a victory) for being defamed as a child abuser? Not for a second. The presumption that the Catholic Church is a hotbed of evil, with child abusers round every corner, and priests being abused on the street just because they’re priests, wouldn’t interest our “best in the world” (NOT) justice system. It’s par for the course.

    With that in mind, reflect on this Glaswegian’s financial penalty for expressing his opinion about same-sex marriage on Twitter.

  45. Atheism – The belief that there was Nothing, and Nothing happened to Nothing and then Nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self –replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

    Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Yeah, right.

    Honestly folks, how do you expect to reason with an atheist?

    • Leo,

      Honestly folks, how do you expect to reason with an atheist?

      Answer: we don’t.

      But we never forget that this blog is read from on high and across the waves and that we are commanded to spread the Faith (and morals!) in season and out of season. God’s revelation of Himself and the natural moral order may not penetrate their spiritual blindness but others may benefit from reading it one of these seasons!

      LOVE your summary of atheism – spot (absolutely) on!

    • Leo,

      You got it! As I have just said above to Arkenaten, the atheism thing is just an excuse. There is always something deeper going on in the soul of an avowed atheist. Atheist is just another name for ostrich.

      • @Leo
        Leo,

        ”You got it! As I have just said above to Arkenaten, the atheism thing is just an excuse. There is always something deeper going on in the soul of an avowed atheist. Atheist is just another name for ostrich.’

        Being a humanist(and atheist) is a celebration of life , and not a dependence on an afterlife.
        You will find that most stable societies and the individuals within them are those that are secular.This is documented fact.

        The most mental illness and similar trauma you will find in countries/societies that have deeply entrenched religious beliefs
        Of the westernized countries the USA with the most diverse religious practices( cults denominations) is the lowest ranked in the world.
        I would provide links for you but what would be the point, really?

        Christianity has over 40,000 different denominations so it is clear, that although the religion may have a central tenet, that Yeshua is divine and rose from the dead, almost everything else is open to interpretation.
        Even within Catholicism there are differences, which quite clearly demonstrates that religion is man made.
        That religion and especially Christianity is losing ground and members hand over fist is indicative that people are losing faith in their churches and Christianity.

        It has had 2000 years to get it right and has a history of nothing but failure.
        Who knows what will happen over the next few hundred years? But whatever happens it doesn’t look good for Catholicism or Christianity.

    • ”Atheism – The belief that there was Nothing, and Nothing happened to Nothing and then Nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self –replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.”

      Which illustrates perfectly your lack of understanding of the Big Bang and evolution.
      Ignorance is a choice, of course, and far be it for me to say you can’t exercise yours.

      • Well, explain it to us, Arkenaten. From my understanding, I hear that there was nothing there and then, suddenly … BANG! Something came from nothing, contradicting completely the song from the Sound of Music, which added “nothing ever could”…

        So, Arkenaten,

        Musicians Vs Scientists – who would YOU trust?

        • Your behaving like an immature silly girl. If you were even remotely interested you would visit a site that would explain it for you.

          Try Richard Dawkins or the late Carl Sagan.

          How do you expect to grow as a person if you behave so churlish and close minded?

          • Arkenaten,

            I think you need a bit of a sense of humour to blog here. We’re lucky this is one of the few un-moderated sites around so your posts always get through but you (we!) need to lighten up to enjoy the debates at CT.

            Personally, I just can’t take evolutionary theory seriously but that’s off topic so I don’t think we should go there!

            Risking incurring your wrath, I have to say that I am one of those who is amazed that Mark Daly didn’t mention the possible homosexual link at Fort Augustus on his documentary for BBC Scotland. He could have pointed out that there seems to have been a large percentage of homosexual priests at the Abbey and followed that line of investigation to see if it led anywhere. The Church has never permitted homosexually inclined men to enter seminaries, as it would be too much of a temptation to them, just like you wouldn’t put an alcoholic to work in a brewery. So maybe the next BBC documentary could have looked at what went on in seminaries and maybe why Scotland doesn’t have one any more. Anyways, Mr Daly chose not to do that which I think was a pity.

          • Arkenaten,

            The big bang theory contradicts the established laws of science for a start, not to mention human reason!

            What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of Angular Momentum? I haven’t heard either of the two scientists you name ever address those little party poopers.

            Oh yes, and how come the nuclear explosions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced complete chaos and disorder if the Big Bang theorists are right?

            Isn’t it true that everything in the universe is naturally running down, e.g., the sun is burning out, uranium decays, people grow old and die, etc., things always moving from the more perfect to the less perfect state?

            And yet, the Big Bang theory requires everything to move in the opposite direction, from the less perfect to the more perfect, e.g., life from lifelessness, order from disorder, perfection and complexity from simple chaos and nothingness. How can you or any scientist explain such patent nonsense. It’s not even rational!

            • I rather defer to the experts.
              here you go, hotshot. Argue this….

              Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

              …there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
              The source is: Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40;

              • Arkenaten,

                And yet the law remains that a cold body (the less perfect) cannot of itself become hot (the more perfect). So you see, the Big Bang requires a reversal of what we observe in science and nature. I suspect you quote Dr. Ross out of context.

                Now, what about that law of Angular Momentum?

                • What about it?
                  You are still trying to assert that merely because YOU have no explanation then god must be the answer.
                  This is such a ridiculous assumption, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
                  And always remember that you as a Christian have to first prove that your god, Yeshua is in fact divine. Something you will never be able to do.Ever.
                  Therefore you can rag on science til the metaphorical cows come home my friend, and science could not give two hoots.
                  It will march on and you and your religion will be eft in its wake – as you always have done.
                  But be my guest, offer evidence of your man god and maybe U will deign to discuss physics with you.
                  Until then….you are whistling in the wind.

                  • Arkenaten,

                    You seem to misunderstand! Science is actually on the side of religion. All the laws of nature (confirmed by science), including the law of genetics (and the genetic barrier that forbids man from ape) is against the atheist and evolutionist argument. It is you and other unbelievers like you today who are usurping science and trying to make it say something it not only cannot say, but actually says the opposite. You’re the irrational one, not me.

                    For example, how come the oldest barrier reef and the oldest trees in the world are no more than 4000 years in age, which kind of kills the theory that the world is millions of years old?

                    The simple answer is The Great Flood recorded in Sacred Scripture. That’s why the dinosaurs suddenly disappeared from the earth and that’s why they and other large objects are discovered by archeologists running straight up and down through those various sedimentary layers that are supposed to have formed naturally over a longer period than the evolutionists can account for.

                    I suggest you look up the hypdroplate theory, it’s more plausible than evolution’s suggestion that life came from non-life, order from chaos, the complex from the simple and perfection from imperfection.

                    Next thing you’ll be telling us is that the moon is just at the right distance from earth by accident. One half of a degree too close and the earth’s sees would create tidal waves that would flood the planet twice a day.

                    Oh yes, and since the sun sheds 5 million tons of its mass per second, imagine how big the sun must have been all those evolutionist millions of years ago. The earth would have been fried before it formed! Think of the lunacy of your position in the eyes of true science.

                    • Hello Athanasius, could you please explain how “genetic barrier that forbids man from ape) is against the atheist and evolutionist argument”
                      and just how long you think a tree could/should be able to survive?
                      Here are a couple you might be interested in:

                      “Based on the Jurupa individual alone, May calculated that the tree is around 15,600 years old. The more realistic estimate, factoring in the growth rates of other trees, says that the oak is at least 13,000 years, with the stems growing at around one centimetre every year. There’s a lot of room for error in such estimates, but May says that his figure is based on a very conservative set of assumptions. If anything, it’s an underestimate for how old the Jurupa tree actually is.It started growing during an Ice Age, and has survived through the subsequent warming and all the climate upheavals ever since. Few plants can compete with such a record-holder. Other possible contenders include a creosote bush in the Mojave Desert that’s around 12,000 years old, a box huckleberry plant that’s survived 13,000 years, and the oldest of all – a King’s holly from Tasmania that could be over 43,000 years old, and is the only example of its species. All of these green geriatrics are clones. “http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/

                      your arguments seem to be based on the “I can’t believe that could have happened on its own, (ignore science) therefore god did it” fallacy?

                    • Hello Holly,

                      Re the man/ape question. There is a rule in science that one species cannot develop into another. It is simply impossible because each species has a unique genetic code that forms a barrier to such development.

                      There can be developments within certain species, such as in the equine species between, say horse and donkey, and even the offspring of these is unable to reproduce naturally. But there can NEVER be a transformation from one species to anther, such as between ape and man.

                      The scientific evidence continues to support this truth. Hence the absence of transitional fossils between ape and man that forced the world’s leading evolutionists to declare at a Convention in Chicago in 1983 that man does not appear to have descended from the ape.

                      Besides this, the question is a very simple one: If man came from ape then were are the missing links along the way?

                      That apes just happen to share certain characteristics with man is more rationally explained by a common designer than common ancestor.

                      As regards the tree question you pose. I guess all I can say is that the quotes you make are at odds with my understanding of the facts regarding the age of trees.

                      One thing I will add, though, is that much of the dating of trees etc., is done by using the sedimentary layers of the earth, which modern evolutionists insist took millions of years to form. The difficulty they have with that argument is that large prehistoric trees, whales, dinosaurs and other objects are often discovered by archeologists running straight up and down through those layers, which suggests that they were formed a whole lot quicker than evolutionary theory suggests.

                      This ties in very well with science’s hydroplate theory, the theory that billions of gallons of water suddenly broke forth from under the earth’s crust with such pressure that it reached and burst the water canopy above the planet that once served to filter out dangerous UV rays. The combined water flow and chaos that resulted from this is recorded in Sacred Scripture as the great flood. It explains what happened to the dinosaurs and how the Grand Canyon came into existence without signs of long-term erosion or sedimentary deposit. It’s worth thinking about and researching.

                      Another thing worth thinking about is the recent scientific discovery that every person on this planet has a genetically common mother. In other words, we all go back to one woman, namely Eve.

                    • The simple answer is you are using god to fill in the gaps. Humans and apes have a common ancestor. There is no need for a ‘transitional fossil’
                      The DNA record clearly demonstrates this.

                      Catholicism accepts evolution.
                      Catholicism accepts that the Garden of Eden is analogy. (Though they are still managing to hold on to Original SIn, which is a wonderful demonstration of their hypocrisy)
                      Catholicism rejects Noah’s Flood as portrayed in the bible.
                      Perhaps the news has been slow to filter down from thew Pope to the plebs in the pews. That’s not my problem, or anyone else’s for that matter. Go and ask your local up to date priest.
                      As our host is wont to write…Gerragrip!

                      So…back to the question. Are you going to attempt to explain how Yeshua is a god, or are you going to continue on your petulant rant?

  46. You put up two links to the same story?

    ”The presumption that the Catholic Church is a hotbed of evil, with child abusers round every corner, and priests being abused on the street just because they’re priests, wouldn’t interest our “best in the world” (NOT) justice system. It’s par for the course.”

    And this demonstrates that your objectivity has now flown out of the window.

    Your comments are quickly becoming little more than polemic and diatribe.
    I think I will leave you to it and watch with sour amusement, as quite clearly your priorities are divided over this issue. The post says one thing, yet in conversation, your comments reveal more of what your heart feels than what your mind should.
    It is probably a good thing you don’t have any children. May it stay that way, for their sake
    In a few years maybe you will have grown up a little?

    Let’s hope so.

    May your god go with you.

  47. So tell us, Arkenaten, where matter actually came from.

    It’s funny you mention Richard Dawkins. I clearly recall one occasion, on October 9 2006 on Irish radio, when he was asked just that questioned. His explanation was that “science was working on it”. Quite.

    Here’s the exchange with Catholic journalist David Quinn:

    “Quinn: You can’t answer the question where matter comes from! You, as an atheist —
    Dawkins: I can’t, but science is working on it. You can’t answer it either.
    Quinn: It won’t come up with an answer, and you invoked a mystery argument that you accuse religious believers of doing all the time. You invoke a very first and most fundamental question about reality. You do not know where matter came from.
    Dawkins: I don’t know. Science is working on it. Science is a progressive thing that’s working on it. You don’t know but you claim that you do.
    Quinn: I claim to know the probable answer.”

    In view of the grave immorality that is the subject of this thread, you might care to share with us your explanation of what exactly a materialist’s moral code rests on. Catholics can answer that question instantly. What law do the secularist Inquisitors operate under?

    The following comes from the same exchange quoted above:

    “Quinn: What part of us allows us to have free will?
    Dawkins: Free will is a very difficult philosophical question and it’s not one that has anything to do with religion, contrary to what Mr. Quinn says…but…
    Quinn: It has an awful lot to do with religion because if there is no God there’s no free will because we are completely phenomena of matter.
    Dawkins: Who says there’s not free will if there is no God? That’s a ridiculous thing to say.
    Quinn: William Provine for one who you quote in your book. I mean I have a quote here from him. “Other scientists, as well, believe the same thing… that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes and as you say environment and chemical reactions. That there is no room for free will.” And Richard if you haven’t got to grips with that you seriously need to because many of your colleagues have and they deny outright the existence of free will and they are hardened materialists like yourself.”

    You said, Arkenaten, that I lacked understanding of the theory of evolution. There is rather a lot that can be said on the subject of evolution. I presume that you believe that the process is still on going. To say anything else is, I would imagine, materialist heresy, complete “apostasy” in fact.

    Here’s one very obvious question that I expect jumps out at everyone straight away. If a giraffe is related to an elephant, or a zebra is related to a horse, where exactly can I see all the intermediary “species” between those creatures and their ancestors? Is it not correct to say that under evolution changes to species take place very gradually? For that to be true, there must surely be a great many physically distinguishable creatures all along the spectrum of “evolutionary” change. And what exactly is a zebra, or a giraffe, or a flamingo currently “evolving” into? Where are the transitory generations?

    Did someone mention fairy tales?

    Just remember the words of G K Chesterton, Arkenaten:

    “To an atheist, the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody.”

    • Hello Leo. The question you ask about intermediary “species” is a very common misconception about the Theory of Evolution. (so do not feel bad). I too once demanded the same information! 😉
      If you are truly interested in your question you need to consider a couple of things. I have included a couple of sites which deal with common misconceptions, so if you desire you can further look into this misunderstanding.

      “One species does not “turn into” another or several other species — not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the “parent” population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won’t, or they won’t be successful if they try. ” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html

      “Evolutionary change is based on changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time. Populations, not individual organisms, evolve. Changes in an individual over the course of its lifetime may be developmental (e.g., a male bird growing more colorful plumage as it reaches sexual maturity) or may be caused by how the environment affects an organism (e.g., a bird losing feathers because it is infected with many parasites); however, these shifts are not caused by changes in its genes. While it would be handy if there were a way for environmental changes to cause adaptive changes in our genes — who wouldn’t want a gene for malaria resistance to come along with a vacation to Mozambique? — evolution just doesn’t work that way. New gene variants (i.e., alleles) are produced by random mutation, and over the course of many generations, natural selection may favor advantageous variants, causing them to become more common in the population.”
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a4

      kind regards,
      holly

      • Holly,

        It all sounds very plausible, but where is the evidence to support any of this evolutionary stuff? There simply is no proof, it’s all theory. In fact, isn’t it true that there are no transitional fossils for the basic reason that such transitions are a myth? There should be historical evidence there somewhere after all these so-called millions of years of diversifying. So where is it?

        Besides that, as I stated earlier to Arkenaten, if the world is millions of years old, such as to allow all this slow transition to go on, why didn’t the sun burn the earth to a crisp? It loses 5 million tons of its mass per second, so imagine its size all those millions of years ago. Additionally, we know that the moon is getting further away from the earth over time, so assuming the millions of years theory is correct the earth must once have been sitting right on top of us. Of course that’s not possible, so once again the evolutionary theory falls flat.

        • Athanasius, There is lots of evidence to support this “evolutionary stuff”. There is a lot more found at the links, (including evolutionary 101 which will answer even your most basic questions! feel free to dig in!)
          Yes..it is a scientific theory. (just like gravity) perhaps we should test it too and float away?
          When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.
          What you are addressing here are misconceptions of evolution and not even evolution itself.
          This is a great link addressing the five major misconceptions:
          (for any here who may be truly interested)
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
          I

          • Holly,

            Please believe me when I say that I have studied all the arguments of evolution over many years, and in some depth. The entire business is really just an insult to the intellect. Not only can it not be proven, it actually contradicts the established laws of science and nature.

            It’s actually wrong even to call it a theory because a theory at least has some basic grounds to it, such as gravity. No, evolution is more precisely a myth shrouded in scientific words, and not even a half-believable myth at that. It is the religion of the atheist desperate to find an alternative to God (and His Commandments, of course).

            • Athanasius, I find it very difficult to believe you when you say you have studied all the arguments, in depth over many years, and still continue to only use misconceptions of the ToE in your discussion. Just because you say something doesn’t meet the scientific definition, doesn’t make scientists suddenly change their minds…lol. Go ahead and examine the Five Major Misconceptions. You will see your points addressed.

              Gentle readers, please note that it is always easier to argue with a made up misconception that you can misrepresent any way you like to make your point, than to deal with actual facts and best honest arguments.

              • Holly,

                I have been providing the facts in accordance with established scientific laws. It is you who insist that the myth of evolution is plausible despite the absence the evidence and its opposition to science.

                I have read all the so-called explanations of evolutionists in this regard and not one of them holds water. The truth is that the myth of evolution is simply not sustainable. It is irrational in the extreme.

                But I take note of your unwillingness to answer the most fundamental question, the real question, which is: How is it possible for life to come from non-life?

                Never mind dancing around the question with links to debating websites. I want scientific evidence of how life can suddenly appear under any circumstances from non-life. Over to you!

                • Ath, you are still confusing abiogenesis with evolution.
                  One does not prove nor disprove the other. ::headdesk::
                  the link I provided was of several current hypothesis of abiogenesis.
                  “the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called “the building blocks of life”, can be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth”
                  ” Other approaches (“metabolism first” hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.”

                  Here is more detail on the Miller-Urey experiment.
                  “The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin’s and J. B. S. Haldane’s hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment concerning the experimental abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]

                  After Miller’s death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller’s original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth’s original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.”

                • Amazing. Here is Holly, a former Christian fundamentalist, being polite, patient and trying her darnedest to help you understand yet all you do is reply with fundamentalist hogwash.

                  Even if Science cannot answer to YOUR satisfaction a single point you raise ( and they can, Btw, you’re just too damn lazy to research) this is still no reason to turn to the bible and say, “Well then, god did it.”, which is the single biggest cop out going.

                  Carrying on with this nonsense and pretty soon you are going to be left in the boondocks.

                  Is it any wonder children of Creationist parents have such a hard time once they enter mainstream employment?

                  You want an explanation to the ‘ultimate question?’

                  First, you provide us with an answer as to how Yeshua rose from the dead and was a god?
                  Once you do this, THEN we can talk about the origin pf life.
                  Your call……

      • Holly,

        I suppose the fundamental question, putting all others aside for the moment, is this: How is it possible for life to come from non-life?

        Go right back to the start of everything, to the so-called Big Bang, and please explain to me how life can come from non-life? Surely, if it was possible for such a thing to happen then science would have mastered the technique by now and would be creating its own living creatures from inanimate matter. So there’s the test. Explain that insurmountable enigma and I’m all ears!

        For me, the enigma is very easily resolved by the existence of a Creator who made the complexity and beauty of the universe and all it contains. It seems to me to be irrational to seek another answer, the more so when that alternative proposition involves believing things that are known to be impossible to science and at odds with nature.

        • now you are switching the fundamental question, which is of course fine, but please understand that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t attempt to answer and is an entirely different field than Abiogenesis
          This doesn’t in any way explain away all the evidence FOR evolution. You are still stuck with that.

          There are several hypothesis (and experiments) re: how life began.
          to assume (without other evidence) that there is a supernatural being that somehow came to being (life from nonlife?) that started it all is the (nonscientific) theory that you seem to embrace.
          If you are interested in the others…there are quite a few…
          Here is a quick list and overview of them:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

          • Ok Holly, I think we’ll leave it there. It is quite obvious that this exchange is going nowhere. I’ve been up this street too many times before and never yet been given answers to my questions, just lots of nicely-presented argument that looks scientific but isn’t. I cannot debate rationally on such an irrational subject as evolutionism. In fact, I feel daft even discussing it.

            • Arkenaten, Holly & Co.,

              I’ve not had time to catch up with this thread but even the briefest of glances reveals that it is completely off topic.

              This is not meant to be a platform for atheists to push their evolution baloney, so – Arkenaten, Holly & Co. either return to the topic – e.g. produce definitive and objective proof that homosexuals do not abuse children, (or otherwise contribute to the topic of the thread) – or find a science blog to chat about your alleged ancestors and entirely unknown heritage. We want to discuss the crisis in the Church without the distractions you are putting our way. Please and thank you.

              I see, also, posts on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture – not for this thread either. We’ve had plenty of posts on both evolutionary theory and Scripture in the past and we will do so again, no doubt about it, but this thread is not the place to discuss either. Keep an eye on our blog and join in when those topics are posted. Until then, say nothing.

              I’ve had a number of matters that have taken me away from my computer today and I am about to disappear again for a bit, but if this thread continues off topic, I’ll close it down on my return.

              Question to be addressed, final comments welcome… SHOULD the BBC documentary have highlighted the fact that in each and every case they presented for scrutiny, the child abused was a boy and the abuser was a man. THAT is the question.

              Remember, to this day I’ve not had as much as an acknowledgement of my email from Mark Daly the journalist who fronted the investigation – suggesting that he recognised the issue all right but just didn’t want to draw his audience’s attention to it. I no longer have the same respect for him as a result.

              What about you?

              • ”SHOULD the BBC documentary have highlighted the fact that in each and every case they presented for scrutiny, the child abused was a boy and the abuser was a man. THAT is the question.”

                Er…correct me if I am wrong. The boarding school was for boys and the Priests/Monks were men.

                    • With money being offered for testimony (compensation), I pay very little attention to historical claims of abuse, especially when they relate to priests/monks who are now deceased and cannot defend themselves.

                      You know, there were actually notices up in shop windows in Ireland advertising possible amounts payable to abuse victims should they come forward. Where is true justice in that kind of setup?

                      At the moment there are way too many decades-old cases involving way too many children who never spoke of their abuse until financial reward came on the scene. It stinks! When bribery comes off the table, then, I’ll listen.

                      No doubt there have been genuine cases of abuse by priests and religious, every one a disgraceful sin before God, but not the numbers that are crawling out of the woodwork today, most of them unprovable this far down the line. I can only speak personally when I say that it seems a tad abnormal that so many young abuse victims kept their mouths shut for so long. That’s not what children do, they tell their parents or some other responsible adult about the abuse. Why did so many remain quiet for so long? As I say, it stinks, and I’m sick and tired of listening to it.

                      What about abortion, the murder of millions of infants in the womb every year? They won’t ever get the chance to tell their story. Now why is it that the liberal media and all the Catholic haters don’t want to talk about that evil, much less get graphic about it? I guarantee that a few real time images of an abortion published in the national press would shake more than a few people out of their willful ignorance.

                    • This post is about Sexual abuse by Priest and Monk on boys at a Catholic Boarding school.
                      The question is: why are you in ANY way trying to defend the fact that is has been covered up for decades?
                      Why are you not crying from the rooftops. petitioning the Pope, picketing your local parish priest, demanding answers?
                      Instead you sit there and whine about Catholic Haters and evil and use a whole heap of polemic diatribe.
                      And while you sit and do nothing the Catholic church will continue to surreptitiously allow this “evil” to continue.
                      Aren’t you in the least bit ashamed for your own religion?

                    • Arkenaten,

                      I have just about had enough of your confused posts which are either failing to take account of what other bloggers (including myself) have already said, that we are NOT trying to defend any kind of child abuse or cover up. You’re either continuing to write as if we ARE defending these things and/or going off topic to talk about evolution and Scripture. Now, please don’t take this personally. But I’ve had enough. You are extending this thread without contributing a single thing to it. I’m now going to close it down and would advise you to find another forum where you can let off steam about Catholicism.

                      And may Richard Dawkins go with you…

      • Holly,

        Before the end of your first paragraph, it is clear that there is a lot of faith required to believe in evolution.

        All the Catholic dogmas put together seem simple by comparison.

        • Of course…All one simply has to say is, ”god did it”…and your problems are solved. Right? Eve a five year wont believe this, unless they have been inculcated.
          Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
          The theory of evolution is so much more palatable than a man/god born of a virgin crucified then coming back to life, who incidentally just happens to be the creator of the universe. Merely writing that sentence seems quite silly.
          Yet, while it is easy to ridicule the thousands of scientists who can demonstrate the truth of evolution, as yet, nobody on this thread has had the guts or integrity to step up to the plate and offer any sort of evidence for the Resurrection and the claim that Yeshua was a god.
          And this is what Christianity hinges on.
          For devout believers there seems to be an awful lot of silence when its time for show and tell.

  48. Correction – “Is it not correct to say that under the myth of evolution changes to species take place very gradually?”

    • What is your point?
      Because science doesn’t have all the answers you demand right now we are to posit a god in the blank spaces.
      What an absolute nitwit of an answer.
      At some point in human development science didn’t have the answer to one problem or another.
      You should be (Ed: language, please!) grateful that science has come along as rapidly as it has, and no thanks to your (Ed: language please!) church, either!

      If we all followed religion’s lead we might still be (Ed: language please! And temper!) in an outhouse, or a bucket.
      If you have the patience to go to all the trouble of cutting and pasting that exchange why don’t you read a history book and see how, over the centuries, science has eventually solved/replaced every mystery attributed to a deity. What makes you so cock – sure it won’t solve all the others?
      It is already doing it for your god’s sake!
      Every vaccine, every other medical advance, every engineering achievement.
      The fact that you have a forum to espouse all your religious beliefs is solely because of science.
      The tiny chip you have on your computer is in all likelihood more powerful than the computers that sent the first men to the moon.
      And you want to lecture me on some aspect of evolution just because you are blind you are unable to understand or grasp the concept?
      How arrogant can you get!

      It was only a few hundred years ago that your ilk were burning people at the stake because they had the temerity to read the bible in English.

      (Ed: language please!) I utterly despair of such gross close-minded ignorance.

  49. Arkenaten,

    You advance a series of premises which you are unable to argue successfully. When confronted with the futility of your arguments, you resort to personal insult and accusations of polemicisation.

    When pressed further, you attempt to hold up the likes of Richard Dawkins as the ultimate authority for your position and fall back on insult and invective.

    Reading one of your blogs, you appear to spend a considerable amount of time baiting and trolling on Christian blogs so that you and your small group of friends can claim to hold belief in God up to public ridicule.

    The common thread running through your public statements is that you are utterly convinced that there is only one possible opinion on any given topic – yours – and that anyone who refutes what passes for your arguments is to be trashed in fairly emotive terms.

    You appear to be the text-book definition of an ignorant bigot, and one struggling with a fair degree of psychological conflict at that.

    You have erected for yourself a series of filters and preconceptions. Everything that conflicts with those preconceptions is to be disregarded and – if possible – discredited. Everything that agrees with them is to be clung to and represented as holy writ.

    I pity you for the Hell you create for yourself.

    • spiritustempore,

      I agree entirely with your observation, Leo’s comments to Arkenaten were worthy of a more concise, less insulting, response. What this confirms to me is that Arkenaten is not a person whose unbelief is the result of any kind of serious investigation into Scriptural authenticity Vs. contrary claims of science. No, he is a just another poor soul who has some kind of personal issue that makes him want to hit out at God instead of asking for God’s help. I have said before and I say again, there is NO SUCH THING AS A CONVINCED ATHEIST.

      • I agree, Athanasius.

        Arkenaten’s high degree of emotional investment in a position that he has shown himself unable to defend speaks more of unreconciled personal issues than of any position of objective truth.

        It’s a great pity that Arkenaten was unable to respond to Leo’s constructive, well-considered arguments.

        Perhaps that says all that is needed about Arkenaten’s position.

        • Read and answered, hotshot.

          As much as it might make you lot feel special, I can’t live here and answer every question from Catholic Corner.
          If you really want to educate yourselves there is a whole world of science out there…and of course you have the internet, so…Press the button…

          My ‘position’ is merely the position of millions of normal people. It is an open club and even people like you can join. All you need is an inquiring mind.

  50. why don’t you read a history book and see how, over the centuries, science has eventually solved/replaced every mystery attributed to a deity. What makes you so cock – sure it won’t solve all the others?
    It is already doing it for your god’s sake!
    Every vaccine, every other medical advance, every engineering achievement.
    The fact that you have a forum to espouse all your religious beliefs is solely because of science.
    The tiny chip you have on your computer is in all likelihood more powerful than the computers that sent the first men to the moon.
    And you want to lecture me on some aspect of evolution just because you are blind you are unable to understand or grasp the concept?
    How arrogant can you get!

    On the topic of the futility of Arkenaten’s arguments, I’m intrigued as to why he believes that men travelling to the moon, the invention of vaccines, or the size of a computer chip is incompatible with the existence of God.

    Or why he should believe that a world poisoned by GMO crops, toxic pesticides, contaminated food and water supplies and the fostering of attitudes that dictate the expendability of human lives – reducing the miracle of life to a simple economic equation has merit.

    It’s not all that hard to see the directly proportional relationship between secularist influence and the progressive diminution of human dignity and the integrity of our ecosystems.

    Perhaps Arkenaten can explain why, after all this time, Charles Darwin’s magnus opus is still only a theory.

    It’s not that hard, surely, for science to come up with the missing link between man and ape….God knows they’ve been looking long enough…..and God knows that there should be rather a lot of evidence.

  51. Arkenaten

    I find your reply rather revealing, if not very surprising. It reflects exactly what we have come to expect from the high priests of aggressive atheism and their followers.

    Philip Trower summarised the reality of Darwinism nicely in his book, The Catholic Church and the Counter Faith:
    “Darwin made it possible for men who do not want to believe in God, to believe the impossible without seeming mad; namely, that things can make themselves.” (p. 128)

    So you have no answer, Arkenaten, to the question of where matter comes from; a question that would occur to any reasonably inquisitive eight year old. Neither have you answered the question of what materialists base their moral law on, allowing that they actually have such a law. By the way, is objective morality “evolving” also? It’s not hard to think that in the case of many individuals, the denial of the reality of divine law offers the opportunity to concoct one’s own moral code.

    And weren’t you the one, Arkenaten, who was wagging your finger at others here about polemics, and ignorance and bigotry. I’ll take your ad hominem attacks as a concession on the issues addressed to you by CT bloggers.

    The rest of your post really can’t be said to rise to the level of meriting a response. The only reason I’m inclined to add more here is that your intemperate display of ignorance does offer an opportunity to share some facts about the great temporal good that the Church has brought to the world.

    You don’t appear to have any grasp whatsoever of the fact that Western Civilisation was built by the Church. Anyone who denies that is aggressively cutting off the bough that that civilisation sits on. We could discuss Christian charity and care for the sick and needy, the development of agriculture, education, architecture, art, music, law, exploration, economics and of course science. You do know, Arkenaten, about the work of Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian Friar.

    The truth is that modern science is built on the foundations put together by Catholic Churchmen. Unlike false religions, the Church taught that the world was the work of a supremely reasonable Person, and was therefore endowed with lawfulness and purpose, evident in the laws of nature.

    Because God “ordered all things by measure, number, weight” (Wisdom 11:21), Catholic scientists before the time of the so-called Enlightenment believed in the rationality of scientific experimentation and quantitative enquiry, as a means of understanding the universe and nature. The Church provided the philosophical underpinning for science. And no amount of atheistic huffing and puffing is going to change that fact.

    There appears to be a great deal of humanist ignorance or amnesia on the subject of the history of science. I wonder why. Do you know anything, Arkenaten, about Roger Bacon, a Franciscan who taught at Oxford, or Saint Albert the Great, or Father Nicolaus Steno who was credited with setting down most of the principles of modern geology.

    Do you know, Arkenaten about the contribution of the Jesuits to science. When Charles Bossut, one of the first historians of mathematics, compiled a list of the most eminent mathematicians from 900 BC to 1800 AD, 16 of the 303 names were of Jesuits. Thirty five craters on the moon are named for Jesuit scientists and mathematicians. The Jesuits were described as “the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century” by J L Heibron in his study of Modern Physics. The order were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as India and China.

    Have you ever heard, Arkenaten, of Father Giambattista Riccioli, the first person to determine the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body? In the seventeenth century, he produced a massive encyclopedia of astronomy. He also calculated the constant of gravity, by developing an accurate one-second pendulum.

    How about his contempory, Father Francesco Grimaldi, who produced a detailed diagram depicting the features of the moon, and who discovered the diffraction of light.

    Or Father Roger Boscovich, one of the great intellectual figures of all ages. A modern scholar says that Father Boscovich gave “the first coherent description of an atomic theory” while a recent historian of science calls him “the true creator of fundamental atomic physics as we understand it.”

    How many humanists are willing to recognise Father Athanasius Kircher, described as “a giant among seventeenth-century scholars”, or Father Nicolas Zucchi, the inventor of the reflecting telescope.

    The fact remains, as J.L. Heibron of the University of California-Berkeley points out, that “the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, that any other, and, probably, all other, institutions.”

    These words of yours, Arkenaten, can’t go without mention:

    “It was only a few hundred years ago that your ilk were burning people at the stake because they had the temerity to read the bible in English.”

    Yet again, your ignorance is rather glaring, with all due respect. You don’t appear to know that anyone who could read at that time, could read Latin, thanks to the high standard of Catholic education. You need to do better than the old vernacular Bible chestnut.

    A word of friendly advice: before you go parading your ignorance in public, with any expectation of being taken seriously, I would advise you to settle down and do a bit of proper research. You’ll be well rewarded.

    Why not start with “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation”, by Thomas Woods. The examples of the Church’s contribution to science are taken from that excellent work.

  52. The simple fact is this. Christianity rests on the claim that Yeshua was crucified and rose from the dead. All other considerations aside this is the single factor that your case rests on.
    That you consider this purely a Christian /Atheist issue is a measure of your ignorance and , quite frankly, your arrogance.
    There are many millions on people on this planet who vehemently disagree with your belief.
    Your outlandish claims that Western Civilization was built upon Christianity, the implication being that without Christianity there would be no western civilization.
    This is nonsense, and there are no facts to defend that western civilization would not have developed without religion. That Christianity has developed over 40,000 different denominations is evidence of its stagnant approach; that it cannot settle on a centralized doctrine and is forced to find new ways to justify its fallacious and erroneous claims.
    Furthermore the most stable,preposterous countries are largely non-religious, and this is a general trand. Even in countries such as the States.

    ”It was only a few hundred years ago that your ilk were burning people at the stake because they had the temerity to read the bible in English.”

    Yet again, your ignorance is rather glaring, with all due respect. You don’t appear to know that anyone who could read at that time, could read Latin, thanks to the high standard of Catholic education. You need to do better than the old vernacular Bible chestnut.”

    http://www.reformation.org/thomas-more.html

    Enjoy yourself!

    A word of friendly advice: before you go parading your ignorance in public, with any expectation of being taken seriously, I would advise you to settle down and do a bit of proper research.

    May I suggest you start with the history of your religion? Constantine, Theodosius and Eusebius would be a great start. You’ll be well rewarded

  53. Holly

    Thank you for your post and your link to TheTalkOrigins archive. I’ve only been able to have a quick read, so far, but I have to say I find it a good deal less than convincing on whether or not we all “evolved” from Hydogen gas and carbon.

    The section of transitional fossils stated that “the fossil record is still spotty and always will be…” Quite so. For evolution to stand scrutiny, we should be awash with material evidence, bringing us back step by speculative step to whatever the common ancestors are supposed to have been. Is it not true that laboratory experiments on stratified sedimentary rock formations have shown the deposition of sedimentary particles to have taken place rapidly? Is it not logical to deduct that fossils found in a rock that took less than a year to form must have lived together at the same time? Is it not true that for the hypothesis of evolution to be a reality, billions of years of gradual change are required?

    Species appear in the fossil-bearing rock strata “very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record”. So says the curator of the Field Museum in Chicago, David Rupp, writing in 1979 (The Catholic Church and Counter-Faith, by Philip Trower, p. 123).

    As for natural selection, “Darwin though in terms of small variations and an environment that changes extremely slowly. An accumulation of small variations sufficient to produce a new organ or body structure must therefore take millions of years. But what value is a developing organ until it is fit for use?” (ibid, p. 125)

    Precisely because of the timescale claimed, the point I was trying to make in an earlier post was that, forgetting about any fossil record, the “intermediate forms” of today should be visible to us right now, walking around. There must be a multitude of creatures, at every stage of development, at any moment in time.

    I noticed the following in the “Evolution is only a theory” section of the link, Holly.

    “Lack of proof isn’t a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one’s conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be.”

    That strikes me as being a remarkably unscientific statement. I think we can safely say that gravity has been rigorously proven. Before going up in some amateur engineer’s new-fangled flying machine, I think it only reasonable to require some proof of operational effectiveness.

    Thank you again, Holly for the links you have provided. I have to say, though, that I don’t expect them to provide evidence to change my belief that Evolution cannot be placed above the level of extremely speculative hypothesis, or that of a philosophy which allows rejection of the ex nihilo creation of life. I think my earlier use of the word “myth” is fair enough.

    “Classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily for such a long time by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” – Nobel prize-winner Sir Ernest Chain, co-discoverer of penicillin, 1970.

    • Yet as always by rejecting Evolution, which is considered fact even by the Catholic Church you are refuting the work of thousands of scientists. Your arrogance is staggering.

      The Pope’s Message on Evolution
      In October of 1996, Pope John Paul II issued a message to the Pontifical Academy of Science reaffirming the Roman Catholic Church’s long-standing position on evolution: that it does not necessarily conflict with Christianity.

      That you choose to dismiss the facts is your own business; that you might wish to teach/pass on your beliefs (which are nothing but a form of Creationism) to children is reprehensible.

      Fortunately religion’s days are numbered. It will take a generation or two..maybe a bit more, but it has seen its day.
      Enjoy the god delusion.

      Oh, any time you want to produce evidence of how Yeshua is divine/rose from the dead, I’m all ears…. fancy a crack at it?

      • Hi arkenaten,

        Evolution, which is considered fact even by the Catholic Church

        This is an erroneous / incorrect statement. To support it you then state:

        the Roman Catholic Church’s long-standing position on evolution: that it does not necessarily conflict with Christianity

        The Church opinion is that the theory of evolution is not necessarily in conflict in Christian doctrine. This isn’t the same as saying the theory is “a fact”.

          • It has already been stated by the Church that evolutionary theory can only be tolerated as a theory for examination by scientists if it proceeds from the position of initial creation of Adam and Eve by God. The Church does not recognise atheism disguised as evolutionary theory. There is a huge difference between the two, the latter being much more prominent today.

            • I don’t make the Catholic rules…I am an atheist.
              You don’t like it…Phone the Pope.

              http://catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

              “The 1993 instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church’ calls the historical-critical method ‘essential’ and rejects explicitly a fundamentalist reading of Scripture.”
              When such an approach is applied to the Bible, he said, “Catholic scholars, along with mainstream Protestant scholars, see in the primal stories of Genesis not literal history but symbolic, metaphoric stories which express basic truths about the human condition and humans. The unity of the human race (and all of creation for that matter) derives theologically from the fact that all things and people are created in Christ and for Christ. Christology is at the center, not biology.”
              He added that “the question of biological origins is a scientific one; and, if science shows that there is no evidence of monogenism and there is lots of evidence for polygenism, then a Catholic need have no problem accepting that.”
              When such an approach is followed, he said, Adam and Eve are not seen as historical people, but as important figures in stories that contain key lessons about the relationships of humans and their Creator.
              The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the account of the fall in Genesis … uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”
              – See more at: http://catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve#sthash.1yMFIoRN.dpuf

      • I am not refuting the work of thousands of scientists. I am refuting a much-repeated myth that science itself rules out by its own laws. The fact that thousands of Godless scientists and others may be positing the ridiculous does not make it science. There are many more thousands of scientists who do not propose this ludicrous myth. At any rate, any serious work (investigation) into the myth have has shown evolution to be untenable.

        • Wrong. No top scientist in the relevant fields denies evolution. Not one.

          Your opinion verses that of a Biologist such as Professor Richard Dawkins?
          THAT is a no brainer.

          What is untenable is the Creation myth in Genesis.

  54. ” these were manifestly homosexual attacks by homosexual priests on boys.”

    This is the clear conclusion of the John Jay Report, and others like it, which found that the vast majority 80 – 90 % (there is some regional variation) of the abuse case victims were post-pubescent (i.e. sexually mature – they had adult bodies) adolescent boys, aged 11 – 17.

    That the vast majority of the victims were of an age to have sexually mature, adult bodies – though were still doubtless maturing in terms of personality – is very important to note. This is because many people like to lie that the cases represented an attraction to children – but no. he cases represent an attraction to sexually mature, physically adult bodies of the same sex.

    The vast majority of victims were not “children”, (which brings to mind primary school aged infants) but rather “young men”, many of whom (aged 16-17) could have been married, possessed a driving licence or working full-time.

    The evidence shows that there is a very clear bias in victim statistics towards young, but sexually mature, adolescent males / “young men”. That the media instead talks about “children”, of no particular gender, shows how erroneous their reporting is, being as it is designed to hide the truth of what the desires which caused the abuse.

    They desire to hide the truth, because society is not comfortable with the truth. Most critics are only interested in the cases, in as far as conveniently using them to criticise the Church – most critics do not really care about the victims; if they did, they would not be so squeamish about the nature of most of the abuse.

    It is very clear, to any impartial observer, that the majority of the males abusers were attracted to sexually mature younger males. It is very clear, to any impartial observer, that the majority of the male abusers have/had a homosexual orientation.

    This is not to suggest that all, or even many, homosexual men are potential abusers. The conclusion says nothing about homosexual men in general, it only establishes the facts behind these specific abuse cases which occurred within Catholic institutions.

    This is an evidence based conclusion, which is obviously important, if the cases are to be properly addressed and measures put in place to prevent any reoccurrence.

    We even saw the same, familiar pattern in the recent disgrace of Cardinal O’Brien. Again, we see a homosexual man strongly attracted to younger men (seminarians and priests in his case) to the extent where he forgot himself. He was not interested in men of a similar age to himself, but those who were younger and who he had authority over. The pattern is *exactly* the same.

    And just in-case anyone is still in denial – If a man in his mid-30s (or older) made behaved inappropriately to a 17 year old young woman in the workplace:

    – he would be called a pervert; no-one would suggest he was a paedophile
    – no-one would suggest heterosexuality had nothing to do with it

    Yet gullible people are happy accept absurd conclusions in the Catholic cases, because that’s easier for them to deal with, than the truth of these specific cases. That the huge preference for one demographic of victim is not even mention in media circles highlights this, loud and clear.

    And also – perhaps most importantly – it is now commonly accepted that homosexual people are “born this way” and cannot change their sexual orientation. Indeed, its dangerous even to try, we are told. Yet, if most of the Catholic abusers were not homosexual men, then this suggests that heterosexual men (the only other possible culprits) are somehow subject to periodic inter-generational-homosexual attraction. And that is just ridiculous. Sexuality is either fixed, or it is not.

  55. Arkenaten

    You posted a link about Saint Thomas More and heretics previously. The fact that it referred to “Saint” Martin Luther and “Saint” William Tynedale says all that needs to said about its objectivity and reliability.

    More defended the principle of punishment of heresy by secular power on the ground that it threatened the peace and safety of the commonwealth. In that, he was firmly in line with the King’s policy at that time. As Chancellor, it was More’s duty to administer the civil laws of England, which prescribed the death penalty for obstinate heretics. Nevertheless, during his term of office only four, it seems, were burned, and these were relapsed persons, whom he had no power to reprieve.

    Following a conference held by Henry VIII in May 1530 issued a proclamation against heretical books.For the future, no new Scriptural books or translations of the Bible were to be printed in England unless ‘examined and approved’ by a bishop, and books approved and printed were to include the names of both examiner and printer. At this point More became convinced that it was impossible to issue even an approved Bible translation because the mere fact of such an issue would appear ‘to give succour to heretics’. The point is that the Lollard heresy had been disseminated through vernacular translations of the Scriptures. The view of Henry’s conference, which More had attended, that the Bible in English was ‘not necessary’ was thus repeated in the proclamation. Nevertheless, More announced that if the people abandoned all heresies, the King would go ahead, after all, with an official English Bible, a concession that was Henry’s personal contribution to this proclamation.

    Your effort to imply that people were persecuted for trying to read the Bible, is really just another shoddy effort at muddying the waters here.

    • You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
      The Catholic Church is famous for rooting out what it considers heresies and if the culprits would not bend then they broke them. The Cathars come readily to mind.
      have you ever visited Carcasonne? I have . Nice town.

      More’s attack against Tynedale and his eventual execution were a result of a single mindlessness to ensure the Catholic interpretation ruled.

      That we now have the bible in English, with many different versions and interpretations and pretty much every language vindicates Tyndale and once again demonstrates that no matter what the church has done to force its dogma it has always genuflected in the end.

      Normal people are merely biding their time….. 😉

  56. @ Akenaten

    Hi:

    Catholicism accepts evolution.

    This is not correct. The Church has said that the theory of evolution is not necessarily in conflict with Christian doctrine. That is not the same as saying “this is a fact”. You could say its stance is “open minded”.

    Certainly there is enough to urge caution on glibly accepting evolution, as Darwin himself advised:

    Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

    Caution which was repeated in the 1999 reassessment of his work “Almost like a Whale”, by Professor Steve Jones (UCL):

    The fossil record – in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual change – often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)

    Humans and apes have a common ancestor. There is no need for a ‘transitional fossil’
    The DNA record clearly demonstrates this

    Never mind the DNA record, if you claim that this common ancestor existed, then you must surely be able to show me its bones. Otherwise, you are asking me to have faith in you. How ironic is that! 😉

    • Lol…”Show me its bones” The response of the frustrated.

      I Promise to show the bones on one condition…you show me the bones of Yeshua?
      Fair deal?

      ‘…its stance is “open minded”.”
      Yep, this is church speak for fact.. If they were that confident in their man-god they would have unreservedly refuted the statement as they have always done in the past

      It’s politics, my friend. They are biding their time whole they devise a plausible answer so as to maintain the preposterous dogma of Original Sin.

      Pay it no mind….it is just another piece of nonsense that will eventually be flushed away.

  57. Why don’t you say what YOU think, Holly? Wikipedia isn’t the most reliable of sources.

    So, which hypothesis do you support in claiming that the creation of life can come from inanimate sources….and why?

  58. As much as it might make you lot feel special, I can’t live here and answer every question from Catholic Corner.

    My ‘position’ is merely the position of millions of normal people. It is an open club and even people like you can join. All you need is an inquiring mind.

    You mean you can’t support your arguments.

    it’s a pity that you have to resort to sneering in an attempt to cover the fact.

    The points you raised have been well answered. It appears that you have no answers for questions asked about your own position and you again default to the arguments of the playground.

    There may well come a day when you realise what you’re really fighting against.

    When you do, perhaps you’ll be blessed to find the peace of mind that billions of Catholics do, every day.

    Let’s hope so.

    • ”You mean you can’t support your arguments.”

      The arguments have been supported. Maybe you just choose not to pay attention? I cannot be faulted for that, surely?

      ”There may well come a day when you realise what you’re really fighting against.”

      Fighting against? Who’s fighting? You have to justify your existence to an imaginary deity, not me, my friend.
      And the billions of Catholics will one day be nothing but an oddity in a history book.
      It is already happening and you aren’t even aware.

  59. Arkenaten,

    Since there was no reply button under your comments of 1.42pm (it is so irritating!), I have copied your post below with my answer below that.

    You wrote: “The simple answer is you are using god to fill in the gaps. Humans and apes have a common ancestor. There is no need for a ‘transitional fossil’
    The DNA record clearly demonstrates this.

    Catholicism accepts evolution. Catholicism accepts that the Garden of Eden is analogy. (Though they are still managing to hold on to Original SIn, which is a wonderful demonstration of their hypocrisy) Catholicism rejects Noah’s Flood as portrayed in the bible. Perhaps the news has been slow to filter down from thew Pope to the plebs in the pews. That’s not my problem, or anyone else’s for that matter. Go and ask your local up to date priest. As our host is wont to write…Gerragrip!

    So…back to the question. Are you going to attempt to explain how Yeshua is a god, or are you going to continue on your petulant rant?

    I could produce as many proofs to you that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, but I know beforehand that you would reject them all on some trumped up excuse or other, so I won’t waste the time. What I will say, though, is that someone who truly did not believe in God, as you claim, would not be so zealous in denying Him. God clearly troubles your conscience, which brings me back to what I said at the beginning about there being no such thing as an atheist. You need to be honest with yourself!

    • Actually I never lose a moments sleep over it. I merely find it fascinating that’s all.
      If I was not being honest I would be religious. But then the question would arise, which religion? Okay, Christianity? But which type of Christianity?
      You begin to see the dilemma?

      But please, feel free to demonstrate you evidence. I have seen much but am always willing to examine some more. The floor is yours….

      • Arkenaten,

        Not losing a moment’s sleep over your opposition to God is actually very worrying; it suggests a dead conscience.

        “If I was not being honest I would be religious.” A line worthy of any number of God haters. Stalin and Hitler came immediately to mind!

        • I do not hate ANYTHING. Hate is a wasted emotion reserved for those who believe in the Devil and other such stuff.

          One can have a conscience without religion, you know?
          Morality isn’t the sole preserve of the religious.
          You need to get a grip.
          Hitler did not hate god. He had a warped idea of what he considered good religion but he was a catholic as it turns out. Surely you knew this? No? Oh dear…than I bet that hurt. Wince…
          I am beginning to seriously wonder what dark little secrets you have shored up in your closet that makes you chronically spiteful with you ignorant comments?
          Is the topic of this post a little too close for comfort?
          You need to chill a little.

        • Oh, and I notice you are still not willing to take up the challenge re: demonstrating the divinity of Yeshua. What’s the matter, can’t find anything on Wiki?

  60. I found this quote from the Preface of a book entitled ‘The Way of Divine Love,’ on the revelations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to Sister Josefa Menendez. The words were written by a Jesuit, Fr. H. Monier Vinard in the early 1940s. They have only gained in strength since then!

    “Everywhere sin is increasing to an appalling degree. The pride of man leads him to discard his God and attempt to make a paradise on earth. He has so far succeeded only in making it a vestibule of hell, where impiety, immorality, and the worst passions have free scope; wars rage that are more terrible than any yet heard of, the majority of mankind suffers poverty and slavery, and all without the comfort which faith alone can impart. The Heart of God inclines in pity towards His forlorn children, and He points out to them the way of happiness, peace, and salvation.”

    How very true!

  61. I found this quote from the Preface of a book entitled ‘The Way of Divine Love,’ on the revelations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to Sister Josefa Menendez. The words were written by a Jesuit, Fr. H. Monier Vinard in the early 1940s. They have only gained in strength since then!

    “Everywhere sin is increasing to an appalling degree. The pride of man leads him to discard his God and attempt to make a paradise on earth. He has so far succeeded only in making it a vestibule of hell, where impiety, immorality, and the worst passions have free scope; wars rage that are more terrible than any yet heard of, the majority of mankind suffers poverty and slavery, and all without the comfort which faith alone can impart. The Heart of God inclines in pity towards His forlorn children, and He points out to them the way of happiness, peace, and salvation.”

    How very true!

  62. ”SHOULD the BBC documentary have highlighted the fact that in each and every case they presented for scrutiny, the child abused was a boy and the abuser was a man. THAT is the question.”

    Er…correct me if I am wrong. The boarding school was for boys and the Priests/Monks were men.

%d bloggers like this: