We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
GRANDE RAPHAEL !! Spot on as always !!
Sometimes he gets one right. This time, like many other times, he puts an immensely large dirty boot in an immensely larger smellier mouth!
Are you referring to the CC?
Excellent article now we need to change our constitution to withdraw these privileges.
And MGRM accepts the nomination of that bishop! What utter madness! Funnier than Benny Hill. A lot funnier.
Still sore about being passed over for a nomination yourself? LOL
Well written article. However the issue on morality and how the Church over the years has used this to scare people from hell and get away with it goes well beyond these single recent scandals. How many thousands have re-written wills on their death bed giving all their possessions to the Church? I have met so many of these cases..only God knows how many times this happened. This is a crime as well, particularly when it is a priest who uses his clout to convince people on the death bed that donating their earthly possessions will earn them heaven! Today no one would believe any priest talking in this way, years ago things were very different and whatever the priest ordered had to be obeyed.
Thank you for a very well written column.
A very valid argument. However, for consistency, one would have to extend it to its logical consequence. That is, we cannot accept that the police enforce the law, since some of its members break it. And we cannot recognise the authority of the Courts to administer justice, since some of its members have broken very basic tenets of justice. Which basically leaves us in a situation of "each to his own". And where would that lead to? In truth, society can only function because its members can conceive the idea an institition (be it civil or religious) exists independently of its component members. It is a case of being greater than the sum of its parts
"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" is a tenet of your religion. It has absolutely no application in a civil society. Members of court do not routinely break basic tenets of justice. Police do not routinely break laws. Catholic Bishops do routinely cover up child molesting. All over the world. And they cannot claim that because everyone sins, they should be allowed to let their priests rape children. That is completely absurd. Thankfully, I have not read your argument as an affirmative defense in any court case, since your argument would cause the jury to immediately convict your client.
However, the police and judiciary are appointed by a democratically elected parliament, and subject to it - if they do not do their job, or aid and abet the very actions that they should be acting against, those at the helm can be censured or replaced, and if the government does not do this, it itself can be replaced (at least in principle). The Church is subject to no public censure whatsoever, not even nominally, yet it still makes demands which it expects the public to conform to, demands which it breaks itself - and the followers of the Church have no power to stop it.
Soap operas indeed, and Vassallo seems to be very good at keeping us amused.
you cannot attack his argument so you attack Raphael because he does not"at least have a track record ...of their own" pathetic is the mildest way to describe your argument
try 'ad hominem' fallacy.... or are you arguing that fudging and delaying an internal investigation of a criminal matter instead of reporting it to the police is a shining example or moral behaviour.
I guess your point is that only those who oppose abortion can also oppose child molesting and other sexual deviance. It would seem to be the exact opposite in the Catholic Church where only those who oppose abortion are allowed to have sex with children. Try as I may, I cannot understand what you wrote because it would seem that abortion has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Yet you seem to have no problems accepting advice about morals from a book that tells us how we should treat the slaves we own, and beat them, just as long as they don't die in two days; how marriage is the punishment of a rapist, as long as he pays the father of the victim; stoning anyone who digresses to death; inheriting the faults of others and countless other moral gems.
Yes, we know that all that matters to you is abortion, but unfortunately even though I read the article several times to check, I missed the part where abortion, or anything about it, was mentioned. What I find hard to understand, though, is how you conveniently, defend the Catholic church on the rights of the "unborn child" and how these trump those of the mother, but somehow shrug off abuse, and cover ups, of children and adults by the same institution. I guess you must think that these rights vanish as soon as one is born, as if being born was all that mattered.
I also scanned the article to see if Mr. Vincenti's comment has anything whatsoever to do with the topic and found that it does not. Quite the opposite, to promote an abortion agenda for those who rape children is incredibly ill-conceived.
paul this article has nothing to do with abortion so don't mix oranges with apples
he is not trying to advise us on morals...he just said beware of those who try to advise you on morals because fra il dire e il fare c'e in mezzo il mare !!!
Weather or not you agree with the article, remember the victims should be the real focus, in addition to the deplorable handling of the entire debacle. They are the ones who have suffered the most; I recall family stories as well of relatives being told by Priests "you'll only see heaven if you unburden your possessions to the Church", but I can recall being taught "not to stand in judgement, lest I be judged" Even our Pope states he himself is not to judge. This is what's wrong with religion today I think; seldom are the core values remembered by the most "Passionate"
and you are in no position to preach rapheal..................you are a nobody.
I received a small pamphlet entitled "The Moral Teachings of the church". Inside the covers were 16 blank pages!
Auxiliary Bishop Mgr Charles Scicluna..........he is a CIVIL ATTORNEY and, as such, his primary responsibility and duty is to the organization and institution he works for and represents. Please do not ever be surprised by his conduct and/or decision-making. It is an impossible situation, no-win, conflict of interests to ask a clergy member to decide which of his responsibilities or obligations is paramount............(1) loyalty and dedication to the organization or (2) responsibility and commitment to the parishioners he serves.
We have lived and continue to live this same nightmare and dilemma in several dioceses throughout the USA and the evidence, facts, documents, etc. would suggest that each and every time, a clergy official with a Civil Law Degree will choose the institution and organization and act in the best interests of management and leadership.
Michael SkiendzielewskiPhiladelphia, PAUSA
A very valid argument. However, for consistency, one would have to extend it to its logical consequence. That is, we cannot except that the police enforce the law, since some of its members break it. And we cannot recognise the authority of the Courts to meet out justice, since some of its members have broken very basic tenets of justice. Which basically leaves us in a situation of "each to his own". And where would that lead to? In truth, society can only function because its members can conceive the idea an institition (be it civil or religious) exists independently of its component members. It is a case of being greater than the sum of its parts.
your argument would be valid IF the Police or the Judicial system protected its criminals so that it would avoid having to pay damages to its victims and it retained its moral authority with the public. The idea of a perfect church may be there but the reality stinks of hypocrisy mate !
That is not its logical consequence. Courts do not mete out morals. They mete out justice. Police enforce laws not morals. The Catholic Church metes out morals and does a very bad job of it. I think you may have missed the entire point of the article.
Wow...what a stupid biased article...wow....sooooooo anti-clerical from a person with a chip on his shoulder! wow...unbelievable! Raphael.........I dont think you amuse anybody except yourself!
tell us where it is wrong Buddy... ? Or are you as clueless as the blind defenders of the indefensible... ?
Three wows in a sentence - it must be true (OBVIOUS SARCASM). Unlike Raphael, you have managed to amuse us all.
Your attempt at persuasion does not lend any weight to your argument. One does not need a chip on their shoulder to be opposed to men raping children. Almost everyone is appalled by it. Not you I guess.
It greatly amuses me. Looking forward to reading more on 'The Nun's Priest's Tale Retold'. May I suggest it for The Christmas Panto?