New Rule: Catholics Must Get Up Out of the Pew and Walk Out of the Church Forever

[AnnEsthesia]

When Barack Obama didn't hear Reverend Wright say those awful things about America, he still should have rushed the stage, smite Reverend Wright with the cross, and left the church. If there's anything the right wing can agree on, it's that. And that gays are going hell, right after they suck them off in the airport bathroom.

But it raises an obvious question, one that I haven't heard asked, which is strange because it's so obvious: If you leave a church when the head of the church says bad things about America, what do you do when your church hierarchy is caught up in a systematic and decades-long sex abuse scandal? And did I mention the people being sexually abused were children? Hundreds of them?

How about when the head of that church, or Pope, associated with and promoted members of the clergy who not only facilitated the sexual abuse and rape of hundreds and hundreds of children, but engaged in a decades-long cover-up of those crimes?

Reverend Wright associated with Farrakhan. The Pope works with Cardinal Law. Which is worse? Isn't it the man who shuffled "priests" like Shanley and Geoghan and many others from parish to parish with the full knowledge of their crimes, and then claimed he had no idea?

Yes, by Sean Hannity's own logic, Catholics like him, en masse, would be expected to abandon their church. Which shouldn't be a problem, because they worship Reagan anyway.

COLMES: Then shouldn't John McCain say he doesn't support the views of a man who makes anti-Catholic statements?
OBENSHAIN: He did, I believe. He said I'm not--I don't agree with everything -- a
COLMES: And Obama says he does not support anti-Semitism, as expressed by Louis Farrakhan.
HANNITY: Leave the church.

Well, what about it, Sean? Shouldn't you leave your church? I mean, like, five years ago?

And since you haven't, how do we know you're not also a secret child fucker? Again, just using your logic:
HANNITY: ...What if he really deep down in his heart thinks like Pastor Wright?
LUNTZ: It's not for anyone to answer that question.
HANNITY: Well, is that dangerous for this country? I think that would be dangerous. That would mean we would have -- if he agreed with Wright, and I don't know that he does, but if he did, that would mean a racist and an anti-Semite would be president of the United States.

Side note: Does it occur to anyone that, for the past five years, the nuts every politician has been busy distancing themselves from--Reverend Wright, Reverend Falwell, Reverend Hagee, Reverend Haggard, Reverend Robertson--are all, you know, reverends?

Why don't we just go back to the days when politicians kept their religions to themselves? Wasn't that better?

link (http://www.236.com/blog/w/bill_maher/new_rule_catholics_must_get_up_5510.php)

[Alonzo]

I've never heard a catholic priest, in a church I've been in, say hateful things about blacks, whites, homosexuals, American, Muslims, Jews etc. The catholic churches that I've been to are about religion, not politics.

[AnnEsthesia]

Because a system where child abuse is covered up and the abusers are moved to where they can do it to new kids.. that is ok?

[Elrathin]

I've never heard a catholic priest, in a church I've been in, say hateful things about blacks, whites, homosexuals, American, Muslims, Jews etc. The catholic churches that I've been to are about religion, not politics.


No, the Catholic Churches I know just want to excommunicate you if they find out you are Pro-Choice or Pro-Gay Marriage though.

[Alonzo]

Because a system where child abuse is covered up and the abusers are moved to where they can do it to new kids.. that is ok?


That is a problem with how they like to handle problems, internally. They weren't behind the scenes telling their priests to "go fuck little timmy". It was handled horrendously, but they weren't intentionally supporting or encouraging it. It's a difference between very poor judgement and actively participating in such problems. Obama's pastor actively participated in hate.

[Alonzo]

I've never heard a catholic priest, in a church I've been in, say hateful things about blacks, whites, homosexuals, American, Muslims, Jews etc. The catholic churches that I've been to are about religion, not politics.


No, the Catholic Churches I know just want to excommunicate you if they find out you are Pro-Choice or Pro-Gay Marriage though.


I don't think they'd survive, at least at the level they are, if they tried doing that here.

[Truth_and_Power]

Is Obama the only one not pulling the race card in this election?

[AnnEsthesia]

Zo, sorry. It was not a 'problem with how they internally handle problems". Anyone who supports the Catholic Church and has not walked out and demanded that they reform is a hypocrite if they call out Obama. If you are still stuffing the collection plates at church and have not actively sought to make changes in the church, screamed for them to make reparations to the victims and for the priests who molested children and the priests who moved them and hid the crime to be excommunicated... then you are passively condoning it and are a hypocrite.

[4Reaganomics]

He is attempting to isolate himself to the racial division in this country that he helped contribute to by being a member of a church filled with hate.

I think the American people are smarter than that though

[4Reaganomics]

Zo, sorry. It was not a 'problem with how they internally handle problems". Anyone who supports the Catholic Church and has not walked out and demanded that they reform is a hypocrite if they call out Obama. If you are still stuffing the collection plates at church and have not actively sought to make changes in the church, screamed for them to make reparations to the victims and for the priests who molested children and the priests who moved them and hid the crime to be excommunicated... then you are passively condoning it and are a hypocrite.


If your personal pastor and close friend for 20 years is a known molester, then yes you should walk out

if they support pedophilia, then yes you should walk out

There are plenty of parishes and priests in this country who follow the rules and have good moral standing, and if someone wants to attend this church they have all the right to. It is nothing like sitting in front of anti-american hate speech against whites for 20 years.

[Truth_and_Power]

Corrollary to this rule: No southern baptist may ever be elected to public office.

[4Reaganomics]

I think they could. As long as their personal minister and friends love all races and the country, people wouldn't have a problem.

JSM will be fine

[Alonzo]

Zo, sorry. It was not a 'problem with how they internally handle problems". Anyone who supports the Catholic Church and has not walked out and demanded that they reform is a hypocrite if they call out Obama. If you are still stuffing the collection plates at church and have not actively sought to make changes in the church, screamed for them to make reparations to the victims and for the priests who molested children and the priests who moved them and hid the crime to be excommunicated... then you are passively condoning it and are a hypocrite.


People have demanded they reform how they handle these things anne.

But you act as if the church is one house of worship, as if individual churches are merely clones of each other, that couldn't be further from the truth. If you attended a church who was aware of such things and engaged in the poor handling of the issue, and the people who contributed are still there, then yes you would be a hypocrite.

But, at the same time, if you were a member of a catholic church that played no part in the abuse, and did not have people who were involved in it working there, then no you're not a hypocrite.

A church in medford, ma is not responsible for what a church in lowell, ma does. And, since the priest can only control what they have power over, they are not responsible for what the archbishop does. It would be like if I were friends with someone and his boss told him to repossess my car, who should I blame him or his boss?

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry, no. If I had been a catholic when this whole thing broke, you better believe I would have walked out and not returned. No money of mine would ever go to a church that actively and knowingly hides and supports child molesters.

[Alonzo]

Sorry, no. If I had been a catholic when this whole thing broke, you better believe I would have walked out and not returned. No money of mine would ever go to a church that actively and knowingly hides and supports child molesters.


Ummm..... I don't think the church was supporting child molesters. They used incredibly bad judgement by shuffling them around and failing to properly punish and report them, but actively supporting is going too far.

But you don't have to give money if you don't want to. That doesn't mean you should abandon your priest even if you really like him and like what he teaches.

[potter]

I've never heard a catholic priest, in a church I've been in, say hateful things about blacks, whites, homosexuals, American, Muslims, Jews etc. The catholic churches that I've been to are about religion, not politics.



And screwing small children...you forgot that one.....

[potter]

Ummm..... I don't think the church was supporting child molesters. They used incredibly bad judgement by shuffling them around and failing to properly punish and report them,


You don't feel that protecting them from punishment and moving them to fresh hunting grounds is supporting them?

[Truth_and_Power]

Incredibly bad judgement does not begin to describe putting the church's need for experienced leadership and/or the protection of priests you care about over the welfare of the children you're supposed to be helping.

[Alonzo]

Ummm..... I don't think the church was supporting child molesters. They used incredibly bad judgement by shuffling them around and failing to properly punish and report them,


You don't feel that protecting them from punishment and moving them to fresh hunting grounds is supporting them?


No, because in their view that was punishment. Supporting would be transferring them to protect them. Practically it's irrelevant, but we are talking about how you should react to such a situation. Was the church wrong, incompetent etc.? Yes. Did they support molestation and want it to continue or not care? No. I also see nothing showing the pope(s) supported that.

But:

Some bishops have been heavily criticized for moving offending priests from parish to parish, where they still had personal contact with children, rather than seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood. Instead of reporting the incidents to police, many dioceses simply submitted the offending priests for psychological treatment and assessment. The priests resumed their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Abusers_moved_to_di fferent_locations

You can say a lot about the Church and the people who made horrendous mistakes, and they should be removed as well as the molesters. But handling things internally is how the church had always handled problems, they did the same here. They did make them undergo treatment, and as far as I can tell there was incompetence and extremely poor judgment, but nothing indicating support of, or complicity in, the molestations by the church itself.

[Alonzo]

I've never heard a catholic priest, in a church I've been in, say hateful things about blacks, whites, homosexuals, American, Muslims, Jews etc. The catholic churches that I've been to are about religion, not politics.



And screwing small children...you forgot that one.....


A bold, and absurd, claim to make when you don't even know which churches I'm talking about.

[AnnEsthesia]

Bullshit Zo. You can wrap it in silk and spray perfume on it, but it is still bullshit. They actively supported those priests. They protected them. The proper course would have been to TURN THEM IN TO AUTHORITIES AND NOTIFY THE PARENTS! Did they do that? No. The children that were abused have to fight tooth and nail to get restitution. The church only has one concern.. with itself and maintaining as tight a grip on its money and power as it can. Period. If they cared about their parishioners, they would have let everyone know what was happening and taken steps to change, not waited until it broke in the media.

[Alonzo]

The proper course would have been to TURN THEM IN TO AUTHORITIES AND NOTIFY THE PARENTS!

Correct. But if you think they actually supported them, or somehow treated them differently because it didn't concern them, then show me where the church has conducted itself differently when priests or other clergy commit crimes?

It was always done internally. They treated this like they treated other problems with priests. They were wrong, but to say they supported them isn't true.

[AnnEsthesia]

By moving them to another parish, by continuing to support them and allow them to remain priests, by not exposing them as molesters.. yes, they supported them. If you murder someone and I privately tell you that it was wrong and I do not turn you in even though I was there and know it was you, do you think the courts will consider my telling you it was wrong good enough?

Sorry, the whole church and every single person who knew about it and covered it up are guilty and they will spend a nice eternity in the hell they threaten the rest of us with on a daily basis.

[Truth_and_Power]

Organized religion is a power structure.

[potter]

Ummm..... I don't think the church was supporting child molesters. They used incredibly bad judgement by shuffling them around and failing to properly punish and report them,


You don't feel that protecting them from punishment and moving them to fresh hunting grounds is supporting them?


No, because in their view that was punishment. .


Punishment for this type of activity for everyone else in this country is jail time followed by mandatory public listing as a pediophile.

Why are you protecting these people?

[potter]

I've never heard a catholic priest, in a church I've been in, say hateful things about blacks, whites, homosexuals, American, Muslims, Jews etc. The catholic churches that I've been to are about religion, not politics.



And screwing small children...you forgot that one.....


A bold, and absurd, claim to make when you don't even know which churches I'm talking about.


Ah...I stand corrected....

[Truth_and_Power]

Ummm..... I don't think the church was supporting child molesters. They used incredibly bad judgement by shuffling them around and failing to properly punish and report them,


You don't feel that protecting them from punishment and moving them to fresh hunting grounds is supporting them?


No, because in their view that was punishment. .


Punishment for this type of activity for everyone else in this country is jail time followed by mandatory public listing as a pediophile.

Why are you protecting these people?


So, like, if the church finds me smoking pot at the altar they will give me a free 2 week vacation to amsterdam, and that's punishment?

[potter]

The proper course would have been to TURN THEM IN TO AUTHORITIES AND NOTIFY THE PARENTS!

Correct. But if you think they actually supported them, or somehow treated them differently because it didn't concern them, then show me where the church has conducted itself differently when priests or other clergy commit crimes?

It was always done internally. They treated this like they treated other problems with priests. They were wrong, but to say they supported them isn't true.


Treated it internally? If a chain of day care centers has consistent problems with certain staff molesting children would they shuffle them around to other locations and pretend they were not molesters? No, they would call the police and have them arrested.

[potter]

Ummm..... I don't think the church was supporting child molesters. They used incredibly bad judgement by shuffling them around and failing to properly punish and report them,


You don't feel that protecting them from punishment and moving them to fresh hunting grounds is supporting them?


No, because in their view that was punishment. .


Punishment for this type of activity for everyone else in this country is jail time followed by mandatory public listing as a pediophile.

Why are you protecting these people?


So, like, if the church finds me smoking pot at the altar they will give me a free 2 week vacation to amsterdam, and that's punishment?



That's quite the little wet dream ain't it? :ecstatic:

[AnnEsthesia]

Following Zo's logic, no one can condemn Obama, since he was not the one preaching that way and just because he attended that church, it does not mean he agreed with the pastor. Glad to see Zo being so open-minded.

[Alonzo]

The proper course would have been to TURN THEM IN TO AUTHORITIES AND NOTIFY THE PARENTS!

Correct. But if you think they actually supported them, or somehow treated them differently because it didn't concern them, then show me where the church has conducted itself differently when priests or other clergy commit crimes?

It was always done internally. They treated this like they treated other problems with priests. They were wrong, but to say they supported them isn't true.


Treated it internally? If a chain of day care centers has consistent problems with certain staff molesting children would they shuffle them around to other locations and pretend they were not molesters? No, they would call the police and have them arrested.


From what I've read schools used to do the same thing if anyone found out. But I didn't say they were right, I objected to the argument they supported it.


Punishment for this type of activity for everyone else in this country is jail time followed by mandatory public listing as a pediophile.

Why are you protecting these people?

Not acting or punishing appropriately is not supporting them. And the entire church, from the lowest priest to the pope, was not involved.

So, like, if the church finds me smoking pot at the altar they will give me a free 2 week vacation to amsterdam, and that's punishment?

I'm not sure if I'd compare mandatory psychological treatment to Amsterdam, especially since it's not legal to rape little kids in a psychologists office.

Following Zo's logic, no one can condemn Obama, since he was not the one preaching that way and just because he attended that church, it does not mean he agreed with the pastor. Glad to see Zo being so open-minded.

Who dictates the teachings at that church? If the one doing that is the problem then yes, you should leave. If the one who is not dictating the teaching is the problem, and neither the pope nor the priests in most churches were the problem, then no you should not leave unless you want to.

[AnnEsthesia]

Bullshit Zo. Many many many people in the heirarchy of the church knew. To say otherwise to is pretend to be ignorant and you are just not that dumb. They knew and they supported the priests by providing them sanctuary. Would you say the same if these were business men harboring terrorists that they knew had killed people? Give me a break.

[Alonzo]

Bullshit Zo. Many many many people in the heirarchy of the church knew. To say otherwise to is pretend to be ignorant and you are just not that dumb. They knew and they supported the priests by providing them sanctuary.

The pope knew? Unless you can support that I don't see the point, as the rest aren't actually determining doctrine, at least not significantly. The next most powerful ones in day to day life, in terms of what people are actually being told, are priests, and the vast majority of them did nothing wrong.

Would you say the same if these were business men harboring terrorists that they knew had killed people? Give me a break.


Harboring is protecting them from punishment. The church punished weakly and inappropriately, but it would not be harboring. Now if the police knew and they were hiding them then that would be harboring.

[AnnEsthesia]

Dear, if the church knew that priests were molesting kids (and it is a fact that they did know), then they are harboring criminals. Just like if a company knows that an employee is skimming money from someone's account and does not do anything about it, merely moves them to a new department and does not notify the client... THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE.

The church is responsible for harboring, protecting and supporting priests and for taking a big old crap on the kids that they were supposed to support and protect. Yea, that is what I look for in a church.

[Alonzo]

They did punish them by having them undergo treatment and kicking them out of their church. That's not sufficient punishment, but it is punishment.

As for supporting, how are they supporting them? Are they telling them to "Go get jimmy!"? They're not supporting that and they, however weekly and ineffectively, did try to stop it.

[AnnEsthesia]

Bullshit. Sorry Zo, but this is just ridiculous. I dare you, if anyone in your family hurts someone, to tell the police when they find out "Well, yes, I knew about it. I sent him to his room and made him see a psychiatrist." See how well that flies.

They failed in their obligation to protect the youngest and most vulnerable members of their church and instead chose secrecy.

From what I have read, many of those priests were merely moved to other parishes, sometimes in other countries. I am sure they were happy to learn that the church sent them the perverts.

Again, they failed their responsibilities. They did not notify police, they did not notify parents so that the parents could get their children help (why is it the priests were supposedly offered help, but not the victims?) and they retained the priests within the priesthood. How exactly do you claim they did not harbor and support them? Are you now stating that continuing to give them room and board and provide them shelter is not supporting and harboring them?

Show me one case where they turned the priest over to police and washed their hands of the pervert.

[Alonzo]

I dare you, if anyone in your family hurts someone, to tell the police when they find out "Well, yes, I knew about it. I sent him to his room and made him see a psychiatrist." See how well that flies.

I think that's a rather common things for families to do, many don't even bother with a psychologist or counselor.

They failed in their obligation to protect the youngest and most vulnerable members of their church and instead chose secrecy.

Which is true. I said that.

Are you now stating that continuing to give them room and board and provide them shelter is not supporting and harboring them?

Did they encourage their actions and did they do nothing to try to stop it? No. That's what I'm referring to by support.

Show me one case where they turned the priest over to police and washed their hands of the pervert.

Barring police at their door, they have no history of doing that for any criminal violation.

[AnnEsthesia]

Sweetheart, but not revealing what was happening and by creating a situation where priests could continue to take advantage of children because no one knew that they could not be trusted, the Church is very much responsible for what happened to those kids. And then, when the kids came forward, they were ridiculed until it was revealed that it was all horridly true. So yea, the church and those who defended it are all scum.

[AnnEsthesia]

Oh, and would you be claiming this is ok if it was a school and not this stupid beloved church?