• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope Francis will send ‘missionaries of mercy’ to absolve women of abortion ‘sin’

Paleocon said:
So are you saying that priests who uphold the seal should be arrested?
Click to expand...

I would agree to letting the confessors off the hook if the church was willing to have an open discussion about pedophilia and arrest the people that did/do it.
 
Anomalism said:
I would agree to letting the confessors off the hook if the church was willing to have an open discussion about pedophilia and actively work to resolve the problem and arrest the people that did it.
Click to expand...

Could you explain more specifically what you mean?
 
Paleocon said:
So you want to imprison Catholic priests for upholding the seal of confession.

This would have all been a lot simpler if you would have just said clearly that you wanted the Church suppressed.
Click to expand...

Yes. Raping children is illegal, and rightfully so. Covering for child rapists is illegal, and rightfully so. This is what you're defending: child rapists and their defenders.

I don't care what your religion says, and neither does the law. Just like I and the law don't care if some voodoo religion requires child sacrifice. Well, if you want to do that, then you can go to some backwater third world swamp where people get away with things like that. Not here.

Religious freedom does not allow you victimize others. Religion does not entitle you to do whatever you want to other human beings, and it does not release you of criminal charges for things you permitted to be done to other human beings.

There is no reason Catholic officials should be the only exception to that, when every other religion is held to it if they wish to exist in the developed world. Your religion is not special.
 
Paleocon said:
Could you explain more specifically what you mean?
Click to expand...

The church would have to be completely open about the problem and work with authorities to arrest the people that are directly involved in it. This would also have to be a one time deal; any future confessions related to pedophilia would have to be reported. That pushes the limits of my morality, but I can see why somebody that has spent their entire life serving the church would feel compelled to uphold the seal.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes. Raping children is illegal, and rightfully so. Covering for child rapists is illegal, and rightfully so. This is what you're defending: child rapists and their defenders.

I don't care what your religion says, and neither does the law. Just like I and the law don't care if some voodoo religion requires child sacrifice. Well, if you want to do that, then you can go to some backwater third world swamp where people get away with things like that. Not here.

Religious freedom does not allow you victimize others. Religion does not entitle you to do whatever you want to other human beings, and it does not release you of criminal charges for things you permitted to be done to other human beings.

There is no reason Catholic officials should be the only exception to that, when every other religion is held to it if they wish to exist in the developed world. Your religion is not special.
Click to expand...

I could point out the numerous factual errors in your post, but I'll refrain. Suffice to say, you'll feel much better when you escape the confused haze of claiming you want people to be free to dissent but also saying that dissenters should be arrested, and simply admit that you don't support a right to dissent from your conception of the truth. It doesn't make you the odd man out. The vast majority of people throughout human history would freely admit that the truth should hold a special legal privilege over error. I'd certainly agree.

Anomalism said:
any future confessions related to pedophilia would have to be reported.
Click to expand...

So you also want the Church to be persecuted.
 
Paleocon said:
So you also want the Church to be persecuted.
Click to expand...

No, I want pedophiles to see justice. If that means a religion has to change some of its rules in the process then so be it. Pedophiles should not have a safe haven, and I'm amazed that you would argue otherwise.
 
Paleocon said:
I could point out the numerous factual errors in your post, but I'll refrain. Suffice to say, you'll feel much better when you escape the confused haze of claiming you want people to be free to dissent but also saying that dissenters should be arrested, and simply admit that you don't support a right to dissent from your conception of the truth. It doesn't make you the odd man out. The vast majority of people throughout human history would freely admit that the truth should hold a special legal privilege over error. I'd certainly agree.
Click to expand...

What, none?

Covering a child molestation ring is not "dissent." It's criminality. It is stunningly sad that you are so inculcated into defending a guy in a hat that you defend people who cover for child rapists. This is why we can't have nice things.
 
Anomalism said:
No, I want pedophiles to see justice. If that means a religion has to change some of its rules in the process then so be it. Pedophiles should not have a safe haven, and I'm amazed that you would argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's like saying you believe the sky is blue. A true description of your opinions, but not the contested point.

You want the ministers of a religion to be unable to obey its precepts. There's nothing wrong with that if the religion is false. The truth should hold a special place in the law, and falsehood should have no privileges under the law. I'd are completely with what I've just said.

I'm not saying you shouldn't want leftism to be legally favored and Catholicism restricted, but you should see what you're arguing for, and thereby understand why people like me would want our understanding of the truth to be legally supported, and other systems restricted.
 
Anomalism said:
I believe the Pope is trying to bring more left leaning ideas into the church in hopes of keeping his religion relevant.
Click to expand...

"Mercy" is hardly a "left leaning ideal," nor is it in any way a new idea within the Church.

While I certainly don't share her tone, or overall attitude on the situation, S&M's appraisal of the Pope's intentions is ultimately correct. This is not in any way, shape, or form a validation of the unmitigated evil of institutionalized abortion. It is an attempt to reach out to women who may have had abortions due to desperate circumstances, and desire to reconcile with the community of the faithful.

In many regards, they are just as much victims of the procedure as their unborn children.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What, none?

Covering a child molestation ring is not "dissent." It's criminality. It is stunningly sad that you are so inculcated into defending a guy in a hat that you defend people who cover for child rapists. This is why we can't have nice things.
Click to expand...

Note that I'm not actually trying to convince that my POV is true right now, I know that's not practically possible. I'm just trying to help you think this through logically.

For one, it doesn't matter that the Pope wears a hat, that literally is of no significance here at all.

Second, confessors do not cover for their penitents, if a priest keeps a confession secret, it's no different in its effects than if the confession never occurred. The conduct you're arguing for a law against, is simply the keeping of secrecy. Which is fine, organizations which are harmful to society should not have legally recognized secrecy. I'd fully support requiring Masons to divulge the content of their ceremonies, for insurance. But if you're going to call for a group to be required to do things they can't comply with, you should at least be upfront about the fact that you want them suppressed.
 
Paleocon said:
That's like saying you believe the sky is blue. A true description of your opinions, but not the contested point.
You want the ministers of a religion to be unable to obey its precepts. There's nothing wrong with that if the religion is false. The truth should hold a special place in the law, and falsehood should have no privileges under the law. I'd are completely with what I've just said.
Click to expand...

I want the minsters of a religion to be unable to shield pedophiles. If your God thinks it is okay for a person to remain silent about something like that then it is most definitely a false God.

Paleocon said:
I'm not saying you shouldn't want leftism to be legally favored and Catholicism restricted, but you should see what you're arguing for, and thereby understand why people like me would want our understanding of the truth to be legally supported, and other systems restricted.
Click to expand...

I didn't know fighting against pedophilia was considered leftism. I guess it's nice to know I'm definitely with the good guys.
 
JayDubya said:
And is there any indication that these violent killers regret what they did and realize they were wrong?

If not, religious mercy is unwarranted.

And regardless of religion, these evil and dangerous killers still belong in a prison.
Click to expand...

Also true. Reconciliation ultimately cannot be granted without some show of genuine remorse.
 
Anomalism said:
I want the minsters of a religion to be unable to shield pedophiles. If your God thinks it is okay for a person to remain silent about something like that then it is most definitely a false God.
Click to expand...

Now you're thinking straight forwardly (still wrong, but more logical than before). You believe that the worship of a false deity should be legally restricted. I agree. We disagree about what the truth is, but we both agree that the truth should be favored over error.

I didn't know fighting against pedophilia was considered leftism. I guess it's nice to know I'm definitely with the good guys.
Click to expand...

Now you're back to the illogicality. We're both against pedophilia, that's not the point in dispute.
 
Paleocon said:
Now you're back to the illogicality. We're both against pedophilia, that's not the point in dispute.
Click to expand...

You're only against pedophilia if being against it doesn't interfere with your religion. Your religion is more important to you than prosecuting people that rape children. Unlike you I am against it absolutely.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Yea... I'm with Paleocon on this one (and, believe me, I hate it when that happens).

What, precisely, are you suggesting here?
Click to expand...

She is suggesting what the vast majority of people throughout history would find completely unobjectionable. That what she believes to be false should be legally suppressed. She just has a different view of the truth than the vast majority of people throughout history.
 
beefheart said:
It is a nice gesture, but, it is all BS anyway. If your church can just arbitrarily do this (or sell indulgences) whenever they deem it to be an extra special super Holy Year, then it is just proof that religion is man made, and this is just a marketing ploy. I did a lot of years as a RC, did K-12 in Catholic school, I was well educated, but I found the entire religion to be bollocks.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "special" going on here other than the public nature of the gesture itself.

Any sinner can be granted forgiveness at any time, just so long as they make the effort to seek it out. The Pope is simply reminding us all of that fact.
 
Paleocon said:
Note that I'm not actually trying to convince that my POV is true right now, I know that's not practically possible. I'm just trying to help you think this through logically.

For one, it doesn't matter that the Pope wears a hat, that literally is of no significance here at all.

Second, confessors do not cover for their penitents, if a priest keeps a confession secret, it's no different in its effects than if the confession never occurred. The conduct you're arguing for a law against, is simply the keeping of secrecy. Which is fine, organizations which are harmful to society should not have legally recognized secrecy. I'd fully support requiring Masons to divulge the content of their ceremonies, for insurance. But if you're going to call for a group to be required to do things they can't comply with, you should at least be upfront about the fact that you want them suppressed.
Click to expand...

There is no logical way in which protecting pedophile enablers can be explained logically.

Ah, so you think Catholics should be the only people who don't have to obey civilized ethics because... voodoo? Why does no one else's voodoo count but yours? Why are other people's voodoo beliefs harmful, and yours aren't?

There's nowhere left to go with this conversation. You think people can logically protect pedophiles. That is a conversation ender.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I already said this: the need to be arrested, tried, and jailed if they are found to have been negligent or complicit in anything having to do with this. Just like they are everywhere else in the developed world -- which the Catholic Church apparently doesn't consider itself part of.
Click to expand...

You're aware that a significant number of priests and other clergy actually have been jailed over these sex scandals, right?

Even in cases where it cannot be definitely proven that any such abuse has taken place, the Church has still wound up shelling out millions in out of court settlements. This actually drove several parishes into bankruptcy.

It's also worth noting that many of the priests being branded as "pedophiles" here were actually simply homosexuals who went after (often sexually confused) men who happened to be younger than 18. Given how understanding of both genuine pedophilia and homosexuality were in their infancy at the time most of these events took place, it was sometimes viewed as being sufficient to simply transfer a priest to a new area, and have them "pray the sin away" in an effort to reform and rehabilitate themselves.

Granted, that was clearly the wrong call. However, that being said, you're ultimately blowing the problem out of proportion.

The Church never had any more of an issue with sexual abuse than any other institution, either religious or secular. The abuse rate was actually lower than that found in the general population even at its worst. It's response to the abuse it did find also wasn't any different than what most other organizations at the time did.

Society as a whole was somewhat messed up on this particular issue. The Church simply happens to be an easier target to go after than most.
 
Last edited:
Anomalism said:
How do you think the church should deal with pedophilia?
Click to expand...

The general answer would be to condemn it, however I assume you're referring specifically to clerical pedophilia, so I'll answer with that interpretation:

There are two ways to answer this, how it would work if the state were also Catholic, and how it should handle it now. I'll answer both.

For if the state were cooperating with the Church:

The Church would investigate denunciations of clerical pedophilia, and if there was sufficient evidence, it would institute a canonical trial, and convict and defrock the priest (this is where a cleric is reduced to the canonical status of a layman), at which point he would be handed over to the state for secular punishment.

As things are now:

I think the best thing would be to investigate and defrock as above, and advise the person denouncing the priest of his or her right to report the matter to the secular authorities as well. Although the current system of reporting the denunciation to the secular authorities directly also is fine.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
There is no logical way in which protecting pedophile enablers can be explained logically.

Ah, so you think Catholics should be the only people who don't have to obey civilized ethics because... voodoo? Why does no one else's voodoo count but yours? Why are other people's voodoo beliefs harmful, and yours aren't?

There's nowhere left to go with this conversation. You think people can logically protect pedophiles. That is a conversation ender.
Click to expand...

Now you're regressing into illogicality again, with strawmen and insults. Go back to where you almost admitted you wanted the Church persecuted, and go from there.
 
Gathomas88 said:
There is nothing "special" going on here other than the public nature of the gesture itself.

Any sinner can be granted forgiveness at any time, just so long as they make the effort to seek it out. The Pope is simply reminding us all of that fact.
Click to expand...

Provided it is a holy year, and that a specially designated person of the church administers the forgiveness.
 
beefheart said:
Provided it is a holy year, and that a specially designated person of the church administers the forgiveness.
Click to expand...

Sins can be forgiven during any year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom