SpeedRacer 1 #1 March 6, 2003 Anyone else see Bill O'Reilly last night? Sometimes I agree with him, other times I disagree, but last night he was a total arrogant dick. I came home from Mass on Ash Wednesday in time to see his totally ignorant "spin" on the pope. (He's pissed off at the Pope because the Pope doesn't want war.) Let's see if I can sum up: 1) Bill believes that the priest sex scandal has undermined the vatican's moral authority on making judgements about the Iraq issue. I wish someone could explain what the one has to do with the other. 2) The pope is getting old and senile. 3) The pope is naive. 3) The pope was a failure for not inciting an armed rebellion against the Soviet occupation of Poland. His half-assed, ignorant "analysis" showed that he understood pretty much nothing about Pope John Paul II life, or the Pope's critical role in helping to bring about the collapse of the Soviet empire. Hell, even Gorbachev recognized that! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #2 March 6, 2003 QuoteBill believes that the priest sex scandal has undermined the vatican's moral authority I do agree with that part of his comment, though!--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 March 6, 2003 Do i have to spell it out? The heinous actions of a few fucked-up priests have no relevance whatsoever re. the Vatican's decision as to whether or not it is morally justified to go to war at this time. Two separate topics. That kind of logic reminds me of when Ann Coulter put the blame for the Enron scandal on Bill Clinton. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #5 March 6, 2003 QuoteThe heinous actions of a few fucked-up priests have no relevance whatsoever re. the Vatican's decision as to whether or not it is morally justified to go to war at this time Perhaps the fact that there was notification to the Vatican about it, and the Vatican chose to do nothing to protect the children or remedy the situation, but rather chooses to protect the rogue priests is what is being referred to... Just my opinion. As for the Pope being old, he is. Naive, he's not. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 March 6, 2003 the Vatican did this?! or the was it the senior priest or bishop of certain parishes? the latter is what I heard. anyway it has no relevance re. the Iraq issue. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #7 March 6, 2003 Speedy, I think you miss understood what my reply meant. Although it has no bearing with the impending war with Iraq, I personally believe that the Vatican has no moral authority. This is due to the actions taken by the Vatican and the person's in the Vatican's command through the entire sexual abuse scandal. If it was Senior Priests or Bishops, is a trivial matter, they were still under the command of the Vatican. The actions by the Vatican after this unfortunate problem came to light, was less then spectacular. When persons are under your command, you are responsible for them. If their actions are reprisable, then steps should be taken to punish them and steps taken to make sure that something like that never happens again. The Vatican did not do this. Thus, my statement still stands, the Vatican has no moral authority.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #8 March 6, 2003 (edit: sorry about that...something popped in there where it wasn't supposed to. Now, back to regularly scheduled commentary!)... I remember clearly hearing about a conference of bishops at the Vatican who vetoed the American bishops' proposal for dealing with it (why they did I am not sure), and as such, proposed no new/better ideas as to how to curtail this behavior. Nor were they willing to look at other countries' priesthood as regards to this abuse. As to how it dovetails into the Iraq thing, here's how I think it fits...if someone doesn't take action to correct something as heinious as child sexual abuse, and in fact uses the power of their position to hide the truth, then how can they be taken seriously on something else as serious as Iraq and it's disarmament and WMD's? They've lost the credibility, and yes, the "moral authority" to have what they say be taken totally seriously. Hey, look, I understand this hits close to home for you. I didn't see the show, and don't know what O'Reilly said. But I do understand how the Pope has lost credibility, and why things are being said at this juncture. And keep in mind the Vatican has, in recent years, been staunchly anti-war... I am not poking at you, Speedy...what I'm doing is simply trying to show you the other side of the coin, and hope I've done it. Have a great day! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nevets 0 #9 March 6, 2003 I again have to agree with what Dave and Michelle said. I really don't want to come across like I'm bashing your religion (because I'm not). However, as stated my Dave and Michelle nothing was done to the offending priests during the churches moral crisis, but now they want to speak out about other moral issues. I don't know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #10 March 6, 2003 Does that mean that the Jim Bakker scandal de-legitimizes the Southern Baptists? I realize it's a smaller scandal, but who gets to decide what's big enough? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racer42 0 #11 March 6, 2003 I really try and avoid people like O'Reilly. Just another opportunistic jackass millionaire.L.A.S.T. #24 Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team Electric Toaster #3 Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor Co-Founder Team Happy Sock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #12 March 6, 2003 QuoteDoes that mean that the Jim Bakker scandal de-legitimizes the Southern Baptists Was there a legislating body responsible for his actions, who worked at length to cover it up? If anything, he de-legitmized televangilists, which is indeed what happened.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #13 March 6, 2003 I'll pile on here... The sex scandals did diminish the pope's moral authority. When you are the head of the church and you forcefully decline to do what is right in relation to church scandal, you have abandoned the precepts of the very religion you're controlling. Putting the concerns of the attacker and focusing on damage control to the church instead of the victimized children shows me personally that the church has strayed from the path of rightousness they espouse. My objection isn't with the general Catholic population. They've done nothing wrong. It is with the misuse of authority. Priests and other church officials are not above the law. They should be held accountable just like you or I. Transferring them to a different parish or putting them in a different role away from children is insufficient response. They should be subject to the same civil and criminal proceedings as everyone else, with jail time if applicable. Anything either more or less is unfair and discriminatory. The situation happens all over the place. Police brutality diminishes respect for their authority. The bullying actions of the United States undermine our self-proclaimed role as the protector of liberty and justice. Edited for typos. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #14 March 6, 2003 On the one hand, I agree with the Pope's efforts at avoiding war with Iraq. On the other hand, the Catholic Church has lost a lot of credibility in the last century. The basic beliefs of Catholicism may be sound, by a lot of weak Catholics have undermined the authority of the Church. Sorry, but I come from a long line of Protestants. My grandfather used to take us for Sunday afternoon drives - afternoon Anglican services - when he would expound upon how the Catholic Church kept the Quebecous downtrodden. The Catholic Church helped oppress the masses in Quebec for centuries. My grandfather knew decades ahead of the press about sexual improprieties by priests. Now the Pope may be far enough up the chain of command that he can claim "plausible deniability," but many local bishops and the College of Cardinals clearly made mistakes in deciding not to punish priests who diddle altar boys. The Catholic Church could restore its own credibility if it enforced its own rules. Finally, if O'Reilly wants to be an ignorant, obnoxious, opportunistic ass, preserve your kharma by turning him OFF! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #15 March 6, 2003 alright, I understand what y'all are saying. It's my fault, I guess. I just wasn't clear about what I was thinking. Of course, I accept that non-Catholics, and even in some cases, Catholics wouldn't automatically accept statements by the Pope based solely on his authority, which many people don't even recognize. But I think it was Voltaire who pointed out that an idea should be judged solely on itself, not on who said it. I guess what I should have said was that the Catholic church's parameters for what constitutes a Just War http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.aspshould be judged based on their own merits. If we agree with the Just War doctrine, we should then ask ourselves whether the Pope is applying this doctrine correctly to the present situation. And the validity of both of these decisions (1. Is the Just War doctrine a good code, and 2. Is it being applied correctly in this instance) should be determined irrespective of the priest sex scandals. sorry I guess I f&*ked up when I talked about "moral authority" Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #16 March 6, 2003 Quotehttp://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.aspQuoteProbability of success. This is a difficult criterion to apply, but its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.This criteria for a "just war" seems beyond insane to me. If you are going to lose, than your war is not just?So, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising (a few doomed Polish Jews, mostly unarmed, fighting to avoid being sent to death camps by the the vastly superior--in a military sense--German army) was not "just"? Resistance was futile, so they should all have just marched off to the gas chamber, like good little boys and girls?Sorry, I just can't swallow the criteria.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #17 March 7, 2003 No, that was an uprising, not a war between two nations. But if we imagine another scenario where one nation suddenly attacks another one, then yeah, obviously there's no question the second one will have to defend itself. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #18 March 7, 2003 QuoteAnyone else see Bill O'Reilly last night? i did, he's an imbicile. QuoteSometimes I agree with him, other times I disagree, but last night he was a total arrogant dick bang on dude. vatican, no vatican, pope, no pope that dude is a real "class act" i saw another interview with the MTV host dude, can't remember his name, (last name houge??) but at least he came to the middle east to get some of what he referred to as to "09/11" generations views and ideas on the crises, and for this i respect him he is about 20 years old, educated, informed and articulated, maybe some of the crowd should tune in to his show, i wish i could, but i can't get it here. peace...--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harryskydives 0 #19 March 7, 2003 Bill believes that the priest sex scandal has undermined the vatican's moral authority ______________________________________________ I heard it on the radio. My take was the Popes and Upper echelons, failure to take definitive steps to stamp out child molestion by preists has caused many people to question his moral authority. I can see that. Bill made it very clear that the Pope, while wanting no war with Suddam, will not commit or answer any questions about Suddams past bad acts. That is the problem I have with many of the people that cry NO War. To me they are saying no consequents for bad acts. Please read UN resolution 1441. Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
