The Church: Wannabe Slave-Masters of the State

national | history and heritage | opinion/analysis

Tuesday January 31, 2006 20:56

by Seán Ryan

"Shut up and kneel!"

Another swipe at the myth of our 'functional' society.

This time the focus is the Church. Whilst they are not the power in this country that they used to be, it would be unwise to discount them.

From its very inception the Church has been about two things, money and power. The Church has always wanted absolute power (in a relative sense of the word). It has never really achieved this so it has had to suffice for some control in return for brain washing and emasculating populations for governments. I am not even beginning to talk about religion here, as I shall deal with illusions about God later.

Let's cast our minds back. The congress of Nicea happened about 450 years after the death of Christ. It seems that Emperor Constantine a devout believer in the Sun God (halos are a throwback to Sol Ivictus the ancient Roman sun God), decided to unite the many Christian faiths that had taken root and consolidate the little power groups, Sol Ivictus and probably many others into one massive holding with Rome as its commander in chief or pope. Think of a host with lots of little rays radiating out of it with a cross in front of it and you have a very common Christian motif showing you its not so Christian heritage. Another clue as to the merger of different religions is that the Sabbath was changed to 'Sun'day.

Anyhow, this congress came to pass and they had a little baby and the baby was the Church. Of course the church being an infant had lots of questions and so the parents in their painfully obvious intelligence left them with such gems as, 'it's a holy mystery and to question it is blasphemy'.

The First tenet of the slave. There is a will above your will.

When all the gobsmacked were killed or cured for asking about holy mysteries the pope made it clearly understood that he was Gods representative here on earth.

Second tenet of the slave. Not only are you under a supreme being if there is one but you are further beneath the will of your fellow man.

Do I go too far?

Ok.

We've got a massive group of people who believe or else are guilty of heresy that their pope who is suffering from Parkinson's disease is infallible if and when he chooses to 'speak from the chair.' Now there's a divine mystery with some teeth in it (the mystery that is). It is saying that a thought may be absolutely correct even though the structure that made it or received it is damaged beyond repair. This sounds very similar to our health service. (The former pope has died since this was written, and the flock have elected themselves a new leader, a former nazi youth member no less. Tis a wonder he didn't take the name Peter.)

Well it wasn't long until governments and others spotted this phenomenon and said, 'Fuck, that's excellent', and have been trying to control, deploy and imitate the church ever since, with some very obvious success and some very obvious fuck ups.

When our government first groped for the Church I don't know for certain but I believe when the Church picked sides during the civil war was the first time they slept together, we being mostly the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of that most unholy union.

Let's talk of some of the success. Remember your holy communion when you were programmed with both the questions and the answers. Q. What is the holy trinity? A. The holy trinity is a divine mystery.

What was the purpose of this? Did it really answer the question asked or did it tell you not to question supposed authority? Much more blatant and effective too than the way the government has tried to get the educational system to do this. Yup there's nobody like the church. A people with the fear of the wrath of God are easily controlled when God has so many righteous representatives and underlings.

What about the vast majority who were manipulated into taking the pledge during Confirmation and who later broke it? Yes just in case original sin isn't enough here's some more. Now confess. Oh but we are not worthy to receive the word of God but only say the word and we shall be healed. Obey God, obey God through me and obey the state.

Obey the state?

Yah. Didn't Jesus say render unto Caesar what is Caesars? I personally go with the wish that Jesus meant to send Caesar the bodies of the Roman army who were in charge at the time on Caesars behalf, I also reckon that this is what the Jewish nation had been promised, in the guise of a messiah which means warrior king. But then again I don't have a Vatican to rubberstamp my very fallible opinion.

Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. This was probably not meant to highlight the difficulty in defecating through the eye of a needle.

Why does the Vatican need a bank? Why all the gold, the silver and in general the mass of property? Once before they got hammered for selling indulgences, now we're all damned and it's money up front.

For good works the church roars in its defence. Short of trying to spread or re-infect it does no works that could be described as good and could only be described as such by somebody suffering from delusions, mania and or dementia.

Let's talk about the fuck ups.

The biggest and one of the first and almost the most fateful fuck ups the state made was to aid and abet the church target the children and the weakest members of society even though the church had specified that it desired these targets (the first rule of controlling a mad animal is containment). We let them deal with orphans, the sick and dying and we let them house young offenders including unmarried mothers (this is back before unmarried mothers were recognised as human beings or had any rights). It was a fuck up that has tormented generation after generation in this country. After all the church has always sought the weak above all. They perpetrated every vile act imaginable on those who needed succor and support the most. And our government today and some of our great thinkers and philosophers ponder upon why society is so fucked up. Surely all this effort and brainpower could be put to better use by helping to boil a kettle somewhere, elsewhere.

When called to answer for their crimes the church claims to have had a very proud history in this country (as if this would even begin to address their crimes even if it were true). Yes the church has a very proud history, yes if having run a recruitment, training, procurement and protection centre for perverts, sadists, masochists and utter scumbags makes you proud then the church has the proudest history mankind was ever unfortunate enough to produce. This is not to say there are not some decent and devout members of the clergy but the sheer volume of crimes and victims long ago took any light that might have otherwise shone through.

The next big fuck up is one of the latest fuck ups to date. I talk about it now as it is directly related to the above. This of course was to not deal with the situation effectively when the proverbial shit hit the fan. The government acted in a way that pleased nobody bar themselves. The general populace believed the church was not dealt severely enough with. The church at first feeling they had got off scott free said nothing just the usual bunch of shit. It must now be dawning on them that that the government have fucked them over and that in order to be termed a shepherd one needs some sheep. You see it turns out that the people weren't just expressing their disgust they were also telling their needs too.

The church needed to go back to the Middle Ages for a bit, in order to rebuild the flock, they needed to induce mass sympathy and forgiveness, they needed to display their afflictions to the public, in order to do this, they need to be whipping themselves up and down O' Connell St. and rolling over each other with cart wheels and stuff just like the good old days. I'd buy a ticket for that, damn it I'd even help them. Because the state did not facilitate this properly they have broken a sacred bond with their effective if not loving hound. This is of course the, I'll scratch your back for some in return bond. The government in their folly believes all is well with its little rottweiler but they forget the golden principle that if you drive a sword into the back of your friend, make sure the fucker is dead.

The church's retribution will be one of three things, it will devour the government and reverse roles with it making the government the salivating beast of control and become the authority itself, it will infiltrate and join government or it will fuck up as usual and remain the cringing mongrel that history and I know it to be.

Another fuck up by the government was giving us johnnies despite the Church's cryptic clues, warnings and jumping up and down behind the general awareness of the public and gesticulating wildly at Charlie. Jesus did they have to spell it out? And of all people but to Charlie Haughey who had based his life on the underlying principles. The church didn't want us to have control of our organs of pleasure. If you have them by the balls their minds will follow. (I'd like to point out that Charlie himself had to be dragged kicking and screaming to his views by President Mary Robinson, when she was just a lowly senator.)

Never take your eye off the ball.

Another big fuck up by the government was to box the church into a corner with the divorce referendum. This gave the church no option but to start roaring from the pulpits even though they knew it would show how closed minded they were, they were being publicly humiliated (first they grabbed for the balls now they want power over marriage, that which the Church felt they had sole power over) and the only thing worse than to be seen fighting back is not to be seen fighting back. The government will want to do funerals next and are nearly there too what with the state's right to a body outweighing the owner of the body's wishes. Yes the state now has nearly complete jurisdictions over mind body and soul.

This was in my opinion the end of the deathblow by the state to the church that had initially and apparently innocently been delivered by Charlie Haughey. What had formerly been little innuendoes and rumours began to gush as the cracks tore the edifice apart. Since then the church has had to focus on rebuilding rather than expansion. Remember the fable of the fall of the Roman Empire? It never happened. But I'm very happy to report seeing lots of light at the end of this particularly dark tunnel.

Now lets jump back to how the government dealt with how the church fostered, nurtured, aided and abetted a massive group of child abusers.

The church was allowed to retire and have a think about how they would address the crime of systematic cover ups for and the subsequent relocation of child abusers and to repeat the process many times over for the same people, and of course to have a ponder, as to whether they should release records to the state.

Why were they allowed to do this? Why was it even relevant? The criminal justice system has more than enough laws and powers to deal with child molesters and those who aid them by protecting them and by providing them with a never-ending stream of victims.

Where is good old search and seizure when you need it. Why not sweat a few bishops in holding cells to see if that provides the laxative required. The criminal assets bureau would have set themselves up for life.

Why?

What the Church had done should only have warranted a response from them in a criminal court proceeding. Until this is addressed and solved no amount of financial compensation will ever heal the rift between citizen and state. Of course this will not come easy as the government feels they have already flagellated themselves publicly by agreeing to shoulder the responsibility and the lions share of the compensation bill. Yes we the secondary victims, are ourselves to blame. I don't or wouldn't even know where to begin to speak for the primary victims of these evil bastards and I mean victims of both the government and the Church. Justice must not be wishful thinking, it must be seen, to be done.

Failing all that and similar to Willie O Dea reckoning that we couldn't take Shannon off the Americans without comprehending that no fucker had the authority to give it to them in the first place (Yes Willie, a sovereign nation must always govern itself, and should it give bits of itself away to a foreign nation, it is no longer sovereign.), wasn't it a pope who signed this country over to the British (It remains unknown who gave this fucker the authority to do so either, unless God supposedly gave it to him too) giving them their one and only legal claim to this country, may the bastard's last moments have been hell on earth and lasted an eternity, and then may he have died roaring.

Sláinte,
Seán Ryan

save preference

Comments (17 of 17)

Jump To Comment:

a church of greed?

by Lisa O'Donovan

Wed Feb 01, 2006 17:28

If the church is only about power and money please explain the following to me please....

Why is fr gerry Horan the leader of the augustinians in Limerick,at the shannon protests almost every week and many off his parisoners go along with him?
Why did the augustinian church allow the pariah halls to be used for two colombian workes who were over to discuss the plight of workers in their country?
Why is it that sister teresa,a nun in mary Immaculate,was the main contributer to making Limerick a fair trade city?
Why is the drug rehabiltion centre in Knock the only centre throughout the country to have a 100% success rate and will help anyone regardless of background or status for free of charge ?
Why is that crosscare,a centre which offers food for homeless people and provides refuge for women in crisis across Dublin city,is run by the archdiocese of dublin?
Why is it that for many polish,africans and othher nationalitioes working over here for them mass is the only place where they have a sense of community and togetherness with Irish people?

I could go on but is there really any point.Many people in Ireland who profess to being open minded are extremely narrow minded and will always see the catholic church as some sort of dictatorship who preys fear onto millions

Our country has changed much over the last twenty years,and to me it has come a greedy country that has not changed for the better.The church has changed in Irelands also in the last twenty years.Your comments apply to a church of twenty years ago.This is CURRENT newswire so if you have no input or knowledge of the church in Ireland today then you cant really talk about it. i admit that the catholic church has a long way to go and it will change a lot over the next number of years and for the better.it is an exciting time of reform in the church where slowly it is becoming a church of heart and soul and not one of rules or regulations as it has been in the past.

Wed Feb 01, 2006 18:09

Hi Lisa,

I appreciate you taking the time to express your views, I especially like your candour.

Let me start my answer to you with a statement that I believe is fact.

There are great men and women, and they are great not because of the uniform they wear. It's is what you do that makes you great, not what you believe, at least in the eyes of others.

I think you have made a mistake in your judgement of what I have said, and I realise this may be my fault. I did say rather a lot and some of my points may have been buried in the onslaught of my argument itself.

For instance, take any particular person you want, that you named, and ask yourself, was this person or that group acting under orders from the church, or were they acting as human beings, in the greater sense of the concept.

I'd suggest, that a lot of what you've had to say, points to the church approaching some ideal state. Which says to me that you realise that they are far from being there, and surely this is current.

If my beliefs and views offer offense to people, and particularly so to the 'great' people you've mentioned, I'm sorry.

I'm not sorry for how I believe, I'm sorry that offense was taken.

Look at it my way, I still respect and admire these people despite the revulsion I have for the organisation that they represent. I realise they and you are perfectly entitled to their beliefs as am I, mine.

Maybe they and possibly you might practice the supposedly Christian notion of forgiveness. At least then, those who express differences may still sit together and break bread.

Finally let me deal with the idea of 'current.'

Opinion is always current when it is expressed first.

regards,
Seán

Offended

by Micheál Brugha

Thu Feb 02, 2006 01:08

As a Catholic I am offended by this anti-Church hate speech.

Are my rights and beliefs protected by political correctness, or does this just apply to "minority religions"?

pc aint my cup of tea

Thu Feb 02, 2006 01:54

Mr. Brugha,
Firstly let me assure you that I did not make an anti-church hate speech, you did. If anything my 'speech' was a church hate speech. I'd further like to add, that my speech was not one of hatred, at least it was not one of hatred alone. I made lots of points and backed them up. Unlike yourself, who has just made an idle speculation, with no example or point.

You my dear sir, are a product of the very beast I described. You think firstly that I owe you something, which I do not. And secondly what you believe, was not the focus of my 'hate speech,' the Church and its machinations were. And since minority Christians and other religions want nothing to do with the church, bringing up their rights is also an act of irrelevancy.

Prove me wrong, if you want.

I'm sorry you are offended by my views, but you offer little that will change them.

Sláinte,
Seán

... but PC may just be your cup of Bovril

Thu Feb 02, 2006 02:25

"From its very inception the Church has been about two things, money and power."

Please tell me what reaction there would be if I forwarded the same "opinion" about Judaism.

Anti-Catholic hate speech

Thu Feb 02, 2006 02:36

To quote you, Seán:

"brain washing and emasculating populations"

A Communist enterprise.

"(The former pope has died since this was written, and the flock have elected themselves a new leader, a former nazi youth member no less. Tis a wonder he didn't take the name Peter.)"

Oh yes, the Nazi pope. Any person with a brain knows that the Nazis persecuted Catholics, and not just one religion in particular. To call the Pope a "Nazi" indicates that he adheres to athiestic National Socialist principles, which is complete horse manure.

"Now lets jump back to how the government dealt with how the church fostered, nurtured, aided and abetted a massive group of child abusers."

When the Church is under attack by militant atheists such as yourself, it was as well for them to keep the TINY MINORITY of abuse cases by homosexual priests under wraps - lest the entire clergy be subject to interrogation or worse by athiestic courts and anti-Catholic governments.

You are speaking as if every priest is an abuser. You will be hard pressed to find over 5%.

I will point out that a newborn Jewish baby died in Seattle last year after contracting herpes from a rabbi performing a certain type of circumcision with his mouth. Where are the screams?

"Yes the church has a very proud history, yes if having run a recruitment, training, procurement and protection centre for perverts, sadists, masochists and utter scumbags makes you proud then the church has the proudest history mankind was ever unfortunate enough to produce."

This is pure anti-Catholic hate speech, and if there Indymedia has any ideological balls, it will stick to its inclusive ethics and remove it.

By the way, Seán, a little less use of the f*** and sh*t words would make you look a lot more intelligent, and less angry.

Well

Thu Feb 02, 2006 02:54

If you were to back the allegation up I'd probably have very little to say. On its own it just promotes prejudice.

I don't think I can be accused of not explaining my view, in fact it was the reason I posted it, not some racist notion. I'd not label you as either evil or inferior. I'm not a racist. I see a big problem and I have attempted to illustrate it, nothing less and certainly no more.

Your beliefs are your own and I respect your right to possess and exercise them. I do not respect any assumed right of the Church. Neither do I give them any rights, nor do I owe them any. My hatred is not for any individual, but for a controlling mechanism. Please remember that this article is but one in a lot of articles posted already and a lot more to be posted on a very much wider theme, and my views should be held in context to this also.

I don't want to get ahead of what I will be posting in the near future, but let me say this. The laws we practice are split in two.

i. The laws that define and protect the rights of the individual.
ii. The laws that try to negate the above laws, eg. business law and Church law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not referring to biblical law or commandments here, but laws that encourage and aid big organisations like the Church, to exploit the State and the individuals who compose it.

If you want to argue about faith, the existence of God etc. I'd wait a bit, as I'll be posting a very comprehensive article on this very subject in the very near future. And I promise you too, that this will not be racist either.

regards,
Seán

Inclusiveness

by c.

Thu Feb 02, 2006 02:55

seedot at indymedia dot ie

Micheál

Media has to expose and drag the covers from the reality of our society. It has to be peoples honest, accurate, radical, passionate tellings of the truth that can speak to us and form part of the new reality we are creating. Otherwise, it's not us, it's just them.

Indymedia in general believes that inclusivity is about hearing all voices not silencing all criticisms. When the article was published Lisa responded by presenting an opposing set of data, by relating a list of positives that have come through the church. In my opinion this was a contribution to debate and is a good addition to the article.

Thats still part of the ethos and culture that this non-hierarchical, open, gift society place has. Your contributions were to claim offence and then propose the article should be hidden on the basis of some set of practices and beliefs you projected on to indymedia.

Could I suggest you either read the editorial guidelines, revert to lurking or cease offering suggestions here for how the site should be run. This alone is enough to justify deletion of your comments.

Now listen Micheál

Thu Feb 02, 2006 03:40

I very much dislike what I have to say taken out of context.

I said the current pope was a 'former' nazi. Whether he is still one or not, I've no idea.

People who molest children are not necessarily homosexuals, this is Church propaganda. Child molesters are paedophiles.

Again you offer no rebuttal to anything I say. You quote me and tell me I'm wrong. This is not only pathetic it's insulting.

I won't reply to you again unless, you have a point.

Lastly, it is not and it was not my intention, to appear to be intelligent. It was my intention to express myself truthfully and accurately.

Did you feel the anger wafting from the piece?

Good.

And good luck,
Seán

Bible basher?

by Mark O 'Hehir

Thu Feb 02, 2006 13:15

"We've got a massive group of people who believe or else are guilty of heresy that their pope who is suffering from Parkinson's disease is infallible if and when he chooses to 'speak from the chair."

I think your rant is a bit out of date! Are you a fundamentalist protestant? Are you afraid of popery???

shut up and kneel?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 16:18

elisaodonovan at gmail dot com

What I like about indymedia is the way it doesnt give us distorted news of whats going on in the country.It offers frank and honest news.Thats why I think your post sean is very much out of date.The church you talk off, the 'shut up and kneel' generation has been gone for the last 10 years.Even on the Irish media such as the indo,rte all we hear everyday is negative news of the catholic church,whether it is about clerical abuse,homesexuality or abortion,it is always negative.That is why I look to indymedia which usually offers an unbiased truthful report on what is happening in the country.However,from the numerous anti-catholic threads that have been seen on indymedia it seems that many peole have difficulty letting go of a church which is well dead in this country.
I totally appreciate what Sean has said about clerical abuse.What happened in ferns and all throughout our country was just dispicable.However,we must remember that these men did not go into the church because they were religous.They went into the church,not out of a religous want but becuase it was the thing to do at the time.How things have changed!Now you are almost scorned on and laughed at if you decide to become a priest.Many people in Ireland think that the church is in a bad state considering that only 15priests were ordained in Ireland last year.To me,as a young catholic the church in this country has never been in a better state.The fact that 15 people were ordained shows that they were truly entering the religous life because they were spiritual people.Its not like the old days when thousands were made go through maynooth,cos emigration as a priest was a lot more desirable than emmigration as a pauper.
I understand what you are saying sean about the individual peope I talked about doing there good deeds out of a human compassion rather than a religous .However,I wouldnt agree with this.I am someone who believes in peace,forgiveness,charity and love and this is what the catholic church is based on.I dont think those people are doing these things because they were born great people and would have done it wether they were a priest,nun or catholic.The catholic church in this country has a great sense of community and I think it is this support that makes these special individuals thrive in their communities.
To say that the catholic church is this dictator 'sit down and kneel' church is just wrong.I've attended many funerals up and down the country of relatives and friends.One of the things you can see is how much support the priest will give the family.The priests are there day and night for most families,do you think they do this out of greed and power?What other people in Ireland would give this much support to a family.I often feel what would happen if the catholic church was tottally eradicated in this country,which so many people want.Do you think the goverment would pay for all the social workers that would be needed to take over the job as carer and comforter of so many rural communities in Ireland?
Of course,Like any organisation there is always things you are going to disagree with.I disagree with the churchs stance on homesexuality and female priests.However,it is only being a part of the church that I can voice my dissent and actively try to change it.For me,the positives I see in the rc church in Ireland far outweigh the negatives.

the one true faith!

by Observer2

Thu Feb 02, 2006 18:08

It is interesting to see this debate ongoing. Firstly, I am a christian but not a roman catholic. Speaking as a christian I would consider the R.C church to be anti christian, in that it is in conflict with the teaching of Christ. I would also consider that it is merely an extension of the Roman empire and that Constantines adoption of the church as the state religion effectively ended any radical tendencies the church may have had prior to that time. The structure and organisation of the church is based on that of Roman administration and districts. To this day the structure of pope, curia and college of cardinals is reminiscent of emperor, quirinale and senate, with the only citizens being the exclusively male priesthood.

That since it's installation as offical church of empire it has sought to control all other churches in europe is merely empire building. The successful domination and incorporation of the celtic church is just one example of this. It is often forgotten that the original church on this island was a monastically based one with no real centre of power and control as opposed to the diocesan roman church.

Roman Catholicism is man made and not divinely inspired as most R.c's would choose to believe. It's history is one of oppression and domination, of consorting and colluding with the powers in opposition to the well being of the people(both spiritual and temporal). There is no denying this after even a cursory glance at church history. The claim regarding Nazi popes is neither here nor there, the actions of the church during WW2 is well documented and does not paint the church in a favourable light.

The continued refusal by Vatican authorities to allow anyone not committed to adhering to their line to have access to the Vatican libraries is evidence of the churchs insecurity regarding the documents upon which they base their dogma. It is also evidence of their fear of scrutiny of the vast collection of other documents which they excluded and which are categorised as heretical.

Notwithstanding all of the above, there have throughout the churches history been notable examples of individual dedication to christs teachings. St Francis of Assis and St Vincent de Paul are just two which spring to mind. Today there continues to be good people within the church who do tremendous acts of good. To dispute that would be to devalue this work.

However, the church as organisation and institution is dysfunctional. It's insistence on no organisational change for 2,000 years is against the interests of it's members. It's insistence on maintaining a centralised, hierarchical patriarchy who are one of the powers is in contradiction to the directions given by Christ to both the 12 apostles and the 72 others. It is an insult to christs rallying cry of "cast off your wealth and foloow me".

Lisas assertion that one is better to remain within the church in the hope of effecting change from within is foolish. To expect to change a monolith of the nature of the church defies the lessons of the last 2,000 years. All centalised global organisations have much power, to expect those in the Vatican city to easily allow their power to be undermined in any way is to forget that they employ the congregation for doctrine of the faith(informally referred to as the inquisition) to deal with any such assault. The last man to hold the eminent position within the congregation for the doctrine of the faith was none other than one Cardinal Ratzinger.

The Roman Catholic Church is much more a political than a spiritual entity, and as a political entity it is counter revolutionary in the same way that Stalins communit party was. Least we forget it's political nature I include a link to the Vatican, a soverign territory complete with government and leader.

http://www.vatican.va/

intresting observer 2

Thu Feb 02, 2006 22:15

I have to admit onserver 2 that I find it very intresting what you say. You make very good points without putting down the church like so many have to do in order to argue against the rc church,especially in this country.
I suppose at the end of the day I would be a bit of a 'loose' catholic.I dont live my life by cardinal ratzinger and believe in actions before prayer. I know you may think its silly that I have hopes of changing the church from within.I suppose I should have explained myself better.I appreciate what you said about how the church acted in World war two but I am looking at this from an entirley Irish and modern perpective so Im not going to drag up anything from the past.For me the church has always been there for me and I think this could be the same for many in Ireland today.When I lost a friend of mine by suicide it was the only place that I could make sense of it.Maybe I'm looking at this froma rural perspective where I know in my parish of Rathkeale down in county Limerick it is still the one place where people can find refuge and a bit of security.From my perspective as a deeply spiritual person I need a place to channel my spirituality.I have in the past when I came a bit dissilusioned with the rc church in Ireland looked at other religons,but you know what every religon be it Islam,buddism or judaism,they all have their faults and no religon is perfect.For me,I came back to the rc church cos it just suited me the best and has got me through a lot of hard times at this stage. No one on Indymedia would ever dare post a thread ripping to shread Islam,juddaism or any other world religon week after week.So I hope from my posts people might appreciate that as modern ireland is evoloving so is the modern church in our country.

Fri Feb 03, 2006 01:40

Well at least you offer argument this time Michaél. Thank you for that.

Firstly my nazi comment was just that a comment, which was offered to remind you of my original statement which you quoted and then examined in a very prejudiced fashion. Again, the pope was a former member of the Nazi youth. What he did, thought or for that matter thinks, is not my concern here. It was added solely, to illustrate how ridiculous the church is, not Mr. Ratzinger.

Now as to clerical abuse. Not all abuse was as you mentioned. It is much more widespread that you admit to, in that you forget evidence I referred specifically to in the piece. I said the church set themselves up to 'serve' the poor, the sick, and I even gave an example, "unmarried mothers."

Therefore sexual exploitation was not confined to homosexual acts as you spin. And it was not confined to the male priesthood either as you also spin.

And furthermore my piece was not intended just to hightlight sexual exploitation. My point was that the church enabled every type of exploitation imaginable. And it is my contention that the Church itself and members suspected of abuse are answerable to the peoples of this country, not to themselves.

Me, myself operating as I choose to operate is a more intelligent act than allowing you to tell me how to act. This particularly being the case, when you either do not understand my argument or will not understand it. I suggest you manage your own affairs and allow me the courtesy of managing my own.

As for folks saying my article is outdated. This is partially true. I did refer to events almost 2000 years old.

"Ahh sure it happened so long ago."

"Forget it!"

"Why are ya carrying a big chip on your shoulder?"

Ok.

I'll forget it. Tis old news.

Ok then.

Forget Christ.

It was a long time ago afterall.

Why are you carrying a chip on your shoulder over him?

If that doesn't help. Please read the top of the article and note I filed it under history/heritage.

Very topical, and very current.

Finally for idiots who keep calling me anti-catholic. The word 'catholic' does not appear in my article.

Wake up!!

My parents and loads of others I care about, are or were catholics. I don't hate them.

And I'd prefer folks not to spew such filth and lies.
Seán

And

Fri Feb 03, 2006 08:29

I must admit, I'm pretty annoyed that some people are accusing me of being anti-catholic, and suggesting that my article is not current.

I'm anti-victimisation, if this is the same as being anti-catholic, well ya got me, guilty as charged.

Here's a current article that shows the church still currently plays hardball when it comes to addressing the misery it has caused and is causing:
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S13912.html?cat=1

Note that near the end of this very current article, you will notice that a document from the vatican is referred to.

Here's a copy of that too:
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/1962VaticanDocument.pdf

I dare anyone to read this document, and tell me that the practices described are either just, or christian.

Here's where I got the link for the document from (Tells you more about how the document relates to a sexual abuse court case where the church admitted to believing the person who claimed abuse, but still tried to have the case dismissed. Why? You ask. Well it happened a while back.):
http://www.theconversationcafe.com/forums/archive/index....html

The document defines the clergy's worst crime as having sex with youths or with brute animals. It also allows the church to transfer accused clergy.

This document also orders that cases be restrained by a perpetual silence.

I wonder would Michaél like to glibly put it, that raping a brute animal be termed a homosexual act? Or that my taking offence to it be an act that is anti-catholic in nature. Or maybe he would like to suggest using that fettered logic of his that I'm anti-brute animal?

I focused on victims in what I had to say. I singled only two arseholes out for rebuke. (Why not show me why I'm wrong on this particular point.) Other than that the focus was the machinations of the Church itself. And I stand by what I had to say.

Sláinte,
Sean Ryan

The Firm!

by observer2

Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:43

Some links for Micheál Brugha (defender of the faith!) to comment on.

The Vatican and ww2:

http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases/vatican-dec-22....html

http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/appropriation.htm

and on the Inquisition:

http://www.cathnews.com/news/602/16.php

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/

Banco ambrosiano:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/1...5.stm

http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/....html

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/vatican.htm

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmarcinkus.html

Can all this be explained away Michael? Why did the vatican provide refuge for Paul Marchenkis when he was being sought for serious crime by the Italian authorities? Who killed robert calvi?

Files show abuse claims against 102 Dublin priests

Thu Mar 09, 2006 00:52

"DUBLIN (Reuters) - Claims of child sex abuse have been made against 102 Roman Catholic priests who worked in the Dublin archdiocese from 1940 to 2006, according to statistics compiled after a review of the church's own records."

Link: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=t...E.xml

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

The Church: Wannabe Slave-Masters of the State

Comments (17 of 17)