[ SECRET POST #2144 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2144 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 023 secrets from Secret Submission Post #306.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I just like characters more if their faith is addressed at ALL, really. I'm devoutly Catholic, but my favorite characters are a mix of everything. To me, what a person believes inn or doesn't is often a big look into who they are or what sort of place they grew up in, so I like to at least get some passing reference.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I feel the same (also for politics), I feel that when it's addressed in canon it shows that the writers are giving real thought about who this person is and why they do the things they do, and the more I understand the character the more I enjoy watching them, even if I don't share their beliefs or think I'd get on with them in RL.

[cloud_riven]

Same. I don't mind vagueness or ambiguity, but I kind of just like having more details since beliefs and learned moral compasses give me a frame of reference to where they're coming from (or what they're personally transgressing).

[avatarmn]

Serious question. What would it take to make you leave Catholicism for another denomination?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not the person you are replying to, but as another Catholic, the idea of converting to another denomination would never be a possibility. If anything, I would stop attending church altogether (and honestly, I find that I’m able to appreciate God more by helping the poor or spending time with nature/animals). I have plenty of beliefs that go against traditional church teachings, but Catholicism is such a huge part of my culture and heritage that it would feel extremely wrong to convert to another denomination. I have this friend who keeps trying to push me towards the Protestant faith, but whenever I go to their services it just feels awkward and empty. The point of a parish is to foster a sense of community. I wouldn’t leave all these people I have grown to love, respect, and care about for a church that looks down on them.

[avatarmn]

You don't feel awkward and empty when you go to a church that sees no need to purge the enablers of child abuse, and in fact seated two Popes who were guilty of that?

[(Anonymous)]

Considering my parish has gone to great lengths to educate the students in religious education about how to recognize the signs of sexual abuse and what to do if it is expected, and the parish leaders have absolutely no say whatsoever in who gets seated, no.

[(Anonymous)]

*suspected, not expected

[avatarmn]

So your parish demonstrates some basic moral understanding, but also doesn't stand up to demand it of the higher levels.

[(Anonymous)]

If you want to make that assumption, go ahead. I responded to your initial query because it seemed an honest question and I wanted you to understand why some choose to identify as Catholic, but now I see that the whole purpose was for you to go on this anti-Catholic track. If you want to ask these loaded questions, I suggest going to an actual priest. Not only will they have infinitely more patience, but they are much more informed on church politics.

That being said, I will leave you with this: I'm not quite sure if when you say "your parish" you mean the church leaders or the whole body of practitioners, but I will say that the average churchgoer has little, if any, say in what the higher-ups do (if you look at statistics and polls you can see that the majority of Catholics disagree with the official stance on the Church on quite a few key issues). The alleged “solution” of "just quit" is not feasible for many reasons. The first is that there are uniquely Catholic practices that can be very important to an individual that are not found in other denominations (the rosary, confession, the level of reverence for Mary and the saints, etc.). The second is that the other denominations have what we view as “incomplete Bibles” in that they reject certain books like Wisdom, Judith, etc. The third is that another denomination’s interpretation of Biblical passages may not agree with what Catholics believe. At the particular Protestant church I talked about, they took the Bible as literal, historical fact whereas my church views it as man expressing the truths of God using the literary language and symbols of their time in order to enforce the message. Obviously, this varies depending on how conservative or liberal the churches are. The fourth is that Catholics believe in transubstantiation, which is why it’s such as big deal to get the Eucharist, whereas other denominations don’t view it this way. The fifth is that the idea of a unified church with a central leader appeals to many, even if it’s prone to corruption. It gives of a sense of stability and, ideally, guidance. If someone disagrees with their government, would they just pack their shit and leave their country? One can disagree with what a leader preaches, but still understand why having one is important.

I hope after this little dialogue you can understand why someone might choose to stay with their church, despite finding some of its actions reprehensible. If not, I can try to clear up what I can, but if understanding is not your objective here then I fail to see how this discussion can be productive.

[(Anonymous)]

*tract, not track. Today is not my day it seems, lol.

[(Anonymous)]

Good show, OP. Sorry you had to run into this kind of shit—that being Catholic means you approve of child sexual abuse or of slaps on the wrist for it. Who the fuck do they think pressed charges? Who the fuck do they think demand accountability? Random fucking non-Catholics? The coverups were not BY laypeople. They were by clergy, to hide it FROM the laypeople.

But then again, no one seems to fucking understand there is a lay/clergy divide, and then a severe power imbalance between the clergy that do the day-to-day everything, and the Big Fucking Dudes. I have literally not known a single Catholic in twenty years where I live that was not in favor of women's ordination, married priests, and an end to homophobic doctrine. That's including priests, monks and incredibly elderly nuns.

Of course, in addition to bullshit, there might also be a total misunderstanding of what a parish is. Catholicism has its own vocabulary, and most non-Catholics, I've found, have no goddamn idea that a parish refers to a local church and its community. Some have thought it meant something much, much larger than that, due to the use of the word "parish" in some geographical contexts.

But for the most part anyone going "OH YOU'RE CATHOLIC WELL I GUESS YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF RAPING LITTLE KIDS" is being an incredible fucking douchebag.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

gah. not OP, ANON. damn it!

I swear, your typos, they're catching.

[avatarmn]

I don't think you're in favor or raping little kids. But I KNOW you're not in favor of doing whatever it takes to WIN the lay/clergy divide. And what it would take may well be something as little as abstaining from attending for a little while.

da

[(Anonymous)]

First off, it's presumptuous for you to claim to "KNOW" anything about someone in the internet you have never met. Second, it was explained elsewhere why abstaining from attending is not a viable solution to the problem.

[avatarmn]

So you making me change my mind would be the only way this discussion could be productive? And a question isn't legitimate unless it's not "anti-Catholic"?

So this Church fits your personal preferences, EXCEPT that child abusers don't get away with it and retain moral authority. You're putting all of these preferences you have, which I understand are very important to you, and NOT putting the preference you presumably have for accountability to protecting child abusers ABOVE that. Leaving en masse and not attending for the period of time that it would take for the leadership to do the right thing in order to lure you back seems to me to be a very small sacrifice for you to make in order to correct a very big wrong.

[brightblueink]

Okay, I'm non-denominational but definitely more Protestant than Catholic, and I have a lot of things about the Catholic church I dislike, but I have this thread tracked and personally I think you're coming off as a jackass. How in the world do you think it's reasonable to swoop in with a sense of superiority, talk down to someone about how their personal religious choices are horrible, and then act all uppity when they answer all of your questions but get annoyed by your belligerent, holier-than-thou attitude? You're clearly not interested in discussion, you're interested in telling someone about how they're a horrible person because they're Catholic.

[avatarmn]

It's really hard to not appear to have a sense of superiority over people who tolerate former child abuse-enablers. Not when you're talking about that fact. And I don't agree that they're really giving me a good answer as to why they wouldn't clear out the pews for a little while in order to get the clergy to cave and make moral authority, the entire reason for the Church, possible again.

[brightblueink]

Yeah, I stopped going to church because of my issues with how the church treats homosexuality, but the thing is? How are they supposed to know it's about that? My generation is leaving the Evangelical church in massive numbers and all I see in Christian publications about it is "SECULAR CULTURE DESTROYING OUR YOUTH" and "NOT ENOUGH ROCK MUSIC." Maybe the anon feels it'd be better to stay within the church in order to have a voice and to actually be able to speak out, rather than jumping ship and ensuring that the people that would support that sort of thing are the only ones left in the Catholic church?

But oh no, you're a mind reader and you know exactly how anon thinks and their motivations.

[(Anonymous)]

After you wrote this comment, I replied in-depth about how your proposal is fundamentally flawed. Whether or not you choose to accept those reasons rests on you. But I have to ask: if you believe your proposal is so simple and magical, why do you think, given the billions of Catholics that exist over the world, no one has done it yet?

[(Anonymous)]

Where did I say anything about changing your mind about the Church? The whole reason I responded was to give you a Catholic perspective as to why one might choose to stay with Catholicism. Had I known you were not looking for an intelligent, civil discussion I would have not bothered responding. I am not using this thread as a platform to say how amazing and wonderful and flawless the Church is, nor am I trying to convert you to Catholicism. I will be the first to admit the Church has MAJOR issues, and these issues should absolutely have the spotlight put on them instead of shoved underneath a rug. But as far as your comment on “legitimate” (I word I never used, btw) questions goes, it’s not the fact that your comments express anti-Catholic sentiment, but how you go about asking them. I get the distinct impression you have a very flawed and superficial understanding of the church, which is why I said it might be better for you to speak with an actual priest, who is much better suited to clarify certain aspects of church structure. Your initial question asked for the perspective of a Catholic practitioner, which is why I responded. Now it seems that the question was set up as a springboard to launch into a discussion regarding the child abuse cases, which involves you doing a lot of…I don’t know what the religious equivalent of “mansplaining” is, but you’re certainly doing it.


You (obviously) are not Catholic, yet you feel you have the right to tell us how we should practice our faith and respond to our hierarchy. I truly hope you can see how incredibly arrogant that is. Your “solution” of leaving en masse fails on so many levels. In my previous comment, I mentioned the extreme importance of the Eucharist for many Catholics. Unlike Protestant denominations who view it in a more symbolic way, the official position of the Catholic Church is that Christ is truly present when one eats the bread/drinks the wine. Obviously, there is no way of getting it if you do not attend church. Why should one let his/her dislike of the higher-ups get in the way of receiving Christ? And again, it seems like you are conflating “the Church” with “the parish.” The other anon did a good job explaining it, but basically “the parish” refers to the local community. My parish does not have issues regarding child abuse, so why should I cut my ties with them because I strongly abhor the decisions and cover-ups made by higher-ups in other parts of the world? The people I interact with every day in my parish did nothing incorrigibly awful, so why should they feel the need in the first place to “lure me back”?


Your assumption that I prioritize uniquely Catholic practices over the safety of children is ignorant and reprehensible, not to mention extremely offensive. I am still willing to engage in a civil discussion if you are, but I will not tolerate these attacks on my character because I am not orchestrating a grand rebellion against the Church.


And this is somewhat off topic, but something that might interest you is the Leadership Conference of Women Religious controversy (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/us/us-nuns-weigh-response-to-scathing-vatican-critique.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). I’m not sure if you’re followed it, but basically it represents the ongoing conflict between Rome and the more liberal American nuns. The Church is made up of millions of people; it’s not the monolithic entity you seem to think it is.

[avatarmn]

All I can say in response to the accusation of incivility is that I think I've been plenty civil. Given what the stakes are, I think I've been nothing but blunt, which is completely appropriate. I want the Catholic people to make the Church stop failing spectacularly at the objective of having moral authority. I don't think that's being "anti-Catholic". Considering you think you'd lose your relationship with Christ spending a period of time not going to mortal authorities who give it to you, I find it puzzling that I'm being accused of arrogance and splaining. The Catholic church doesn't merely have major issues, it has disqualifying issues to it's whole reason for existence which is having moral authority. I'm well aware that there are many Catholics who buck the leadership to a point. And the last person I'd want to talk to about why the lay people don't leave the clergy is a clergyman. How utterly useless. I just think it would be REALLY easy for the congregation to win. Clear out the pews until they cave and throw out the child abuse enablers, all the way up to the Pope. Then come back, and enjoy a church that is now what it claims to be. Rather than sit there and pretend it's not the sham that it is now.

[avatarmn]

Also, lets think for a minute about the fact that no one would ever say that a person can't make demands about the illegal and horrifying conduct of the Penn State athletic department unless they're fans of Penn State football.

[(Anonymous)]

“All I can say in response to the accusation of incivility is that I think I've been plenty civil. Given what the stakes are, I think I've been nothing but blunt, which is completely appropriate.”

Throughout this “discussion,” you have constantly been putting words in my mouth, like the ridiculous claim that only questions that have a pro-Catholic sentiment are “legitimate.” You, a complete stranger, tell me that I prioritize uniquely Catholic ritual practices and beliefs over the accountability of child molesters. If you don’t see how your comments can be viewed as uncivil then I’m not sure I can help you.

“I want the Catholic people to make the Church stop failing spectacularly at the objective of having moral authority. I don't think that's being "anti-Catholic".”

I called your comments anti-Catholic because they express sentiments that criticizes and make demands of not just the Church, but all Catholics. I absolutely think that qualifies as anti-Catholic. I’m not saying it’s wrong to have criticism (Lord knows I do) but the label is accurate.

“Considering you think you'd lose your relationship with Christ spending a period of time not going to mortal authorities who give it to you, I find it puzzling that I'm being accused of arrogance and splaining.”

Again, you feel the need to twist my words. I never said that I personally believed it was tremendously important to receive the Eucharist weekly, but many do, and I explained why: the Eucharist is Jesus Christ in the flesh. If you don’t see how important that is, then I really can’t help you.

You are being arrogant and ‘splaining because you are telling members of a religion that’s not your own how to practice their faith without even understanding the basics structure. If you can’t understand this then again, I can’t help you.

“The Catholic church doesn't merely have major issues, it has disqualifying issues to it's whole reason for existence which is having moral authority.”

Any earthly body made of millions is bound to have corruption. There are plenty of corrupt clergymen, but many, MANY more that join the clergy because they love God and want to dedicate their lives to serving Him. Your ideal doesn’t—can’t—exist; at best, the Church can be a guide, and an important one at that, but the any claim of absolute moral authority is flawed, imo, due to the fact that it is human nature to sin and abuse power.

“I'm well aware that there are many Catholics who buck the leadership to a point. And the last person I'd want to talk to about why the lay people don't leave the clergy is a clergyman. How utterly useless.”

I directed you to a clergyman because you clearly have a misunderstanding about many key points of the faith. I gave you plenty of reasons why people don’t leave, yet your following comments suggest to me that you were never really interested in the “why” in the first place.

“I just think it would be REALLY easy for the congregation to win. Clear out the pews until they cave and throw out the child abuse enablers, all the way up to the Pope. Then come back, and enjoy a church that is now what it claims to be. Rather than sit there and pretend it's not the sham that it is now.”

What an incredibly naïve statement. I don’t even know where to begin, and I honestly question whether or not you actually read my previous comments. I suppose the first problem with this little scenario is that in order to do this effectively, you would have to convince the majority of Catholics worldwide (and that’s well over 400 million) to do this in the first place, while in reality they would most likely not see the need, especially if their own parish never had any abuse scandals. The majority of parishes never had any abuse scandals, hence abandoning church altogether would seem like a strange course of action. Which leads to my second problem, which is what would be missed during this walk-out. The issue of internal corruption in the clergy is not something that is going to vanish in a week; it will take many, many years. During those years, babies will be born that need to be baptized, lost souls will want confessions, children need to receive both religious education and their communion, weddings need to be performed, the deceased need to be buried, etc. And I already spoke of the importance of the Eucharist. The third problem is that we would have to rely on the Vatican’s (or some church higher-up’s) word of whether or not all the abuse enablers are gone, which is faulty logic to say the least, given the history. Whose to say that those that are evaluating the status of the church aren’t corrupt themselves? The fourth problem is this naïve notion that everything will be hunky-dory once the enablers are eliminated. Just because all are gone does not mean any more won’t spring up. As I said before, any body with over a billion people is bound to have corruption.

“Also, lets think for a minute about the fact that no one would ever say that a person can't make demands about the illegal and horrifying conduct of the Penn State athletic department unless they're fans of Penn State football.”

You’re not making demands of the clergy, you’re making demands of the churchgoers. The athletes, so to speak.

[avatarmn]

Alright, I fucking submit. I'm battered by the wall of text. I don't know why this takes so much bandwidth. I don't think I need to be a Catholic to say that I understand perfectly that a church's purpose is moral authority, and the Catholic churches crimes are completely beside what the "basic structure" of the dogma and rituals is or whatever, and you A) grant moral authority to the unworthy and B) won't do what it takes to make them throw out the Pope and make it worthy. There IS a Pope, btw. All of your emphasis on a parish is silly as hell. It's still the Catholic church. And if my solution is naive and unworkable... well, you don't know until you try. That this should not be tolerated should not be something that has to be organized, it should be self evident to everyone. It's not the least bit arrogant, or splaining, or anti-Catholic to say ENABLERS OF CHILD ABUSE ARE NOT TO BE FUCKING TOLERATED. There, now I'm incivil.