Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2012-11-15 05:19 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2012-11-15 05:19 pm
[ SECRET POST #2144 ]
⌈ 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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-11-18 11:31 pm (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-11-19 08:24 pm (UTC)(link)“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”
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here, or what this line is in response to.
“you A) grant moral authority to the unworthy”
The parishioners don’t “grant” moral authority to anyone. You’re aware that priests aren’t elected, right? They are in a position of power, and if the parishioners find out that one is abusing one of their children then obviously the shit hits the fan. Who do you think brought attention to this problem in the first place? Non-Catholics?
“and B) won't do what it takes to make them throw out the Pope and make it worthy.”
What, do you expect an army of Catholics to storm the Vatican? Or do you honestly believe that a bunch of Catholics leaving the Church will make the Pope suddenly decide to relinquish his power? Your proposed “solution” reveals an ignorant bias; you are aware that the Pope’s influence is MUCH stronger in countries outside of America, right?
“There IS a Pope, btw.”
Never claimed there wasn’t.
“All of your emphasis on a parish is silly as hell.”
It’s really not, especially when you still fail to understand the difference.
“It's still the Catholic church.”
Yes, but how liberal or conservative it is depends on your community. To go with a previous analogy, would you pack up and move if you disagreed with the actions of your government?
“And if my solution is naive and unworkable... well, you don't know until you try.”
LOL. Oh, wow. You really don’t understand the significance of what it could mean for the parishioners if we lose your hypothetical power-play, do you? Let’s assume your magic walk-out doesn’t work. If it ends up falling flat on its face, which it would, the Vatican will feel even more empowered and have a much stronger hold on us. It would show that the majority support the Pope, even if the reality is more nuanced than that, and imply that those who have serious grievances are just disgruntled, but will ultimately come back in the end. If the universal body of Catholics want to make a move against the Vatican, it would be a lot more well-thought out and meticulously planned than “WELP, I GUESS WE SHOULD ALL JUST CLEAR OUT THE PEWS AND HOPE ROME GIVES A CRAP!! :DDD” I explained in-depth why your proposal will not work, and if you choose not to accept those reasons it’s up to you. Just remember that you’re not the one who would have anything to lose if it fails.
“That this should not be tolerated should not be something that has to be organized, it should be self evident to everyone.”
Well, it’s a good thing the parishioners don’t tolerate child abusers. Again, who do you think brought the fact the many priests were abusing their power to light?
“It's not the least bit arrogant, or splaining, or anti-Catholic to say ENABLERS OF CHILD ABUSE ARE NOT TO BE FUCKING TOLERATED.”
I did not accuse you of arrogance, ‘splaining, and anti-Catholicism for stating a basic moral truth, but for telling people of another religion to act in a way that you deem appropriate, but is fundamentally flawed. The “logic” of “they don’t abandon their religion, therefore they support pedophiles” is faulty, to say the least.
“There, now I'm incivil.”
Sheesh, you are acting like such a child.
no subject
You're constantly harping on how I can't judge Catholics if I'm not a Catholic. Literal judges judge people who are things that the judge is not ALL THE TIME. It's a dumb argument that you keep going to.
Bottom line, no crushing wall of text necessary: You're granting moral authority to to the authorities in the Catholic church BY BEING A CATHOLIC.
You're forgiving and supporting enablers of child abuse in the leadership, all the way up to the Pope himself BY BEING A CATHOLIC.
You have a responsibility to NOT DO THAT. Whether the option is easy, or whether it's the hardest thing you've ever had to do. Whether you succeed, or whether you fail. You have to do it. If you don't, all you get in the end is your precious relationship with something that's a complete sham. What good is that, really? And I will not be ashamed of "acting like a child" when I know that I am right, and you are wrong. Giving credibility to something that is guilty of what the Catholic church is guilty of, and not even trying to make it be accountable, is utterly abominable. And if you understand that; it doesn't matter you ramble, or someone thinks you're incoherent and using flawed analogies, and you have naive expectations. YOU ARE RIGHT. There's no argument here. When the subject is THE RAPE OF CHILDREN AND WHETHER THE PEOPLE WHO ALLOWED IT GET AWAY WITH THAT SCOTT FREE, then there is RIGHT. And there is WRONG.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-11-20 08:19 pm (UTC)(link)Show me one instance where I have said this. You are free to judge whomever you choose. Just don’t be surprised when other Catholics laugh in your face after finding out your judgments are based on the fact that we won’t collectively throw a hissy fit and stomp out of the church.
And now we finally get to the crux of the matter. Your “logic” in this argument basically boils down to “if you are a Catholic then you support child molesters.” A deeply disturbing yet charmingly hilarious notion. Since you have ardently ignored 90% of what I said in my last two posts in favor of reiterating the same garbage, I will not waste any more of my time. It is clear that you never had any intention of participating in an actual discussion, which begs the question of why you even bothered to make your initial query in the first place. And you absolutely should feel ashamed not only for acting in a childish manner, but for unabashedly flaunting your ignorance and acting like you know how the Church works more than Catholics.
You refused to counter this point (surprise, surprise) the last two times it was brought up, but perhaps now it can finally pierce through that haze of hatred and ignorance: who do you think brought it to light that children were being abused? Non-Cathoilics? No parent wants to see their child molested. No sane person should want to see ANY child molested, especially by someone who is supposed to represent all things good. I absolutely have no idea why you think parishioners are A-OK if there’s a known enabler in the ranks. If they know for a fact that someone is abusing children then they let it be known. Hence why you see all these cases in the news.
I already explained, at length, as to why the joke you call a solution is not practical or realistic. Since you have made zero effort to counter any of the points I made, I assume you realize the inherent stupidity of such a plan, but do not want to admit it so as not to appear in the wrong.
One thing we do agree on is that child abuse enablers have no place in the church. You, however, seem to be under the impression that if all the Catholics rally together the Vatican will topple and there will be rainbows and unicorns for everyone, whereas I take a more practical approach. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
no subject
Okay.
"unabashedly flaunting your ignorance and acting like you know how the Church works more than Catholics."
There. Right in this reply. Okay, you didn't say I "can't", but I mean that colloquially for "can't legitimately". You must be one of those kind of people who say "ahem, you mean 'may I?' not 'can I?'."
And I never said if you're a Catholic you support child molesters. Or if I ever did, then it was a slip. I tried to always say "child abuse ENABLERS", and looking back I can confirm I was pretty diligent about that. And to your point that it was Catholics who turned in child abusers, anyone who is familiar with this scandal (and with the fact that I say "enablers"), the nature of the scandal is not merely that children were abused, it's that when they were a great many of the abusers were not turned into the police when Catholics turned them in to the clergy... they were protected and relocated, where they continued to abuse more children. This is why the congregation has to turn against the leadership.
I think Catholics "throwing a tantrum" about this is the only appropriate reaction. Do you know what this abuse did to people? Do you see the way that you try to shame me the way you would a child? Saying I'm acting like a child, and that my solution is throwing a tantrum? Nice job of using the same psychology tactics on me that child abusers use on their victims. And downplaying the seriousness of making each and every person that did or enabled such things accountable. "It wouldn't be practical or realistic to raise a stink about a thing such as this. Just get over it."
I do care whether I am or am seen as hateful, but if you think it's hateful to expect people not to associate with institutional enabling of child abuse... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! and also FUCK YOU.
I refuse to engage with you on most of your points because they are BESIDE the point. I couldn't possibly care less if I am or if you think I am laughable, throwing a hissy fit, childish, ignorant, naive, impractical, unrealistic, stupid, and have visions of rainbows and unicorns dancing in my head. If even the Catholic church lost even half of it's church-attending membership over this scandal, it absolutely would topple the Vatican. You think anyone's going to put up with the world's Catholic population being halved? COME ON. And what's more, if it didn't result in the Pope being thrown out, you'd be insane to think that you lost anything by shrugging off the Catholic church in the first place. And it's not hateful to say that, because if my conditions were met, I'd fully support the flock returning and my feelings about Catholics would reverse, and my complaints about Catholics would disappear. It's okay to condition such things on NOT ENABLING CHILD ABUSERS OR CHILD ABUSE ENABLERS.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-11-21 12:51 am (UTC)(link)The sentence of mine you highlighted was taken AFTER you already made the (false) claim that I said you couldn’t judge Catholics. And still, you admitted that I said nothing about your right to express whatever sentiments you desire, which was my point. And yes, I absolutely believe demonstrating limited knowledge on what you are talking about undermines your legitimacy.
“And I never said if you're a Catholic you support child molesters… I tried to always say "child abuse ENABLERS"
Enablers are just as bad, if not worse. Due to the nature of this scandal (and I am well aware of what plagues my Church, so your summary is not needed nor appreciated) and how hushed it can be, parishioners would not necessarily be aware if there were any cover-ups in their diocese. Keep in mind that those doing the shuffling of criminal priests are the bishops/cardinals/etc., i.e, people the average churchgoer never speaks to. If it is found out, then attention obviously is drawn to it. Do you really think the parents of children would just let people they know were involved walk away?
“I think Catholics "throwing a tantrum" about this is the only appropriate reaction. Do you know what this abuse did to people? Do you see the way that you try to shame me the way you would a child? Saying I'm acting like a child, and that my solution is throwing a tantrum? Nice job of using the same psychology tactics on me that child abusers use on their victims. And downplaying the seriousness of making each and every person that did or enabled such things accountable. "It wouldn't be practical or realistic to raise a stink about a thing such as this. Just get over it."
I do care whether I am or am seen as hateful, but if you think it's hateful to expect people not to associate with institutional enabling of child abuse... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! and also FUCK YOU.”
And you were doing so well until this paragraph, too.
Once again, the arrogance you display here astounds me. You have the NERVE to ask me, a Catholic, if I knew what the abuse did to people? Amazing. Simply astounding. I’m not sure if there’s officially such a thing as “Protestant (?) privilege” but good Lord, you have it in spades. You think that I’m not paranoid about what could happen to my future children? You think I don’t know about the devastation this corruption has done to families and lives? You think I’ve never seen or interacted with a victim? You are unbelievable. Absolutely and utterly unbelievable.
And better yet, you have the gall to compare me to child abusers. This is incredibly offensive not just for myself, but for all the victims, comparing serious psychological damage to a fucking fandomsecrets comment. Unbelievable. You truly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about if you think the two are in any way, shape, or form comparable. I called your actions childish because that is ABSOLUTELY what they are, and your newest post just reinforces that. I was calling a spade a spade, and nothing you have said since then has made me change my mind. I get that you want the child enablers to get out of the church. That is something every Catholic layperson agrees with. But this...it’s incredible. Truly, it is. I have no idea how old you are, but please say you’re in high school.
“I refuse to engage with you on most of your points because they are BESIDE the point.”
No, they’re not. You don’t understand why Catholics won’t do this, and I provided you with many valid reasons why.
“If even the Catholic church lost even half of it's church-attending membership over this scandal, it absolutely would topple the Vatican. You think anyone's going to put up with the world's Catholic population being halved? COME ON.”
So 500 million is suddenly an insignificant number? Anyway, your claim, unsurprisingly, is flawed. I explained why the chance of your plan actually working in 2012 is incredibly miniscule, but let’s throw logic out the window and assume for a minute that it works. No doubt, there would have to be some compromises. But one thing I guarantee you is that there will still be some form of hierarchy. As with any large organization, there is still plenty of room for corruption. Whose to say that the they are being truthful when they claim all enablers have been dismissed? Whose to say corruption will never again gain hold? And it absolutely will, because you CANNOT have any organization with over a billion people and NOT have some degree of corruption.
“And what's more, if it didn't result in the Pope being thrown out, you'd be insane to think that you lost anything by shrugging off the Catholic church in the first place.”
Says you. I personally wouldn’t have any problems with the Pope being thrown out, but there are PLENTY of Catholic-only practices that can be very important to an individual that they can no longer have by “shrugging it off.”
“if my conditions were met,”
Lol. Like you’re really in any position to be making demands.
“I'd fully support the flock returning and my feelings about Catholics would reverse, and my complaints about Catholics would disappear.”
I’m sure the millions of Catholics worldwide will be eagerly waiting with anticipation and bated breath for your much-coveted approval.
“It's okay to condition such things on NOT ENABLING CHILD ABUSERS OR CHILD ABUSE ENABLERS.”
Well, then it’s a good thing no Catholic layperson wants child abusers/enablers in the clergy!