Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

The culture of violence and sexual abuse in the Ryan report is truly one of the more disgusting things I've ever read: not because I'm unaccustomed to hearing about violence -- violence is, regrettably, part of human history -- but because it was the institutionalized, normalized part of the Catholic church's recent history in Ireland. What are these victims to think about society, about life, when it is so unjust and brutal from the very outset, and when any objection they ever had was shut down before it reached any kinder ears than the ones that had listened and ignored.

It makes me very grateful to have been at a state school in Northern Ireland... which honestly was still no picnic. To this day I find it astonishing that the morons in charge put 40 of us state schoolers on a public bus at 3:20pm which then stopped and picked up 40 kids from the Christian Brothers school just down the road. Every day for 5 years we were in the grip of fear; every week it was a massacre. What the hell were they thinking? Maybe they had bigger fish to fry than things like ... I don't know, keeping kids safe? Thankfully I escaped those 5 years with only 6 stitches next to my left eye.

But it makes one wonder how much worse it could have been to have been left in the charge of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Maybe I should have been feeling sorry for some of those Christian Brothers kids rather than fearing our daily encounters on the bus?

A total disgrace. My sympathies are with the ordinary, decent Catholic of Ireland who have had to listen to these revelations. You have been betrayed by priests and bishops, who should have given you leadership and protected your children. My catholic friends are very very upset, and I share they anger at what SOME priest have done. God forgive those abusers, because the rest of us will struggle to forgive them.

As a Christian (although I am not a Catholic) I too am disgusted and appalled by much that goes on in the name of religion.

But is this violence really merely "in the name of" religion or is it actually "because of" religion? Are there certain deeply entrenched doctrines and religious ways of thinking which encourage this kind of behaviour? I think that there are.

If we believe that each and every person, in his or her natural state, is subject to what is called "original sin" - i.e. an inherently sinful nature which damns the soul to the fires of everlasting hell - then we may feel a motivation to act vigorously against that corrupt nature in order to save the soul.

If we believe that children are infected by "original sin" then this will affect our philosophy of education. Any kindness and indulgence towards children would be regarded as pampering their evil natures and thereby endangering their eternal souls. The evil nature of each child is "the enemy", and how should one relate to an enemy? By violence, of course. The sin therefore has to be beaten out of them.

The implications of the doctrine of original sin require the response of canes, whips and other means of abuse. The hardening effect of this harsh treatment on the perpetrators can then lead to their committing another form of violence: sexual abuse.

For as long as Christians insist on believing an idea which is complete and utter nonsense (i.e. the idea that human beings are automatically under the judgement of God simply by being born into this world), this abuse will persist. I am not denying the reality of evil. Evil is, in fact, the result of choice and a deliberate rejection of the love of God, which is the foundation of righteousness. This understanding of evil is a far cry from the corrupt idea of "original sin", which actually undermines human responsibility, and punishes people for what they cannot help being.

What we need is a new reformation, in which these lies are exposed and debunked once and for all. I am aware that some would say that this new reformation should involve the debunking of the very idea of God.

I beg to differ.

If, as the atheists say, we are all simply collections of chemicals thrown together by purely blind natural processes, then none of us possess intrinsic worth and value. This is as bad as the doctrine of original sin.

Only a proper understanding of the love and mercy of God towards each and every person can counteract these evils.

Could I perhaps add, LSV, that doctrines of celibacy are equally in cause?

Since the Irish authorities won't prosecute, I think a good case could be made for the perpetrators to be tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague. Why is this different from the crimes any other terrorists commit? We'll see what the EU and the ICC is made of by how they react to this news. We'll see if they're all show and no go as I suspect they are.

I don't think even the most ruthless Islamic militants would treat children this way, not even al Qaeda. Of course if they were Jewish children I could be wrong about that.

You're a big boy Mike, time to let these things go. We all got slapped at school.

Marcus - catch a grip, crimes against humanity? The reason there won't be prosecutions from this is that they can't meet the burden of proof in the vast majority of cases. This report and the approach betrays the real victims and the innocent religious. The bad guys aren't named so everyone presumes the good guys are also the bad guys. And the bad guys can't be named cos that would prejudice any possibility of prosecution which isn't going to be likely because of the time span involved, lack of evidence etc. The real victims, by which I mean children who were raped and assaulted are treated in the same way as those who were slapped and sent to bed with no dinner. This report must leave them feeling sick. But what really is the alternative?

LSV

"If we believe that each and every person, in his or her natural state, is subject to what is called "original sin" - i.e. an inherently sinful nature which damns the soul to the fires of everlasting hell - then we may feel a motivation to act vigorously against that corrupt nature in order to save the soul."


Okay, that's pure Dawkinsianism. (-;
First. There's no attempt to establish a correlation, (never mind causality).

Second. Then you have to compare Roman Catholicism with religions that don't believe in Original Sin. For example Islam, or Eastern Orthodoxy. Neither have used violent coercion in the past, have they?

Third. You are all over the place in your understanding of Original Sin. (You won't get anywhere by googling Calvinism). You conflate Original Sin with Inherited Guilt. You can hold to the former without holding to the latter. Like me. I've pointed this out before, but it hasn't registered. You then assume that Original Sin merits punishment in all orthodox thought. That is *not* the case.
To illustrate, I'll just reach into mt briefcase and quote from a book on Paul I just happen to be reading. "Rediscovering Paul" by Capes, Reeves and Richards. It's a textbook for evangelical seminaries in the States.
"Paul uses sin in two ways. First..a willful act of disobedience against God....Second, a power at work in human lives causing people to behave in ways they wish they did not".
"For the Apostle, the death of Jesus deasl completely with the sin-problem of humanity. First, for sins - deliberate acts of disobedience - the cross offers forgiveness. Second, for sin - the power that causes misery and frustration - the cross provides redemption, namely liberation."
"We are punished because we sin, and not because Adam sinned."
Original Sin is the "power" we need delivered from, not punished for. I'd interpret it partly as the result of our existential situation, our alienation from God. (To my mind it only becomes something like "inherited guilt" when we act to exclude God, identifying with a rebellion against God). Capes, Reeves and Richards seem to want to draw in supernatural powers. John Hare, in the "Moral Gap" goes a different direction. Paul Copan, a popular evangelical apologist goes another. There are many evangelical views on this. Very few that I've read (even by Calvinists like Paul Helm) come close to your caricature.

Fourth. "The evil nature of each child is "the enemy", and how should one relate to an enemy? By violence, of course. The sin therefore has to be beaten out of them."
How does any of that follow inevitably from the doctrine of original sin, even on the only version of the doctrine that you are familiar with? Have you never experienced yourself as "the enemy"? Was your immediate response to beat yourself? Or to wish someone would beat you?
My Dad believed in Original Sin. Don't recall any abuse. The teacher who was *kindest* to me believed in Original Sin. But I know self-righteous child abusers.

Fifth. You totally ignore the strand of thought that believed that "it didn't matter what a boy learned, so long as he was miserable" (Winston Churchhill reflecting on his education). There is a hangover from a misunderstanding of Stoicism that misery breeds character. Japanese society prior to World War Two took the view that discipline was the key to moral progress. A regime of brutality followed in schools and the military. I'm not sure that the Bushido code owes much to the doctrine of Original Sin. But maybe I'm missing something.

I'm not sure which doctrinaire "Calvinists" you've encountered. They can be an irritating bunch, but they do not speak for all Evangelicals, and they do not speak for all Reformed theology. They don't even speak for all "Calvinists!" I don't recognise Jim Packer in your represenations of Calvinism for example. (I would recognise many Banner of Truth types. Including my Father-in-Law. A Calvinist minister, who never laid a hand on his daughters as he believed a man shouldn't hit a girl. He must have got his theology all wrong. Of course, if you believe in Original Sin you must hold that as a logical consequence ** it can be beaten out of a person**!!!???)

I could go on all morning. But I'm helping an advanced student who is experiencing difficulties. I'm trying thumbscrews on him this morning, after that it's the rack(-;
Then I've to torture my son for failing his spellings. (-:
GV

McCamley

There is at least one blogger who was seriously sexually and physically abused by Priests.

GV

Actually, McCamley, as a teacher, and someone who's worked with the abused, and as a Christian:

That comment to Mike is one of the most offensive statements I've read on this blog. And that is a competitive field.
It is not permissable to terrify a child. This happened. It was wrong. Not as wrong as genocide, or mass murder or paedophilia. But it's still deeply and destructively wrong.
I got the slipper in school. A teacher gave me a dead arm. **No big deal**
That is not the sort of experience that Mike was reporting. Has it occurred to you that there was corporal punishment in the State Schools he attended. It was of a different kind and order than the punishment he is reporting is of a differnt kind and order.

GV

Gveal - not sure why you're telling me about a sex abused blogger unless your playing the Absolute Moral Authority Card so that no one can now say anthing about the issue.

Read what I said "children who were raped and assaulted are treated in the same way as those who were slapped and sent to bed with no dinner" and Mike Philpott I think does a disservice to those children by his tale of woe. I had a very similar Latin teacher. I had a teacher who punched me in the stomach and almost left me unconscious. But I also had lots of very good teachers, many of whom were priests.

McC

It was just a "heads up" about other bloggers. No dig intended in that post.

The reason that I mentioned is that someone might think you're talking *about them.* (I know you're not!)And you're pretty forthright with your views. Which is OK by me, no diffs there at all. But if you know you're talking to someone who suffered abuse, you'd probably identify your targets a bit more clearly.

As for your bizzarre comments to Mike

Like I said, cruelty isn't as bad as sexual abuse. But it's worse than a thump. And if you live in a culture that winks at cruelty, then sadists have a field-day. And paedophiles (although we mainly seem to be talking about ephebophilia) find their prey that much easier. Mike did not say he was abused. He said that his education was "barbaric" and left him justifiably hostile to organised religion. He is angry, and not claiming victim status.

In my comments to LSV I pointed out that there is nothing specifically "Catholic" about the discipline. I imagine that many English Public Schools were similar at one stage (CS Lewis called his Public School "Belsen"). And there were good Priests. That hasn't been disputed.

But that a Church should tolerate cruelty that went beyond what happened in State schools is scandalous.

GV

Mike's story appears in the context of the report on child abuse. Granted he may have suffered, and clearly he's carried that suffering with him for a long time. But he's drawn a lot of conclusions from that bad experience. To say that it hasn't been disputed that there were good priests does not take away from the general conclusions people are trying to draw from certain specific events. I think the Church did more good than bad, he thinks they did more bad than good. My opinion, his opinion.

Mccamley

I tried to post a comment expressing my reaction to your post above, but the profanity filter stopped me.

Yet your post is unfiltered and is allowed.

I will never again take seriously anything you have to say.

Mc Camley, I am guessing from the tone of your comment that you have no idea what you are talking about. Forget the report if you want, but read Mary Raftery's book "Suffer the Little Children" This was a regieme of cruelty imposed on children throughout Ireland and Mike Philpott might have been at the lesser end of the spectrum but the overall object was to rule through pain and terror. Hardly a good way for a religion based on love to proceed.

mccamley, in the United States, the sexual abuse of children by adults including priests is considered one of the most heinous crimes in our society. They have committed felonies against the most helpless of victims. Even within the prison heirarchy, they are at the low end and are often beaten by other inmates, sometimes even killed in prison. If they are ever released, their names and addresses are publically posted so that their neighbors know whom to beware of and protect their children from. They are effectively branded as "child sex offenders" for life. This also includes women child sex offenders.

In your inferior society, the priests are being protected because the Catholic religion in Ireland takes precedence over civil law. It exposes your entire claim of the superiority of Europe to America as the sham that it is. The selective prosecution or failure to prosecute is proof of the depth of its corruption and hypocricy. The officials of the church who protected these people for decades and are protecting them now are conspirators aiding and abetting their felonies. The claimed statute of limitations is a thin ruse to defy the law. In the United States, not only criminal penalties but civil suits have resulted in enormous payouts and may have nearly bankrupted the Catholic Church. Who would put money in the plate knowing it might be used for the legal defense of such criminals or payout for damages and fines for such crimes? Pope Benedict's half hearted apology was considered by most American Catholics too little and too late. Steps taken to mitigate the damage to the Catholic Church's image in the US even among Catholics have been less than effective and it may never be restored to the respectability it once had.

Here's how this works. I write something trying to make the point that being slapped is not the same as being raped and then you all pretend that I support child abuse and don't care what happens to children.

Marcus - you don't know what you are talking about. The reason we have this report and this approach is because it was not possible to bring convictions. Of course there have been convictions where the evidence was there and the case could be made against a real live named person who could defend themselves.

Marcus is this the same America where the public school system is full of child molesters and nothing is done, that America? Where children are tried as adults? Where 48 million of them have been aborted? That America. No thanks.

What is the source of the idea that suffering is good for a child's character? It certainly has pre-Christian origins.
The proverb "Spare the rod.." is a proverb, not a command. ("A live dog is better than a dead lion" is another canonical proverb. Two canonical proverbs contradict each other "Answer the fool according to his folly";"Do not answer a fool according to his folly". Like "a stitch in time saves nine" proverbs are not meant to be taken as literal commands. "Many hands make light work" and "Too many cooks..." contradict each other only if taken as commands.) Now I can understand laity making the mistake, but Priests surel ywould have had the education to know the difference.
A few New Testament commands - "children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children", "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord" and "Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged". Paul, fully aware of the Proverbs about discipline, is rejecting the Roman "Patria Potestas" (power of the father) to punish as the Father sees fit.
Jesus compares himself to a protective mother hen, the father of the Prodigal Son is positively effeminate in his affection when we compare him to his culture's expectations. Paul and John both refer to their Churches affectionately, as little children.
So how did it become acceptable to brutally beat a child? Given what happened in English public schools, it seems strange to blame Roman Catholicism. Are there classical roots for this idea?

GV

"Here's how this works. I write something trying to make the point that being slapped is not the same as being raped and then you all pretend that I support child abuse and don't care what happens to children."

McC that is not fair. I was very specific. I criticised you for suggesting that cruelty in the class room was no big deal, simply because it is no big deal *compared to paedophilia*. One act of murder is no big deal *compared to the holocaust*. But that does not make murder into "no big deal".

It was sloppy reasoning.And I did try to warn you that you were going to be taken out of context.
So it all resulted in an offensive statement. But we can all make those unintentionally.
You're a big boy McC, time to let these things go. (-;

GV

Anyway, I'm off until Wednesday.

Have a good Bank Holiday weekend y'all.

Graham

I was listening to Evening Extra yesterday and one of the victims was interviewed. She was asked the question "what do you think caused the priests and nuns to commit this abuse". I found her reply interesting One of the reasons she gave were the celibacy rules. she said that in effect, neither could live up to what was required of them and they took their frustrations out on the kids.

I have often thought the same, and if priests and nuns where allowed to marry (as in the Protestant denominations) a lot of these problems would disappear, not completely (because there will always be abuse throughout society) but largely, in my opinion. Does the Catholic hierarchy recognise there's a problem and is there any debate aboute celibacy within the Catholic church ? Personally, I feel that insisting on celibacy in this day and age is completely unrealistic.

mccamley, the reason the evidence wasn't there in time to prosecute them is that those in the church who knew about it or suspected it never brought it to the attention of the police and the authorities might not have prosecuted them anyway if they had. Ireland is in effect run by the Catholic Church, it is a theocracy not a democracy. From the point of view of the victims and their families, it is no better than Iran. How convenient it all is. In the US, monsignieurs moved child sexual predator priests from parish to parish to protect them from discovery and prosecution. This only increased the number of victims, the number of felonies, the length of time the crimes went undisclosed. It's likely the same happened in Ireland. How you can live with that is your problem but don't expect any sympathy or understanding for the government's apparent helplessness to prosecute these heinous criminals and the heirarchical structure that kept them able to get away with it for so long. BTW, I think most psychologists consider the mental disorder of child sexual predators incurable. Has it ever occurred to you that the Catholic Church attracts these very types to become priests because of their unquestioned access to large numbers of potential victims as we've seen here and in America?

Gveale - okay you're slightly less guilty than some and I'm more guilty than I pretend.

As regards celibacy being the issue, I dont' think so - I think one of the issues was the lack of opportnities for young people coming out of school in those days which resulted in many people who were totally unsuited ending up as nuns, priests and brothers.

Abuse is a problem throughout society - check out for some info on abuse by Orthodox Clergy who are of course free to marry. This link has stuff on protestant clergy .

The Catholic League is also useful at providing context and comparisons.

Peter, I think you are a bit off with your reasoning. There were probably a number of cultural/sociological factors contributing to their attitudes, but remember they chose a celibate vocation it was not a surprise to them.
Good old Sir Cliff Richard claims to be celibate but I don't think I have ever heard of him thrashing any children to within an inch of their lives. Though he can certainly murder the odd song.

mccamley

You have already said too much.

#7 - gveale -

Thank you for your lengthy response to my comments, although you will probably anticipate that I don't agree with your analysis of what I wrote.

Firstly, you say that my comment about original sin damning the soul, and that "we may feel a motivation to act vigorously against that corrupt nature in order to save the soul", is "pure Dawkinsianism". I am afraid to say that you have completely lost me on that one. I assume you are referring to the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins. Since when did he remotely believe in anything that could conceivably accord with my comment? Are you suggesting that I am advocating atheism? If so, I assume, therefore, that you believe that anyone who denies the concept of "original sin" also denies the existence of God. Sorry, but I can't see the connection.

I am aware that this thread is actually about the unsavoury behaviour of the Catholic Church, but since you have brought up Calvinism I will discuss that theology. I will show that, within traditional Calvinistic thought, there is actually no difference between "original sin" and "original (or inherited) guilt", resulting in eternal damnation.

(Let me say, in parenthesis, that your comment about the fact that you are not sure which doctrinaire Calvinists I've encountered, seems to insinuate that I formulate my views as an emotional reaction against some bad experiences I have had with some people. If that is what you are saying, then you are being incredibly patronising. I am not so intellectually vapid as to develop my thinking on that basis.)

At the heart of Calvinistic thinking is the following idea taught by Calvin himself (I assume that you would accept that Calvin would qualify as a "Calvinist"?!):

"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment." Calvin's Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 21, paragraph 7.

This idea is, in my view, obscene. You could argue as much as you like that I have misunderstood Calvin's doctrine. Many Reformed theologians, I am sure, have attempted to sanitise what cannot be sanitised (the theological equivalent of holocaust denial). Some prominent Calvinists, such as R C Sproul, attempt to dupe people into thinking that Reformed theology does not support the view that anyone is forced by God to go to hell:

"The importance of viewing the decree of reprobation in light of the fall is seen in the on-going discussions between Reformed theologians concerning infra- and supra-lapsarianism. Both viewpoints include the fall in God's decree. Both view the decree of preterition in terms of divine permission. The real issue between the positions concerns the logical order of the decrees. In the supralapsarian view the decree of election and reprobation is logically prior to the decree to permit the fall. In the infralapsarian view the decree to permit the fall is logically prior to the decree to election and reprobation. Though this writer favors the infralapsarian view along the lines developed by Turrettini, it is important to note that both views see election and reprobation in light of the fall and avoid the awful conclusion that God is the author of sin." Sproul's essay on "Double Predestination" -

So what Sproul is saying is that it is "the fall" which condemns the reprobate, not the decree of God. Any decree of reprobation is to be viewed as "permissive" - God simply allows the reprobate to go the natural way of the outworking of the fall. And how does the fall influence the reprobate? Through the mechanism of original sin, since that is how the transgression committed at the fall of man is believed to be transmitted throughout the human race.

Therefore, according to this devious way of attempting to sanitise Calvinistic thought, Sproul is acknowledging that the reprobate are condemned as a direct result of original sin. Therefore, logically, every human being infected by original sin is under the eternal judgement of God, and only those who are "elect" are rescued from this predicament. The utterly unavoidable logical consequence of this is that God deliberately brings some people into this fallen world, knowing full well that they will be infected with original sin, which will damn their souls, and he refuses to offer them any way out of their predicament (a predicament, as I say, into which he has put them). Argue until you are blue in the face, but you cannot deny that that is what infralapsarian Calvinism is saying.

This concept of "original sin / original guilt" is thus a direct challenge to the justice and compassion of God. The idea is unjust as it allows no room for human freedom (people are forced against their will to be evil), and of course, the idea is utterly lacking in anything remotely resembling "love", which, of course, is the character of God (1 John 4:8). The doctrine is therefore blasphemy.

Now coming on to the question of abusive behaviour flowing from this doctrine, which is also held by the Catholic Church - although not within a predestinarian framework. They believe that all people can be saved, albeit only through the one and only Church (with certain qualifications - primarily flowing from Vatican II - e.g. "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its [the Catholic Church's] visible confines").

I will start by asking you a simple question: Do you believe that beliefs influence actions?

It's a very simple question, but it goes to the very heart of this discussion. What is the point of holding to beliefs about life, God, meaning, anthropology, morality, justice etc... if these beliefs have absolutely no effect on lifestyle and behaviour? If beliefs don't have any bearing on behaviour, then why all the constant fuss about people needing to become Christians?? And why do Christians criticise other people's beliefs, if such views are merely "academic" and irrelevant to real life?

Do you believe that it is important to have a correct view of God's nature? I assume you do.

If you do not, then it makes no difference whether someone is a Christian or a devil-worshipper.

And if it matters, why does it matter? My answer to this is that one's belief about the nature of God has a direct bearing on one's behaviour towards other people.

If someone is committed to a belief in a God of love, then that person is likely to love others. If, on the other hand, someone believes that God is little different from a devil, who delights in torturing people for all eternity on the basis of the smallest of pretexts, then that person will not love others.

The belief that God judges people on the basis of original sin is a belief in a God who is fundamentally unjust. If I am committed to that belief, then I will inevitably treat others unjustly as I seek to serve my unjust God. I will have very little compassion for other people, since God himself has very little or no compassion towards them. I may possibly even become violent towards them, since my God is also violent towards them.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Now I am aware that some Christians pay lip-service to certain doctrines and don't really believe them in their hearts, despite their protestations. That explains why some people who believe in unjust and blasphemous doctrines may be or seem to be very "loving" people. But someone who truly believes in these ideas will live accordingly, and will implement in their life a concept of justice corresponding to God's concept of justice (or rather, should I say, God's injustice).

Other religions also may possess faulty views of the nature of God, and this will impact on the behaviour of their adherents.

I know that I have not answered all your objections, as space and time are limited. But this is a start. (One other thing... I do not believe that man can save himself. But alongside the creation of each and every individual is God's provision of salvation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, who "objectively" and "actually" died for all people. This influence of Christ counteracts any possible influence of evil in the world, and provides the possibility of genuine choice. Every person, therefore, is subject to both influences from conception onwards - an accurate reading of Romans 5 and the doctrine of the "two Adams" reveals this truth. Therefore the idea that we are all automatically separated from God because of the fall until we consciously "become Christians" is not true. Nevertheless this is the claim of much popular evangelical evangelistic literature.)

So ... I make no apology for what I wrote, and for the above reasons, I stand by my comments.

McCamley, I might be a bit slow, but you do seem to be a bit ambiguous as to what you mean by This report must leave them feeling sick. (Comment #6) Do you mean Mr Crawleys report on this issue; Mike Philpots contribution or the Ryan report?

I meant the Ryan report, if Peter Morrow doesn't mind me writing again.

Do forgive me for being slightly "dim", I felt that it was ambiguous because of the preceding sentence 'The real victims, by which I mean children who were raped and assaulted are treated in the same way as those who were slapped and sent to bed with no dinner'. I have at last finished my first reading of this report at just after 10pm tonight. As I say it was a first reading, and I tended "skip" parts that went into the details; however, at no point did a read anything in this report that spoke about the children in these institutions being 'slapped and sent to bed with no dinner'! Thus, either I have misread the report; or you have been, at best inappropriately and deliberately flippant, or perversely sinister in your callousness.

Those of us on the Protestant Evangelical side of the fence would need to be careful not to gloat over the dismay in the Roman church over this horrifying report. As Paul advised the Christians in Corinth: "Whovever thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall." (1 Corinthians 10v12) Sadly, the mistreatment of children is not unknown among Bible-believing Christians.

It does seem to me, however, that enforced celibacy - while not the whole cause of the problem - is an important contributory factor. When men are denied the natural expression of sex in marriage, it is more likely that these repressed urges may come to the surface in other ways.
Perhaps there will now be a re-think on this issue.

Gloating?!! Why would gloating ever, ever come into such a horrendous subject?!! Its not a Celtic Rangers match for God's sake.

And, a mature, balanced man choosing celibacy can be a good thing. Its a very different story where a boy is packed away to a junior seminary at the age of 11 or 12, straight into senior seminary at the age of 17 or 18 and ordination at 24 or 25. Such a man's sexual, emotional, human developement has been repressed/stunted and a walking time-bomb has just been created.

In my country, the vast majority of clergy who were abusers all had one thing in common, they all attended junior seminaries. Authoritarian regimes, harsh discipline, anything to do with sexuality deemed 'sinful', no parents present, etc..

In my experience the damage was done long before a vow of celibacy is even taken.

However, mandatory celibacy (as opposed to freely chosen celibacy) is a scourge but there will be no rethink under the present regime which seems intent on dismantling Vatican II Council and returning us to the Pius epoch.

Catholics are drifting away in their hundreds of thousands under a man who has said publicly, "The Catholic Church must grow smaller in order to purify itself."

An open door and warm welcome for the deluded Tridentinists and out the back door go thousands of ordinary people who believe that Christianity is about love, not medieval church history. And the Pope doesnt even blink an eye...

pastorphilip

"Perhaps there will now be a re-think on this issue."

Why should they? They didn't when it was revealed that the same thing happened in America.

mcamley

The point is that words can often add to someone's hurt.

The simple fact is that the church (and I make no denominational distinction) throughout it's history has been guilty of some terrible things. This is another one of those occasions and it's actions are indefensible. What that means in practical terms is that seeking to contrast evil actions with reference to any good which has been done, is in itself something which increases pain.

If the church cannot say 'guilty' with regard to itself (and I have not heard that word used yet), then it might be best to say nothing, what it should not do is to try to 'explain' what happened. I'm not sure that apologies count for much either. Giving relevant information to the police would be more pertinent.

Personally speaking, if things like this don't give our faith a bit of a shake up then maybe we're not thinking carefully enough.

On the bright side, it wasn't as bad as The Inquisition. Have they apologized for that yet?

Yes. John Paul II apologised for the Inquisition several times.

On this issue, I agree entirely with Peter Morrow's last post.

LSV

The multiple uses of smiley faces were meant to counteract an aggressive tone in my post. I'm a high school teacher, so being patronising in my adult conversations is just an occupational hazard. But I was joking about the Calvinists. Maybe I should have added more smileys.

Okay, I see two objections to Original Sin in your post.

(1) The doctrine of Original Sin implies that God is not just.
(2) The doctrine of Original Sin has harmful practical consequences.

Now I agree that (1) follows if the doctrine of Original Sin is coupled with a doctrine of Imputed/Inherted Guilt, or Strong Determinism. However it is *simply not true* that Original Sin includes Imputed/Inherted Guilt. And I don't believe in Determinism (Divine or otherwise).
You quote Sproul. He's entitled to his views, but he does not speak for Evangelicalism. He is wrong to lump Imputed Guilt in with Original Sin without argument. John Piper's "Desiring God" ministry has complained about Evangelicals (like me) who do not hold to the doctrine of Inherited/Imputed guilt.




The fact remains that there are many Evangelicals (with Reformed tendencies) who do not hold that Adam's Sin is "imputed" to every human being. Henri Blocher's book "Original Sin" is one example. Paul Copan's article "Original Sin and Christian Philosophy" is another. Hence the "moral panic" in the Desiring God camp. Personally, I believe that we are guilty of a sin of the Adamic "type/kind/category" when we make choices that identify us with humanities rebellion. This is a more "Wesleyan" take.
The fact is that Zwingli viewed Original Sin as a kind of disease - not a "sin" itself, which is an act meriting punishment. Zwingli did not hold that Original Sin damns. Finney would have agreed. The only way that you can make Original Sin sound unjust is to place it within a tradtitional Calvinist framework. But you can have the doctrine without that framework (by affirming indeterministic free-will, for example).
It seems possible that every human would choose their own autonomy (or some other idol) over God. Original Sin just means that possibility has been actual. Humans would not choose God unless God intervenes and changes their situation. The doctrines of Common Grace and General Revelation guarantee that God has revealed himself to everyone, and given them a chance to respond to him. And in fact it does seem plausible that humans are alienated from some great good, "fallen royalty" as Pascal would have put it. In fact I would be persuaded by Pascal that the Doctrines of Original Sin, the Imago Dei, and the Grace of God are ALL necessary to make sense of the human condition. And I don't think that the doctrine of Original Sin should be dismissed until the arguments and observations in the "Pensees" have been addressed.
You also quote Calvin. If that's what he meant then I disagree with him. I'm not a "Calvinist". I'm not a Calvin scholar. But I would allow that statements that ideas can be qualified, explained and defended.
By the way, I'm not sure that it is obvious that Calvin was a "Calvinist". RT Kendall has challenged this idea, Paul Helm has challenged Kendall - I couldn't care less really, but the fact remains that Calvinism depends on later Scholastic developments that Calvin may or may not have agreed with.


As to the objection that the Doctrine of Original Sin leads to physical abuse -
Of course ideas have consequences. But the reason I alluded to Dawkins is that you did not provide any data to back up your claim. You did not even provide anecdotal evidence. You overlooked simpler hypotheses for physical abuse in Catholic Schools. You did not compare the level of abuse in Catholic schools with Religious Schools that do not believe in Original Sin. It just seems plausible *to you* that Original Sin leads to beatings. That's a Dawkinsian style of argument. It sounds initially plausible, but there's no real substance. Knowing that you loathe Dawkins style of argumentation, I thought that I might point out the flaw.
Original Sin is not a qualitative substance that can be beat out of a person, or repressed via self discipline, in any Christian system of thought that I know of. That's what would be required to get your argument off the ground. In fact a Roman Catholic should argue that the Sacraments are the means of Grace for dealing with sin and that the power and guilt of original sin was removed at Baptism.
There is a lot more to be said on the topic of Original Sin. But time and space are restrictive. The Pensees are the best exposition I can think of.

Sorry if I irritated.

Graham Veale

#35 - gveale -

Thanks again for your response. You don't need to apologise for feeling irritated. I certainly don't feel irritated at myself for exercising my right to express my beliefs honestly.

Concerning Richard Dawkins - although I don't accept his worldview, I can understand why some people absolutely loathe at least certain aspects of religion, particularly the Christian religion. I would be surprised if Richard Dawkins actually hated certain forms of "fundamentalist" Christianity more than I do.

Here is an interesting clip from his website of a video called "A Letter From Hell" which was found on "Godtube". Take a look at it:

I have just had the terrible misfortune of watching this satanic garbage, but it perfectly illustrates the outworking of the doctrine of "original sin" - or, as you point out, the doctrine of "inherited guilt" by which it is believed by some seriously deluded people that every person who fails to "become a Christian" goes to hell by default. This video is particularly directed at children, and is a deeply disturbing example of psychological child abuse.

If I had the time I could write at length to show that the Bible does not support these lies, even though there are a very few scattered verses which can be twisted to appear to support such an idea.