Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
gone

deleted

deleted
cyberman

Re: A turbulent priest!

I agree the chap isn't doing his job properly, for sure.

Interesting, this.

Critics of the church speak of its attitude to women. Jim on another thread has recently pointed out that Jesus' attitiudes to women were more enlightened then the norm of his day.
cymrudynnion

Re: A turbulent priest!

Floo wrote:
A Rector of a parish (not in Wales) is certainly taking the proverbial where his office is concerned. Apparently this guy spends more time on the 19th hole of the golf course than going about his parish duties. He does the bare minimum where services, weddings, funerals and baptisms are concerned. Anyway yesterday I was told by a member of his congregation they were gobsmacked when at a Lent  talk, he was giving the other day, he stated quite clearly he didn't believe in the virgin birth, crucifixion and thought Jesus could well have been sh*gging (his words) Mary Magdalene! BLIMEY!

Whilst I don't believe the stories attributed to Jesus have much validity, and think it possible MM was his significant other, I am not a priest and don't stand up and say the Apostles Creed every Sunday! What a hypocrite this guy is, and should never be employed as a priest. Apparently it is very hard to sack one unless they do something  illegal so I have heard!  However money donated by the congregations of the C of E pays his salary so if he isn't doing his job he should get booted out, as people in other jobs would if they weren't doing them properly.
Floo, you need to be a bit more forthright with this thread. Firstly are you sure the CofE pays his salary? If this is correct are you sure he is Ordained? It is not hard to "sack" any Priest especially in the CofE or the C.I.W. If this Priest has stated as you have claimed then one of his Congregation should be talking to the Area/Rural Dean (of course as you already know)
Shaker

Re: A turbulent priest!

cyberman wrote:
I agree the chap isn't doing his job properly, for sure.

Interesting, this.

Critics of the church speak of its attitude to women. Jim on another thread has recently pointed out that Jesus' attitiudes to women were more enlightened then the norm of his day.


... without a scrap of evidence for this assertion, despite being asked.
cymrudynnion

Cyberman, Floo has said this Cleric does the bare minimum...To begin with there is no such thing as the bare minimum, certainly not in the C of E or the C.I.W. It is also heresay what this cleric said or did not say
Shaker

cymrudynnion wrote:
Cyberman, Floo has said this Cleric does the bare minimum...To begin with there is no such thing as the bare minimum, certainly not in the C of E or the C.I.W.

Why not?
gone

Shaker wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Cyberman, Floo has said this Cleric does the bare minimum...To begin with there is no such thing as the bare minimum, certainly not in the C of E or the C.I.W.

Why not?


I don't know, but it is scandalous. This guy is definitely paid by the C of E as he is a stipendiary. Complaints are often made about this guy's behaviour but so far nothing has been done!
cymrudynnion

Shaker wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Cyberman, Floo has said this Cleric does the bare minimum...To begin with there is no such thing as the bare minimum, certainly not in the C of E or the C.I.W.

Why not?
Why not, what?
The only requirement of a Cleric who has the Cure of Souls in a Parish is to say The Office (of Morning Prayer) daily preferably after the tolling of the Bell.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
Cyberman, Floo has said this Cleric does the bare minimum...To begin with there is no such thing as the bare minimum, certainly not in the C of E or the C.I.W. It is also heresay what this cleric said or did not say


You could mean 'heresy', or you could mean 'hearsay'...?
cyberman

Re: A turbulent priest!

cyberman wrote:
I agree the chap isn't doing his job properly, for sure.

Interesting, this.

Critics of the church speak of its attitude to women. Jim on another thread has recently pointed out that Jesus' attitiudes to women were more enlightened then the norm of his day.


Hey, half my post didn't get posted!

I went on to say that this included the fact that he included several women amongst his closest disciples, Mary Magdalene being among several named in the gospels.

I then went on to point out that these critics of the church then say "well if there was a woman there, it can only have been because Jesus was shagging her". I then pointed out that this was sexist, misogynistic shite.
Ketty

Hear, hear, Cybers.

I'm not sure why such a load of unsubstantiated gossip is on 'Christian Chat',  but if a priest is not fit for purpose there are ways and ways of dealing with these things.  If such circumstances as outlined in the OP are true, sadly, the Anglican way of dealing with them is   v e r y     s l o w l y.  

Btw and as an aside, I am not at all surprised to hear that an Anglican priest possibly does not believe some of the tenets of Christianity.   Blimey!  If they can allow people who want to use rusty knives to castrate people to sing in their choirs ...
gone

The ways of dealing with these things are not working in this case, unfortunately!

The 'gossip' is not unsubstantiated!
cymrudynnion

Floo if the gossip is not unsubstantiated then the area Dean and Archdeacon will be involved. If the accusations are as you state, the Diocesan Bishop will be involved. Now on another thread a Moderator has stepped in sujjesting I have posted personal details of someone, we ALL know who I am talking about. You know from experience and through the profession of someone close to you how the Church works in such cases. If this is NOT idle chit chat the Authorities will deal with it, as you well know.
cymrudynnion

Floo wrote:
The ways of dealing with these things are not working in this case, unfortunately!

The 'gossip' is not unsubstantiated!
If the gossip is not unsubstantiated then post the name of the Priest involved, if this case has proceeded in the manner you have described it will not breech Forum Rules. From comments made by other posters there are some posters who are in a position to proceed with a disciplinary if the Case warrants it.
gone

Of course I am not going to name the priest involved or where their parish is. The point I was trying to make is even though all the relevant high ups in the CofE know of this turbulent priest, and his antics, they appear not to be able to do anything as he has not done anything illegal, like touching up the choir boys, for instance!
Shaker

Floo wrote:
The point I was trying to make is even though all the relevant high ups in the CofE know of this turbulent priest, and his antics, they appear not to be able to do anything as he has not done anything illegal, like touching up the choir boys, for instance!


I mean, at least he's not Catholic.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
Floo wrote:
The point I was trying to make is even though all the relevant high ups in the CofE know of this turbulent priest, and his antics, they appear not to be able to do anything as he has not done anything illegal, like touching up the choir boys, for instance!


I mean, at least he's not Catholic.


Dick.
The Boyg

Is "dick" synonymous with "bigot" now?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Is "dick" synonymous with "bigot" now?


Not sure. It seems more likely to be synonymous with "Somebody who points out that the religion I happen to adhere to was complicit in the rape and physical and emotional abuse of children all over the world for decade upon decade upon decade and ensured (a) that these activities were covered up and (b) that the perpetrators evaded justice."

You can see why someone would prefer to use a sort of shorthand system.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Is "dick" synonymous with "bigot" now?


Not sure. It seems more likely to be synonymous with "Somebody who points out that the religion I happen to adhere to was complicit in the rape and physical and emotional abuse of children all over the world for decade upon decade upon decade and ensured (a) that these activities were covered up and (b) that the perpetrators evaded justice."

You can see why someone would prefer to use a sort of shorthand system.


No, it means you are being a dick, largely in (for some reason) overlooking the fact that CofE clergy have been implicated, and indeed guilty of, exactly the same thing. In the UK, more of them than their Catholic colleagues.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
No, it means you are being a dick, largely in (for some reason) overlooking the fact that CofE clergy have been implicated, and indeed guilty of, exactly the same thing. In the UK, more of them than their Catholic colleagues.

Well as long as that's the case only in the UK, we can all sleep soundly in our beds tonight.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
No, it means you are being a dick, largely in (for some reason) overlooking the fact that CofE clergy have been implicated, and indeed guilty of, exactly the same thing. In the UK, more of them than their Catholic colleagues.

Well as long as that's the case only in the UK, we can all sleep soundly in our beds tonight.


What the fuck are you on about now?
Shaker

[quote="cyberman:124769"]I'm sorry, was the level of withering sarcasm too subtle for you?
cyberman

[quote="Shaker:124770"]
cyberman wrote:
I'm sorry, was the level of withering sarcasm too subtle for you?


No, just the use of sarcasm to try and pretend you have a point when in fact you don't was not effective
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
No, just the use of sarcasm to try and pretend you have a point when in fact you don't was not effective

Oh I have a point all right, and it was made thoroughly and well. As it has been, repeatedly, here and elsewhere.

You've just got a weed up your arse because I'm ripping the piss out of the cuntish concatenation of crap, cobblers and claptrap that you regard as your religion. That's all it is.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
No, just the use of sarcasm to try and pretend you have a point when in fact you don't was not effective

Oh I have a point all right, and it was made thoroughly and well. As it has been, repeatedly, here and elsewhere.

You've just got a weed up your arse because I'm ripping the piss out of the cuntish concatenation of crap, cobblers and claptrap that you regard as your religion. That's all it is.


No, I haven't. I can see you are feeling flustered. You are simply in factual error in contrasting the catholic clergy and the anglican clergy by reference to child abuse, as that is something they share rather than something that distinguishes them.

Don't be sad, we all make mistakes.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
No, I haven't. I can see you are feeling flustered.

Not in the least flustered by anything you've fetched up with I can assure you, but I do admit that the rape of children, and the evasion of justice by those who perform such acts, does raise the dander. I can't help it, it's just a prejudice of mine against people who molest children and get away with it.

Quote:
You are simply in factual error in contrasting the catholic clergy and the anglican clergy by reference to child abuse, as that is something they share rather than something that distinguishes them.


Only in the UK, apparently. So that's fine.
Ketty

Floo wrote:
. . . they appear not to be able to do anything . . .


That's the problem with outsiders looking in: things are not always as they appear to be, and is the stuff of gossip.  If the un-named individual is an issue, or has concerns, I'm pretty certain things will be happening behind the scenes.

Shaker wrote:
... cuntish ...


sexist!

Shaker wrote:
... concatenation ...


Brilliant word!  One previously unknown to me, but I am making it my word of today.  
gone

Ketty I know rather more about the topic and what actually is going on and what is being done about, or not, than you can imagine!

Anyway feel free to close the thread if you wish!
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
No, I haven't. I can see you are feeling flustered.

Not in the least flustered by anything you've fetched up with I can assure you, but I do admit that the rape of children, and the evasion of justice by those who perform such acts, does raise the dander. I can't help it, it's just a prejudice of mine against people who molest children and get away with it.

Quote:
You are simply in factual error in contrasting the catholic clergy and the anglican clergy by reference to child abuse, as that is something they share rather than something that distinguishes them.


Only in the UK, apparently. So that's fine.


Again, the sarcatsic "so that's fine" - what point do you think you are making??
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Again, the sarcatsic "so that's fine" - what point do you think you are making??


What point did you think you were making when you mentioned that in the UK (only, apparently) more Anglican vicars have been implicated in child abuse than Catholic priests? Are we playing "Who rapes the most kids"?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Again, the sarcatsic "so that's fine" - what point do you think you are making??


What point did you think you were making when you mentioned that in the UK (only, apparently) more Anglican vicars have been implicated in child abuse than Catholic priests? Are we playing "Who rapes the most kids"?


The point I was making was :

cyberman wrote:
You are simply in factual error in contrasting the catholic clergy and the anglican clergy by reference to child abuse, as that is something they share rather than something that distinguishes them.

 


No, we are not playing wqho rapes the most kids. The chap who raped me was an Anglican priest. I simply point out that it is not a distinctly Catholic phenomenon. I know you don't like your views to be challenged, Shaker. Calm down. though
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
No, we are not playing wqho rapes the most kids. The chap who raped me was an Anglican priest. I simply point out that it is not a distinctly Catholic phenomenon.


I never said it was.

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks it is.

The scale/scope of Catholic child rape however - all of it, not just in the UK - would I should say dwarf that by Anglicans. Yes? It seems to be the case that most child abuse takes place in the home - within the the family: extended family if not always nuclear family. But what happens when abuse is found to be going on is that the suspects are arrested, questioned, and if there's a case to answer, tried and if found guilty severely punished. Not quietly moved somewhere else and allowed to get on with it.

That is why there's no valid comparison between one set of child abusers (parents/grandparents/'uncles' in name only) and Catholic clergy.
cymrudynnion

Floo wrote:
Of course I am not going to name the priest involved or where their parish is. The point I was trying to make is even though all the relevant high ups in the CofE know of this turbulent priest, and his antics, they appear not to be able to do anything as he has not done anything illegal, like touching up the choir boys, for instance!
The Diocesan Bishop can suspend the Parish. The Diocesan Bishop can then Licence the Rector and then revoke the Licence.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:


The scale/scope of Catholic child rape however - all of it, not just in the UK - would I should say dwarf that by Anglicans. Yes?


Well the Catholic church is a far larger organisation than the Anglican communion. But if seeking to answer the question "Is a Catholic priest more likely to be a rapist than an Anglican priest?" one doesn't look at the raw numbers but at the pro-rata incidence. I have never seen any figures to persuade me that the answer to that question would be "yes".
gone

Clergy of all denominations have been implicated in child sexual abuse. The pastor of the Pentecostal church I attended as a kid, stroked my upper thigh inappropriately when I was 14, as he was driving me home from a youth meeting.  However,  the Catholic church seems to be the front runner in that respect and sort to cover it up in the most disgusting manner.
cyberman

Floo wrote:
 However,  the Catholic church seems to be the front runner in that respect .


Which figures make that 'seem' to be the case?
gone

cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
 However,  the Catholic church seems to be the front runner in that respect .


Which figures make that 'seem' to be the case?


More often than not when a paedophile priest hits the news they are usually Catholic!
cyberman

Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
 However,  the Catholic church seems to be the front runner in that respect .


Which figures make that 'seem' to be the case?


More often than not when a paedophile priest hits the news they are usually Catholic!


And of course the media would never let an unbalanced picture emerge, would they! I was asking for stats, not your vague impression of what's on telly.
gone

cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
 However,  the Catholic church seems to be the front runner in that respect .


Which figures make that 'seem' to be the case?


More often than not when a paedophile priest hits the news they are usually Catholic!


And of course the media would never let an unbalanced picture emerge, would they! I was asking for stats, not your vague impression of what's on telly.


We all know the flipping Catholic church covered up abuse for years that is a FACT. The media would  bring to public attention any clergy of whatever denomination who abused children. I am saying it is the Catholic church who appear to be in the forefront of this evil! If you have stats proving me wrong feel free to air them!
The Boyg

Floo wrote:
If you have stats proving me wrong feel free to air them!


Surely the burden of proof rests with you to provide substantiating evidence for your assertions Floo.
cymrudynnion

Re: A turbulent priest!

Floo wrote:
A Rector of a parish (not in Wales) is certainly taking the proverbial where his office is concerned. Apparently this guy spends more time on the 19th hole of the golf course than going about his parish duties. He does the bare minimum where services, weddings, funerals and baptisms are concerned. Anyway yesterday I was told by a member of his congregation they were gobsmacked when at a Lent  talk, he was giving the other day, he stated quite clearly he didn't believe in the virgin birth, crucifixion and thought Jesus could well have been sh*gging (his words) Mary Magdalene! BLIMEY!

Whilst I don't believe the stories attributed to Jesus have much validity, and think it possible MM was his significant other, I am not a priest and don't stand up and say the Apostles Creed every Sunday! What a hypocrite this guy is, and should never be employed as a priest. Apparently it is very hard to sack one unless they do something  illegal so I have heard!  However money donated by the congregations of the C of E pays his salary so if he isn't doing his job he should get booted out, as people in other jobs would if they weren't doing them properly.
 lets come back to the O/P and the allegations made.
Firstly ignore the definite hersay and concentrate on the initial alegations, which begin "apparently" and "bare minimum", followed by "apparently it is very hard....."
How do we know the Cleric is not being Pastoral when engaging in the sport of Golf especially in a Licenced Bar, do we know if he is imbibing, no we don't. He does the bare minimum, as previously stated, without response from the thread Author, a Cleric is required to say The Office of Morning Prayer, preferably after tolling the Bell. Has the Author been present at such times, no. The Author refuses to sate the name of the Cleric, if the Author has witnessed the accusations laid then the Author knows exactly what actions to take along with the Parishioners, write to the Diocesan Bishop signing the letter. Action will then be taken.
gone

I should never have started this thread it was daft of me, but I was feeling extremely annoyed at the time, for reasons I will definitely not mention here. Suffice to say the matter is at last being dealt with. I have no more to say on the topic and would sooner the thread was closed.
The Boyg

Where have we heard that before?
cymrudynnion

The matter was always being dealt with in the correct manner.
Ketty

Ketty wrote:
 If the un-named individual is an issue, or has concerns, I'm pretty certain things will be happening behind the scenes.


Floo wrote:
. . .  Suffice to say the matter is at last being dealt with. . . .


Jolly good.  

It was always perhaps being dealt with, but these things done quietly and with care are not always obvious to onlookers.
cyberman

Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
 However,  the Catholic church seems to be the front runner in that respect .


Which figures make that 'seem' to be the case?


More often than not when a paedophile priest hits the news they are usually Catholic!


And of course the media would never let an unbalanced picture emerge, would they! I was asking for stats, not your vague impression of what's on telly.


We all know the flipping Catholic church covered up abuse for years that is a FACT. The media would  bring to public attention any clergy of whatever denomination who abused children. I am saying it is the Catholic church who appear to be in the forefront of this evil! If you have stats proving me wrong feel free to air them!


Really? You make an unevidenced assertion and then demand that others produce evdience to prov you wrong? Is that how it works?

No-one has denied that the Catholic church is guilty of what you say. That is not the point. The point is that this is not something which distinguishes Catholic clergy from Anglican clergy, because they are both guilty of it.

Do you deny that?
cymrudynnion

Floo wrote:
Clergy of all denominations have been implicated in child sexual abuse. The pastor of the Pentecostal church I attended as a kid, stroked my upper thigh inappropriately when I was 14, as he was driving me home from a youth meeting.  However,  the Catholic church seems to be the front runner in that respect and sort to cover it up in the most disgusting manner.
Of course he did
JamesJah

Obviously the money is good???

How bright are the congregation?

Can you leave your hopes for the future in the hands of some one that has no love of his creator?
JamesJah

Obviously the money is good???

How bright are the congregation?

Can you leave your hopes for the future in the hands of some one that has no love of his creator?
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Obviously the money is good???

How bright are the congregation?

Can you leave your hopes for the future in the hands of some one that has no love of his creator?




Whatever the wrongs of this individual, the WTBTS can cap them.




http://www.silentlambs.org/
cymrudynnion

JamesJah wrote:
Obviously the money is good???

How bright are the congregation?

Can you leave your hopes for the future in the hands of some one that has no love of his creator?
What are you referring to in these questions?
cymrudynnion

Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Obviously the money is good???

How bright are the congregation?

Can you leave your hopes for the future in the hands of some one that has no love of his creator?




Whatever the wrongs of this individual, the WTBTS can cap them.




http://www.silentlambs.org/
WTBTS?
Jim

High falluting name for the JWs - or Russellites.
Nothing to do with Christianity.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum