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 -> Atheist chat
Judders Lady...

Just when you thought the pope could do no more wrong

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/

Do you think it was a send-up?

This is from May 2002. All I can say is....         maddddd.gif    

Though grave and terrible sins have been committed, our Lord teaches us to turn the other cheek and forgive those who sin against us," said the pope, reading a prepared statement from a balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square. "That is why, despite the terrible wrongs they have committed, the church must move on and forgive these children for their misdeeds."

"As Jesus said, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,'" the pope continued. "We must send a clear message to these hundreds—perhaps thousands—of children whose sinful ways have tempted so many of the church's servants into lustful violation of their holy vows of celibacy. The church forgives them for their transgressions and looks upon them not with intolerance, but compassion."


Love Lynne.xx  
Dave B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_onion
Judders Lady...

Dave B wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_onion


Dave B,

It is just as I thought, a send up. And I still feel the same about it having been written. Not something to Jest about in my opinion.

Love Lynne.xx.  
Dave B

This is one of those very rare occasions where I agree with you, but maybe not for the same reason.
Pukon_the_Treen

The picture is of pope John Paul, the article is dated 2002. The Onion is a famously satirical online parody of a news site, and it certainly does frequently transgress over the line into outright bad taste.  This is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion; these boundaries of taste and decency need to be constantly tested.

In any case, taking the piss out of the Catholic priesthood for being lying, cowardly, amoral hypocrites does not seem in bad taste to me; it would only be bad taste if the abused children where the targets of the satire.
Dave B

Nothing at all against slagging off hypocritical and criminal priests etc., of any denomination (or ditto atheists/secularists for that matter) but I do think that the subject of child abuse is just a little more sensitive in terms of the victims. I do not think such satires help the victims in any way, possibly even damaging public sympathy for them.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
I do not think such satires help the victims in any way, possibly even damaging public sympathy for them.


I don't see why they should, but I suppose I understand and appreciate the sentiment.
Dave B

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
I do not think such satires help the victims in any way, possibly even damaging public sympathy for them.


I don't see why they should, but I suppose I understand and appreciate the sentiment.
We all see through our own values I think, Puke. One man's satire is another's insult.
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
The picture is of pope John Paul, the article is dated 2002. The Onion is a famously satirical online parody of a news site, and it certainly does frequently transgress over the line into outright bad taste.  This is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion; these boundaries of taste and decency need to be constantly tested.

In any case, taking the piss out of the Catholic priesthood for being lying, cowardly, amoral hypocrites does not seem in bad taste to me; it would only be bad taste if the abused children where the targets of the satire.



Hi Puke,

It was the Children who were being targeted in this piece Onions  tripe.


"We must send a clear message to these hundreds—perhaps thousands—of children whose sinful ways have tempted so many of the church's servants into lustful violation of their holy vows of celibacy. The church forgives them for their transgressions and looks upon them not with intolerance, but compassion."


Love Lynne.xx
Samuel Vimes

~xx~ Jesus' Lady... ~xx~ wrote:
Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
The picture is of pope John Paul, the article is dated 2002. The Onion is a famously satirical online parody of a news site, and it certainly does frequently transgress over the line into outright bad taste.  This is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion; these boundaries of taste and decency need to be constantly tested.

In any case, taking the piss out of the Catholic priesthood for being lying, cowardly, amoral hypocrites does not seem in bad taste to me; it would only be bad taste if the abused children where the targets of the satire.



Hi Puke,

It was the Children who were being targeted in this piece Onions  tripe.



Didn't you read the disclaimer in the smallprint: "No children were hurt in the production of this satirical webpage"?
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
It was the Children who were being targeted in this piece Onions  tripe.

Nope, it was mocking the hypocrisy of the Catholic priesthood; abused children were not quoted or parodied at all.  Maybe you just don't understand satire?
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
It was the Children who were being targeted in this piece Onions  tripe.

Nope, it was mocking the hypocrisy of the Catholic priesthood; abused children were not quoted or parodied at all.  Maybe you just don't understand satire?


Hi Puke,

I find it offensive to even joke that the children were being forgiven for having sinful ways which tempted men to commit evil.
Not funny or excusable no matter how many disclaimers they print.
I understand mocking priests but not at the expense of such a suggestion about Children.  As an atheist you may find it acceptable. As a mother and as a believer, I do not.




"We must send a clear message to these hundreds—perhaps thousands—of children whose sinful ways have tempted so many of the church's servants into lustful violation of their holy vows of celibacy.



Love Lynne.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

Lynne,
Quote:
I find it offensive to even joke that the children were being forgiven for having sinful ways which tempted men to commit evil.

The article is not difficult to summarise, American humour is seldom very subtle.  The satire is mocking the Catholic priesthood for blaming everyone apart from themselves, even going so far as the ultimate hypocrisy of blaming the true victims.

I understand why any mockery around this subject is going to be of dubious taste, but I don't see how this article targets the children as you claimed.  It simply doesn't.
Quote:
Not funny or excusable no matter how many disclaimers they print.

This kind of satire is not supposed to be heart-warming or rib-ticklingly amusing, it's supposed to be edgy, uncomfortable and dark. Some people are ok with that, some people aren't; its a matter of personal taste and humour.

The article's purpose was to expose unpleasant truths through parody and exaggeration.  The Catholic priesthood often seem to be trying to blame everyone but themselves for child abuse, that is obvious, and this satirical article simply highlights that.

I think it is worth pointing out that it is only a written satire; it isn't as offensive as say, raping children.  I think demonstrating that fact is also one of the purposes of this kind of humour.

There are no disclaimers, that was a joke of Sam's.  Unless I am mistaken, he is making the same point I just made; it's just a satirical written article and it hasn't actually hurt any children.  I doubt the authors are looking to be excused either; I've read far more offensive stuff than this on The Onion.
Quote:
I understand mocking priests but not at the expense of such a suggestion about Children.

No one is 'suggesting' things about children.  It's a parody, a fantasy, a fiction; quite an obvious and heavy-handed one, because as I said, it is American.

I find believers can often have a difficulty with fictitious articles like this, maybe because they have trouble separating fiction from reality in their heads.  Just because it's written down, that doesn't mean it is true, or that someone is trying to present it as truth; there are other explanations.
Quote:
As an atheist you may find it acceptable. As a mother and as a believer, I do not.

I can understand how parenthood would effect your view of this subject, but in what sense is the article 'unacceptable', and what did you have to go and mention God for?  You're are on pretty shaky moral ground there, as it seems to me that the people actually raping the children would describe themselves as 'believers' too.  That aside, what has not believing in God got to do with my sense of humour?  This type of satire does not appeal to everyone; you would certainly not be alone in finding it offensive.  Simple answer, if you don't like it then don't read it, and don't post links to it on websites starting discussions about it.
Judders Lady...

Hi Puke,
Do you think people cannot reason that the Roman Catholic Church were:

(1.)Responsible for hiding the truth about their priest.

(2.)Not reporting it to the proper authorities


Do you not see that they have never denied?

(1.) The priest themselves are the only ones responsible for their hideous crimes against Children.

(2.) They failed the Children by not doing the first two points I made?

What I cannot see is how anyone would even stoop to such a level of thinking when Christ said these words. Matthew 19:14 (King James Version)

14.But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 9:41-42.
41.For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

42.And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.



Do you think that they would for even one moment in time have accused the child? In all honesty and truth, even the Roman Catholic Church would not sink to that gutter level.

Whilst I could understand paedophiles getting some sick kick out of such a thing being said. The rest of us sane people who live in the real world.
Who can appreciate all forms of humour, know when something has crossed a boundary, even for dark humour.

So as by no stretch of the imagination could the Child be held responsible for what happened. Then it would take a very sick mind (The authors) to even think it up, let alone find it humourous enough to print.

As the offenses were committed by a man from a male only clergy church, then I hardly feel that being a woman I would be on shaky ground. At least you fit one of the two when it comes to qualifying - that of being a male.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The wrong committed gave absolutely no rise or even grounds for such a thing to be said.
End of matter... full stop.

That is my opinion based on the authors writing and the actual facts available.  


Lynne.xx  
Pukon_the_Treen

Lynne,

Quote:
Do you think that they would for even one moment in time have accused the child? In all honesty and truth, even the Roman Catholic Church would not sink to that gutter level … So as by no stretch of the imagination could the Child be held responsible for what happened.

No, of course I don't think the Catholic priesthood actually accused the child.  As I said above, it's satire, a parody, a fantasy, a fiction.  It's not supposed to be real, it's a deliberate exaggeration to tackle serious issues.  As I also said above, just because something is written down, that doesn't mean it is true, or that someone is trying to present it as truth; there are other explanations, in this case it's a satire.

Defamatory remarks can avoid accusations of slander and libel if they can be demonstrated to be for the purposes of satire; the law recognises that satire does not aim at presenting reality; it parodies and exaggerates it.

Here; check out what satire actually is, particularly what is known as 'Juvenalian' satire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#Juvenalian

This kind of satire can be dark, even cruel.  For example, in Jonathan Swift's notorious essay 'A Modest Proposal' he suggested, deadpan and in all apparent seriousness that the impoverished Irish should sell their children to aristocrats as food.  The idea is grotesque and revolting in the extreme if taken literally, but of course Swift was not making a serious suggestion, neither was he attempting to tell a wildly amusing joke; his purpose was satirical, to shock people and draw attention to the social injustice, dehumanising poverty and the callousness of British officials.  Of course The Onion is nowhere near as subtle and intelligent as Swift's humour, but it belongs in the same genre.

Quote:
Whilst I could understand paedophiles getting some sick kick out of such a thing being said.

Are you seriously trying to imply that anyone who doesn't share your outrage when reading this piece of satire, must be some kind of paedophile getting a kick out of it?

Quote:
The rest of us sane people who live in the real world.
Who can appreciate all forms of humour, know when something has crossed a boundary, even for dark humour.

Yet this kind of satire is very popular and widespread. Most people are able to separate humour from reality and fact from fiction.

Quote:
As the offenses were committed by a man from a male only clergy church, then I hardly feel that being a woman I would be on shaky ground.

Your gender is not the issue here, I was referring to your statement that you are a 'believer'.  I don't think religious belief is an issue affecting whether or not people find this satire acceptable.  You stated that maybe I was able to find this satire acceptable because I was an atheist, implying that my lack of belief in God somehow affected my morality in this area, compared to you, with a presumably superior morality on account of you being a believer.  I felt that this was an unconvincing argument, since those who raped the children would most likely also describe themselves as believers.  I don't think religious belief gives you a better morality.

I don't think you find this satire unacceptable because you are a believer; I don't think that's a significant factor at all. I think you find this satire unacceptable because you are a parent, moreover, a parent who seems unable to understand what satire and parody actually are.  I am able to find this kind of satire acceptable because I can tell it's not real or pretending at reality; it's a made up article, to exaggerate and parody the hypocritical and callous behaviour of the priesthood.
foolfodder

http://www.catholic-blame.com/

ETA: http://www.catholic-blame.com/scapegoat/victims-of-child-rape/
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
The Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez Afonso said in 2007:
'There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you'

Well I'll be damned; there actually is an effort by some priests to blame the victims!  The Onion article was written five years before His Excellency made his wise pronouncements; could this be a case of nature imitating art?
Lexilogio

The Onion has surveyed the great American public to determine their views on Gordon Brown's resignation as Prime Minister of the Uk.
Staffing Coordinator, Leah Thasis commented "I follow politics pretty closely, but I must admit I had no idea the U.K. existed."
Dave B

Lexilogio wrote:
The Onion has surveyed the great American public to determine their views on Gordon Brown's resignation as Prime Minister of the Uk.
Staffing Coordinator, Leah Thasis commented "I follow politics pretty closely, but I must admit I had no idea the U.K. existed."
That I could believe!
Judders Lady...

Hi Puke,

I am quite aware of the different types of humour.
Understanding -humour of any type has nothing to do with this discussion or my opinion.  Understanding is not the problem.

What is acceptable is the real issue. And Humour of any type is not and never will be an acceptable reason to print such things.
It is you, who misunderstands...... you see the type of humour is not the problem or the understanding of such humour. As my previous post pointed out. All humour has boundaries and that crossed the line.

Love Lynne.xx

Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
What is acceptable is the real issue. And Humour of any type is not and never will be an acceptable reason to print such things.

Yet The Onion is popular and appreciated, so it isn't actually unacceptable, just unacceptable to you.

Quote:
It is you, who misunderstands

Really? What am I misunderstanding?
Lexilogio

The boundaries of humour are not fixed, and vary from person to person.

There are some "jokes" which I would find offensive, yet others would laugh. The boundaries of humour are a reflection of the ethical and moral basis of our society. Just as that basis varies from person to person, so does the way we perceive humour.

This often becomes more of an issue with humour around moral or ethical topics - often written with a satirical bent, which assumes that the recipient understands the satirical nature of the piece. Interestingly, the fathers of satire, and Horace is a good example of this, often would also indicate that the satire was not just applicable to those they were getting at, but also themselves. Part of the edge in true satire comes from the failings of the author, and the audience. In this particular piece, one could assume that there was an element where the author, and those who read it, have both disgust and sympathy with the premise.
Delrick53

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
The Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez Afonso said in 2007:
'There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you'

Well I'll be damned; there actually is an effort by some priests to blame the victims!  The Onion article was written five years before His Excellency made his wise pronouncements; could this be a case of nature imitating art?


Pukon,

Playing catch-up here, but the big boss of the US based Catholic League, Bill Donohue, HAS blamed the victims many times.

Last year, live of TV, he accused victims of being 'gold diggers', and in the Catholic League magazine and website, he has claimed that victims often seduced the poor, innocent priests !

Okay, he isn't clergy, but many of his supporters are (including a bunch of Bishops).

He is also top of the 'talking heads' list for the US media when it comes to Catholic discussions.

There is an ongoing debate concerning 'puberty/paedophile/abuse' within RCC circles, and it does seem that the RCC claims that those who rape post-pubescent children (which can mean 10 year old girls) are not paedophiles. They have exhibited 'poor judgement and weakness'.
Judders Lady...

Delrick53 wrote:
Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
The Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez Afonso said in 2007:
'There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you'

Well I'll be damned; there actually is an effort by some priests to blame the victims!  The Onion article was written five years before His Excellency made his wise pronouncements; could this be a case of nature imitating art?


Pukon,

Playing catch-up here, but the big boss of the US based Catholic League, Bill Donohue, HAS blamed the victims many times.

Last year, live of TV, he accused victims of being 'gold diggers', and in the Catholic League magazine and website, he has claimed that victims often seduced the poor, innocent priests !

Okay, he isn't clergy, but many of his supporters are (including a bunch of Bishops).

He is also top of the 'talking heads' list for the US media when it comes to Catholic discussions.

There is an ongoing debate concerning 'puberty/paedophile/abuse' within RCC circles, and it does seem that the RCC claims that those who rape post-pubescent children (which can mean 10 year old girls) are not paedophiles. They have exhibited 'poor judgement and weakness'.



Hi Del,

Where is the evidence? I think it would be good to see where these people stated these things.

Love Lynne.xx
Delrick53

~xx~ Jesus' Lady... ~xx~ wrote:
Delrick53 wrote:
Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
The Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez Afonso said in 2007:
'There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you'

Well I'll be damned; there actually is an effort by some priests to blame the victims!  The Onion article was written five years before His Excellency made his wise pronouncements; could this be a case of nature imitating art?


Pukon,

Playing catch-up here, but the big boss of the US based Catholic League, Bill Donohue, HAS blamed the victims many times.

Last year, live of TV, he accused victims of being 'gold diggers', and in the Catholic League magazine and website, he has claimed that victims often seduced the poor, innocent priests !

Okay, he isn't clergy, but many of his supporters are (including a bunch of Bishops).

He is also top of the 'talking heads' list for the US media when it comes to Catholic discussions.

There is an ongoing debate concerning 'puberty/paedophile/abuse' within RCC circles, and it does seem that the RCC claims that those who rape post-pubescent children (which can mean 10 year old girls) are not paedophiles. They have exhibited 'poor judgement and weakness'.



Hi Del,

Where is the evidence? I think it would be good to see where these people stated these things.

Love Lynne.xx


I posted the links at the Beeb Lynne (so they've probably gone).

I'm sure if you Google 'Bill Donohue Colm O'Gorman' and do a video search, you'll get taken to the programme. It's on Youtube.

I'll dig out the other links for you tomorrow
Judders Lady...

thanks
Delrick53

Lynne,

This is the now infamous debate between Donohue and O'Gorman from last year.

http://colmogorman.com/?tag=bill-donohue

I've used the link on O'Gorman's site because that's where you'll find much of the evidence I tried to post at the BBC.

There's a link to 'Suing the Pope'. This too was forbidden by the BBCMB's, yet as you'll see, it's a BBC production and news story.

I attempted to post the actual words of various players (you'll find them on the links), but the Beeb decided that people were somehow defaming themselves.

This is O'Donohue defending the civil rights of paedophile priests, although if you search 'pedophile priests' on the CL site, you'll be told time and time again that they aren't paedophiles, they're homosexuals.

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1018
Pukon_the_Treen

Ah, the gorgeous Bill Donohue.  If he didn't exist I swear we would have to make him up. The man is a gorgon.
Delrick53

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Ah, the gorgeous Bill Donohue.  If he didn't exist I swear we would have to make him up. The man is a gorgon.


Evening Puke,

I'm fairly sure it was he who provided the 'evidence' of 12 year-old Lolitas seducing innocent and vulnerable priests too.

He heartily endorsed a book written by a dodgy psychologist that claimed  that a few years ago, just as the scandal in Boston was taking off.

There is no doubt that he has considerable support among senior Catholic clergy with his 'they aren't paedophiles, they're homosexuals' nonsense. He's been shouting that for years, and as we've seen recently, some parts of the RCC now openly agree with him (I'm sure others think he's insane, but are reluctant to say so).
Judders Lady...

Thanks for those, Delrick,

I listened to the videos.
I also have read the catholic league statement.

The different abuse and the fact it was happening everywhere is not acceptable.
Emotional and physical abuse included kicking and smacking.
That only part is sexual abuse.
Some crying wolf. He had a point that the real abuse was those actually assaulted.
People should be imprisoned for their crimes. He was making a point between misrepresented contact and actual abuse. He condemns those who do abuse children sexually should be handed over to the police and put in prison.

12% of abusers were priest so who were the other 88%
He said not all the priest committed sexually abuse. Is this true?
What percentage of priest of the 12% actually raped and abused Children?

No it won't make a difference but it should be said, what happened to the other 88 per cent
of offenders?  I am disgusted that any adults would want to make arguments or even defend any action of abuse against children. Even more disgusted that people had to have kept quiet who knew this was happening.

I am not interested in two people arguing about these things for any reason.
What I am interested in, is when are the people who committed the crimes. That is the whole 100% going to be brought to Justice. And I do not care if they are old now or dead. They must be brought to book for justice sake and for the healing of those children whose lives were shattered by that evil. The adults are still here and the records which were dumped is a disgrace.



Love Lynne.xx

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