What superstitious claptrap! We sent missionaries to the South Pacific to rout out such animist beliefs.

"“diatribes of mindless, feet-stamping, slanderous generalizations on the Catholic Church,”

OK which part of the Inquisition are you going to deny?
Which part of the actions of paedophile priests are you going to deny?
Which part of the systematic cover-up of the actions of paedophile priests do you want to deny?"

I’ll focus on the actions of paedophile priests in this post as I know I will exceed the word limit otherwise.

The high moral standard demanded of priests are ignored by some in the occupation as in any other occupation. How anti-Catholics can rationalise demeaning all in this occupation because of the baddies is beyond me. I expect that they are wilfully open to media sensationalism. By way of comparison, the US figures for sexual misconduct are available. Up to 1.5 per cent of Catholic priests are reported for general sexual misconduct. Compare this with a recent report that 13 per cent of Victorian doctors (considered trusted professionals) have been reported for sexual misconduct.

In relation to actual paedophilia the actions are appalling but people who dedicate their lives to helping others should not be slandered because of the appalling exceptions. By way of example of the exceptions the archdiocese of Chicago between 1951–1991, had one case of pedophilia. The priest had molested his niece.

Unless a pedophile is involved the media might not go into detail but most cases of criminal charges faced by priests are statutory rapes of youths aged approximately 16 years. Homosexual age of consent is 18.

Pedophilia normally happens in families. Catholic priests are normally not in that situation as they are required to be celibate. That and the ethical nature of the job explains the low incidence of pedophilia.

Meg1, Sorry, I do know the meaning of altruism, however I did not edit my post…that will teach me :). What I intended there was to say that actions that appear altruistic are often carried out for selfish reasons. As you have said yourself “The rewards are not material, but there is little more satisfying then knowing you have made a positive difference to someone’s life……….”. As such for you the selfish part of the charitable act is for the intrinsic reward. Therefore mjpb your translation was way off the mark. It was not in any way to detract from charity work. I applaud anyone who gives of their time and energy for others, regardless of the motivation. So…no back hand compliment Meg – please accept a forehand one.

Furthermore, I do not consider it judgemental to follow your beliefs. I do not think others are wrong to have different beliefs. What you do with your body is your business. However, do you not consider that a statement such as yours Meg1; “atrocities such as these will be eventually seen for what they are – crimes against women and the children they carry”, sends a judgemental message to someone who has elected abortion? Is that not a judgement that is psychologically harmful towards the very women you purport to support? Perhaps we just see the world very very differently.

mjpb, abortion is legal – it is not killing or murder; there has to be life before either can occur. Therefore if you put my entire sentence back into context you will note that I am merely saying that it is not for anyone else to decide about termination but the person who is terminating (because the law has already ruled). Personally, as I said before I would not choose termination, but I am very glad that I live in a country where I have that choice and I want very much that it stays that way.

There are two basic considerations for all pro-choice women – does she want this baby at this time, and does she want this man as father (at this time)? This decision may not be an easy one to make (as many have alluded), but making it is a totally selfish act. Any resultant resolution will be a mixture between self-preservation, self-promotion, or self-gratification (note the recurring content of “self”).

Only a joint decision with the co-contributor of genetic material would make it less so. Each joint decision to proceed with pregnancy could be then validated by a mandatory paternity test at birth. This would at least approach some semblance of altruism.

mjpb I thought you might say that, apologists are so predictable.

Well I would accept any priest can fail but the failing of the Church of Rome, the proof of its moral bankruptcy was not that there were paedophile priest but, as I suggested, the practice of the bishops direct policy to cover-up the corruption and abuse of children whihc lead to them paying out huge compensation claims for "sealed settlements" (Boston USA diocese is but one example among many).

As I asked “Which part of the systematic cover-up of the actions of paedophile priests do you want to deny?”

I refer you to
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html

http://www.cathnews.com/news/510/132.php – this one is a catholic website

You might have just fallen out of a tree but I have not. I guess you could be here just to cover up more corruption but cannot deal with the truth when it slaps you in the face.

Coraliz has stated the facts for you.

I feel sorry that you have placed your faith in a corrupt organisation, it is one of the reasons I have no time for the leadership of any religious denominations and is why I believe individuals are best served by finding God directly, avoiding giving power to a twisted class of priests (of any denomination).

I guess some of us are just less gullible than others.

Rouge Col,

Stop fantasising about Catholic priests like that. It is not healthy.