"It reminds me of my uncle and his wife. All they ever do is sit around at home, read the Bible and evangalise "the Lord will provide" whenever something goes their way. But, all it actually is is a cover for their indolence. When I visited them as a kid, I felt it was the deadest place ever. No colour, no activity, no kids running around, nothing."

Not the most vivacious couple by the sound of it.

"They bought their mother's house and have never bought their own, even though they are nearing 80."

That gives them the appearance of not having much material possessions to show for their long lives. Did at least one of them work? Did they give their money to the poor? Please give more details.

"That gives them the appearance of not having much material possessions to show for their long lives. Did at least one of them work? Did they give their money to the poor? Please give more details."

My uncle worked as a clerk in the Public Service (at the Post Office as I remember). Hardly the most dynamic of work environments. As far as I know, they don't help the poor, although Margaret goes to Church functions. I don't know what she does there, but I imagine it wouldn't be much. They are so weak they weasel out of helping their relatives (with whom they are on good speaking terms) when some of them have trouble.

Eg, my Mum, who's the type of person to help anyone if she could, asked them for help to drive my father, who had a weak pulse and is getting Alzheimer's, from Woodend to Melbourne to put him in hospital. (She gets flustered driving in the Melboune traffic and can't do it any more.) At first, they said yes, then rang up later to say they had to go to a party. As Mum had no support, I had to travel interstate at short notice to help out.

Now I'm sure this type of thing is not unknown out there, but when people call themselves Christians, you start matching up their actions with their rhetoric. They knew what the situation was but chose to opt out.

RobP

Your dad has a weak pulse and needs to go to hospital and their reason for not helping is they had to go to a party. Okay. They must not exactly be in your good books.

It is a complicated world out there and none of us are perfect but I have difficulty understanding such Christians.

I admit that faith isn't my strong point. I became Christian because it makes the most sense to me. And it makes sense if you love an omnipotent God who we are made to worship and are given the grace to do His will (well known to include helping people) then you want to do what He wants. This of course requires determining God's will.

An atheist's conscience can be informed in innumerable ways. In the Catholic faith God has revealed values and the Church protects and teaches these revealed values. Our conscience is informed by the Church which we believe points us to an understanding of God's revealed truth. Martin Luther rejected Church teaching believing Christian scriptures pointed him elsewhere "I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word...". His conscience was informed by his personal interpretation of God's written word.

However in contemporary society exists Christians who regard it as a fundamental right to inform their conscience in any way they see fit with little or no regard to ascertaining God's will. They neither seek counsel from the Church nor the pages of the Bible. To me that doesn't make sense. To them they know what is right and that is the end of it. It seems to conflict with the idea of an omnipotent God if they can do a better job of ascertaining values. Nevertheless it makes sense to them. I believe atheists draw the natural conclusion that such Christians must be expressing Christian values because they identify as a Christian.

The reason I've said all this is to explain that IMHO that type of behaviour and the values it expresses are inconsistent with the Christian faith.

mjpb,

Not that it's important, but there is no bad blood within the family at all, just a problem of weakness.

It's not really of any value to go any more into the detail, as everyone's situation is unique. If one doesn't actually meet the people face to face, one couldn't really understand the situation anyway.

"...no bad blood within the family at all, just a problem of weakness..."

Perhaps. But it appears that to your credit you are being very understanding by viewing them that way in spite of the consequences that they caused.

Coincidentally I am reading the book of a self identifying Catholic, Paul Collins, who may fit into the category I don't relate to and he includes information about contemporary abuse. I don't know what to make of the man but the information he compiles may give insight into the contemporary situation for priests so I'll include it just in case. This can be compared with the situation of certain priests who the church used to countenance in the 70s and who established the protected confident predator image eg.:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/071002_shanley.htm

Their reputation may live on as a media construct and image but the contemporary situation may be quite different. An excerpt from Collins' book:

"Nowadays, however, ecclesiastical superiors are proactive and move with alacrity when accusations are made. Some priests now feel authorities have moved too far toward the other end of the spectrum... the rights of accused priests are often 'overlooked or ignored', ...often not been given legal advice or experienced support persons. They were frequently cajoled into making admissions and agreeing to resign... Priests are assumed to be guilty, their rights to fairness and a presumption of innocence ignored, and they are dismissed from ministry by bishops or superiors without any legal process, often before they have been afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused priests have been kept in the dark by bishops witholding accusations or aspects of accusations. There is confusion between what are actually 'boundary violations', that is consensual adult sexual encounters, and the sexual abuse of children, which falls under the jurisdictions of criminal and canon law...A similar situation has emerged in the UK where a church lawyer who defends accused priests said that 'bishops cannot be trusted to help priests accused of child abuse'"

mjpb

You show a touching concern for priests accused of sexual abuse and I'm sure your sympathy is genuine (albeit through highly selective quote from Paul Collins' book).

Now what are your sentiments in relation to the victims? Or are they all imagining that the priest interfered with them?