Foxy,
When you make apparently contradictory statements which I am unable to reconcile I think it's reasonable to ask you to explain.
This is not stirring, this is..
"Hey, what's going on here?
You said this before and now you're saying the apparent opposite."
I ask again...
How can people "re-affirm their traditional values (and) transmit the(ir) cultural heritage from one generation to the next" when you are calling for them to fundamentally change those values with respect to SSM and essentially calling them bigots and homophobes if they don't?
Or are they only permitted to transmit those values and cultural heritage which pass your personal test, whatever that might be?
If you don't explain what you mean, it seems fair to assume that you can't.

Dear Herman,

This thread is about religion, i.e. The given
title is:
"It's time for the Catholic church to change..."
That's the topic here. We're not discussing
same-sex marriage which is an argument based
for equality and not religion. If we are a
country governed by a secular democracy,
then we should both support this, and start
acting like it.

What don't you understand about what I've said
in my posts here?

I'll quote what I did say again:

"Let's remember that the rituals enacted in
ANY RELIGION enhance the solidarity of the
community as well as its faith..."
Et cetera .... I was referring to religious
rituals (including religious marriages).

I can't make it any simpler for you.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a separate
issue altogether. Civil and religious marriages
are two separate institutions. And as I've
stated all of my arguments on that particular
thread - I don't care to delve into them
again.

It seems that the problem here lies not in the
fact that I'm unable to explain things to you,
but in the fact that you either choose not to be able
to understand or you reject what is being said.

In either case, I can't be held responsible.

Foxy,
Now I get it.
When SSM is legalised and all members of society are forced to recognise them and churches are forced to perform them, under penalty of law, the ritual of the same sex wedding enactment will "re-affirm the traditional values" of the church and society that marriage is between a man and a woman.
This will help to "transmit the cultural heritage".
Moreover, other traditional values like children having the birthright of a father and a mother will also be re-affirmed.
It's finally clear.
Thank you for your patience.

All,

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iUCy5wlXsFvcyRaltsnQAfVoKgTQD9CE2MT80

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g2fEt53plha-noex1aUNxD8b7I1g

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/28/2754987.htm?section=world

The best way for the Catholic church to change for the better is, stop protecting its criminal clergy. Cover-ups and compensation (hush money) are not answers. Lisewise, senior police must understand that ecclesiastical separation at Law was dispensed with at least two hundred years ago. Preists who molest children and nuns who strap their charges should be behind bars. Bishops who stand the way of the police, should be arrested and tried as the common criminals they, where obstruct the course of justice.

I appreciate the repetitive nature of my posts to this thread, yet should just shut up, when no one sees the injustice? I think not.

What we don't want to hear in 2020, is "belated discloure" of what will be happening now in 2009. And, listen to a future day cardinal sayig, sorry, we will change. Ditto, 2030, ditto 2040, ditto 2050...

Arresting the odd priest is a start. But, it like the Marfia or a drug gang, the leaders must roll, if guilty

Oliver,

It would be a good start if you read your Courier Mail story.

It had nothing to do with priests or bishops. It was about a Catholic school where a teacher was found not guilty of charges and some administrator failed to pass on some information.

Shadow Minister,

The thread was started based on the report on how the Dublin Catholic Church and state authorities handled child abuse allegations in past decades. It found that 4 Bishops 3 now dead and 1 now retired didn’t pass on information about abusers and that state authorities at the time facilitated the problem with some police reporting complaints to the Bishops rather than doing their own investigation.

“So while there may be issues in other denominations, they are diversions from the original topic.”

They don’t practice clerical celibacy so it is directly on point. The heading is “When is the Catholic Church going to change” and attributed paedophilia to celibate priests and a need to shield paedophiles from the law due to the scarcity of straight men.

”Until the church changes, its claim to moral guidance is the worst form of hypocrasy.”

As I’ve said it has changed irrespective of what further changes you suggested within this thread.

”...statistical fudging ...Since in the 50's, 60's the reporting was almost non existent, and the victims have only recently felt empowered to speak up, the figures since the 80's would probably paint a very different figure.”

The term “Catholic priest” has almost become synonymous with the term “paedophile” thanks to the media interest in Catholic cases and lack of interest in protestant or secular cases. People molested in the 60s have come forward. Ironically there is a clear cluster between the 60s and 80s. This was due to a loosening of clerical ethical standards after a council called Vatican II with a subsequent 'tightening up' and later a response to the scandal.

"The best way for the Catholic church to change for the better is, stop protecting its criminal clergy..."

It already does. Did you read the Paul Collins quotes about the contemporary situation?

mjpb,

"Toowoomba Magistrate Haydn Stjernqvist said the principal had complied with his reporting obligations and it was the person/s who received the report detailing sexual abuse allegations that must hand it up to police.

Mr Stjernqvist said it was clear 'that a person in the school or the school's governing body has committed an offence'.

But Toowoomba Police District Detective Inspector Brett Schafferius said no further charges could be laid in regards to the matter because a six-month time limit for police action had expired." - Courier Mail

I read the above to say that the Catholic school principal did comply with reporting requirements, yet someone else (lay or clergy)did not pass the information on to police in time for police to act. That said, a six month reporting deadline seems inadequate.

In the US (Boston?), I believe the police did pursue a Bishop but he fled to the Vatican, where he is being given protection.

Also,

http://cassandrajonesing.blogspot.com/2009/06/rev-gianfranco-ghirlanda-s-j.html

To quote (the site), from the above, referring to Rev. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J. (Society of Jesus), Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University:

"Catholic bishops should not turn over allegations or records of sexual abuse by priests to the civil authorities, ... though American bishops have been sued in civil court for failing to remove abusive priests, 'from a canonical point of view, the bishop or religious superior is neither morally nor legally responsible for a criminal act committed by one of his clerics,' but that if a bishop knew of accusations and failed to investigate, or if he failed to remove a known abuser from the ministry, then under canon law he would have some legal and moral responsibility'."

I agree the Church and its senior clergy do not become enjoined with criminal activity until such time as they try to pay hush money or "move" and "protect" abusers. I suspect in most cases the bishops are not abusers, rather they become involved in preventing the natural course of justice, perhaps with the view clerics to some extent outside of Secular Law: A state within a state.