Paul1405:

“Why, when a public figure like Barnaby Joyce, makes a short bland statement, like he did, it is inappropriate for others, including myself, not to offer comment.”

It is not inappropriate at all but it is inappropriate to give your personal experience in the past as evidence for anything the Church is doing in the present. If the Church is doing the wrong thing now then by all means they should be held accountable and criticised. Joyce was making a comment about attitudes to the Church as it is now based on what it did in the past. It no longer does those things so why should it be judged in the present in a way that no one else would deem fair?

The fact that both you and Philips needed to tell your personal stories as if they somehow are evidence of wrong doing by the Church in the present is telling. Your personal experiences are totally irrelevant to what is happening now and so it is natural to wonder why you would offer such irrelevant information unless you are trying to come to terms with your own personal anger and the bitterness that exudes from unresolved anger.

That is why my initial post was about bitterness and resentment because it irrationally affects many attitudes to the Church in society today and I think Joyce was trying somehow to counter balance some of those attitudes.

Go ahead and hold the present Church up to criticism but not because they once tried to make you join the cadets.

phanto,

Since when have I ever spoke of my personal experience when it was not relevant today?

<<The fact that both you and Philips needed to tell your personal stories as if they somehow are evidence of wrong doing by the Church in the present is telling.>>

On the contrary, I have always taken great care to ensure that what I say about my experience is still relevant today. I have even gone to the extent of checking opinion polls to gain a sense of the general opinion among Christians nowadays. Not that I need to very often. I deal with them all the time.

My personal experience is very relevant to what is happening in Christian circles today.

<<… it is natural to wonder why you would offer such irrelevant information unless you are trying to come to terms with your own personal anger and the bitterness ...>>

The fact that my experiences (which are far more contemporary than Paul’s, I might add) are indeed relevant aside, since when have I ever displayed signs of anger or bitterness towards the Church?

phanto, obviously you did not hear or read what Barnaby had to say. He did not refer to the present tense, it was all encompassing "The Catholic Church had been good for Australia." in fact it was past tense. The first permanent Catholics arrived in 1788. Since my experience falls with the period 1788-2017 that experience is relevant.

Why did you feel it necessary to alter the tense? Is it because you believe the Catholic Church was not good for Australia in the past, but has somehow reformed itself to the point where today it is now good. At what precise moment did you see it transform from bad to good?
Given recent on going detrimental news reports about the Church in Australia, I can not agree that it is now good.

The Catholic Church has been good for AAustralia, why even the number of jobs created by the building of the Cathedrals must have had a positive impact on jobs and the quarrying industry at the time, so also the number of churches, schools and residences built right across the country, mostly without Government support.

Then there are the hospitals and the remote leprosariums.

Philips:

Then you have nothing to worry about do you?

Paul1405:

So why did Joyce make that comment? Was is just a throw away line with no relevance to the present and if it was why did you think it was a relevant topic for discussion? If it has absolutely no context then why say it and why discuss it?

Not entirely, phanto.

<<Then you have nothing to worry about do you?>>

You still made a claim; a claim that was intended to defame someone else. So, you need to justify it, and I have every right to ask you to do so. Is it any wonder that you apparently can’t?

But thanks, all the same, for not-so-subtly trying to imply that I must have something to worry about. As I have pointed out to you in the past, not everything everyone does is done to reassure themselves of something. Psychology really isn’t your forte, is it?

On another note, Paul has legitimate criticisms of the Catholic Church - both past tense (yet still relevant, as he has just pointed out) and contemporary - and yet you just want to make it about him. And about me, too, as we have recently learned (as if it weren’t obvious in your first (misdirected) post).

So, what’s with the ad hominems?

You’re not even religious, let alone Catholic. Why attack personalities instead of addressing the substance of the arguments? What reason could a non-believer like yourself possibly have for wanting to so falsely and fallaciously shift the focus and blame from the Catholic Church and onto the people here discussing it?

Are you really just that much of a troll?