to think that if the comments reagrding the Pope and Catholicism in general were being made about any other religion or group of people...

[domesticsluttery]

...it would be deemed entirely unacceptable?

I don't just mean on MN, it seems to be everywhere. I am not a Catholic, but I am really at a lot of what I have heard.

OK, the abuse scandals are completely shocking. But this doesn't mean that the entire Catholic Church and all of its members were involved. There have been plenty of scandals involving the abuse of children in care homes where it has been covered up by so called professionals, but this doesn't mean that anyone involved in social services is implicated. There are plenty of cases of abuse, doemstic violence etc carried out by teachers, police etc and covered up, this doesn't disgrace the whole profession.

It must be pretty hard going to be a Catholic at the moment. I can't help feeling that if the same kind of comments and outright mocking were being made about other religions there would be an outcry.

Whatever happened to live and let live?

there are female rabbis, jaabaar.

I'm sure the OP had Islam in mind...and perhaps there would be lots of crazy arsed responses to comments made or pictures drawn, but Catholics can't stoop to the level that some extreme people go to, can they?

Interesting, Aitch, though I think Ratzinger's culpability is not so much personal as institutional - rather like current govts apologising for the acts of previous govts.

Posie, no, no Catholic extremists. not ever.

"Catholics can't stoop to the level that some extreme people go to, can they?"

But a short trawl through history shows they used to be entirely capable of extremism, and so did their protestant oppos. They ruled by fear of reprisal or threat of damnation for centuries but now we're scared of neither. Other religions are just working their way through this Middle Ages phase by comparison and because we don't want more bombs on the tube we are a little more deferential and ask pastors in the US to put the matches away etc.

It's just pragmatism.

Yes, well done, Aitch. There is quite a bit of evidence to show that Pope B. was not covering up in the way certain sections of the media portray.

I don't like his stance on contraception, etc, but let's be fair to him. Some of the bishops supplying 'evidence' that he 'knew' this or that are simply trying to cover their own derelictions of duty.

Damian Thompson at The Telegraph has posted some interesting links to sites that put a slightly different slant on the case than the one we keep reading here.

'You know what I'd do if I were still a Catholic? I'd shut up, take the flak and ride out the storm.'

So when I was referred to as a 'paedophile-enabler' on MN for still going to mass, I was out of order to feel a little ?

Wasn't he a cardinal that assisted in covering up and moving Priests rather than dealing with them?

You can feel how you like, abr1de, and fwiw, i think that's a stupid thing to say to anyone (what was said to you). But I'd still shut up and ride it out. I really would. Because painful as that insult is, it really does pale into insignificance compared to what was done to children by the people who were supposed to represent God, to be guardians against "sin", to be moral arbiters.

I wont be shuting up!

Habbibu - yes the criticism of the church is justified. However singling it out the way the media does, misreporting cases, deliberately leaving out the truth, is wrong and aitch's article illustrates just how the media does that and gets away with it.

The fundaments of the moral code of the church come from the 10 commandments given to Moses by God. It tells you not to kill, steal, lie or be greedy; not to worship false gods, not to make false idols, not to use his name as a vulgar word, not to cheat on your partner, respect your parents and to keep one day a week free to remember God.

These are guidelines which God recommends that we follow for a happy lives. They are mainly peaceful, loving guidelines. And all through the Bible he says time and again that the greatest rule is love, to love one another.

The church may believe in the existence of hell but it does not take up the mantel of God in deciding who goes to hell and who does not. Another thing Jesus advised against was judging others.

I am a member of an organisation that has done many wrongs and now realises that. If that gives you the right to judge me and condemn me then that is your prerogative.

Didn't say you should, curry - my choices being my own, n'all that, but it is absolutely what I'd do.

as far as I know, only one 'L'

PosieParker - I refer you to my first post which illustrated how, back in the 60s, 70s and even 80s child abuse was not really understood or recognised. The police would refer cases back to the people who reported it, very few made their way to the court.

The church admitted that they made mistakes, but they did not move any priest without the police being informed. The police knew about the incidents and left it for the church to deal with. No-one knew then that paedophililia (which is a recent term) was an illness that has no cure. There were many many mistakes made back then by the police, the church and everyone else.

But what there was not, was a cover up.

I beg your pardon DuelingBanjos, is that another example of the whimsical nature of the english language?

it's not my article, and i cannot vouch for the truth of it. furthermore i agree with habbibu that catholics should just suck this bit up tbh and concentrate on making the best of their parishes. because god alone knows what is happening at the top of the church, really, or where they want us to go next. ratzinger would not have been my choice for pope (mind you nor would jp2), particularly in light of all the easy accusations that could be made against him but the cardinals elected him... it looked so WEIRD the other day when there were so many men in cassocks and pink hats all happy and proud to be at the top of their political game, and the only woman present was the queen. they're relics, the church at that level is not right and things have to change.

Where have I judged and condemned you, BTino? I'm well aware of the teachings of the Church - been there and got the Archdiocesan youth service t-shirt, and all that. But I stand by my argument that what's happening to Catholics right now may be painful and difficult, but I, personally, would just ride it out. Because what the church allowed to happen was more awful than I want to think about. And these people were working in the name of God, and supposedly speaking for God on the altar.

"No-one knew then that paedophililia (which is a recent term) was an illness that has no cure." I just don't buy this argument - no-one thought that someone who rapes children should be bloody well kept away from them? For good? Just to be on the safe side, if nothing else?

Yip jaabar, there are female rabbis, one of the most prominent being Julia Neuberger. There are also LGBT synagogues (mostly in NY).

Obviously, there are many differing veiws with Judaism (depending on which community you belong to) in relation to the ordination of women and homosexuality (as the joke goes - two Jews, three opinions), but there is a lot of discussion within the religion on these topics (and many others).

Habbibu, take that out with society as a whole then. For teachers were moved to different schools, carers to different childrens homes etc. As horrible as it sounds, it was thought that they crime only related to one or two victims and if the perpetrator were taken away from those victims then they wouldn't re-offend.

Naive attitudes that prevailed through society at that time. We all knew of someone who wasn't to be trusted with kids, but it was never made an issue. We all had an Uncle Billy who was a bit dodgy and were advised not to sit on his knee. In fact as most cases of abuse happen within the family I would say that this naiveity still prevails.

And my last sentence in that post was a general one aimed at those who have condemned, but I should have made that clearer, sorry.

But my point above still stands - the church sets itself up as moral arbiter - that's what makes it so much worse. The church has very very strong views on sexual behaviour - and yet these men were allowed to continue?

The difficulty is, what's the argument ? 'I'm a Catholic and I feel that I'm treated badly in comparison to other religious groups, yet I am happy to be part of an organisation which actively discriminates against people'. Now I don't agree with abuse in any form, but when you put it simply, perhaps motes and beams need mentioning.

I've been thinking of an aanalogy, which I'm not sure will work, but here goes: I'm white, and from Liverpool originally. When I read books about the slave trade, or about the treatment of black people in the Southern states of the US, or hear the anger of the descendants of slaves sometimes directed at all white people, or all people from places like Liverpool that profited from slavery, should I immediately rise up and defend my place or birth, my background? Should I say people were naive at the time and didn't realise the harm they were causing? Or should I really just listen, accepting that some anger will be justifed, some not, some misdirected and realise that however painful and unjust it feels, it's nothing compared to the horror of slavery, and suck it up?

In hindsight, scratch that. I just think it confuses, rather than illuminates the issue, and i didn't think it through.

The abuse scandal has got a lot of people very upset with the leaders of the Catholic church, and the very top of those leaders is the pope, so of course people are angry at him.

I have no issue with Catholics in general, nor have I seen any Catholic-bashing going on lately. If anything I feel very sorry for them, having been so let down by their leadership.

The only posts I ever see criticising Catholics for their beliefs are posts by the same MNers who freely criticise every religion equally.

Jaarbar, as other have said, Judaism (well, Reform Judaism, anyway, and possibly Liberal) have women Rabbis. Our synagogue has one. We also have a trans-gender member of our congregation who often leads services. We're all about absolute equality!

i know what you mean, my little scouse chum.