Following on from my last post, it would appear from this picture that those priests who abuse young boys are simply taking their lead from the very very top. The latin heading is a (very poor I suspect) translation of “if it’s good enough for Jesus.....”
I suspect that many of those who found the last post amusing will be less comfortable with this image, or at least the context in which I have presented it. As for the faithful, I expect they would regard it as highly offensive, obscene and blasphemous. Too bad.
In fact the image itself comes from a catholic prayer book intended for children called “Friends with God”, and the image is intended to illustrate the concept of contrition. It carries a caption "O my God I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins.”
So here you have a religion that thinks it is OK to inflict the fear and guilt of sin on young children. Now that’s obscene.
As you post has a serious - and not humourous message, I thought it only right to give a serious response.
ReplyDeleteAlthough brought up in a non-oppressive, relgious household -not RC, I am a non-believer and I consider myself to be a fairly decent human being.
A person I know very well was the eldest male child in a catholic household and was bundled off to a seminary at the ripe old age of eleven to become a priest. Whether he wanted to be a priest or not was irrelevant - it was traditional at that time. He reports no physical or sexual abuse there - but psychological abuse was rife.
He did not become a priest - but has mental health issues.
I know many people who practice the RC faith who have mental health issues but there again I know many more who have not.
Returning to the theme of your post...
I have researched catholicsism prior to responding and the majority of my research has been here: http://www.catholicity.com so as not to give what would appear a prejudicial viewpoint.
I have found that "The heriditary stain with which we are born is on account of the origin or descent from Adam" but that original sin is not mentioned in the bible, nor is the doctrine found in other religions.
It would thus appear that this aspect of sin and fear in the catholic church is not an edict from God - but an edict of man.
I have read through the Simpified Catechism which offers such pearls of wisdom as "Really, "sinners were the authors and ministers" of all Jesus' suffering. Because of our sins, the Church places responsibility primarily upon Christians (a responsibility often only given to Jews)" or "You crucify him when you delight in your vices and sins." (St. Francis of Assisi).
Other joys can be found in "A Battlefield Due to Sin" (4087-9), "Hell and Purgatory" (1472-3) and "Telling all Mortal Sins" (1455-6).
It would appear to be a religion steeped in sin and absolution. But the opportunity of absolution would imply that any sin is forgivable.... especially if you are a priest or nun?
I have attended catholic baptisms and funeral masses and on each occasion have been angry when original sin was mentioned. Maybe I am too sensitive - but it just strikes me as wrong.
Working in mental health I have encounted many who have been totally screwed up by whatever faith they follow; yet medical reseach would show that a strong belief often aids healing. So... a bit of "chicken and egg" at times, perhaps?
"So here you have a religion that thinks it is OK to inflict the fear and guilt of sin on young children. Now that's obscene."
Yes! It is!
"O my God I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins.”
ReplyDeleteSo here you have a religion that thinks it is OK to inflict the fear and guilt of sin on young children. Now that’s obscene.
Sorry, but I don't agree, because your interpretation is taking the meaning of this out of context. What sin can a young child possibly have?! Disobeying a parent, fighting with a sibling? ... etc?
By teaching a child, peacefully, to admit to such simple 'sins', you protect them from doing real ones when adult ... and this is the whole idea; disciplining rather than 'inflicting fear and guilt'. And you're also confusing atrocities against children done by a few out of line priests with the real message of Christ, which is love. This I find unfair - indeed, this picture above is loving, unlike the one in your previous post which was shocking. Rightly so if your intention is to right a wrong.
Sam, you are really on the wrong blog. If you find that picture 'loving' in light of recent news about the catholic church you are naive in the extreme. However, apropos to a recent discussion I have had with Dr. Z, you have the right to be naive and stupid in print. But I have the right to challenge you on it. As a presumed adult, it is your belief in superstition that worries me - but hey, he's your sky pilot. Personally I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
ReplyDeleteSave me from god botherer's, religious nuts and zealots. Where's Richard Dawkin when you need him.
So it's 'your' way or the highway Grumpy RN? Either I oblige to your way or I am a 'superstitious nutter' because I happen to believe that a force greater than our minute knowledge created this universe [and beyond]? Then again, what do you know about my 'personal' attitude towards religion for you to make such judgement 'of me'?! Why do you bother?
ReplyDeleteYou know, I am no missionary, in that, I would never try to persuade you to believe in what I believe. Because I think you are adult enough to decide what's best for yourself. Why do you think then that it is 'naive' of me to have the same right?
Sam,
ReplyDeleteNowhere did I say it was 'my way', and you do not have to oblige me with anything. Your first sentence kind of gives away a bit of a religious bent. Something about being sorry for offending some mythical being for 'sins'. In fact, I have said that you have the right to your beliefs but I have the right to comment on them when you put them into an open comment on a blog.
As it happens, I also believe that a "force greater than our minute knowledge created this universe [and beyond]", I just don't believe it is supernatural.
I quote Lazarus Long; "History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it".
"Your first sentence kind of gives away a bit of a religious bent. Something about being sorry for offending some mythical being for 'sins'."
ReplyDeleteEven if I am, like you, surely I too have the right to choose - and yes, you do have the right to comment how you like. Actually, you should too if we are to bring people together. Ignorance is a serial killer after all. Only I believe that can be done best without having to resort to offensive language as a means of pushing away opposing views in an attempt to 'win' an argument - because the purpose here is not to win but to establish mutual understanding.
I mean, look, through a very small dialogue, it seems that we, if you don't mind me saying so, are closer than we perhaps both thought before. In that we both believe in a 'force greater than our minute knowledge' - and BTW, for me 'supernatural' in this sense, just means bigger than human.
Another mutual agreement is that I too have not seen evidence of religious rationality in history and I have been reading a lot about that too. Actually, there is quite compelling proof that religion was intended to be irrational so as to allow it to be used as a tool to serve politics; ie, allow for the manipulation and control of people [my posts on ancient Egypt] - but that said, I believe those who need a 'crutch' have their right to it, providing they cause no harm to others 'live and let live' sort of thing.
Which brings me back to this post again. Of course, organised theology started in the 3rd century AD when different views re Christ's 'nature' started to emerge, that early time and that before is of interest to me because I believe it ties with ancient Egyptians and their views on religion.
And BTW, I was not defending the RC church, for I do not know enough about them to form such view point - I was defending Jesus, who is innocent of all the atrocities committed in his name.
And as Dr Zorro commented in a reply to me on his post 'Wit' one has the right to free speech but doesn't have the right to force people to listen - so, I have decided to excercise this right and won't be replying to that particular comment because I don't like 'listening' to some of the language he used - but great post you published today Dr Zorro :-)
I knew as soon as I pressed publish that the use of the words "I also believe in a force greater...." would come back to haunt me as I had not made clear exactly what I meant. The force I meant is nature, physics and cosmology etc. Although we do not at present understand fully I expect that there will be more and hopefully full understanding in time.
ReplyDelete"Allow it to be used as a tool to serve politics; i.e., allow for the manipulation and control of people".
Absolutely in agreement with you there.
"I was defending Jesus, who is innocent of all the atrocities committed in his name".
Can't argue with you, so much cruelty in this world has been done in his name. The violence and opression in the name of religion is the real 'sin'.
I'm sure I have said that you have the right to choose but, and taking into account the other post by Dr Zorro that you refer to, other people do not have the right to preach to others about something that we do not wish to be bothered with, especially when we are at the tops of mountains. If nothing else it shows an amazing lack of knowledge - or blindness - to the mechanism of how mountains and the scenery were formed.
"other people do not have the right to preach to others about something that we do not wish to be bothered with"
ReplyDeleteTrue
"especially when we are at the tops of mountains"
Oh, come on Grumpy RN! All that man said was how you can admire the creation from the top! This is not preeching! It's merely his opinion so, you surely, you can just smile and move on, instead of being all uptight about it - it's called human interaction, and we don't want to look as if we are arrogant big heads here when we are not, do we?
Have a good day :-)
Oh! I hope you don't mind me wishing you that without asking you first, eh?
"He then proceeded to lecture me on the work of the creator, and how, on reaching the summit I should reflect on His marvellous works". Quoted from Dr Zorros original post.
ReplyDeleteSounds like preaching to me and the human interaction was the greetings. However, this is getting tiresome and I have other things to do, so have a good day yourself and I'm sure we will argue about something else soon.