Jimmy Savile And Other Paedophiles

[StefanAVFC]

Jeremy Beadle?

Des Lynam?
Sir Alex?

[Chindie]

Anyways - we're looking to have a sweep at work as to who might be next. I'm looking at including these celebrities from the time, with absolutely no inference of guilt, we're just taking a punt on people that were about, I've got these but I need more names:

 

Tom O'Connor

Tony Blackburn

Noel Edmunds

Bob Monkhouse

David Bowie

Benny Hill

Max Bygraves

Ken Dodd

Kenny Everett

Johnny Ball

Terry Wogan

Chris Tarrant

 

Please help.

Bruce Forsyth.

[snowychap]

Brucie.

 

Edit: He he. Seems that Dean and I were of the same mind.

Edited May 8, 2013 by snowychap

[mjmooney]

Tom Baker

Peter Purves (!) 

Bruce Forsyth

Dick Emery 

Stanley Baxter

[bickster]

Except it isn't like that at all. There is only one Catholic Church and the cover up of paedophiles goes all the war to the very top

In fairness it doesn't go all the way to the bottom - I suspect it's truer to say that there are a higher than proportionate number of paedophiles within the priesthood than it is to say there are a higher than proportionate number of paedophiles that are Catholic.

 

In a similar way, there are a higher than proportionate number of dishonest, strange, crooked and peculiar men in the houses of parliament, but that doesn't mean that the voters are the same.

Spot the difference:-

Religions are cults, politicians are cu...

In other words again the analogy doesn't work.

Anyone who is part of any particular cult is guilty by association of any crimes they commit. Or lets put it another way... would any rational sane person belong to an organisation that continually and systematically covered up the sexual abuse of children, stay as a member of that organisation? I can't see that they would, you'd be mad to otherwise you'd be seen at best as condoning it at worst something far worse

[StefanAVFC]

....what?

 

For many Catholics, their beliefs are based on God; they don't worship the pope. You make it sound like it's a group, with memberships. Some just identify themselves as Catholics because of their views on God and Transubstantiation. Not because they like the pope.

[Houlston]

Anyways - we're looking to have a sweep at work as to who might be next. I'm looking at including these celebrities from the time, with absolutely no inference of guilt, we're just taking a punt on people that were about, I've got these but I need more names:

 

Tom O'Connor

Tony Blackburn

Noel Edmunds

Bob Monkhouse

David Bowie

Benny Hill

Max Bygraves

Ken Dodd

Kenny Everett

Johnny Ball

Terry Wogan

Chris Tarrant

 

Please help.

Tarrant, definitely. I've thought this for ages. Not Terry Wogan or Johnny Ball that would be very disappointing. 

[limpid]

I don't disagree. The Catholic church has a lot to stand up and be counted for. But there's also a lot of completely innocent catholics who are just as embarrassed and angry about it as we are. It's like generalising Islam because of extremists.

What are those innocent Catholics doing about it? I understand that the indoctrination involved in Catholicism is based around guilt, but why does that stop people speaking out against the criminals leading the church? Why hasn't there been a schism?

 

From the outside it's hard to understand why people still identify with a church which has let itself become an embarrassment to "a lot of" it's members. In the days of the internet, why haven't that "embarrassed and angry" part of the church motivated itself and broken away?

 

There are already at least two popes (RC and Coptic). Why not get back to the good old days of lots of popes?

[StefanAVFC]

 

I don't disagree. The Catholic church has a lot to stand up and be counted for. But there's also a lot of completely innocent catholics who are just as embarrassed and angry about it as we are. It's like generalising Islam because of extremists.

What are those innocent Catholics doing about it? I understand that the indoctrination involved in Catholicism is based around guilt, but why does that stop people speaking out against the criminals leading the church? Why hasn't there been a schism?

 

From the outside it's hard to understand why people still identify with a church which has let itself become an embarrassment to "a lot of" it's members. In the days of the internet, why haven't that "embarrassed and angry" part of the church motivated itself and broken away?

 

There are already at least two popes (RC and Coptic). Why not get back to the good old days of lots of popes?

 

 

Because most Catholics seem content to just believe in God and Transubstantiation and couldn't care less about the politics of it all. I know my mum (who's a Catholic) denounces what has happened, but it doesn't change her being a Catholic. She still believes in God and everything the Catholic church is meant to stand for.

[limpid]

Cognitive dissonance

[chrisp65]

 

 

I don't disagree. The Catholic church has a lot to stand up and be counted for. But there's also a lot of completely innocent catholics who are just as embarrassed and angry about it as we are. It's like generalising Islam because of extremists.

What are those innocent Catholics doing about it? I understand that the indoctrination involved in Catholicism is based around guilt, but why does that stop people speaking out against the criminals leading the church? Why hasn't there been a schism?

 

From the outside it's hard to understand why people still identify with a church which has let itself become an embarrassment to "a lot of" it's members. In the days of the internet, why haven't that "embarrassed and angry" part of the church motivated itself and broken away?

 

There are already at least two popes (RC and Coptic). Why not get back to the good old days of lots of popes?

 

 

Because most Catholics seem content to just believe in God and Transubstantiation and couldn't care less about the politics of it all. I know my mum (who's a Catholic) denounces what has happened, but it doesn't change her being a Catholic. She still believes in God and everything the Catholic church is meant to stand for.

 

 

don't you go bringing your real life nice people examples into the debate

 

your mum is a promoter of evil, end of

 

she must stop attending those fair trade coffee mornings because, frankly, that's not a million miles from what John Demjanjuk was doing

[bickster]

Its true though Chris, what happens at Church - a collection plate goes around, and the congregation puts in money, that money goes to the running of the church, directly paying for the previously outlined criminal behaviour

[mjmooney]

Cognitive dissonance

 

Six impossible things before breakfast. 

[chrisp65]

well, yes in many many cases, but not as a blanket no exceptions absolute rule

I know nothing of catholicism, so can't go into specifics on how they organise themselves, but there are self sufficient self financing churches that do their own thing, don't have shiny silverware, haven't invested in some big leaders hat, cape and pension fund etc etc

 

I feel myself being dragged into the old arguements of another thread so as fascinating as the whole subject is to me, and as much as I'd genuienly like a proper debate, I'm going to try and resist as we all know where we all stand. 

[peterms]

 

I don't disagree. The Catholic church has a lot to stand up and be counted for. But there's also a lot of completely innocent catholics who are just as embarrassed and angry about it as we are. It's like generalising Islam because of extremists.

What are those innocent Catholics doing about it? I understand that the indoctrination involved in Catholicism is based around guilt, but why does that stop people speaking out against the criminals leading the church? Why hasn't there been a schism?

 

From the outside it's hard to understand why people still identify with a church which has let itself become an embarrassment to "a lot of" it's members. In the days of the internet, why haven't that "embarrassed and angry" part of the church motivated itself and broken away?

 

There are already at least two popes (RC and Coptic). Why not get back to the good old days of lots of popes?

 

 

Guilt isn't the main thing, in my view.  It's true that guilt is one of the tools used in other aspects of indoctrination in Catholic ideas, but I don't see a direct connection between that and collusion in the cover-up of systematic, widespread and endemic sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, which by the way is more prevalent in the Catholic Church than other religions.  I assume that's because of the requirement for celibacy and the difficulty of living that requirement, but being forced into a position where breaking it must be done illicitly, secretly.

 

It's more about subjection.  Catholics are brought up to believe that the priest is to be obeyed and deferred to in every respect.  This is reinforced by things like "confession".  People are required to attend sessions where they contemplate their wrongdoing.  They wait in a building designed to overawe, in silence, kneeling on a hard surface, in dim light with candles burning - mild sensory deprivation.  They then enter a small booth where they have to "confess their sins", explaining their innermost thoughts to the priest through a hatch supposed to prevent identification, and are actively encouraged to reveal the most intimate and sensitive information.  Guilt is one of the emotions engineered by this arrangement, but the whole thing is very carefully designed to promote vulnerability, emphasise the primacy of the role of the priest, and reinforce subjugation to the priest.  Other rituals like the degree of dressing up, the provision of small boys to service the priest (oo-er, missus) during the dressing ritual and the performance of the mass, support this perception of the priest. 

 

Communion is another thing.  I imagine very few people who partake in this consider transubstantiation as anything other than part of the overall package that comes with membership of the club.  I don't suppose they struggle with it intellectually and find a rational explanation, not do they consider themselves to be eating flesh when they do communion (so the "cannibals" comment is misplaced).  It's just part of what you do.  But the act of kneeling in front of the priest, who administers the ritual, who puts the wafer to your mouth and presses the wine goblet to your lips, emphasises that this man mediates your relationship with your God.

 

In that context, it's quite difficult for people to consider their priest as capable of behaviour which violates their deepest principles, without it also striking at the roots of their faith.  Cognitive dissonance indeed.  I suppose this is why the reaction of the Church to the hundreds, thousands of cases of extreme and serial abuse is to sweep it under the carpet.  In a rational organisation, the response would be to be seen to root out the offenders and bring them to justice.  I think in a grouping like the Catholic Church, doing that could have an impact that would undermine the basis for subjection of the followers, and that would be very dangerous.

[PaulC]

 

 

I don't disagree. The Catholic church has a lot to stand up and be counted for. But there's also a lot of completely innocent catholics who are just as embarrassed and angry about it as we are. It's like generalising Islam because of extremists.

What are those innocent Catholics doing about it? I understand that the indoctrination involved in Catholicism is based around guilt, but why does that stop people speaking out against the criminals leading the church? Why hasn't there been a schism?

 

From the outside it's hard to understand why people still identify with a church which has let itself become an embarrassment to "a lot of" it's members. In the days of the internet, why haven't that "embarrassed and angry" part of the church motivated itself and broken away?

 

There are already at least two popes (RC and Coptic). Why not get back to the good old days of lots of popes?

 

 

Guilt isn't the main thing, in my view.  It's true that guilt is one of the tools used in other aspects of indoctrination in Catholic ideas, but I don't see a direct connection between that and collusion in the cover-up of systematic, widespread and endemic sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, which by the way is more prevalent in the Catholic Church than other religions.  I assume that's because of the requirement for celibacy and the difficulty of living that requirement, but being forced into a position where breaking it must be done illicitly, secretly.

 

It's more about subjection.  Catholics are brought up to believe that the priest is to be obeyed and deferred to in every respect.  This is reinforced by things like "confession".  People are required to attend sessions where they contemplate their wrongdoing.  They wait in a building designed to overawe, in silence, kneeling on a hard surface, in dim light with candles burning - mild sensory deprivation.  They then enter a small booth where they have to "confess their sins", explaining their innermost thoughts to the priest through a hatch supposed to prevent identification, and are actively encouraged to reveal the most intimate and sensitive information.  Guilt is one of the emotions engineered by this arrangement, but the whole thing is very carefully designed to promote vulnerability, emphasise the primacy of the role of the priest, and reinforce subjugation to the priest.  Other rituals like the degree of dressing up, the provision of small boys to service the priest (oo-er, missus) during the dressing ritual and the performance of the mass, support this perception of the priest. 

 

In most cases its on a cushioned surface but ok

 

Communion is another thing.  I imagine very few people who partake in this consider transubstantiation as anything other than part of the overall package that comes with membership of the club.  I don't suppose they struggle with it intellectually and find a rational explanation, not do they consider themselves to be eating flesh when they do communion (so the "cannibals" comment is misplaced).  It's just part of what you do.  But the act of kneeling in front of the priest, who administers the ritual, who puts the wafer to your mouth and presses the wine goblet to your lips, emphasises that this man mediates your relationship with your God.

 

My understanding of the taking of communion was that it just was a symbolism of Christ's great sacrifice. We never considered ourselves to be flesh eating humans.

[limpid]

My understanding of the taking of communion was that it just was a symbolism of Christ's great sacrifice. We never considered ourselves to be flesh eating humans.

It's back to seminary for you then

 

Transubstantiation is a core belief required of all Catholics. It isn't optional. The doctrine was laid down in C16, but that was only formalising the long standing Eucharist "Lord's Supper" traditions. Quite specifically, the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, yet their external appearance does not change.

 

It's this kind of magic thinking which baffles people who don't have the necessary indoctrination.

[StefanAVFC]

I completely deplore religion and believe it's caused more harm than good in human history, but I wouldn't tell somebody with faith that and use that as a reason to whip them with. Let people believe what they want and most everyday Catholics aren't hurting anybody.

 

Remember there are people that treat evolution with the same scorn that we treat certain religious beliefs with. If somebody has grown up with a belief, it's incredibly hard to get rid of it.

[PaulC]

 

My understanding of the taking of communion was that it just was a symbolism of Christ's great sacrifice. We never considered ourselves to be flesh eating humans.

It's back to seminary for you then

 

Transubstantiation is a core belief required of all Catholics. It isn't optional. The doctrine was laid down in C16, but that was only formalising the long standing Eucharist "Lord's Supper" traditions. Quite specifically, the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, yet their external appearance does not change.

 

It's this kind of magic thinking which baffles people who don't have the necessary indoctrination.

 

 

Yes I know what Transubstantiation means but most catholics don't believe they are literally eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. Its how interpretes it

[legov]

 

My understanding of the taking of communion was that it just was a symbolism of Christ's great sacrifice. We never considered ourselves to be flesh eating humans.

 

 

Transubstantiation is a core belief required of all Catholics.

 

 

According to the Catholic Church.

 

But the Church no longer has that sort of influence in the developed world, and Catholics are free to believe what they want, no?

 

The Catholic Church has little to no bearing on the lives of average Catholics in this day and age, certainly not in the Western world.