|
Post by loughcrew on Aug 25, 2009 7:31:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Aug 25, 2009 15:01:28 GMT
I am not sure I see your problem with the person or the article. He is merely suggesting that the church take a step back and clean itself up before continuing. Given what has gone on of late this is a wholly acceptable thing to suggest.
It is clear that the church lost a hell of a lot of its credibility, especially on issues of ethics and morality, given the acts some of its members were engaging in while some of its other members were facilitating.
The church should be looking to execute and facilitate both justice and reparations at the maximum that their resources and ability can manage. Not to mention choosing initiating and publishing a new list of procedures to ensure nothing like it ever happens again.
Then and only then should they continue to recruit, with new procedures in place, new vetting procedures on applicants, and a new training syllabus established.
If you think he is the only priest ashamed at the institution he works for, you would be quite wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Aug 30, 2009 21:41:12 GMT
I am not sure I see your problem with the person or the article. He is merely suggesting that the church take a step back and clean itself up before continuing. Given what has gone on of late this is a wholly acceptable thing to suggest. If Fr Troy had been quoted accurately, I would be disappointed in him. It makes him sound like one of those daft "Spirit of Vatican II" religious who think that priests are nothing more than secular facilitators whose job is to make people have nice warm feelings and to manage social encounters like christening, marriage and burial. The remarks attributed to him are as if someone said that the present lot of TDs are crooked and useless, so we should sack the lot of them, wait a bit and elect a new crowd. From a Catholic point of view that is absolutely fatuous, so I can only conclude that Fr Troy's remarks have been taken out of context or misrepresented.
|
|
|
Post by cecile on Aug 30, 2009 22:30:28 GMT
Never judge what priests say to the media. They are not really free. It's easy when you are not a priest, but their work is hard. They need our help, not our judgements.
Mickael, I think the same thing : this text has been taken out of context.
In France, we had problems with a traditionnal priest who liked youg women, if you see what I mean. Vatican II or not, these problems have always existed.
We must consider the victims as Jesus Himself, it's the first thing to do. We don't have to be afraid, I'm sure God loves this victims more than all another victims in the world, because they are the most innocent people of the world.
Poor children, poor old children. What could we do ? Money will never restore what they lost. Whatever they did in ther life, they need our prayers, our respect, our deference.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Aug 31, 2009 8:24:02 GMT
Not sure where your analogy came from there MG. No one suggested firing the lot of them in the church, so why it is "like" saying we should fire the lot of TDs I do not know. No parallel there at all, therefore no Analogy.
Again, he appears to be saying that we should work out how to fix the church before hiring new people, completely different to "firing the lot" of them in every way.
However clearly SOME of them need to be fired, and we need to work out who just deserves not to be in these roles anymore.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 3, 2009 11:13:32 GMT
Fr. Troy's heart may be in the right place, but his suggestion of a freeze on recruitment is very misguided. What it amounts to is saying that those who believe themselves to have vocations should be turned away or told to wait indefinitely. How could novitiates and seminaries be kept up without pupils/novices, or how could they be reconstituted? An interesting parallel is that quite a few people have suggested that the Legionaries of Christ should not recruit new members during the current canonical investigation, but this is because dissolving the LCs is a serious possibility and it's not fair to ask someone to make the sort of commitment a religious order requires when the order may not be around soon,
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 3, 2009 14:06:19 GMT
If people feel they have a life long commitment to the faith in this fashion, you really think an administrative freeze on applications for a number of months is a problem?
Maybe it is, half the people with the "calling" actually dont have it, and large numbers drop out of these courses in the early years. I guess asking them to wait to even start is just too hard.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 3, 2009 14:18:33 GMT
In relation to Hazelireland's last post: Fr. Troy's carelessness is indicated by the fact that he didn't say how long this suspension should be - months? Years? He doesn't say what sort of reforms he has in mind, how they might be implemented or who decides when the freeze should come to an end.
Hazel's carelessness is indicated by his reference to "months" when there is no such reference in Fr. Troy's reported statement.
Given that Hazelireland is an avowed and aggressive atheist who makes it clear he wishes the church would disband and never reassemble, does anyone else think he is about as suitable to intervene in a discussion between Catholics on this issue as a gauleiter would be to assess the need for synagogues?
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 4, 2009 7:09:30 GMT
It is not Troys position to specify the length of time. You are grasping at straws here to find fault with a post where none exists.
It is perfectly permissible to make a suggestion without giving the nitty gritty details of how it should be implemented or how long it should take. If this literally is the only fault you can find in Troys words then you are disagreeing with him solely for the sake of disagreeing.
Again, there is nothing wrong with postponing applications for a short time in ANY organisation while the organisation goes into administration procedures to improve itself. Especially if the people joining it are claiming a life long commitment. What is a short delay in the face of that? Especially considering the gains.
Also, in the tradition of pointing out your lies, please show me where I EVER said I wish "the church would disband and never reassemble" or is this yet ANOTHER example on this board of you putting words in my mouth every time you are impotent to fault me on what I actually said?
Come on, just this once try and back up one of your outright outrageous lies. Seriously, this is not just something that has happened 1 or 2 times now. You constantly lie, misrepresent or at times wholly invent things I have never said. I have had to point it out over and over in every thread you ever post about me in.
Do you not disgust yourself even a little in this? Is this the form of honesty and morality your faith gives you? Are you representative of people of your faith do you think? Or are you of the position that lying is not lying if you are lying for Christ?
The above lie, as an example, is glaring. It is not even a small lie that anyone might read and believe. The very post above it by me contradicts the lie without even having to search the rest of the site. I clearly never said anything of the sort you invented, but that I think the church should stop, fix itself up, then come back. Nothing there about disbanding and never reforming. What I said is not just DIFFERENT to what you claimed, but is in fact the entire polar opposite. I guess if you choose to lie you may as well go all out huh?
And this is before you look at the rest of the site where you will find quotes from me like:
Lying is one thing, but lying when the proof you are lying is right in front of everyone in black and white for all to see, and there is no chance that anyone can read your words as anything else but outright lying…. Do you even think before you write?
You are an embarrassment to yourself, your faith and to all those who claim to share the same faith as you claim. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Every time I point out one of your lies and ask you to either withdraw it or back it up, you usually just run away from the thread in question and not come back. Raise your game please, your behavior to date is abhorrent.
So come on son, back it up this once. Where have I EVER claimed that I wish the:
I think you will find you can not do it, so I suggest running away from the thread like you usually do when I point out one of your glaring lies.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Sept 4, 2009 11:36:30 GMT
You guys, give us lessons on morality, on ethic, on faith, while you do not believe, should I say, you refuse to believe in God, in Christ, In Jesus. Easy peasy for you. Once you believe you will be able to tell us some lesson, since then, go foward. Have a nice day and do not forget that your miserable body will be eaten by worms.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 4, 2009 12:38:25 GMT
No you should not say. Is it your turn to invent words for me and positions that I do not hold?
No I am not REFUSING to believe anything. You just have not given any reason to believe it. No evidence, no arguments, no reasons. Nothing.
I can not believe things there is no reason to believe, or I would go around believing everything and anything said to me. I would fall prey to every charlatan and liar to come my way.
And you can also drop the "you guys". I speak for myself and myself only. If you have a problem with someone else, talk to them. If you have a problem with me, talk to me.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 4, 2009 16:31:21 GMT
It was hazel who put words into Fr. Troy's mouth when he introduced the concept of "months". Does Hazel think that whenever corruption is found in a police department, all policing should be suspended for an indeterminate period? Hazel's commitment to dialogue is shown by the fact that while complaining that he has been shown "no evidence" he refuses to explain what he means by evidence. It is not surprising therefore that when he complains of being misinterpreted he simply yells "lies" and "that's not what I said" without ever explaining what he meant to convey. Clearly he sees reality simply as an emanation of the will and asserts that what he says something means is the only possible meaning. Next stop solipsism...
Since Hazel has repeatedly breached the rules of debate by accusing me of lying I demand an apology. If an apology is not forthcoming, I formally request that the moderator expel him from the board.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 4, 2009 16:49:56 GMT
If you want to talk about the police, then find a forum where that is the topic.
If you want to talk about the topic of the thread, or the lies you have told on it, then go ahead, im here for you.
If you want to say I have "made it clear" that I wish "the church would disband and never reassemble" when I in fact A) never said this and B) frequently said the exact polar opposite, then yes I will accuse you of lying.
That you are despicable enough not to apologise for it or withdraw it is your problem, not mine. You represent yourself and your faith awfully in this.
You want to know what evidence I want? I want you to show where I said what you just claimed I said. What... cant do it? Thats cause you lied. Plain and simple. Its what you do.
|
|
|
Post by cecile on Sept 5, 2009 14:09:28 GMT
I don't understand all what you say, but broadly.
The real problem is "why people need morals to their children"
Only the Judaeo-Christian religions teach that we must respect children. Nobody says that. In Asia, little dead children lying in the gutter and child prostitution wreaks havoc.
The roots of respect for children are in the Church. Who destroys the Church, destroys respect for children.
I don't know what means "clean itself". It's a great idea, but only an idea. Concretely it can only be a case by case.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 7, 2009 13:09:03 GMT
While I think Fr Troy's comments rather silly, I wonder where Loughcrew was when Fr Troy was escorting little girls to Holy Cross Primary School in the 1990s, wearing the complete Passionist habit, while loyalist thugs were throwing missiles at him and the children and their parents. I think I am more prepared to open my ears to the likes of Fr Troy than the likes of Fr Iggy O'Donovan, even though I disagree with him on this. But then, we haven't seen the remarks in context, so I wonder what Fr Troy really said.
|
|