|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Apr 8, 2024 11:36:51 GMT -5
How is surrogacy a slight against infinite dignity? What is their reasoning?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Apr 8, 2024 12:26:20 GMT -5
The pope thinks surrogacy is a form of exploiting less privileged women. I guess they needed to couch it in more official terms.
The practice can definitely be iffy in cases, but I don't know what the statistics are of 'a person known to the family' versus 'a paid stranger'.
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Apr 8, 2024 12:48:08 GMT -5
Wouldn’t “exploitation” be the sun in that case?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Apr 8, 2024 13:24:54 GMT -5
How they term it is completely arbitrary though, try explaining how listening and accepting what people think of their gender identity is somehow an affront to 'dignity'. Who's dignity exactly?
Technically you could sort them all under the sin of pride, because its all altering 'god's plan', they also oppose IVF for that reason afaik.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 875
Member is Online
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 8, 2024 14:14:52 GMT -5
So much for "woke pope".
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 8, 2024 14:41:30 GMT -5
It all makes perfect sense once you remember that "dignity" is just a polite way of saying "obedience to (my version of) Jesus". Jesus states very clearly that sex is one (cis) man and one (cis) woman creating children within the context of marriage and anything else is sin. Ethics, harm, exploitation, none of that matters. It's pure rule-following, anything else is just PR excuses.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Apr 8, 2024 15:15:13 GMT -5
Yep, that is basically it, 'human dignity' as defined by their religious interpretation of 'god's creation'. They don't care at all about the individual, it's an empty term devoid of meaning.
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Apr 9, 2024 0:48:24 GMT -5
They care plenty about the individual, if the individual is a priest that they need to bounce between parishes because he can't keep his hands off the kids
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Apr 9, 2024 5:21:39 GMT -5
In the case of priests being rapists (of minors), even the individuals are incidental to the 'greater good' of protecting the church. You have this whole undercurrent in catholicism that sees these cases as a sort of organized attempt to discredit and/or undermine the church, regardless if the accusations are true or not.
Covering up abuse means avoiding bad publicity, moving priests to the other side of the country makes any sort of case far more difficult for a victim to prosecute, when the perpetrator just 'dissappears' (at least before the internet). On paper the church has always been opposed to this offence, but in practice the institution is all that matters.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 875
Member is Online
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 9, 2024 5:50:16 GMT -5
In the case of priests being rapists (of minors), even the individuals are incidental to the 'greater good' of protecting the church. You have this whole undercurrent in catholicism that sees these cases as a sort of organized attempt to discredit and/or undermine the church, regardless if the accusations are true or not. Covering up abuse means avoiding bad publicity, moving priests to the other side of the country makes any sort of case far more difficult for a victim to prosecute, when the perpetrator just 'dissappears' (at least before the internet). On paper the church has always been opposed to this offence, but in practice the institution is all that matters. It is also really ineffective? The Catholic Church is practically synonymous with kiddy fiddlers in the UK as a result of all their cover-ups. I reckon if you ask random folk on the street to name a stereotypical nonce you will get Jimmy Saville, Michael Jackson, and Catholic priests as the main answers. Nipping problems in the bud does a lot more to protect reputation than sweeping under the rug and letting it fester into a huge mess IMO. But large organisations keep trying to sweep shit under the rug and acting surprised when it doesn't turn out different for their org...
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Apr 9, 2024 6:20:45 GMT -5
In the case of priests being rapists (of minors), even the individuals are incidental to the 'greater good' of protecting the church. You have this whole undercurrent in catholicism that sees these cases as a sort of organized attempt to discredit and/or undermine the church, regardless if the accusations are true or not. Covering up abuse means avoiding bad publicity, moving priests to the other side of the country makes any sort of case far more difficult for a victim to prosecute, when the perpetrator just 'dissappears' (at least before the internet). On paper the church has always been opposed to this offence, but in practice the institution is all that matters. It is also really ineffective? The Catholic Church is practically synonymous with kiddy fiddlers in the UK as a result of all their cover-ups. I reckon if you ask random folk on the street to name a stereotypical nonce you will get Jimmy Saville, Michael Jackson, and Catholic priests as the main answers. Nipping problems in the bud does a lot more to protect reputation than sweeping under the rug and letting it fester into a huge mess IMO. But large organisations keep trying to sweep shit under the rug and acting surprised when it doesn't turn out different for their org... That depends, these cover-ups were only largely tackled recently. It took decades (perhaps centuries depending on when you want to start counting) for this large-scale institutional abuse to be accepted as the truth. Sinead O'Conner career took a nosedive in the 90's over this. Most perpetrators died before things even had a chance to proceed to a form of trial. In that sense it was quite succesful, because unlike the two people you mentioned, very few priests ended up on trial in public. As far as nipping things in the bud, that is always a better approach, but one very rarely seen. This sort of cover-up approach isn't exactly unique to the catholic church.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 875
Member is Online
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 9, 2024 7:36:48 GMT -5
It is also really ineffective? The Catholic Church is practically synonymous with kiddy fiddlers in the UK as a result of all their cover-ups. I reckon if you ask random folk on the street to name a stereotypical nonce you will get Jimmy Saville, Michael Jackson, and Catholic priests as the main answers. Nipping problems in the bud does a lot more to protect reputation than sweeping under the rug and letting it fester into a huge mess IMO. But large organisations keep trying to sweep shit under the rug and acting surprised when it doesn't turn out different for their org... That depends, these cover-ups were only largely tackled recently. It took decades (perhaps centuries depending on when you want to start counting) for this large-scale institutional abuse to be accepted as the truth. Sinead O'Conner career took a nosedive in the 90's over this. Most perpetrators died before things even had a chance to proceed to a form of trial. In that sense it was quite succesful, because unlike the two people you mentioned, very few priests ended up on trial in public. As far as nipping things in the bud, that is always a better approach, but one very rarely seen. This sort of cover-up approach isn't exactly unique to the catholic church. Hmm, you may be on to something there. Perhaps it is only ineffective in the modern era with our current level of interconnectivity? It is much harder to hide stuff by changing location when most people can access the internet. Agree re. large organisations in general. You see the same thing all over the place for one scandal or another (not just paedophilia).
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Apr 9, 2024 7:47:30 GMT -5
I think the internet might certainly play a big role, next to better societal understanding. I think that even the catholic church itself might not know the full extent, because a lot of lower level leadership made/could make decisions that required little input from higher-ups and little would have been documented. But a lot of victims themselves can now connect the dots, those that are still alive that is.
Perhaps a bit of a weird comparison, but take sperm donation for example. The proliferation of online family tree companies has uncovered a lot of abuse in that sector, that might have otherwise remained hidden.
Edit: in the Netherlands the jehovahs witnesses were investigated and large scale abuse cover-ups were revealed. I know that in my partner's country, abuse in the orthodox church is still swept under the rug by the older generations and a public reckoning still needs to occur. The catholic church's loss of societal influence in the West certainly appears to have facilitated the breakdown of the cover-ups.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Apr 9, 2024 9:33:38 GMT -5
Southern Baptists have also had a large-scale sexual misconduct cover-up revealed recently. I think it is earlier in this thread.
Therefore, it is not a problem unique to Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on Apr 18, 2024 14:10:13 GMT -5
|
|