Dr. Mariana Caplan — Does Yoga Work? |382|

#61
Pedophile acceptance is the next frontier in the Sexual Revolution.

You laugh at the idea that Sesame Street will one day have a Pedophile character who teaches children to be accepting and not fear his sexual orientation.

In the 1980's my Grandfather laughed at the idea Homosexuals would ever get married with State sanction.

“Pedophilia is a Natural Sexual Orientation”.

Amen.....
There is a new rapper called Tekashi 6ix 9ine, he is a convicted child molestor. He is a Mexican kid in his early 20s possibly or he might be 19. He is a rapper/gang member from New York. Mind you he is a child molester and has a huge fan base now with his allegations all out in the public. The little twerp has rainbow hair!
 
#63
Abusers in the church are no more frequent than in other organizations. Or you can say, abusers in other organizations are just as common as in the church. So why is the church singled out when other corrupt organizations are given a free pass?

http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa
It is estimated that women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported among boys and 6% of cases reported among girls.​


The problem of child abuse in public schools is never talked about and it is covered up as much as possible. Many of the perpetrators are women who as a gender are often given a free pass not just by administrators but by the public. It is hypocritical and disgusting and extremely unfair to the child victims of their abuse. People can choose whether to go to church, but they cannot always choose to keep their kids out of public schools.

https://www.projectveritas.com/tag/aft/

Project Veritas has released undercover video of Bill Siegferth, Tom Schmida, and David Romick – all current or former teachers union presidents –admitting that they have protected and defended union members that have abused students.

Why is it a outrageous when male priest abuses a child but okay for a female teacher to do the same thing?

And why is there so much anger when basic facts are pointed out? Who feels threatened? Why?

People don't use logic to form their opinions, they use logic to defend their opinions. And when the church is picked out for criticism while other guilty organizations are ignored, all it proves is the bias of the critic.
I appreciate your determination to be evenhanded, and I share much of your reservations. However we do need to remember that regardless of the statistics showing that priests are no more likely to commit sexual offences than men in general (and I have come across completely contrary assertions) there is a fundamental expectation that NO priest should be guilty of preying on children. A priest is, after all, ordained in a ritual that is supposed to confer some kind of sanctity on the person and their actions. An ordained representative of any religious organisation is represented as a trusted person who is expected to be beyond suspicion. This is precisely what predatory priests have relied upon.

The Pope may be compassionate, but the betrayal of the most fundamental trust vested in a priest can to be excused. To think otherwise is to make the act of creating a priest no more than a merely secular administrative conferral of an office that carries no implicit expectation of trust, and certainly no divine sanction.

I am not about to accuse the Pope of being a pedophile, or costing up to pedophiles in the Church. But I will say that he has not acted with the strength and clarity to address the widespread now proven instances of child rape. The Pope supports Pell, and I, like many other Australians, have little doubt that Pell was aware of the presence of priests who raped children (and please let's not be coy with words and soften it to sexual abuse - it was sex without informed and free consent and that is rape). I will let the courts decide whether Pell himself is guilty of the same offences. Pell and others did nothing to stem the instances of child rape and acted without compassion toward the survivors.

Is the Pope guilty by association? Is the CEO of a corporation whose staff commit crimes within a culture that covers up the crimes, obstructs investigation of them and then deals harshly with the victims of the crimes guilty by association? Has the Pope demonstrated that he has zero tolerance for child rape by setting out a clear agenda to rid the Catholic church of all those guilty of committing the offences or aiding them or concealing the crimes?

The Catholic Church is a religious organisation. I just want to remind us of that. It, by its own claim, operates to a higher standard. Compassion is one such standard - but it cannot be selectively applied to child rapists and not to victims. While I have no doubt at all that the Catholic Church is a deeply complex organisation that will take a long time to remediate back to anything resembling an ideal of sanctity, the mere fact that it operates to a higher standard is sufficient to cause others to demand a higher standard of response.

Right now Francis is getting away with stuff we would not tolerate in a secular organisation. Catholics, in their pain and confusion are holding him and the bishops to a lower standard than they should.
 
#64
Hello all, first time commenting here.
I was dismayed by Dr. Caplan's avoidance of calling out abusive people in positions of power. She stated something along the lines that people like Pema Chodron eventually benefited from Trungpa's abuse. She also states that she has no problem calling out something if it is bad or evil but fails to do so when asked. Very duplicitous. Yes positive things can come out of terrible circumstances but is that any reason to avoid calling actions, that are in direct conflict with our culture rules, evil?



I wanted to hear more of how Dr. Caplan utilizes yoga and psychology as I have a deep interest in this area. Yoga, as Dr. Caplan alluded to briefly has come to mean a lot of (marketable) things so much so that the term is almost useless as a descriptor. Let us use Patanjali's definition: "Yoga is the cessation of the fluctuations of the mind." So yoga starts when the mind stops but how do we get there? Patanjali laid out a road map in the Yoga Sutras. He does not describe different asanas but states the conditions that must be met for something to be considered an asana, namely steady, stationary, motionless, and comfortable. This is interesting because many people assume that when they become steady, stationary, motionless and comfortable that their mind should calm down. When it doesn't they note that when their body is active, their mind calms down so they generally gravitate toward doing something and calling it "meditative." The simple way to think of it is that when the body is active the mind begins to disengage. When the mind is active the body tends to disengage. So why didn't Patanjali say "lift some weights and go on a run and your mind will calm down."? I believe that it is because we don't actually unwind all the dross in our nervous system/brain when we engage in more activity or try to concentrate on some activity...we just continue to repress it. So when we stop "doing" for a period of time our minds are going to rage and try to get us to do anything to avoid confronting that which is repressed or that which may produce discomfort if we contemplate it. This non doing allows things to come up and pass.

Consider that the criteria of steady stationary, motionless and comfortable are generally not met in any yoga classes. People are pressing to go further or contort their bodies or they try to hold their breath longer or make their breathing slower. Practicing this way is just furthering exactly what most of us do all day long which is to attempt to control, manipulate, achieve, win, avoid losing etc which are not all bad but one needs a sabbatical from all of this. If you approach yoga like you are going to achieve something, you might get flexible or strong but that is about it....and what is the difference between approaching yoga in the "doing mindset" and calisthenics? If you use the achievement roadmap you may end up in a completely different location than where Patanjali's roadmap is pointing to.

In my experience of using asanas with the aforementioned criteria I have found that it helps unwind events in my life that created tension be it small things that happened through the day or major events. While practicing, I cease trying to steer the boat and just ride along allowing whatever to come up. I should note that it seems that the experience of things "coming up" often takes a few different pathways depending on whether we tend to be more auditory, visual, kinesthetic, olfactory. I tend to feel tension in my body, others many note that short sporadic images pop up...one person I showed yoga to in this way had a distinct smell of mothballs from her grandmother's house come up. She jumped out of shavasana and didn't want to practice any longer. As one practices there is increased time between the sensory things popping up and sometimes one's consciousness kind of shuts down. It is kind of a sleep state but one isn't really sleeping, there is an awareness present. When I come out of a state like this I feel quite rejuvenated but it doesn't happen every time. I don't control it I just create the initial conditions for it to happen as elucidated by Patanjali. If it happens great, if not, great. It is nothing to be achieved.

I suspect that the physical body takes on tension as a protective response to stress/trauma ("If I just guard myself better I won't get hurt"). Yoga works to allow that armor to dissolve which allows a person to regain their ability to choose (instead of everything being a reaction to the world)...which is really to say, it allows a person to embody more fully the dynamic range of human potential. I think that yoga according to Patanjali is a method to allow a person's system to heal itself. Yoga practiced this way is like digestion. We masticate and swallow the food and that is where our conscious control of digestion ends. Our body knows just what to do with the food if we let it do its thing. In the same manner if we give the right initial conditions to our body, it will begin to digest the traumas that are embedded in our nervous systems. I do think that as these things are digested that we begin to see the world more clearly as it is rather than through the glasses colored by trauma. I think allowing things to come and go and creating the initial conditions for the mind to sort of switch off regularly may pave the way for odd phenomena to happen such as hearing in one's mind an odd word that another person is thinking of (that is not related to any conversation). It seems that as the dross is processed and removed the mind can more clearly reflect things and kind of know things at times that are weird or unexplainable as to how one knew that thing. But that either happens or it doesn't...it isn't something one can aim to do.
Its a pity that the conversation has headed off in another direction. I, too, was interested in Mariana's fusion of yoga and psychology. There are so many disciplines and traditions from the past that are better with an injection of psychology. Allowing that yoga has a far wider meaning that just the physical stuff, and essentially incorporates intentional acts aimed at deepening a sense of 'connection' and awareness the fusion with psychology is a powerful way of 'updating' the original intent of yoga.

By that I mean going beyond the traditional thought and jargon and grounding deep insights in what amount to secular thought. I think the same applies to magic as well - and religion in general. Psychology can be a rich source of empirically derived insights that fit perfectly well with traditional practices, but expressing them in terms that not encrusted in the obfuscation of tradition or the actual ignorance of those who presume to teach.

I am intrigued by the way that psychology is doing what it should be doing - and confirming the validity of spiritual insights established by ancient traditions. Of course, if one is off down the rabbit hole of psychology shoehorned into hard materialist lines, that confirmation can be a touch condescending.

Given Mariana's premise I would have been interested in any work she had done with military veterans. Resolving Post Traumatic Stress is a major challenge, and she seemed to articulate a rationale that would fit that kind of work.
 
#65
I appreciate your determination to be evenhanded, and I share much of your reservations. However we do need to remember that regardless of the statistics showing that priests are no more likely to commit sexual offences than men in general (and I have come across completely contrary assertions) there is a fundamental expectation that NO priest should be guilty of preying on children. A priest is, after all, ordained in a ritual that is supposed to confer some kind of sanctity on the person and their actions. An ordained representative of any religious organisation is represented as a trusted person who is expected to be beyond suspicion. This is precisely what predatory priests have relied upon.

The Pope may be compassionate, but the betrayal of the most fundamental trust vested in a priest can to be excused. To think otherwise is to make the act of creating a priest no more than a merely secular administrative conferral of an office that carries no implicit expectation of trust, and certainly no divine sanction.

I am not about to accuse the Pope of being a pedophile, or costing up to pedophiles in the Church. But I will say that he has not acted with the strength and clarity to address the widespread now proven instances of child rape. The Pope supports Pell, and I, like many other Australians, have little doubt that Pell was aware of the presence of priests who raped children (and please let's not be coy with words and soften it to sexual abuse - it was sex without informed and free consent and that is rape). I will let the courts decide whether Pell himself is guilty of the same offences. Pell and others did nothing to stem the instances of child rape and acted without compassion toward the survivors.

Is the Pope guilty by association? Is the CEO of a corporation whose staff commit crimes within a culture that covers up the crimes, obstructs investigation of them and then deals harshly with the victims of the crimes guilty by association? Has the Pope demonstrated that he has zero tolerance for child rape by setting out a clear agenda to rid the Catholic church of all those guilty of committing the offences or aiding them or concealing the crimes?

The Catholic Church is a religious organisation. I just want to remind us of that. It, by its own claim, operates to a higher standard. Compassion is one such standard - but it cannot be selectively applied to child rapists and not to victims. While I have no doubt at all that the Catholic Church is a deeply complex organisation that will take a long time to remediate back to anything resembling an ideal of sanctity, the mere fact that it operates to a higher standard is sufficient to cause others to demand a higher standard of response.

Right now Francis is getting away with stuff we would not tolerate in a secular organisation. Catholics, in their pain and confusion are holding him and the bishops to a lower standard than they should.
Michael, there's some merit in the view that Catholic priests should be held to a higher standard than ordinary folk given the nature of their calling. But the thing is, Catholicism is a readily recognisable international organisation, and that makes it an easier target than the hundreds if not thousands of protestant denominations, amongst which tragically similar stories of institutional cover-up occur.

In America, certainly, it appears there are more Protestants than Catholics, and there's a tendency for the former to do a lot of finger-pointing at Catholic priests (where the thing to blame is the peculiar practice of celibacy) whilst at the same time overlooking their own shortcomings.

Just google "pedophilia in protestant churches" and you'll see a number of reports. This one, for example. You see the same pattern of organisational leaders trying to cover up and shift blame onto the victim without quite admitting or even, possibly, realising it. They can't quite bring themselves to accept that a prominent member of their denomination is an incorrigible transgressor, and the Christian impulse to forgive gets mixed in, just as it does in Catholicism. Offenders can and do manage to carry on in their ministries for years, continuing to molest children.

In the urge to forgive their sexual offenders and to protect the good standing of their churches, both Catholic and Protestant hierarchies neglect the well-being of victims. The latter may live sad and alienated lives, becoming self-abusers and may attempt or even succeed in committing suicide. It's all tragic, utterly tragic.

If one is a conspiracy nut, one may believe that the Catholic church is inherently evil and that the pope -- any pope -- is the devil incarnate: no need for due process of law, it's already a done deal. All priests may be deemed closet paedophiles, and that's wonderful for those who want to see the end of Christianity, starting with Catholicism. Meanwhile, Protestant churches have been getting a free pass when increasingly, more evidence against some of its prominent members is emerging.

The only solution as I see it is for religious and other organisations is a) to find some way of weeding out pedophiles before they are hired and b) to become less defensive and to attend to accusations openly and without delay, always within the bounds of the law. It's not impossible for someone to be accused and be innocent, after all.
 
#66
A large difference between Protestant sects and Catholicism is the massive hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, where those at the top can clamp down on certain scandalous events amongst its members and, particularly, amongst the clergy themselves. When that heirarchy fails, when the authoritative members of the clergy do not act as perhaps they ought, it’s constitutes a whole separate failure apart from the failure brought forth from the actual rapist himself. It’s a particularly noticeable failure because of the Popes supposed particularly sanctified position amongst men, and it does stand out a lot more than it would for a regular public administrative person who succumbs to the same failures.
 
#67
Michael, there's some merit in the view that Catholic priests should be held to a higher standard than ordinary folk given the nature of their calling. But the thing is, Catholicism is a readily recognisable international organisation, and that makes it an easier target than the hundreds if not thousands of protestant denominations, amongst which tragically similar stories of institutional cover-up occur.

In America, certainly, it appears there are more Protestants than Catholics, and there's a tendency for the former to do a lot of finger-pointing at Catholic priests (where the thing to blame is the peculiar practice of celibacy) whilst at the same time overlooking their own shortcomings.

Just google "pedophilia in protestant churches" and you'll see a number of reports. This one, for example. You see the same pattern of organisational leaders trying to cover up and shift blame onto the victim without quite admitting or even, possibly, realising it. They can't quite bring themselves to accept that a prominent member of their denomination is an incorrigible transgressor, and the Christian impulse to forgive gets mixed in, just as it does in Catholicism. Offenders can and do manage to carry on in their ministries for years, continuing to molest children.

In the urge to forgive their sexual offenders and to protect the good standing of their churches, both Catholic and Protestant hierarchies neglect the well-being of victims. The latter may live sad and alienated lives, becoming self-abusers and may attempt or even succeed in committing suicide. It's all tragic, utterly tragic.

If one is a conspiracy nut, one may believe that the Catholic church is inherently evil and that the pope -- any pope -- is the devil incarnate: no need for due process of law, it's already a done deal. All priests may be deemed closet paedophiles, and that's wonderful for those who want to see the end of Christianity, starting with Catholicism. Meanwhile, Protestant churches have been getting a free pass when increasingly, more evidence against some of its prominent members is emerging.

The only solution as I see it is for religious and other organisations is a) to find some way of weeding out pedophiles before they are hired and b) to become less defensive and to attend to accusations openly and without delay, always within the bounds of the law. It's not impossible for someone to be accused and be innocent, after all.
This is just one reason why I shun all religion.

Yes it is rife in places other than the Catholic Church, but they really should be held to a much higher standard - something like the one they preach.

It isn't just the damage they have done, but their utter inability to realise that no genuine religion can be about earthly authority. I mean even in matters of doctrine, what possible sense does it make for a committee to decide the appropriate line on homosexuality, NDE's, visions of various sorts, the Gnostic Gospels, etc etc. This is particularly important when we remember that the various churches imprisoned, tortured, and killed people for any deviation from their authority!

David
 
#68
and let's get real, I pushed her buttons pretty hard :)
It seemed to me your usual level of button-pushing. I suspect it felt harder to you in the moment b/c she was clearly nervous and defensive, her voice betrayed her. Considering how knowledgeable she is, and how long in this work, and how used to conflict and controversy and push-back she must be by now, that raises some questions for me. It makes me suspicious that the reason she does what she does now is not b/c it challenges her, but b/c to think it works for loads of folks soothes her and she does not like to be ruffled. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but has she honed in on that in her own self-analysis and does she equate that at all to the reasons why we have such a corrupt system? This seems to me a general issue with the feminine aspect of the psyche and I'm glad to hear your calling that out a bit, though in different language. She excuses herself as not having a vision in that direction, yet she is in a field (2 of them) where pushing beyond one's own weaknesses and inclinations is a prerequisite, I'd say. So my question for her would be, why not get a life coach to help you create a vision where you can better address conflict and controversy, b/c this would be such an awesome modeling for women and the world in general, b/c most of us suck at it.
 
#69


Consider what an A-Level Scumbag a person needs to be in order to have a website called http://www.realspirituality.com , that claims to help people with Spiritual matters, while in reality being an atheist materialist. Disgusting.

Kudos for the valiant attempt by Alex to get this duplicitous Shyster to take any moral or "spiritual" position.

My favorite part was when Alex almost got this creepy woman to say buggering little boys is A-Ok for Catholic Priests as long as they are "intelligent in their path", and "grown-up in their self-awareness". She almost did it.

Alex's yogic patience was astounding. I would have slammed the phone down on this Con Artist after 15 minutes of her New Age say-nothing Frisco Flakes.
ROFL! I appreciate creative word-play too much to not like this acerbic comment!
It took me a good 20 minutes actually to figure out what was bugging me so much about her, then I saw this imagery, and it was 'bingo'! She's a whiner and lordy how I find that aspect of femininity distasteful. It's manipulative and it works especially well with masculine (un-knowing) men who then move automatically into 'white knight' mode. I'm glad Alex didn't let that compel him to back down.
 
#70
Like I said, I'll remain on the fence until something more compelling either way crops up.

Looks like you're a bitter ex-Catholic.
I'd like to know what will 'crop up' in your perfect world as adequate evidence?

And I had not taken Arya's comments at all as a 'bitter ex-Catholic' at all, more like one committed and discerning trying to fledge her way through the propaganda and brainwashing of her upbringing (bravo sister!) and wonder why you use such a tactic as poking at another's wounds as akin to rational argument?
 
#71
I'm not excusing paedophilia, far from it. But why pay special attention to Catholicism when it's probably no worse than other religious denominations, the movie industry, government or the BBC? The irony is, some of these other institutions are piling on, possibly to distract attention from themselves.
Really? The movie industry? Government, the BBC? Is this where folks universally look for their moral guidance? Is this where folks traditional made confessions, usually of tiny sins in comparison to those they confessed to? Who preaches to us how we should live, whom we should marry, how many children? (ok now the State has taken over this role in modern times in many places, but most of the Christian world still looks to the Vatican for more guidance, not CNN). Is the U.S bowing to Dan Rather as they have to whatever current pompous Pope is sitting in the velvet seat? Do I have to listen to Vatican nonsense every time I tune into media of any kind (indeed I do!)?

Corruption in the Vatican is among the top 3 power players driving the world. Get a clue!
 
#72
It took me a good 20 minutes actually to figure out what was bugging me so much about her, then I saw this imagery, and it was 'bingo'! She's a whiner and lordy how I find that aspect of femininity distasteful. It's manipulative and it works especially well with masculine (un-knowing) men who then move automatically into 'white knight' mode.
Thanks for that insight - you are right, it was having that effect on me, but then I got irritated because she didn't seem to be saying much that was interesting!

David
 
#73
If one is a conspiracy nut, one may believe that the Catholic church is inherently evil and that the pope -- any pope -- is the devil incarnate: no need for due process of law, it's already a done deal.
Well, in addition to being a "conspiracy nut," as I assume you were directing at me and Alex (or at anyone else who can plainly see how corrupt the Catholic hierarchy is), I am also an attorney. And in my years as an attorney, I have represented multinational corporations, as well as homeless youth and sexually abused children. I've been researching/navigating the "law" for nearly two decades. And if you can't understand how the legal system is set up to favor those who have wealth and power (and thus the ability to file endless discovery requests and aggressive motions in order to stall and outspend the "other side"), I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps try to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone without endless resources who needs to navigate the legal system -- even in minor ways. And then ask yourself if Cardinal Pell and the full wealth/power/backing of the Catholic Church are an even match for the (their) rape victims. Indeed, it is already clear that the Church is using stall tactics and waiting for more victims and witnesses to die. It's not a "conspiracy theory," this is a legal strategy.

But this is now twice that you have resorted to ad hominems in this thread ("bitter ex-Catholic" "conspiracy nut"). Generally I find that those who like to trot out the "conspiracy" insult are those who are terribly insecure and who find themselves on the losing side of an argument. They then resort to name calling in the hopes of getting support from others equally uncomfortable going beyond their own comfort zone reality tunnels.
 
#74
Well, in addition to being a "conspiracy nut," as I assume you were directing at me and Alex (or at anyone else who can plainly see how corrupt the Catholic hierarchy is), I am also an attorney. And in my years as an attorney, I have represented multinational corporations, as well as homeless youth and sexually abused children. I've been researching/navigating the "law" for nearly two decades. And if you can't understand how the legal system is set up to favor those who have wealth and power (and thus the ability to file endless discovery requests and aggressive motions in order to stall and outspend the "other side"), I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps try to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone without endless resources who needs to navigate the legal system -- even in minor ways. And then ask yourself if Cardinal Pell and the full wealth/power/backing of the Catholic Church are an even match for the (their) rape victims. Indeed, it is already clear that the Church is using stall tactics and waiting for more victims and witnesses to die. It's not a "conspiracy theory," this is a legal strategy.

But this is now twice that you have resorted to ad hominems in this thread ("bitter ex-Catholic" "conspiracy nut"). Generally I find that those who like to trot out the "conspiracy" insult are those who are terribly insecure and who find themselves on the losing side of an argument. They then resort to name calling in the hopes of getting support from others equally uncomfortable going beyond their own comfort zone reality tunnels.
1. I said I was also myself, for a time, a little bitter as an ex-Catholic. I could hardly have meant it as an insult.

2. I didn't name either you (who the heck are you?) or Alex as being conspiracy nuts.

I see you you have represented multinational corporations. I wonder, did they pay you or your firm a lot of money to do that? And if so, did you or your firm refuse to take it? Did you or your firm refuse to use whatever legal means -- including delaying tactics -- that was at their disposal to defend them?

OTOH, what about the homeless and sexually abused people you've defended? Did you or your firm represent them pro bono? If so, was their representation as vigorous as for the multinational corporations? If not, why not, and who or what's responsible?

I'm not the one using ad hominem -- just look at your last paragraph. I don't want or need people's support, still less feel that I'm on the losing side of an argument. I'm simply putting my point of view and It's up to people to evaluate it. You and others seem to have prejudged the issue and aren't prepared to listen to any counter evidence that the Catholic church may not be the worst offender. Okay, so be it. Just don't get your knickers in a twist and try to take it out on me because you're deaf to an alternative viewpoint.
 
#76
You and others seem to have prejudged the issue and aren't prepared to listen to any counter evidence that the Catholic church may not be the worst offender.
I think herein lies the disconnect with this conversation, as far as I can tell. One perspective being put forth is that the church is scandalous. The other perspective is that there are organizations who are more scandalous, yet still don’t recieve the negative attention hat the Church does. And neither point is mutually exclusive. They’re likely both true.

The question then becomes, does the Church deserve the extra scorn? Well, if the allegations are true I think they absolutely do deserve it. When you hold yourself as a spiritual and moral authority, you bet people will point out your moral shortcomings. It doesn’t mean that they should be expected to be perfect (of course nobody is), but we’re talking far from perfect here. This is something you should not and cannot afford to mess up.
 
#77
I think herein lies the disconnect with this conversation, as far as I can tell. One perspective being put forth is that the church is scandalous. The other perspective is that there are organizations who are more scandalous, yet still don’t recieve the negative attention hat the Church does. And neither point is mutually exclusive. They’re likely both true.

The question then becomes, does the Church deserve the extra scorn? Well, if the allegations are true I think they absolutely do deserve it. When you hold yourself as a spiritual and moral authority, you bet people will point out your moral shortcomings. It doesn’t mean that they should be expected to be perfect (of course nobody is), but we’re talking far from perfect here. This is something you should not and cannot afford to mess up.
We have just had a 5 year Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse here in Australia. Religious institutions - churches and care services were found to be harbouring perpetrators, covering up the crimes and handling survivors harshly. My impression was that the Catholic Church was the worst offender, and it certainly seemed to get the most sustained public scrutiny. This may have been because its response to victims seemed especially heartless. The Anglicans and Protestants, and even the Salvation Army, were also found to have been involved in the crimes and their covering up.

The fact is that any adult is presumed to be a role of trust in relation to a child, but the representative of a religious faith who claims some particular authority from God has a singular duty and responsibility. My issue with the Pope may be influenced by the fact that he is an objective of particular public interest here - maybe because the Anglicans and others have managed the public attention better. If the the post of Pope has any meaning at all it must assert a singular, if not exceptional, authority on the subject of offending priests - with no ambiguity or mucking about with sentiments.

The Pope has behaved, in my view, like the CEO of a secular organisation. Bringing Pell to Rome with the taint of abuse allegations hanging over him may have been an effort to get Pell out of the country but it may be, as mainstream commentators insist, that Pell's financial and political skills were esteemed. His priestly failings were ignored for his secular strengths. That's a lower standard than we hold our our institutions here. The issue here is not just that crimes were committed but the perpetrators, known to be so, were relocated to continue to offend - and the whole stinking mess denied. Pell denies he knew, but many do not believe him. Pell should not have left. The Pope should not have called him to Rome.

I am seeing nothing singular or exceptional in the Pope's response to the child rape perpetrated by his priests. I compare it to how secular organisations have responded and, again, it is a lower standard.

There are very good grounds to think that the Vatican is a festering dung heap in dire need of being forked and turned. That does not mean I demean worthy priests or those who are minded to cling to their faith.
 
#78
Thanks for that insight - you are right, it was having that effect on me, but then I got irritated because she didn't seem to be saying much that was interesting!

David
My pleasure! So glad it's helpful. It's really a shame to me that some women use this kind of coercive behavior, consciously or not, b/c it really does take advantage of a wonderful aspect of the masculine energy. Women love to talk about all that's wrong with 'toxic masculinity' without examining their own toxic behavior and without recognizing the positive in it. I hope more of us will start pointing these things out for the betterment of society.
 
#79
Let's recap using your own words:
Looks like you're a bitter ex-Catholic... I was an atheist and maybe a little bitter, but in time I grew out of that.
What I'm most bemused by is Alex's willingness to invert the principle of due process.
Well then, Aryas and Alex, there's nothing more to be said...The legal process isn't perfect, but what else is the uncommitted, non-conpiracist observer to go on?
If one is a conspiracy nut, one may believe that the Catholic church is inherently evil and that the pope -- any pope -- is the devil incarnate: no need for due process of law, it's already a done deal.
1. Calling someone a "bitter ex-Catholic" because he/she criticized and is disgusted by the Catholic Church's response to child rape by those within its ranks is clearly an insult. But glad you "grew out of" your own mild form of bitterness.

2. Since you addressed me and Alex by name, and in the same sentence asked what a "non-conspiracist observer" could go on (presumably only logical reasoning, a careful weighing of the "evidence" and agreement with whatever a jury of your peers determines?), I just assumed you were implying that Alex and I were "conspiracy theorists" for our views on the legal system's uneven distribution of justice. Who the heck am I? Just responding to you directly responding to me.

3. As other folks have pointed out numerous times on this thread, the Catholic Church holds itself out as a moral/spiritual leader. Using hard-ball litigation tactics like harassing/intimidating sexual abuse victims to the point of breaking them -- and/or unduly delaying legal proceedings so that victims/witnesses -- or even perps -- are dead is certainly using whatever tactics are available to them. But this hardly aligns with the Pope's asserted "zero tolerance" policy on pedophilia/child rape -- or the Church's holding itself out as a moral/spiritual authority. Attorneys generally determine their course of action in consultation with their clients and in furtherance of their client's stated wishes/best interests. The Church has decided that the appropriate legal response to address the crimes committed against their flock by their priests/cardinals is often to play hardball, remove the offenders from the reach of the law, and victimize the victims all over again.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/o...e/news-story/cf5d142b38ca51c4b029327c0f2a309a

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...been-ruthless-in-defence-20180330-p4z72a.html

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/card...rdrawn-their-moral-credit-20140328-35ott.html

You claim to want "due process of law," which typically means (to a layperson) fairness in legal proceedings. But where one side is infinitely more powerful and can manipulate the system through the use of its endless resources (money, connections, high priced litigators who use delay, intimidation, and other questionable tactics, etc.), the result is rarely "justice" for the less fortunate victim(s).

As for aligning your own opinion on Pell with the outcome of a 12 member jury, I presume that OJ was innocent in your mind once the jury found it to be so -- or that Bill Cosby was first not guilty of sexual abuse -- and then he was? The fact that over sixty women came forward to accuse Cosby meant nothing to you -- until the second jury said so? Is this because the jury presumably has more access to the relevant evidence? You do realize that what a jury ultimately "hears" as evidence is carefully stage managed by the judge, and a high-priced seasoned litigator can get highly relevant evidence/witnesses excluded for various reasons. It's a system set up to favor those who know how to ride/manipulate it. And let's just say that the Catholic Church has sadly had plenty of opportunities to hone its litigation strategy.

4. You aren't "simply putting your point of view out there" if you need to resort to calling anyone who disagrees with you and believes that the Church is inherently corrupt/evil a "conspiracy nut."
 
#80
It's manipulative and it works especially well with masculine (un-knowing) men who then move automatically into 'white knight' mode.
this kind of coercive behavior, consciously or not, b/c it really does take advantage of a wonderful aspect of the masculine energy.
Nah, I used to enjoy these scenarios when I was a younger guy (not whining, the damsel in distress routine).... while being fully aware of what was going on. In contrast, the hefting the bust routine has always left me stone cold.

:)

EDIT: But I do agree it's a positive aspect of masculinity.
 
Last edited:
Top