Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Toni]

If the Catholic Church and its leadership do not wish to be tarnished with the brush of racism, child abuse, child sexual abuse, sexual abuse, bigotry, genocide and other sins attributable to historic Church stances and actions, then they can quit engaging in such and even step up, acknowledge past sins and make their penance. After all, isn't that part of the Catholic teachings: acknowledge and confess your sins, make your penance, sin no more?

No, because past immoral behaviors are not their immoral behaviors (not the ones we are talking about).

And see the claim you make here: "they can quit engaging in such "...well, they aren't. Some are guilty of some of those things. None is guilty of all. And none is guilty of genocide (i.e., no present-day leader of the Catholic Church). And who is the Catholic Church, which you separate from its leadership? If you're talking about the actions of all other members, well, guilt depends on the member.

No. History does not begin or end with you or when it is convenient for you.

If you voluntarily alight yourself with a group or organization that has engaged in abuses such as child abuse, genocide, sexual abuse, sexual abuse of children and more and gas not repudiated those acts and policies and still engages in them and protects and excuses and denies the culpability of members who e gage in such behavior: well, yeah. You bear some of the responsibility.

Sadly, genocides still are happening today. Often along religious lines.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The RCC, like much of religious organizations everywhere, is an environment where abusers can thrive. Not everyone abuses, but everyone contributes to that environment, including parishioners, regardless of what good people they are or how much they oppose child abuse.

I do not see any good evidence in support of the claim that everyone contributes to that environment, and you have not provided any.
In any case, if that were the case, then the should apologize for whatever their individual contribution is which, of course, did not have anything to do with what happened to the children taken from their families and abused onin the past.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you voluntarily alight yourself with a group or organization that has engaged in abuses such as child abuse, genocide, sexual abuse, sexual abuse of children and more and gas not repudiated those acts and policies and still engages in them and protects and excuses and denies the culpability of members who e gage in such behavior: well, yeah. You bear some of the responsibility.

No, you do not. If you praise evil people for their evil deeds (real or imaginary as long as you believe them to be real), you are guilty of promoting false moral beliefs. And yes, you can blame many, perhaps most Catholics for that. And Muslims. And Marxists. And Maoists. And so on. But you're still not guilty for what those people did (or you believe they did). Now, if some of those people are committing abuses and you praise them and deny they are committing abuses, it depends on the evidence available to you, and maybe you are guilty of making bad choices that you should expect have a high risk of helping abusers. But you are still not at all guilty of abuses that happened in the past and were committed by other people. You are not guilty even of the present-day abuses (those would be the people who choose to abuse), though again you might be guilty of acting in a way that predictably would increase the risk that they would happen.

 

[Toni]

If you voluntarily alight yourself with a group or organization that has engaged in abuses such as child abuse, genocide, sexual abuse, sexual abuse of children and more and gas not repudiated those acts and policies and still engages in them and protects and excuses and denies the culpability of members who e gage in such behavior: well, yeah. You bear some of the responsibility.

No, you do not. If you praise evil people for their evil deeds (real or imaginary as long as you believe them to be real), you are guilty of promoting false moral beliefs. And yes, you can blame many, perhaps most Catholics for that. And Muslims. And Marxists. And Maoists. And so on. But you're still not guilty for what those people did (or you believe they did). Now, if some of those people are committing abuses and you praise them and deny they are committing abuses, it depends on the evidence available to you, and maybe you are guilty of making bad choices that you should expect have a high risk of helping abusers. But you are still not at all guilty of abuses that happened in the past and were committed by other people. You are not guilty even of the present-day abuses (those would be the people who choose to abuse), though again you might be guilty of acting in a way that predictably would increase the risk that they would happen.

If your family earns its money by engaging in drug trafficking—and you live in a nice mansion, go to fancy schools, wear nice clothing and jewelry, vacation in all of the best spots—you bear some of the responsibility for what your family dies to earn its money, even if your own hands are ‘clean’ because all you’ve done is pro bono work for a nice charity or two. And if you know about it—and still live in that nice mansion or penthouse, still draw from the family trust: your hands are as dirty. Whether you personally executed your cartel rivals or not.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If your family earns its money by engaging in drug trafficking—and you live in a nice mansion, go to fancy schools, wear nice clothing and jewelry, vacation in all of the best spots—you bear some of the responsibility for what your family dies to earn its money, even if your own hands are ‘clean’ because all you’ve done is pro bono work for a nice charity or two.

No, if you did not engage in drug trafficking, you are not guilty of it. You might be guilty of some kind of complicity, depending on what it is that you know, should rationally do on the basis of the available information, etc. At any rate, you are most certainly not guilty of what your grandfather did before you were born or when you were a kid.

And if you know about it—and still live in that nice mansion or penthouse, still draw from the family trust: your hands are as dirty. Whether you personally executed your cartel rivals or not.

Then you are not guilty of drug trafficking, or of executing anyone if you did not do that. You are guilty of accepting money from drug trafficking. But you are most certainly not guilty of what your grandfather did before you were born or when you were a kid, even if the family drug traficking business goes back generations.

 

[Toni]

If your family earns its money by engaging in drug trafficking—and you live in a nice mansion, go to fancy schools, wear nice clothing and jewelry, vacation in all of the best spots—you bear some of the responsibility for what your family dies to earn its money, even if your own hands are ‘clean’ because all you’ve done is pro bono work for a nice charity or two.

No, if you did not engage in drug trafficking, you are not guilty of it. You might be guilty of some kind of complicity, depending on what it is that you know, should rationally do on the basis of the available information, etc. At any rate, you are most certainly not guilty of what your grandfather did before you were born or when you were a kid.

And if you know about it—and still live in that nice mansion or penthouse, still draw from the family trust: your hands are as dirty. Whether you personally executed your cartel rivals or not.

Then you are not guilty of drug trafficking, or of executing anyone if you did not do that. You are guilty of accepting money from drug trafficking. But you are most certainly not guilty of what your grandfather did before you were born or when you were a kid, even if the family drug traficking business goes back generations.

Yes, you are complicit—as Catholics are today when they do not even attempt to hold their church and church leaders responsible for past AND CURRENT wrongs. People today are suffering because of the actions of the Catholic Church 50, 100 years ago, and more. The wounds are ripped open again with the discovery of the bodies of children, stolen from their families and whose deaths have been unrecognized or acknowledged by the organization responsible for the lives and deaths of the children they stole.

It’s not the past. It’s still causing pain. People living today are still suffering because of what was done to their family members. People today are still living who survived these residential schools.

Pretending that it’s all in the past only compounds the guilt.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, if you did not engage in drug trafficking, you are not guilty of it. You might be guilty of some kind of complicity, depending on what it is that you know, should rationally do on the basis of the available information, etc. At any rate, you are most certainly not guilty of what your grandfather did before you were born or when you were a kid.


Then you are not guilty of drug trafficking, or of executing anyone if you did not do that. You are guilty of accepting money from drug trafficking. But you are most certainly not guilty of what your grandfather did before you were born or when you were a kid, even if the family drug traficking business goes back generations.

Yes, you are complicit—as Catholics are today when they do not even attempt to hold their church and church leaders responsible for past AND CURRENT wrongs. People today are suffering because of the actions of the Catholic Church 50, 100 years ago, and more. The wounds are ripped open again with the discovery of the bodies of children, stolen from their families and whose deaths have been unrecognized or acknowledged by the organization responsible for the lives and deaths of the children they stole.

It’s not the past. It’s still causing pain. People living today are still suffering because of what was done to their family members. People today are still living who survived these residential schools.

Pretending that it’s all in the past only compounds the guilt.

Parents are still living today whose children ended up in those graves; the last such school only closed in 1996.

Ostensibly, the people running some of those schools are still alive.

The fact is, these are Catholic incursions, many of which are on land that was never even ceded to the Canadian government. Every such church is literally a monument to imperialism, and genocide. The Catholic Church would do better just bulldozing every such church themselves, and setting up a memorial around the worst of them ala Auschwitz.

I would prefer it not have to come to arson, as this creates a "victim of necessity": someone who must see consequences for doing something right that could not be done "the right way".

 

[Rhea]

If the Catholic Church and its leadership do not wish to be tarnished with the brush of racism, child abuse, child sexual abuse, sexual abuse, bigotry, genocide and other sins attributable to historic Church stances and actions, then they can quit engaging in such and even step up, acknowledge past sins and make their penance. After all, isn't that part of the Catholic teachings: acknowledge and confess your sins, make your penance, sin no more?

Indeed. If the Catholic Church and its leadership didn’t want to be accused of speaking with a forked tongue, they could have, this year spent some of their fortune on ground-penetrating radar at all of their sites to determine if they continue to hide crimes.


And they could have done it last year.

And they could have done it 10 years ago.

And 20 years ago, they could have offered to dig up their yards to find these children’s murdered bodies.

And 30 years ago they could have listened to the voices of the indigenous begging for information, and they could have helped.

And 50 years ago they could have listened to the voices of the indigenous begging for information, and they could have helped.


But the catholic church, its parishioners and its leadership did none of those things, and, in the face of indigenous people begging for information, they instead decided to continue to hide the bodies at their churches and schools and they are all still doing it right now.

The parishioners could go out, en masse, as a parish, as a faith, as the body Catholic, and start digging. But - they make a decision to not be the ones that find the bodies, they choose to be the ones who keep them hidden.

 

[Rhea]

If your family earns its money by engaging in drug trafficking—and you live in a nice mansion, go to fancy schools, wear nice clothing and jewelry, vacation in all of the best spots—you bear some of the responsibility for what your family dies to earn its money, even if your own hands are ‘clean’ because all you’ve done is pro bono work for a nice charity or two.

No, if you did not engage in drug trafficking, you are not guilty of it. You might be guilty of some kind of complicity, depending on what it is that you know, should rationally do on the basis of the available information, etc. At any rate, you are most certainly not guilty of what your grandfather did before you were born or when you were a kid.

You are speaking from a moral place that is not compatible with the American law, which informs much of how we will see the behavior and culpability in the USA. In American law, you sure as shit ARE guilty of crimes that you enable, which is why the getaway driver can be put away for murder. Which is why parents can be charged with neglect. This is true for many crimes. It is mostly only enforced against the poor and the marginalized, while CEOs face a simlar law but skate on technicalities.

But when you talk to people who live under those laws, knowing that “the church” as an institution is granted rights and privileges as an institution then you may begin to understand why we find your arguments unsupported by law and morals.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, you are complicit—as Catholics are today when they do not even attempt to hold their church and church leaders responsible for past AND CURRENT wrongs.

First, whether you are complicit depends on the actual actions. And the word "complicit" is alright as long as we keep in mind the guilt is for the action that one should expect would have such-and-such effects, not for the actual results. To be precise, guilt is for choices, or failing to make choices. It is not for results. Let us say Jack and Joe are murderers who want to kill random people for fun, and who do not know each other. They both make a bomb buying the components from the same suppliers. They both plant their respective bombs in trains, and they both rationally expect about 100 victims. After they planted the bomb, they just wait. Their actions up to the time set for explosion are the same (say, t1 for both bombs), and so they are equally guilty, and deserve the same punishment. At t1, Jack's bomb goes off killing 100 random people and wounds 500. Joe's bomb fails due to a faulty component. Then Jack owe's compensation to the survivors and the families of the dead. But he is not more guilty, and does not deserve greater punishment. He cannot be made retroactively guilty or not guilty by the bomb going off or failing to do so (I'm talking about morality, of course, not about the law).


Now, generally, choices and results are intertwined in a way that makes it understandable to say someone was guilty of say murder or rape. But strictly speaking, it's not the result but the choice.

So, what are those Catholics guilty of? Well, it depends on the Catholic. They may be guilty of making choices that predictably would tend to spread false moral beliefs, for example. But that does not make them guilty of choices other people do. They're never guilty of other people's choices.

People today are suffering because of the actions of the Catholic Church 50, 100 years ago, and more.

Yes, and some people 50, 100 years ago where guilty of their choices.

The wounds are ripped open again with the discovery of the bodies of children, stolen from their families and whose deaths have been unrecognized or acknowledged by the organization responsible for the lives and deaths of the children they stole.

Again, who is the "organization"?

The people guilty of making choices like taking children from their families and abuse them are guilty of those choices. And the present-day members of the Church are not.

It’s not the past. It’s still causing pain. People living today are still suffering because of what was done to their family members. People today are still living who survived these residential schools.

No, it is the past. The choice for example to take children from their families is not being made today. People who survived these residential schools are not being kidnapped or abused by present-day Catholics.

Pretending that it’s all in the past only compounds the guilt.

But no one is pretending that it's all in the past. Some of us point out that the choices to kidnap, abuse, sometimes murder, etc., are indeed all in the past.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Parents are still living today whose children ended up in those graves; the last such school only closed in 1996.

Ostensibly, the people running some of those schools are still alive.

Alright, but that is not the issue when it comes to finding a guilty party. Rather, the issue is whether some of the perpetrators are alive. And if some are, sure, blame them.

The fact is, these are Catholic incursions, many of which are on land that was never even ceded to the Canadian government. Every such church is literally a monument to imperialism, and genocide. The Catholic Church would do better just bulldozing every such church themselves, and setting up a memorial around the worst of them ala Auschwitz.

No, they are not a monument to that. They are churches. And there are parishioners and priests who did not have anything to do with the abuses, murder, etc. By the way, as point out by B20, there are also parishioners from the same tribes as those children.

I would prefer it not have to come to arson, as this creates a "victim of necessity": someone who must see consequences for doing something right that could not be done "the right way".

There is no necessity. They are attacking the churches used by people who are not guilty of those crimes. And they are blaming the innocent.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are speaking from a moral place that is not compatible with the American law, which informs much of how we will see the behavior and culpability in the USA. In American law, you sure as shit ARE guilty of crimes that you enable, which is why the getaway driver can be put away for murder. Which is why parents can be charged with neglect. This is true for many crimes. It is mostly only enforced against the poor and the marginalized, while CEOs face a simlar law but skate on technicalities.

I'm making moral arguments, not legal arguments. The getaway driver is guilty of choosing to be the getaway driver, which puts innocent lives at risk since he's enabling the robbery. He does not become retroactively more guilty due to the actions of others. In other words, the getaway driver in the case where there is murder vs. a case where there is not are equally guilty up to a moment after the murder happen (after that it depends on how they continue to behave, as the scenarios differ).

But when you talk to people who live under those laws, knowing that “the church” as an institution is granted rights and privileges as an institution then you may begin to understand why we find your arguments unsupported by law and morals.

Begin to understand? I already understand that many people get confused, engage in group thinking, blame those who are not to blame, and spread false moral beliefs. Such is life.

 

[Patooka]

Well, a child born today, when she grows up, should not go around taking credit or what happened back then. Or praising other living people for it. Or blaming then, etc.

When that child grows up and makes the deliberate decision to represent an organization, guess what? They're accountable for what that organization does. This isn't a controversial idea.

 

[Patooka]

I'm making moral arguments, not legal arguments. The getaway driver is guilty of choosing to be the getaway driver, which puts innocent lives at risk since he's enabling the robbery. He does not become retroactively more guilty due to the actions of others. In other words, the getaway driver in the case where there is murder vs. a case where there is not are equally guilty up to a moment after the murder happen (after that it depends on how they continue to behave, as the scenarios differ).

If you're not making legal arguments, you might want to shy away from such phrases like "retroactively more guilty". Incidentally, my set of ethics and morals state the context of the act and the events surrounding it is very important to make a determination of right and wrong.

Begin to understand? I already understand that many people get confused, engage in group thinking, blame those who are not to blame, and spread false moral beliefs. Such is life.

Then burning down churches isn't an issue, as strictly speaking no one owns them. The Catholic Church isn't a person.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is an interesting thread because it is a living, happening illustration of how these atrocities occur. A person defends an institution because it is their institution and goes to any length to defend it, despite it being guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

And what makes it so terribly worse is that the institution is supposedly the paragon of virtue and behavior when it comes to morals.

Loyalty to a fault is the lesson of the day.

 

[Rhea]

Meanwhile, over in the religion forum, a Christian says,

Putting ones sins on Jesus was not the harmful element that killed Him. Jesus took those sins UPON Him, whilst being crucified by the harmful acts of those who were against Him.

…that the Catholic Church is ALL ABOUT accepting blame for the sins of the past.

 

[Rhea]

This is an interesting thread because it is a living, happening illustration of how these atrocities occur. A person defends an institution because it is their institution and goes to any length to defend it, despite it being guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

And what makes it so terribly worse is that the institution is supposedly the paragon of virtue and behavior when it comes to morals.

Loyalty to a fault is the lesson of the day.

This is so true, and what makes Angra Mainyu’s desie to argue that the Catholic Church has done nothing wrong, has no reason to apologize, should not be made to look for the rest of the bodies, and is right to cover up the sins of its past because if they can just keep it hidden until some certain time has passed, then they can smile and proclaim their holiness, so disturbing.

It’s really painful to watch him argue that this entity, which has covered up rapes, murders, cultural genocide, which has contributed to the AIDS tragedy by undermining the use of condoms, which has embraced laws in Africa which put a death sentence on gays, which has oppressed women and protected rapists by moving them to a new place to rape some more, which has secretly paid off victims and forced them to be silent about their trauma, which pays no taxes to support itself and bathes in gold fripperies, expensive jewels, ornate vestments, that this entitly has nothing to apologize for, and all of its adherents are mere innocent bystanders.

For pages now, he has tried to argue that the Catholic church can harbor criminals and never be at fault.



I’m personally done arguing that. I see that pattern. Question minutiae to distract from the rotten core. Pretend this distraction equals absolution. Hail Mary you are free to go, reborn and repurified, unrepentant.


Nope. I will feel empathy for those who suffered trauma at the hands of this church and all of its people; those who murdered, and those who protected them, and those who wish to walk away from the wreckage, but cling to the cloak of the church’s past as if it can lend them legitimacy after all it’s done.

 

[Angry Floof]

Christianity, and the RCC in particular, are institutions based in NOT holding power accountable, and every priest and authority figure and parishioner helps prop that up. I think it takes an average of something like 200 years for the RCC to take the lesson and apologize for all the people it killed and condemned for blasphemy or heresy.

If they don't take responsibility for that, they will always be a liability to humanity. They'll always be a murderous cancer if they don't become adults who take responsibility for their actions and for their stunted, inhumane institution that in some way influences the entire world.

There is no rational reason to believe the RCC will stop abusing and hiding the abuse. As we speak, they are abusing children, and we might find out about it in 20, 30 years. Until we stop giving religion a pedestal and a free pass on accountability, the RCC and institutions like it will continue to abuse and murder children.

Hold. Them. Accountable.

 

[laughing dog]

From the Wikipedia page  Catholic_Church

The Catholic Church, often referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church and the largest religious denomination, with approximately 1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide as of 2019.[4][7] As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution,[8] it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilisation.[9]

The RCC prides itself on being a long-lasting institutional beacon of Christianity and moral teaching. It preserves its traditions. The RCC proudly trumpets and stands by its actions and teaching. Why anyone would think it is unreasonable to hold it accountable its actions is beyond comprehension.

People hold institutions accountable for actions taken under the institutional name/aegis all the time.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is an interesting thread because it is a living, happening illustration of how these atrocities occur. A person defends an institution because it is their institution and goes to any length to defend it, despite it being guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

And what makes it so terribly worse is that the institution is supposedly the paragon of virtue and behavior when it comes to morals.

Loyalty to a fault is the lesson of the day.

This is so true, and what makes Angra Mainyu’s desie to argue that the Catholic Church has done nothing wrong, has no reason to apologize, should not be made to look for the rest of the bodies, and is right to cover up the sins of its past because if they can just keep it hidden until some certain time has passed, then they can smile and proclaim their holiness, so disturbing.

It’s really painful to watch him argue that this entity, which has covered up rapes, murders, cultural genocide, which has contributed to the AIDS tragedy by undermining the use of condoms, which has embraced laws in Africa which put a death sentence on gays, which has oppressed women and protected rapists by moving them to a new place to rape some more, which has secretly paid off victims and forced them to be silent about their trauma, which pays no taxes to support itself and bathes in gold fripperies, expensive jewels, ornate vestments, that this entitly has nothing to apologize for, and all of its adherents are mere innocent bystanders.

For pages now, he has tried to argue that the Catholic church can harbor criminals and never be at fault.



I’m personally done arguing that. I see that pattern. Question minutiae to distract from the rotten core. Pretend this distraction equals absolution. Hail Mary you are free to go, reborn and repurified, unrepentant.


Nope. I will feel empathy for those who suffered trauma at the hands of this church and all of its people; those who murdered, and those who protected them, and those who wish to walk away from the wreckage, but cling to the cloak of the church’s past as if it can lend them legitimacy after all it’s done.

Gosh that post kicks me in the jibblies with it's truth.