TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,098
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
My mom, Irish Catholic American, is responsible for the Canadian government's school system how?
Tom
-
Features
Aboriginal Civil Disobedience
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
My mom, Irish Catholic American, is responsible for the Canadian government's school system how?
Tom
Cut the crap TomC. I'll grant neither you nor your wife is responsible for it but you should both give a fuck ok?
laughing dog
Contributor
Why do you believe your mom is the Roman Catholic Church?
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,098
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
OK.
I oppose the genocidal tendencies of EuroColonialist societies of yore. They are legion! So are the ugly ethics of nearly every culture I know about. I care about them.
But not as much as the ethically ugly tendencies of modern societies. Which are both legion and possibly fixable. I don't care as much about century old crimes as the ones happening right now.
Tom
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,098
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
You usually find out about wrongdoing sometime after it actually happened. The only difference between you & me is the amount of time that passes by before discovery. Thanks for letting us know you have a set amount of time for giving a shit and that you don't care about the mass graves of children.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,098
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
That is not the only difference between us dude.
Tom
laughing dog
Contributor
Ah, so you now realize that your comment about your mother is irrelevant because you are the one confusing your mother with the Roman Catholic Church, not me.
laughing dog
Contributor
The misperceived hate for the Catholic Church on the part of some posters is more important than the mistreatment and mass graves of indigenous children.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,843
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
For those of you who think we're beating up on the RCC: I'm pretty certain that we'd find mass unmarked graves of children on the property of other churches who were charged with the care and feeding of children. I just don't know that anyone has looked yet.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Some will mistakenly believe so, if they bother to look. But then again, I'm not writing for them.laughing dog said:
No. Any horrific act committed by person A in the name of the RCC makes person A guilty. It does not make anyone else guilty. Moral guilt is not transmissible. One cannot make another person guilty of anything.laughing dog said:
It is true that in the real world, many people engage in group think and fail to realize that.
Oh, you mean the spokeperson? The person who gets the order to relay someone else's apology? Sure.laughing dog said:
But that is not the scenario. The scenario is that Francis apologizes, not that he relays someone else's apology. If he apologizes, he is recognizing guilt because that is what an apology involves. If he however says he apologizes while blaming someone else, he is not apologizing at all. Rather, he is blaming someone else. And if he says he apologizes but does not say whether he blames someone else, then it will likely be ambiguous whether he is apologizing.
Now, if no one believes he is to blame, why are they demanding that he apologizes? Would they be satisfied if he claimed something like: 'Some people did horrific things in the name of the Catholic Church. Of course, I am not to blame, but they are.'
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,843
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
An apology is not the same thing as accepting guilt or even responsibility:
A school sends a group of students on a school sanctioned field trip to a museum. All of the students are chaperoned, and have been thoroughly briefed on the conduct expected of them during the outing. Nonetheless, some student or students engage in a bit of horseplay and damage a display.
Obviously, the students owe the museum, their teachers and their school an apology. They or their parents may well also owe for damages.
However, the chaperoning teachers also owe an apology to the museum and to the school for failing in their chaperoning duties. Surely they would be expected to also offer some ways to avoid a similar situation in the future.
The school itself, by way of principal or other head administrator also owes an apology to the museum. It also owes an apology to the staff and students, parents and community because students under its auspices caused damage at the museum and further damage to the reputation of the school, and by extension, any other school group or students who in the future might wish to go to the museum for a field trip. The school might also bear some financial liabilities, depending on the circumstances and state laws, etc.
The parents surely bear some responsibility for not raising their children to be respectful of the museum, other people's property or of representing the school when they went on the field trip.
Note: The ones guilty of the damage are the students. The chaperoning adults bear responsibility for failing to adequately supervise the offending students. The school bears some responsibility for ensuring that all student groups are properly chaperoned which means that the school is adequately staffed, which is often an ongoing issue in education.
Only the students caused the damage but others who had supervisory positions over them also bear responsibility.
During and preceding WWII, many pieces of art owned by Jews were seized by Nazis and used as spoils of war. In the intervening years since, many pieces of art have emerged from...auspices that seemed very likely to have been through the theft of artworks owned or painted by Jews who died in the Holocaust.
Suppose I inherit such a painting. My ancestors had no idea that the artwork was obtained through war crimes or theft--they bought it honestly enough, if somewhat naively. Perhaps they didn't even believe that the piece was authentic but merely a very good copy. In any case, I, born years after WWII, now own the art piece. During a social gathering, an art professor notes the piece and asks me questions about it and expresses suspicions that it might be an authentic piece of art that was stolen during WWII and only years later made its way into the market. He knows some people with expertise, and I agree to have the painting evaluated and the provenance of the painting examined thoroughly by experts. Several noted experts come to the same conclusion: my inherited painting was actually stolen from a Jewish family.
Although I have zero guilt in obtaining this artwork through illgotten means nor did my ancestors who acquired it honestly (or so they believed), I still have an obligation to see that painting returned to any surviving members of that family from whom the painting was stolen. Not because I did something wrong but because it is the right thing to do. In fact, that obligation might well be legal as well as moral.
The RCC as well as other churches undertook to forcibly convert indigenous peoples in Canada (and the US) by forcibly abducting their children, housing them in residential schools, and basically attempting to beat the Indian out of them: forbidding them to speak their own language, keep their own names, communicate with family members, using harsh discipline (even harsher than what was used at other schools---we all are aware of how much corporal punishment was thought to be the correct way to discipline children even when you and I were kids), poor nutrition and poor sanitation, inadequate clothing or medical care and very meager 'education' as the purpose was to make the indigenous children Good Christians and Good Servants for white people.
Many of these children died and most were never seen again by their families who never learned of the fates of their children, whether they lived or died. Many of the children, especially those taken young enough, likely forgot how to speak their own language and could not communicate with their people, even if they found their way back home. Many were 'assimilated' into 'white' society.
You or I or any American or Canadian living today almost certainly had nothing at all to do with such actions taken by the Canadian government, the US government or any of the churches, including the RCC. But we do have the responsibility of acknowledging the grave harm done to these children, these families, these peoples and to do our best to make whatever amends can now be made. That means that we hold our government and our churches accountable for what they did. It means that these bodies all acknowledge what they did, that it was wrong, apologize for these past grievous harms, do the utmost possible to ensure that such atrocities never happen again and to sit with people and try to determine what penance or compensation might help address these terrible wrongs.
For the RCC, it starts with Pope Francis because he's the pope and it's his job. It is the job of all members of any church which so engaged in these so called residential schools to insist that their church step forward, acknowledge guilt for the past sins of the church and to do its best to make amends. And the same with citizens of Canada and the US.
After all, doesn't the Catholic church believe in confession of sins, making a penance and sinning no more? If it believes this is what its faithful must do, so must the Church itself do.
When the RCC (and other social dominance authoritarian cults that pretend to be the epitome of goodness and morality) have full responsibility of children or other vulnerable people, that those people will be abused is the rule and not the exception.
When The RCC does not have full responsibility for the care of vulnerable people, such as children and disabled people who have families and caretakers and support networks comprised of laypeople and not officials of the church, those people are by and large fine because the only role for the clergy is to just visit now and then and offer the empty bullshit spiritual crap to "give people strength," etc., and be loved as a kind of caretaker without actually having to deal with the day to day of changing diapers and giving meds and dealing with seizures or whatever.
The divine goodness and caretaker role bullshit is obviously for show. When it's time to put their money where their mouth is, such as running orphanages and feeding all those orphans and making sure they have food and love and decent care, the veneer of goodness and dedication falls apart. Again, when vulnerable people are not under full responsibility of churches, abuse is the rule and not the exception.
Secular organizations abuse, too. But when they are found out, they are brought to justice immediately, no waiting 200 years for a limp apology statement, but people going to jail now, in our lifetimes. And when laws are passed to protect the vulnerable from people, those laws are secular (because religious law doesn't change for the purpose of protecting the vulernable; it changes for the purpose of protecting abusive father figures), and secular organizations can be scrutinized by secular society and the culprits held accountable.
The RCC enjoys protection from accountability, and we're all bigots if we think that should change.
And for the topic, once again, if you have any sense of balance of power and an understanding of how easily power is corrupted and how the vulnerable are always the ones to pay for it, not to mention empathy for human children rather than a corrupt organization, you wouldn't have the stomach to condemn the arsons in this case.
Elixir
Made in America
I agree that organizations abuse people. I'm not sure about the swift hand of justice when it comes to high profile individuals though. Can you say Gym Jordan?
True. Those types are a similar and related cult. The RCC and cults like it will always seek power in governments, secular or otherwise.
But secular, democratic governments and societies have the values and institutions that can hold such corruption accountable. It's not guaranteed that it will succeed at that, but it's the only thing that can.
… and no one in the church stopped it.
That’s the culpability, that “the church”. Who is the church? “The church” is all of the people who said nothing while grave harm was done, and all of the people who gave aid and comfort to those who did harm. They supported it with their membership and their tithes.
Now, if they truly didn’t know AND if they truly are innocent, they would be outraged right now that members of their church did this and no church authority cared to monitor or follow up on complaints. They would be demanding an acounting of the records. They would be demanding to know who knew.
Are they? Nope. That’s “aid and comfort.” That’s the protection racket.
That is such a cowardly cop-out on their part.
Fucking moral cowards.
“That was my dad, not me, so I won’t even ask for an investigation, because I care more about avoiding the topic than finding the children.”
Every Catholic who is NOT demanding that the church spend its money on finding those bodies is currently, today, harboring the criminals and their reputations.
He is to blame for not caring to look into the many decades of complaints.
He has the records at his disposal. He has had them since assuming office. Since being a cardinal. He also knows the indigenous people have been complaining about this since it started. He is not ignorant of the schools and what they did on the surface; taking children from their families and culture. He knows this, as we all did. He ALSO knows that they have been appealing to the RCC for answers for 100 years. He, presonally, chose to not care to answer their questions. They have asked him, personally, FOR YEARS to look into this.
He, personally, has refused.
He should apologize for that - for harboring the criminals. He has protected them against investigation in the face of indigenous complaints.
But you want to play a shell game of minutiae, and pretend that he is innocent of all wrongdoing. Yo don’t even see how he uses the power of his office “the church” to shut down the investigations. He has, personally, had 51 years to do this.
Rhea, you don't understand. There was this one time when all the bad people were Catholics, but then later, they were not the bad people.
See? Now shut your filthy mouth.
See? Now shut your filthy mouth.
laughing dog
Contributor
You are mistaken.
Why are you babbling about persons when the discussion is about an institution?Angra Mainyu said:
Why are you babbling about this mythical “”group yhink”?Angra Mainyu said:
Your babbling word salad is based on the false premise that the Pope does not speak for and on the behalf of the RCC.Angra Mainyu said:
Elixir
Made in America
That's how right wing institutional apologetics work. If you condemn the institution, they point at individuals.
Condemn the individuals and they lament that it's the fault of the institution, and assert that most of its members are very fine people.
That way no institution OR individual ever gets held responsible.
Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!