Monday, February 08, 2010

Stephen Fry on the Roman Catholic Church


The Intelligence² Debate - Stephen Fry (Unedited)

Gosh.

You don't hear sermons like this from the the church pulpits anymore (pace Northern Ireland). Indeed, a Protestant minister might find himself arrested for inciting 'religious hatred'. Can you imagine the consequences of this sort of vitriol being expressed towards Islam?

William Crawley says: "Watching Stephen Fry attack Catholicism here reminds me of Ian Paisley at the Oxford Union decades ago."

Cranmer begs to differ.

Dr Paisley knows history and understands theology.

286 Comments:

Blogger David Vance said...

Yes, and he knows how to betray it as well.

8 February 2010 at 17:00  
Blogger John.D said...

Cranmer,

I am suspecting a conspiracy here. This morning I had no sooner finnished reading the BBC article about the Sikhs when I arrived here to see it a topic; now I have just finnished viewing this video only moments ago to discover another post by you. I am suspecting we view the same sources such as William Crawley's tweet.

A dam good speech by Fry here, even if it hurts so. At the end of the day he is ultimately wrong, but wow!

8 February 2010 at 17:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I think I am seeing in stereoscope. A tooth brush moustache keeps appearing on Fry's face.

Are posters experiencing technical difficulties with the video?

8 February 2010 at 17:17  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

There is much that could be said and perhaps we need to reflect at length, but two short back to back quotations.

The first from Dominican Pedro de Cordoba one of many Catholic Bishops exiled or imprisoned by the secular powers addressing the King in 1517

"I do not read or find that any nation, even amongst the infidel, has perpetrated so many evils and cruelties on their enemies in the style and manner in which Christians have done on these sad people who have been their friends and helpers in their own land"

and more recently

' Down the centuries, this temptation to ensure the faith's survival by power has re-emerged in many different forms, and always the faith has been threatened with suffocation in the embrace of power. The struggle for the freedom of the Church , the struggle so that the kingdom of Jesus not be assimilated into any political form must be carried out in every century" Pope Benedict XVI.

It would appear that the Church he so vilifies, spends considerable time contemplating its own inadequacies and failures. Somehow it remains a presence amongst the poor, the unlovely, the dispossessed in a way that liberals like Mr Fry never seem to quite manage. He goes to Uganda, to make his documentaries, and then returns to the Grouch Club that would never admit those, on whose behalf he affects outrage. The Catholic nuns and Fathers remain, and do so in faithful service of the Church and in accordance with the Gospel of Christ which they learnt there.

I struggle to find similar self sacrificing commitment, or any introspection and acknowledgement of responsibility for the failings of liberal culture by such self righteous "enlightenment" bigots.

8 February 2010 at 17:37  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Your Grace,

Mr Fry didnt say anything new there,he shares the same opinion as many, but lets face it he could have been talking about any religion ,NO faith on earth is without its sins and sinners.

8 February 2010 at 17:40  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

What a great video! He puts the case so much better than Dawkins.

8 February 2010 at 17:59  
Blogger dmk said...

Your Grace, compared to your piece on Richard Dawkins a few days ago, the lack of a detailed rebuttal of Fry's arguments here speaks volumes. It won't do simply to dismiss his critique as incitement to religious hatred. If Fry's peddling any myths, they need to be countered with facts. If he is not then where are the people ready to hold their hands up?

8 February 2010 at 18:17  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

dmk

Please see my post above

He doubtless prepared his invective over weeks, please allow us to listen and reflect before a fuller response.

8 February 2010 at 19:00  
Blogger Ray said...

Stephen Fry was obviously constrained by time, otherwise the list of horrors, all proven and well known, would have tripled the length of his excellent argument. Unless you can provide positive proof that any of the horrors credited to the roman catholic church are false then it is the height of foolish self deception to disagree with him.
Saying that other churches are as bad doesn't change an iota.

8 February 2010 at 19:31  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, Mr. Fry is at least passionate about what he believes. It was nice to see that at least, which is more that what you get from any of the main party political leaders. He, is not, however, very ecumenical. But I have heard his reasons for not endorsing the church of Rome, being spoken by many a Protestant in my time. It is just who is saying this, which is grabbing the headline.

8 February 2010 at 19:37  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

One hesitates to criticize or comment on Mr Fry's point of view because if he takes exception to what you say, you risk being attacked by him through his 100,000 or more twitter fans; and if you are in a waged occupation those little piranhas will complain to your boss, anxious to deprive you of your livelihood.

He claims he is full of love for everyone. He probably says that looking in a mirror.

And any further comments I might like to make on his lifestyle would probably get my collar felt by the law.

So say what you like, Mr Fry. It's a sort of free country. The Catholic Church will still be around when you are dead, dust and forgotten

8 February 2010 at 19:37  
Blogger John.D said...

There isn't much you can say against him here I am afraid, he has attacked quite directly and not without accuracy in aim. I could get personal but that would be subjective and futile. Even those present at the debate looked totally aghast. But this is only what has been brought about by worldly madness and narrow minded delusion. The charge is levelled at the entire church, and she has been guilty of neglect, but let he without sin cast the first stone. God is God, the same today as always, and the church is man.

Personally, I am more aghast at what is taking place in our Christian communities as a whole: It is a travesty that seems to be a one way street. The church can hopefully learn and change, this remains to be seen.

I have just been walking the dog on the beach (again). I was thinking about the horrible words from the video that do indeed hurt, and it is impossible not to connect. My only hope is this, that things will turn around, and I am quite willing to hope, in fact it is essential that I believe it will.

As I watched the tide come in over the sand this evening, it struck me that it rushes in across the beach far more dramatically than when it goes out. And, in a very refreshing way it surges up the channels that were used to drain the sands when the tide flowed out.

It may suit some to think that as a Catholic, a man's faith would be damaged by these revelations, but I am able to say that I believe the real damage that has been caused to many should not be swept under the carpet in some PR damage limitation programme, on the contrary we should seek to make amends and heal the wounds where ever they exist and wait for the tide to turn and flow back in.

8 February 2010 at 19:56  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

I would like to see what would happen if it had been about islam and he had inserted this every time he criticised the RC church. Fatwa or what??

8 February 2010 at 19:58  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Fry has gone up considerably in my estimation with his critique of Catholicism .
..........
Jesus Christ didn`t come to start a new religion but to restore mans broken relationship with God.This was the total purpose of His mission on earth.
...............................
As for the pomp and ceremony of religion Jesus didn`t sit on a throne bedecked with gold and having a gold crown on His head quite the reverse in fact,

Jesus coming to earth is described in Philippians 2:6, He, "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”
.................
Mr Fry speaks of Truth, Truth is a person Jesus Christ.Jesus said to them in John 8:32 “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. “Therefore if the son makes you free you will be free indeed"

8 February 2010 at 19:59  
Anonymous Cambridge Graduate said...

Ah so Cranmer is an Oxford Man! Explains this blog! What !

8 February 2010 at 20:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am with Len. Fry could have been a Protestant Minister saying this! Perhaps the Church of Rome should sell all its treasurers and give them to the poor!

8 February 2010 at 20:01  
Anonymous not a machine said...

cant help but think of frys turkish delight add

8 February 2010 at 20:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

‘The peril is hat the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into he sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, “Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements I the brain of the bewildered ape?” The young sceptic says, “I have a right to think for myself.” But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.”

‘There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of skepticism called “Doubts of the Instrument.” I this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were only the dark defences erected round one central authority, more indemonstrable, more supernatural than all - the authority of a man to think.’

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

By the time the so called Enlightenment reaches G.W. Hegel (1770 -1831) philosophers have given up on using Greek methodology in thought to discover Absolute Truth. Greek thought pattern was: A is A and A is not non-A. That is an Apple is an Apple and is not a Banana. Hegel proposed, in the abstract, that the past, present and future was an interplay between ’thesis’ and its ’anti-thesis’ and in the end these ’two forces’ would end in a ’synthesis’ (German Idealism).

"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'"
Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich (1959, page 144)

Marx (1818 -1883) came along and said that he had turned Hegel on his head. That is he took Hegel’s system turned it upside down by ‘locating’ in the material world. The working-class was the thesis and the ruling-class was the anti-thesis and the revolution would culminate in the classless society.

But the question remains why can’t the interplay of these two classes produce a middle-class? Notice the method for arriving at philosophical truth changed to: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis. That is: an Apple +Pear = Banana!

But this methodology of despair to arrive at the truth can justify anything: for it can produce the proposal for oblong bananas in the fascist European Union; the murdering of millions of so-called ‘counter-revolutionaries’ in the Soviet Union and Red China and the reasoning in Roe v. Wade (1973) abortion decision where Justice Blackmun found the support for his decision, that sanctioned the killing of millions of babies, in the ’penumbra’ of the American constitution: the shadows of the Constitution.

8 February 2010 at 20:25  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

“He sounds like a protestant” Is that really the best you can come with?

Fry mounts a withering attack on your church and all you can do is snigger. Will no-one address the issues he raises?

8 February 2010 at 20:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Fry raises the treatment of Galileo.

The Experiment Galileo Didn’t Do: We read in textbooks about how Galileo went to the Tower of Pisa and dropped light and heavy bodies to the ground. He discovered that they hit the ground at the same time, thus refuting centuries of idle medieval theorizing. Actually Galileo didn’t do any such experiments; one of his students did. The student discovered what we all can discover by doing similar experiments ourselves: the heavy bodies hit the ground first! As historian of science Thomas Kuhn points out, it is only in the absence of air resistance that all bodies hit the ground at the same time.

Galileo Was the First to Prove Heliocentrism: Actually, Copernicus advanced the heliocentric theory that the sun, not the earth, is at the center, and that the earth goes around the sun. He did this more than half a century before Galileo. But Copernicus had no direct evidence, and he admitted that there were serious obstacles from experience that told against his theory. For instance, if the earth is moving rapidly, why don’t objects thrown up into the air land a considerable distance away from their starting point? Galileo defended heliocentrism, but one of his most prominent arguments was wrong. Galileo argued that the earth’s regular motion sloshes around the water in the oceans and explains the tides. In reality, tides have more to do with the moon’s gravitational force acting upon the earth.

The Church Dogmatically Opposed the New Science: In reality, the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. They were open to Galileo’s theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. This was the view of the greatest astronomer of the age, Tyco Brahe. The Church’s view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” Galileo had no such proofs.

8 February 2010 at 20:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Galileo Was A Victim of Torture and Abuse: This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under “house arrest” although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.

The Church Was Wrong To Convict Galileo of Heresy: But Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. He had assured Cardinal Bellarmine that given the sensitivity of the issue, he would not publicly promote heliocentrism. Yet when a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo’s book can plainly see. Even Galileo’s supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point.
What can we conclude from all this? Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but we know that only in retrospect because of evidence that emerged after Galileo’s death. The Church should not have tried him at all, although Galileo’s reckless conduct contributed to his fate. Even so, his fate was not so terrible. Historian Gary Ferngren concludes that “the traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and as a victim of the church’s opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature.”

D'Souza

8 February 2010 at 20:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Fry, upon his philosophic basis, moral relativism, would fail to press home the attack upon National Socialism (a product of the Enlightenment).

8 February 2010 at 20:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

And so would you.

8 February 2010 at 20:44  
Blogger John.D said...

These are sad times, sad times. It's enough to make a boy scout piss on his fire.

Bob Jones' University has a lot to answer for Your Grace.

8 February 2010 at 20:57  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

len said...

Mr Fry has gone up considerably in my estimation with his critique of Catholicism .
This comment apart, I think Len's comments are right to the point.
Fry does not go up in my estimation, brilliant though his critique was. He set out to attack the RC church, but only articulated what any reasonably informed person should conclude, that the RC church is the essence of corruption, in spite of its seeming Christian orthodoxy.
However, merely to condemn the RC church for its evident corruption is a very superficial approach.
What Fry does not mention, because I assume he is not aware of it, is the spiritual deception that marks out the RC church from all others.
It is the RC's claim that "outside the church there is no salvation". That is a terrible lie, for it places the "church" as an intermediary between man and God.

On the contrary, Scripture teaches that salvation is extended to all and any who repent of their sins and believe on the sufficiency of Christ's death upon the cross for forgiveness of sins - WITHOUT ANY OTHER INTERVENING INTERMEDIARY.
That was the faith of the forgiven thief upon the cross next to Jesus - where there was - no priest, no Mary, no saint, no church, no purgatory - only faith in Christ alone,of whom Jesus declared:
"This day you will be with me in paradise"

8 February 2010 at 21:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The Flat Earth Fallacy: According to the atheist narrative, the medieval Christians all believed that the earth was flat until the brilliant scientists showed up in the modern era to prove that it was round. In reality, educated people in the Middle Ages knew that the earth was round. In fact, the ancient Greeks in the fifth century B.C. knew the earth was a globe. They didn’t need modern science to point out the obvious. They could see that when a ship went over the horizon, the hull and the mast disappear at different times. Even more telling, during an eclipse they could see the earth’s shadow on the moon. Look fellas, it’s round!

8 February 2010 at 21:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Huxley’s Mythical Put-Down: We read in various books about the great debate between Darwin’s defender Thomas Henry Huxley and poor Bishop Wilberforce. As the story goes, Wilberforce inquired of Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his father or mother’s side, and Huxley winningly responded that he would rather be descended from an ape than from an ignorant bishop who was misled people about the findings of science. A dramatic denouement, to be sure, but the only problem is that it never happened. There is no record of it in the proceedings of the society that held the debate, and Darwin’s friend Joseph Hooker who informed him about the debate said that Huxley made no rejoinder to Wilberforce’s arguments.

8 February 2010 at 21:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Darwin Against the Christians: As myth would have it, when Darwin’s published his Origin of Species, the scientists lined up on one side and the Christians lined up on the other side. In reality, there were good scientific arguments made both in favor of Darwin and against him. The British naturalist Richard Owen, the Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz, and the renowned physicist Lord Kelvin all had serious reservations about Darwin’s theory. Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb points out that while some Christians found evolution inconsistent with the Bible, many Christians rallied to Darwin’s side. Typical was the influential Catholic journal Dublin Review which extravagantly praised Darwin’s book while registering only minor objections.

8 February 2010 at 21:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Three cheers to progress!

"Doctor, I have an ear ache."
2000 BC - "Here, eat this root."
1000 BC - "That root is heathen, say this prayer."
1850 AD - "That prayer is superstition, drink this potion."
1940 AD - "That potion is snake oil, swallow this pill."
1985 AD - "That pill is ineffective, take this antibiotic."
2000 AD - "That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root!"

8 February 2010 at 21:11  
Blogger John.D said...

Graham Wood

"This day you will be with me in paradise"

It does in fact say this, but we learn from scripture that Christ actually descended into hell, and he did not ascend into Heaven until three days after he had been crucified. This bit always confuses me. It seems there are endless interpretations and I would not wish to try and take yours away from you.

8 February 2010 at 21:16  
Anonymous Church of England said...

“He sounds like a protestant” Is that really the best you can come with?

Fry mounts a withering attack on your church and all you can do is snigger. Will no-one address the issues he raises?

Oh come on Davies, Cranmer is part of the ANGLICAN CHURCH. Fry attacks the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Getit?????

8 February 2010 at 21:20  
Blogger John.D said...

The Apostles' Creed (As used by the Anglican Communion)

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried.
****He descended into hell.****
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."

8 February 2010 at 21:25  
Blogger Drosera said...

Indeed, the Catholic Church is not a force for good in this world. The arguments are eloquently put forward by Stephen Fry and they are impossible to refute.

It is true, however, that the same can be said about many, if not all other religions. Ultimately, they are all based on lies and hallucinations. It's depressing to think that even today billions of people believe in things that were evidently made up by mentally deranged people or downright frauds (e.g. Joseph Smith jr., St. Paul, L. Ron Hubbard). All believers are convinced that their particular brand of nonsense is true, and all the other brands are false. How likely is it that any of them is right?

8 February 2010 at 21:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Drosera

As you are depressed you are not in a position to make a judgment.

8 February 2010 at 21:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Drosera

You've advanced from Descartes' postion who once said: 'I think therefore I am.'

You think, therfore you're depressed.

Keep taking the root.

8 February 2010 at 21:37  
Blogger Drosera said...

The patients are running the asylum here.

8 February 2010 at 21:40  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Interesting, Your Grace. I watched this debate in full, a few weeks ago: it's over on the IQ2 site. Ended up pretty disgusted with the forum's claim to IQ!!

As Widdecombe stressed and Fry repeats, the motion was "Catholicism is A Force for Good in the World." Not always, everywhere, often, or even the only force - it's just one of them. Fry, though, seems categorically to deny that there was ever any good about it anywhere for anyone.

Now I'm not RC. Chaucer was right; and I thank God that we had a Reformation (but Fry misses out that bit of the history he pretends to privilege). However, the Church has done many good things, and still does - therefore the motion was winnable. Widdecombe and the Bishop mention some.

As to Fry's rhetoric: Just for the record ... I went to a couple of RC convents and no nun ever did or said anything she shouldn't to me. Furthermore, the education was wonderful ... thence my love of Latin and languages.

I also went to an ordinary (well, you know) Grammar School. Nobody did anything to me there either: but a couple of those females gave every indication that they would have if they could. So my own experience is not that all RC education is fundamentally flawed; but I have met others who suffered. There are, however, plenty of flawed individuals in all educational institutions, and always will be. I've also seen marxists in higher education get away with grave injustice.

On Thomas More --- I'd need to look again, of course. Last time I did, he was a friend of Erasmus - the Dutch humanist. Erasmus, was impressed by the intellect of More's daughter, Margaret; and he encouraged her to publish a translation of the Pater Noster, from Latin to English. I have a copy in my filing cabinet...her father did not prevent that. In fact he championed education for women: ran a little co-educational school, at home. So... anti-feminist? Anti-translation-into-English?
Margaret cared about her father, visited him in prison, etc; and after his excution she rescued his head from it's spike on the bridge, pickled it, and kept it. I thought that a bit odd, admittedly. However, it may have something to do with Celtic tradition..... (the power of the tribe against its enemies resides in the head - even after death).

Further still, it depends on who was running the Church as to who encouraged preaching and translation of Scripture into the vernacular. From 597 on, and especially through the influence of Theodore and Hadrian, a tradition of such translation developed in England. Now, Billy Conk and those put a spoke in the wheel; but we actually didn't have to wait for Stephen Fry to champion it in the first place.

Finally, because this is long: anyone who understands Christianity knows that it does not suppress individual though, but insists on the right, indeed the responsibility, of the individual: each of us must contribute to our own redemption, and be prepared to answer to God the Judge -- for our actions in life!! Now just because individuals in the Church have failed to uphold their reasons for being, does not mean they all always did: and Fry makes no admission of the good things the Church has done. He doesn't even credit them with development and preservation of English in England - from which he clearly makes a good living.

The points above are mostly mine; but I thought the Bishop and Widdecombe said enough to win the debate as it was defined. That audience had no intention of hearing them, though; ears shut was the order of the day. I say the IQ set up was rigged --- Neither I, nor most communicants here, would ever have got a ticket to that "debate."

8 February 2010 at 21:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where are the Time Lords when you need them? Oh yeah, they are busy defending NuLabour from Cameron, the Daleks and any other cyber creature that stalks the halls of the elctoral commision.

Jesus Christ help us, now is the time if ever there was one.

8 February 2010 at 21:41  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Hallo John. You said:
"It does in fact say this, but we learn from scripture that Christ actually descended into hell, and he did not ascend into Heaven until three days after he had been crucified. This bit always confuses me. It seems there are endless interpretations and I would not wish to try and take yours away from you."

I agree that the verse in Luke is difficult, but only if taken in isolation from the rest of Scripture. I can only offer the following tentatively.
We do know from various texts of the truth that all believers go to be "with Christ" immediately after the point of death. Their condition is difficult for us, still 'earthbound', to understand or explain. I also think that the difficulty is compounded only if we think of the events immediately following Christ's death as being set in a fixed time frame from "His" point in the narrative for he was outside the limits of time.
The references to time - i.e. rising the 'third day' etc, were all in fulfillment of earlier Scripture prophecies more to do with vindicating the fact of the resurrection of Christ exactly as foretold - rather than a literal time sequence in relation to the thief. But agree - 'tis mystery all !

8 February 2010 at 21:44  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Oh dear sorry -'individual thought.'

8 February 2010 at 21:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Drosera

‘A man can more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.’

C.S. Lewis

8 February 2010 at 21:48  
Anonymous laphion said...

The only thing that sticks in my mind about Fry is when he played Oscar Wilde, and the graphic scene when he was on his back taking it up the anus. That was acting (or was it), but he is homosexual, and that scene brought the full horrors of it to the fore. This man has no ground above any, so far the ground beneaath the cross is still fairly even.

8 February 2010 at 21:50  
Blogger Drosera said...

graham Wood,

Since Jesus probably never existed there is no need to worry about such theological minutiae.

8 February 2010 at 21:52  
Blogger Drosera said...

D. Singh,

Yes, the writer of childrens' stories is quite an appropriate authority when it comes to religion.

8 February 2010 at 21:54  
Blogger Drosera said...

D. Singh,

I think your quote should read ' (...) no more (...)'

(And I should have written children's instead of childrens'.)

8 February 2010 at 21:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Drosera

Childish remarks will not do. A little more homework and a little less rhetoric will do very nicely.

Thank you;)

8 February 2010 at 22:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I have never studied theology. Those of you who have it is your duty before God and men - to use your training.

Pah!

8 February 2010 at 22:13  
Blogger John.D said...

Graham Wood

Cranmer might have something to say about changing the creed to suit your own interpretation.

8 February 2010 at 22:17  
Blogger Drosera said...

D. Singh,

Oh, I did my homework. I went to a Christian school, where we used to read from the Bible. I was so good at it that I even, as a ten year old, helped other children in my class read from the 'Holy Book'. Around that time it gradually dawned upon me that all those tales about Moses and King David and Jesus couldn't be true. So I lost my faith and never regretted it.

I guess I wasn't gullible enough.

Goodnight

8 February 2010 at 22:22  
Anonymous Bigland said...

Drosera,

And yet gullible enough to believe "Jesus probably never existed."

8 February 2010 at 22:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Then you have a great deal in common with the Grandfather of Nazism: Nietzsche (1844 - 1900).

8 February 2010 at 22:27  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Galileo, a great scientist but somewhat tempestuous, had difficulty in countering the point that if the earth went round the sun, the stars would change their relative positions as the seasons progressed because we would be seeing them at a slightly different angle.

As we now know the stars are at almost inconceivable distances from the Earth. The 'stellar parallax' as it is called was not identified until 1838 by Friedrich Bessel and it is very small, less than 1 second of arc for the nearest star. This is about one eighteen hundredth (1/1800) of the angular diameter of the full moon.

Even the absolute size of the orbits of the planets was not known until about 1771, though, thanks to Kepler, their relative sizes could be inferred.

Having discovered the satellites of Jupiter, he could argue by analogy, but many claimed that these were figments of his imagination. Today anyone with a good pair of binoculars can observe them if they look carefully. At the same time they can marvel at Galileo's genius in that he could see them at all with the quality of his telescopes. It's not surprising that others were sceptical.

So Galileo was in the position where he intuited that his theory was logical, but he couldn't prove it in a scientific way.

This adds to D.Singh's point at 20:40

8 February 2010 at 22:30  
Anonymous Protestant voice of the UK said...

"The patients are running the asylum here."

Indeed! The Church of Rome has erred in its mission to follow the Lord Jesus Christ! The Pope is no more falliable than I. How can a Priest change water to wine? And where does the Bible justify this? The Church of Rome,as Fry points out, allows for people to pay their way out of sin! So,I agree with the analysis of this man, even if I disagree with some of his more left wing views.

8 February 2010 at 22:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

They come here because they see something in the faith of posters here that they do not see and hear in the touchy-feely Christians out there.

Moths will alaways be attracted to the candle flame.

8 February 2010 at 22:31  
Anonymous Atheism First said...

"Moths will alaways be attracted to the candle flame."

Singh is clearly the moth attracted to this blog then!

8 February 2010 at 22:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Some of you are thinking you won't fight. Others, that you can't fight. They all say that until they're out there. [Picks up a sword] Thrust this into another man's chest, and the crowd will applaud and love you for it. In time, you may even begin to love them for that. Ultimately, we're all dead men. Sadly, we cannot choose how, but … we can decide how we meet that end in order that we are remembered … as men.

Proximo

8 February 2010 at 22:35  
Blogger Fr Michael Gollop SSC said...

Oh dear, Stephen Fry has criticised Roman Catholicism; I'm surprised Pope Benedict doesn't just pack up in dismay. I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that Mr Fry thinks his opinions matter or the fact that we, poor celebrity-obsessed moderns that we are, give them so much credence. Stephen, just grow up!

8 February 2010 at 22:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Singh, I'll fight you .Sword or pistol? Your choice!

8 February 2010 at 22:41  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, DMK is a Priest and he does not wear a dog collar! What the blases is going on?

Also to the Anon- do not try to fight with D.Singh. He has the heart of a warrior!

8 February 2010 at 22:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

No you wont't. I can tell you are a coward hiding behind your Big Brother: Anon.

8 February 2010 at 22:44  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

D.Singh, the Anon is a coward because he/she hides behind the Anon tag. In any case, even if you were inclined to duel with cowards, you would thrash this person within an inch of their life.

As for Doresea and his view- no the lunitics are the atheists who wish to turn our country, nay, the world into some form a utopian socialist paradise.

Well, I won't let you. Look at the United Kingdom. It has been ruled by socialists for 12 years. Yet poverty, want and ignorance still haunt this land!

We need a country built upon Judeao Christian values, which has walk hand in hand with the Lord. Then we shall be truly blessed among nations. Then we shall be able to walk through this world with our heads held high. But socialism can only lead to the ruin of this Kingdom.

8 February 2010 at 22:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Flipin heck boyo, these English sheep shoot back!

8 February 2010 at 22:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, F U Singh.

As for Lavendon,I hate all Christians, but aristocrats especially,so you would be dead if I challenged you to a duel. Pompus landed gentry! The French had the right way of dealing with scum like you.

Socialism, as history shows, is the best way for britain and the world. Did the Soviet Union suffer from want? Does China suffer from want? No. China is the biggest economy in the world. And atheist.
Therefore socialism is the best creed for man to live by.

8 February 2010 at 22:57  
Anonymous English Imperial Labour and atheist said...

"Flipin heck boyo, these English sheep shoot back!"

Go back to wales you talkative taffy. This is supposed to be an intelligent blog.

8 February 2010 at 22:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Socialism is a boot stamping on a man's face forever.

8 February 2010 at 23:01  
Anonymous len said...

Graham Wood,
The reason Mr Fry has gone up in my estimation is that his razor sharp perception has seen through the phony-ness ( if that is a word)of religion and had the courage to expose it.Religion cannot impart life only the Lord Jesus Christ, the last Adam , a life giving Spirit, can.
I think religion is on Gods threshing floor ,the wheat is being separated from the chaff, painful but necessary.

8 February 2010 at 23:01  
Anonymous Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition said...

Len, why don't you just confess that you are a protestant heritic who hates the one true church? And then confess you are wrong, repent and convert?

Rack or thum screws, to help you make up your mind?

8 February 2010 at 23:06  
Anonymous Philip said...

1) There is some truth in what he says, but it becomes clear the reason for his hatred of the RC church: it's traditional Christian stance on homosexuality.
2) He seemed to come from the modern view that we all find our own truth, i.e man at the centre, and there is a convenient god who just gives 'peace' and makes us comfortable with whatever way we choose and certainly makes moral demands on us.
3) as for condoms, whatever the rights and wrongs of the RC approach, he of course failed to point out that the best guarantee for safe sex is the Christian safeguard of keeping it for one man and one woman in marriage.
4) Imagine the consequences for a Christian if that Christian attacked the homosexual movement (I nearly said religion!) in a similar manner! At least would easily have been accused of whipping up hatred. But of course Mr Fry has free speech (and he should be entitled to it), and Christians don't.

8 February 2010 at 23:07  
Anonymous Boy Scout said...

Who broke his nose, and who was the judge that dealt with the case? I am starting to imagine that I can like Judge Dreadblair. Smack - whallop! Oh it's OK you are a Catholic!

I will treasure this imagined reality.

8 February 2010 at 23:08  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Anon,

Socialism & Atheism= Death camps. The Jews know this from Hitler and Stalin.

Socialist/Atheists! Will they ever learn that you cannot create utopia in this world?

8 February 2010 at 23:08  
Anonymous Gaynor Letts said...

"who was the judge that dealt with the case? "

Jerry Springer, the opera ?

8 February 2010 at 23:09  
Anonymous Philip said...

On dear! In point 2 I meant a god who makes "no" moral demands on us..

8 February 2010 at 23:10  
Anonymous The Devout said...

What Crap Fry speaks. I shall be boycotting his latest TV programme. Liberal -lefty.

8 February 2010 at 23:12  
Anonymous Faggot said...

WARNING - Graphic, hideous and perverse content.

8 February 2010 at 23:14  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

"The Catholic Church will still be around when you are dead, dust and forgotten"

Not quite Old grumpy. According to Catholic phrohecy, the current Pope will be suceeded by "Peter the Roman", the last Pope.

You display the typical arrogance of the Catholic Church. Thank God for the Anglican Church, which is at least open to all and does not condemn the use of condoms. Which as Fry says it is criminal of the Catholic Church to tell people not to use.

Also as Fry says, one of the Catholic Saints put Protestants on the rack for daring to read the bible in english!

Just goes to say how un-English the Catholic Church is and why we would be better off outside the papish EU.

Yes the Catholic leader is head of a nation state, who has allied himself with the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist states.

This tells us all we need to know about how unchristian the Church of Rome is.

As Fry said, if the Roman Church would give up its wealth, say sorry for Peadoes and end celibacy (sexual depravity) for Priests, then we might be able to say the Catholic Church is a force for "good" in the world.

And thank God I am an Anglican.

BTW- word verification "FLOGGIN"

8 February 2010 at 23:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

English Imperial Labour and atheist

Of my nation! What ish my nation? Ish a villain,
and a bastard, and a knave, and a rascal. What ish
my nation? Who talks of my nation?

Englische swindehunde!

8 February 2010 at 23:24  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anon Said

"As for Lavendon,I hate all Christians, but aristocrats especially,so you would be dead if I challenged you to a duel. Pompus landed gentry! The French had the right way of dealing with scum like you."

You know not who you deal with Sir. If you were a man of rank, I would demand satisfaction from you. But as I cannot detect from you post that you are not a gentleman or a man of rank, I would say that you deserve a thrashing, so instead deserve to be beat with a cane, riding crop or a whip. The choice, my friend, is yours.

8 February 2010 at 23:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavetory says" But as I cannot detect from you post that you are not a gentleman or a man of rank"

So you would challenge me to a duel (I am ex- SBS). Wanker.

8 February 2010 at 23:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous

Former members of the SBS would not describe themselves as 'ex'.

You are a liar.

8 February 2010 at 23:35  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, the Anon at 23.33 is a liar, the SBS would NEVER describe themselves as "ex". Of course I meant to say "I cannot detect from you post that you are a gentleman or a man of rank".

Given that this Anon is an imposter, I shall give him no more of my time. Other than to say he deserves a thrashing.

8 February 2010 at 23:40  
Blogger The Magp1e said...

Well done Mr Fry. RC Inc (Ltd)..A money making business led by masonic, brain-washing men.

You've answered his rhetoric on Galileo, what's your case for paedophilia, and the protection from prosecution of paedophiles.Or the obscene amount of money and art held by this "company".

8 February 2010 at 23:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is your defence of Hitler, Mao and Stalin?

Eegleesh pig dog.

8 February 2010 at 23:45  
Anonymous Lord Vader said...

Your Grace,

To Lavendon and the Anon, your powers are insignificant compared to the Force! Whilst I detect that Lavendon may be a Time Lord, I discount the fact because they were all wiped out during the Time War. Only the wretched Doctor stands between us and the domination of the Universe! And Lavendon is no match for him or me.

8 February 2010 at 23:47  
Anonymous Ming the Merciless said...

"What is your defence of Hitler, Mao and Stalin?"

They showed great potential.

8 February 2010 at 23:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavendon, you can say whatever you want, but if I took on you, your neck would be broken within five seconds. Stupid toff.

8 February 2010 at 23:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actualised

8 February 2010 at 23:49  
Anonymous Deutschland hasst, der Herzog von LAVENDON said...

Die englische Schweine Hund des Herzogs von LAVENDON ist ein guter Grund, warum England ist noch nicht bereit, der europäischen Föderation beitreten. Die schreckliche shit ausgeführt werden muss. Dann Vorherrschaft in Europa von England gestartet werden kann

8 February 2010 at 23:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Lavendon? Want to hedge your bets or poo your pants?

8 February 2010 at 23:55  
Anonymous len said...

Congregation of the Holy Office of the inquisition,

I would just like to say that I don`t hate Catholics, Muslims, gays,or any other groups of people.

What I dislike intensely are religious SYSTEMS that give the illusion of salvation but all they do is put people on a works based religious treadmill.Or man made'codes of ethics'which instead of following Gods original blueprint for mankind call mans fallen nature 'natural'and make allowances on that basis.

Much has been said about 'gays'I guess 'gays' feel alienated from God because they feel God disapproves and Christians criticize.

Does God hate gays?
I think the answer to this is to look at Jesus Christ( God in the flesh)Jesus was severely criticized by the religious elite for keeping company with people they( the religious elite)
had rejected.

It is interesting that the only people Jesus Condemned were the religious hypocrites. Jesus never condoned sin but called people to repentance so they could be transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

9 February 2010 at 00:08  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Anon, my dear, perhaps you should pipe down? As I have said before Lavy is a friend of mine. As a little hint , note 'Sabre' Squadron 22 SAS?

9 February 2010 at 00:14  
Anonymous Congregation of the Holy Office of the inquisition said...

Len, I do not care about whether God loves gays or not. What is more important is that they submit to the will of the Holy Church. As you must do. Can you not see that true salvation lies with the Holy Church and not your heretical Protestant doctrine?

9 February 2010 at 00:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jewish bag Lady- typical jewish propoganda. Why did Lavendon send you out as his lackey? Does the man not have courage to combant me himself? Typical weak Christian. Never can deal with a fight.Coward.

Ex- SBS.

9 February 2010 at 00:18  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah, so now I know who the Jewish Bag Lady is, but quite why you insist on calling yourself a "bag lady" is beyond me, given your wealth. I would also correct you, I have no connection whatsoever with Her Majesty’s Special Air Service. And even if I did, it is a for the Prime Minister's eyes-only. So please retract your previous statement.

As for the Anon, please, do keep us entertained with your nefarious rants. They are idle nonsense, and you know it.

9 February 2010 at 00:27  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

I withdraw all previous comment regarding Lord Lavendon. He is nothing more than a dandy, who wouldn't know one end of a walther PPK5 from the other.

9 February 2010 at 00:39  
Blogger The Magp1e said...

Are there any Catholics on here that can answer?....You've answered his rhetoric on Galileo, what's your case for paedophilia, and the protection from prosecution of paedophiles.Or the obscene amount of money and art held by this "company".

9 February 2010 at 01:14  
Blogger Theresa said...

Right, I have a choice here.

1.) I can continue to watch a ridiculous but highly entertaining film on monster bugs in the sewers of New York;

2) I can attempt to answer all of Stephen Fry's points here;

3) I can answer Magpie's point on paedophilia and then go back to watching film about monster bugs.


I'll go for option three. Firstly, on Ratzinger's letter which was referred to by Stephen Fry. When a priest is accused of a grave offence, the church holds a 'fitness to practice' hearing, like the GMC does for doctors or the GTC for teachers. The proceedings of that hearing are kept confidential by the church. However, this does not prevent priests, witnesses or anyone else involved in that trial from taking part in a criminal proceeding or stating the same evidence that they did at the church hearing. This has been lifted entirely out of context by Stephen Fry and he has no excuse for doing that; Vincent Nichols wrote a detailed complaint to the BBC about a programme where they made this assertion.

On the issue of child abuse, I make no excuses for the church. It happened, it was covered up and we have paid the price for that in bad publicity and in monetary terms. But clerical abuse is rare; it gets a lot of publicity because it is clergy, but most child abuse is carried out by someone who is a male relative of the child or a male partner of the child's mother but not the father of the abused child. Also, the Catholic church was by no means unique in having problems with paedophiles; Barnados, Quarriers and local authority homes had the same problems. Last year, the National Register for Children reported that a quarter of girls leaving local authority care at age 16 were pregnant. Someone is preying on them, either male workers or some of the older boys in the place, but why is there no outcry about it? I'll tell you why. If the abuser is employed by the local authority, they have to pay out compensation and here in Scotland after the Catholic church had to pay out for abuse cases, the Scottish government time barred all the other similar cases from the likes of Barnados and local authority homes. Conclusion? You're going to be a lot safer in a Catholic run home in the future than anywhere else. We've got rid of our paedophiles. The rest haven't and are covering up.

Right, back to monster bugs. If anyone else wants a particular point answered, I'll do it, provided I'm asked nicely.

9 February 2010 at 01:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say we take up a collection and offer Mr Fry, oh, say a thousand pounds in cash if he will criticize Islam with such vitriol in public. You think that might shut him up?

9 February 2010 at 02:21  
Blogger The Magp1e said...

Theresa..Thank you!!...Your trivial answer to a question on one of the most henious crimes in existance paints a perfect picture of what's wrong with your church. Can you imagine being that child approached in the dead of night to be forced into the act of giving a blowjob?.. I'm so sorry to have dragged you away from your film.

True, phaedophilia is not confind to the RC church, but Barnados and local authorities cannot be compared to your church! They are not "bodies" condemning out-of -marriage sex and homosexuality, or spreading the word of God and promoting a sin free life.

"We've got rid of our paedophiles. The rest haven't and are covering up"

...WHAT? Are you mad!..Where is your proof of that?

"On the issue of child abuse, I make no excuses for the church. It happened, it was covered up and we have paid the price for that in bad publicity and in monetary terms".

Bad publicity and a fine is paying the price? Castration would be paying the price.

"But clerical abuse is rare; it gets a lot of publicity because it is clergy".

Not rare, but shouldn't be happening at all if you've had the "calling" to serve God...That's why it gets the publicity.

"but most child abuse is carried out by someone who is a male relative of the child or a male partner of the child's mother but not the father of the abused child".

You do know that women paedophiles exist don't you?

Please don't attempt to answer the point about Obscene amounts of money and art...your answer wouldn't be credible.

9 February 2010 at 02:58  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

Can you imagine the consequences of this sort of vitriol being expressed towards Islam?

Good point, but not the most important one.

Some say, and have said for a mighty long time, that Islam and The Roman Catholic Church are indeed secretly controlled by the same society. A society so insanely evil, so universally and subversively spread over the surface of the planet, that hardly any one can usefully identify its influence any more.

It is said that this society has long since been pulling Islamic strings every bit, if not more then it has all of the others.

A society as influential in Arabia and the Middle East, as it is in Moscow, London, Paris, Berlin, Washington DC, Tel-Aviv, South-America, Africa, Japan, and last but not but not at all least China.

A society that actually has the wholly horrendous cheek to also bare the name of our Lord.

Many have said that there is a power more powerful then even The Roman Empires Church, or indeed the Pope himself. After all we know that Popes are elected by Cardinals. We also now know through bitter experience, that elections are, and always have been a corrupted scam run by subversive power crazed con-artists. Or without doubt there would not be ANY elections greater then ones that elect school milk monitors. Even these have been known to be corrupted by more influential members of the schools PTA.

Therefore WHO, or what society actually decides who the next representative of God on Earth is going to be? Because you can be absolutely sure that where there is an election, there is ALWAYS some kind of subversive element, society, or organisation fixing the result, and also usually the entire list of potential winning candidates.

On the subject of Mr Fry.

IMO he is an over opinionated FOOL. He does not understand, or seem to know anything about, the perfectly satanic history of The RRC, so therefore comes to all of the wrong conclusions. His heart is self-apparently in the right place. Yet he seems to have no coherent idea what to do with it in practise. What should surprise us all is that the opinions of a second rate comedy actor have any more validity, then the average Joe.

His comments far from weakening the RRC, they unwittingly encourage REAL Christians to came to the aid of what is many things, one of which is certainly not Christian, or anything whatsoever to do with the mission, or word of Jesus Christ.

All is corrupted at the SEEMING top, or it swiftly gets its fingers, or a whole lot more extremely burnt.

Something I am sure your Grace, should know more about then most.

9 February 2010 at 03:33  
Anonymous foobar said...

"Obscene amounts of money and art."

By 'obscene' I assume you mean 'excessive.' There is nothing obscene about the Museo Vaticani, I assure you. I'd like to see the Vatican attempt to liquidate its wealth. I wonder who would buy all those cathedrals and busts? *Somebody* probably, but we wouldn't get a fair price for them; Certainly not enough to make up for huge loss to posterity by letting by letting countless treasures end up in private collections where they do nobody any good.

The impoverished need help and support, not money and art. The Church and affiliated organizations provide quite a lot of that.

9 February 2010 at 03:34  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Poisonous and insulting. It had no merit at all. I was shocked at so many sheoples who clapped their hands. The spitting of the pope who was not there to defend himself.

Condomns are NOT safe at all. They give a false sense of safety and therefore the pope is right when he says that condoms increase AIDS.

For if the regular use of condoms shows a pregnancy rate of some 10% then how much greater percentage of infection with the AIDS-virus will be the result of having sex with an infected partner using condomns! Because the AIDS-virus is far smaller then human seed. How much easier for the AIDS-virus to pass through the tiny holes condoms may have. Many condomns as the statistics prove, are NOT 100% semen-passing-hole-proof, how much less AIDS-virus-hole-passing-proof condomns are. The false assurance by the government that condoms are safe, is even criminal. At the most it could be stated that the use of condoms is safer. But this margin may be neutralised by the fact that the use of condoms and the false assurance by the government causes more 'condom-aided-sex.'

He was talking about AIDS in Africa. The hypocrisy of Western nations sending aid to AIDS victims when they have themselves infected the Africans intentionally with AIDS, with their innoculations which were mixed with the AIDS-virus created in an American laboratory, ordered by Congress!

House Bill 15090 showing that the U.S. government asked for the AIDS virus to be made. And allotted $10 million for it. Later the WHO got involved. AIDS was developped as a depopulation instrument, especially against the black race. The US Congress also has officially promoted homosexuality since 1963, because they belived the lies of the Club of Rome about the world's overpopulation. For homosexuals do not multiply.

The media do not tell the truth about AIDS.

I was shocked to listen to this man raving and ranting against the Roman Catholic church. He would have shit in his pants to do the same some 500 years ago. Then he would have been a man. In this Roman-Catholic church hating public he had 'guts.' I was feeling very bad for the cardinal who had to swallow all those insults, yet, he even clapped... Shocking. He must have shut of listening to this man from the beginning.

9 February 2010 at 05:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I do agree with you ducthlionfrans, 500 years ago he would be stretched slowly to death on the rack or suffer the same fate as his grace for having the guts to stand up to the holy house of god. (men of power, more likely.) or wretched in the Scavenger's daughter! How dare all of them are. You guys are lucky that there's no holy inquisitions going around.

9 February 2010 at 06:00  
Blogger Drosera said...

dutchlionfrans1953,

"The hypocrisy of Western nations sending aid to AIDS victims when they have themselves infected the Africans intentionally with AIDS, with their innoculations which were mixed with the AIDS-virus created in an American laboratory, ordered by Congress!"

It is good to see that the defenders of the Catholic Church now have to be recruited from the looniest fringe elements. They have no leg to stand on.

9 February 2010 at 08:33  
Anonymous Saul V said...

I'm a non-Catholic lefty who enjoys reading this blog, my one complaint is the endless "do it to Muslims" refrain. It's only slightly better than the defenders of the West using dictatorships as their moral compass ("try doing it in 'their' country and see how you go"). If you want a Stephen Fry to attack Islam then you are condoning this behaviour towards Catholics. If you support the restriction of religious practice (for example) in the West you condone restriction of religious practice anywhere. Am I wrong?

9 February 2010 at 09:06  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I don't have a problem with Fry's views, Your Grace. He even took a swing at Islam during his speech. If what he said made the Catholic hierarchy twitch then that's all for the good.

9 February 2010 at 09:12  
Anonymous bluedog said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9 February 2010 at 09:18  
Blogger Ray said...

As usual, when people run out of answers they resort to abuse and threats, like most religions. Here we have hundreds of words, and references to many reputedly knowing sources, but no answers. The several references to Hitler are also amusing as Hitler was a catholic, as were Franco Mussolini and Salazar, to mention just a few of the Europeans, all of these monsters conquered and ruled without a word of complaint from the popes of the time because Fascism protected their source of income and Communism didn't.

9 February 2010 at 09:49  
Anonymous I prefer my dictators to be atheists said...

Ray, I agree. I prefer my dictators to be athesists. Much more rational if you ask me. Look at how Stalin and Chairman Mao were venerated by their people. And it only took a few million of them to be killed in order to do this.

9 February 2010 at 09:58  
Anonymous Alan Milburn said...

Dutchlion has finally gone mad. As if his support of Hitler was bad enough, he now suggests that AIDS was created by the US! Oh please....

9 February 2010 at 09:59  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I think the suggestion of Hitler as Catholic is rather shallow. The National Socialist doctrine built upon the thinking of Nietzsche ( A Protestant) who thought his way into bleak isolation via Darwin and a love of Wagner.

Nietzsche rejected God for atheism in his youth and was able to proclaim. " Nothing constrains you, you must fashion whatever your heart desires."

Don Cupit once described Nietzsche as developing the "sacred purity of innocence of an egotistical ethic" which is not a bad pointer towards Hitlerian ideology which is light years away from Catholicism or any other Christ based theology.

To say that under such dominant influence Hitler is Catholic is ill- informed, grotesque, and/or intellectually dishonest.

9 February 2010 at 10:24  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

I issued a challenge near the top of this thread...

And not one of you has had the courage to address the issues that Fry raises.

Why? Because, like the Pope, the Cardinals and the rotten priests, you are more concerned to protect your cosy little club than to admit to its monstrous wrong doings.
And yet you still have the effrontery to claim the moral authority of both your church and its corrupt leader.

I thought this blog would at least make an effort to defend your faith but no, you hide behind snide innuendos and thinly disguised homophobia, shame on you.

9 February 2010 at 10:26  
Blogger Theresa said...

Graham,

I offered to answer any point you wanted answered. The offer remains.

9 February 2010 at 10:35  
Blogger Theresa said...

True, phaedophilia is not confind to the RC church, but Barnados and local authorities cannot be compared to your church! They are not "bodies" condemning out-of -marriage sex and homosexuality, or spreading the word of God and promoting a sin free life.

You are quite right that they cannot be compared to us. We got prosecuted. They got away with it. How do you think their victims are feeling?


"We've got rid of our paedophiles. The rest haven't and are covering up"

...WHAT? Are you mad!..Where is your proof of that?


See above. Also give me your speculations on why a quarter of girls are leaving local authority care pregnant.

9 February 2010 at 10:46  
Anonymous Bigland said...

The Magp1e: True, phaedophilia is not confind to the RC church, but Barnados and local authorities cannot be compared to your church! They are not "bodies" condemning out-of -marriage sex and homosexuality, or spreading the word of God and promoting a sin free life.

I can only conclude you are ranking paedophiles based on the organisations they are working for when caught. Presumably a paedophile caught while working for Stonewall is of a lesser.

Bad publicity and a fine is paying the price? Castration would be paying the price.

You've confused the paedophile with the organisation they are working for when caught. Unless you're seriously suggesting that all members of an organisation should be castrated when a paedophile is caught in their midst.

...shouldn't be happening at all if you've had the "calling" to serve God...That's why it gets the publicity.

A case for the claim that, at least some, paedophiles have not had a "calling", but merely see an opportunity to prey on children. I say "some", because I suspect others might not have acknowledged their criminal tendencies until they found themselves in a position to be tempted.

You do know that women paedophiles exist don't you?

You did see Theresa use the word "most" didn't you? And you focussed on completely the wrong word ("male"); the key word in that sentence was "relative".

Please don't attempt to answer the point about Obscene amounts of money and art...your answer wouldn't be credible.

Anyone bothered by how much "art" someone has isn't too credible in my books to begin with. I assume most of their art concerns Catholic imagery. As such, they're welcome to it.

9 February 2010 at 10:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Here is an opportunity for you to grow up:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/mass-child-sex-abuse-structures-and.html

9 February 2010 at 10:48  
Anonymous Bigland said...

"concern"

I found the above word at my feet after posting the above. It belongs in there somewhere...

9 February 2010 at 10:50  
Blogger Drosera said...

When confronted with the nastiness of their religion the believers almost always react like children who got caught stealing a candy: Yes, but he did it too!

Or:
Yes, but he said a dirty word!

Or:
Yes, but he didn't do his homework!

For 'he' read: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Muslims, Protestants (when you're a Catholic), Catholics (when you're a Protestant), etc.

Can't you think of a better defence? Perhaps because there isn't one?

9 February 2010 at 10:57  
Blogger John.D said...

Graham Davis of the Cambridge Secualr Society

"Our mission is to intensify the struggle against religious influence and privilege and to advance the prospects of a rational, humanist society. To this end we will work with all like-minded bodies that share our aims."

Good luck with your mission (almost sounds religious in its nature). I would have thought there are many paedophiles who would be willing to sign up for this.

9 February 2010 at 11:02  
Blogger John.D said...

Graham

If your wet dream comes true and all religion is made illegal, do you really think that perverts are going to suddenly vanish off the face of the earth? Pratt For All I know you could be down loading paedophilia on the internet, what makes secularists so bloody special and above deviancy? If Stephen Fry is your best champion then your wet dream will be staying wet my son.

9 February 2010 at 11:10  
Blogger Theresa said...

I didn't make any excuse for our church's crimes Drosera. But I think it's entirely relevant to point out the context; that is, we are being critisised for covering up child abuse by a society that is doing exactly the same thing and letting abusers walk free, because they don't want to pay compensation. And in a way, I feel that the reason that clergy and others at one remove from the victim get so much publicity, is that we as a society have not been able to cope with the truth of where child abuse happens most often and that is in the home.

9 February 2010 at 11:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many murderers, rapists, paedophiles, thieves, muggers, fraudsters etc etc would describe themselves as 'secular humanists'? And does this even mean anything?

9 February 2010 at 11:16  
Blogger Ian said...

Anon - 8 February 2010 22:57
"...socialism is the best creed for man to live by..."

Socialism as practiced by the Soviets and the Chinese has been responsible for the death of countless millions.

You are a fan of history, so lets not forget that other great socialist experiment 'National Socialism' responsible for 55 million dead alone between 1939 - 45.

And of course lets not forget Pol Pot, the revolutionaries of Central / South America etc and of course our old friends the IRA. All good socialists.

On a smaller scale maybe, but after 13 years of socialism in the UK who but the most brainwashed, braindead commisar, could agree that socialism has in any tangible way, benefitted the UK in prospective terms.

Fry is not an objective observer regarding the Catholic Church, because he knows he wont gain approval from it, for his sin.

He also makes many good points. I left the catholic church because we dont need intercessions. Each of us has a hotline to God - our consciences. Find Christ inside and follow Him.

For Stephen Fry to lecture anyone on sexual morality however, is a tremendous hypocrisy.

9 February 2010 at 11:31  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Well Mr Gay Anglican, it is fun to speculate on the so-called prophesies of Nostradamus and Malachi, (they always seem to contain a scintilla of truth post-hoc). And if Cardinal Martini had been elected as the current Pope we all could have had a good laugh as Malachi's predicted motto for this reign was 'Gloria olivae'

But if you want to base your arguments on these maunderings, we know how to judge your future comments don't we?

9 February 2010 at 11:46  
Blogger The Magp1e said...

Bigland: Purile..The original poster made the comparison. Not ranking paedophiles, but possibly ranking the hypocrascy level of the organisations.

"but most child abuse is carried out by someone who
is a male relative of the child or a male partner of the child's mother but not the father of the abused child".

You did see Theresa use the word "most" didn't you? And you focussed on completely the wrong word ("male"); the key word in that sentence was "relative".


The word "most" was reffering to the fact that "most" paedophile acts are carried out by someone close, or a family member...Why use the word male!

"You've confused the paedophile with the organisation they are working for when caught. Unless you're seriously suggesting that all members of an organisation should be castrated when a paedophile is caught in their midst".

Oh dear. The individual..The organisation should only suffer if they attempt to cover up the act.

"Anyone bothered by how much "art" someone has isn't too credible in my books to begin with".

What, like Jesus?...If he drove the merchants from the temple, he'd have a field day at the Vatican!

9 February 2010 at 11:50  
Anonymous Theresa said...

Ok, lets be accurate. It's estimated that between 5% and 20% of abuse cases are carried out by women. The rest (80% or more) are carried out by men. Hence 'most' attacks are carried out by men. Look it up.

9 February 2010 at 12:17  
Anonymous Bigland said...

Magp1e:
The original poster made the comparison. Not ranking paedophiles, but possibly ranking the hypocrascy level of the organisations.

If I have understood her correctly, Theresa was pointing out other organisations have the same problems, yet receive little media attention. I thought you were rather more concerned with those in a position of trust preying on the most vulnerable members of society, and the cover-up of such acts. Hypocrisy, surely, is a much lesser concern, and to imply it would have any bearing on the judgement of such heinous acts troubles me.

The word "most" was reffering to the fact that "most" paedophile acts are carried out by someone close, or a family member...Why use the word male!

Why not, if it's true? I thought you were concerned about cover ups, now you're complaining about an excess of information?! I suspect, in fact, you were trying to deflect from what Theresa was saying by dredging up a new (and irrelevant) piece of information in order to discredit her.

Oh dear. The individual..The organisation should only suffer if they attempt to cover up the act.

Thanks for clarifying. But your complaint should be with the law of the land, not the Catholic church. Last time I looked, no paedophile is being castrated in this country. The organisation has suffered, according to Theresa, in terms of fines and bad publicity. Again, if that is insufficient, you need to take it up with those who make the laws. Thank heavens there isn't a law against hypocrisy, or we're all in trouble!

"Anyone bothered by how much "art" someone has isn't too credible in my books to begin with".

What, like Jesus?...If he drove the merchants from the temple, he'd have a field day at the Vatican!


You lost me here. Jesus was concerned about art? I must have missed that bit. I agree he would have much to say about the Vatican, but I doubt it would be about art.

9 February 2010 at 12:25  
Blogger Drosera said...

Theresa,

"And in a way, I feel that the reason that clergy and others at one remove from the victim get so much publicity, is that we as a society have not been able to cope with the truth of where child abuse happens most often and that is in the home."

I don't think that is the reason. The actual reason is, obviously, that clergy are supposed to have higher moral standards than your average citizen. The child abuse cases in Ireland and elsewhere show that this is a myth. The cover up of these crimes at the highest levels within the Church hierarchy moreover shows that it is not just a matter of a few ‘bad apples’. It demonstrates that the Catholic Church itself acted like a criminal organisation. Pointing out, as you do, that child abuse occurs elsewhere too is completely irrelevant.

9 February 2010 at 13:03  
Anonymous Theresa said...

Drosera,

You can't have it both ways. Child abuse either matters or it doesn't. If it does, then Barnados, Quarriers and local authorities should be prosecuted in the same manner that we have been prosecuted. If they're not, then something is badly wrong. You can't dismiss it as irrelevant.

9 February 2010 at 13:13  
Blogger Drosera said...

Theresa,

Reading is difficult. I didn't say that child abuse is irrelevant, but that child abuse occurring elsewhere is irrelevant with repect to the charges brought against the Catholic Church. Of course, people who commit child abuse should always be prosecuted.

But you are conveniently ignoring my main points (the myth of clergy having higher moral standards and the church acting as a criminal organisation).

9 February 2010 at 13:25  
Blogger The Magp1e said...

Theresa and Biglands.

"The Church". That which stands for good over evil, that teaches us the way of God, and delivers his message. Crimes committed by those representing the church have to be considered in this light.

Neither of you appear contrite that member's elected/employed to represent your faith, have commited acts that go against the very fabric of what they teach. You cannot argue that "Barnados do it, or male/female family members do it, why should we be singled out?"

"Hypocrisy, surely, is a much lesser concern".

No, that's the point! The RC Church has no credibility. How can you have "faith" when it is preached by such a corrupt institution as RC inc (Ltd).

Borrowing from D Singh's earlier post:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/mass-child-sex-abuse-structures-and.html

9 February 2010 at 13:27  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Nothing reveals an argument lost that the resort to ad hominem

I quote:

John D
“Pratt For All I know you could be down loading paedophilia on the internet”

(and referring to the Cambridge Secular Society)
“I would have thought there are many paedophiles who would be willing to sign up for this.”

For the rest except Theresa a silence from which we draw our own conclusions.



Ignoring your own petulant remark I have now read the post referred to here:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/mass-child-sex-abuse-structures-and.html

It is a refreshingly frank condemnation (by Cranmer) of the systemic abuse meted out by members of your church, however I am troubled by his final paragraph “And as their public face is that of purity and holiness in deeply-fulfilling celibacy, the private paradox is confused, constrained and yearning deeply to express itself. And if it cannot be with a woman, as St Paul observed, it will be predatory upon the malakoi - the ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ prepubescent ‘pet’”

Is this not an admission that celibacy, an integral plank of your entire religious structure, is predicated on the expectation that children will be used for sexual gratification?

9 February 2010 at 13:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘Is this not an admission that celibacy, an integral plank of your entire religious structure, is predicated on the expectation that children will be used for sexual gratification?’

No.

Take your time; and think about it.

9 February 2010 at 14:13  
Anonymous Theresa said...

Graham, In my first post I held my hands up to the abuse and cover up that followed. There's no way you could have missed that, unless you wanted to miss it. These have been my main points in my posts;

A)Child abuse happened in my church and was covered up and we were punished for it as we should have done;

b)having said that, clerical abuse is rare. Which implies clergy do have higher standards.

c)Child abuse is happening in other organisations and is not being subject to the same censure.

d)Child abuse is being covered up. The figures from the National Register of Children, that a quarter of girls leave local authority pregnant.

If I have dodged a point here, Graham, then point it out. If not, explain to me why you will not discuss points c and d, because condemning behaviour in us that you will not condemn in others, leaves you open to charges of hypocrisy.If you want to prove that secularism is better than religion, then you're not going to do it by letting them off child abuse.

9 February 2010 at 14:35  
Anonymous Bigland said...

"The Church". That which stands for good over evil, that teaches us the way of God, and delivers his message. Crimes committed by those representing the church have to be considered in this light.

Why? Because you wish to add the extra "crime" of hypocrisy? Or are you trying to suggest their "mission statement", if you will, is invalidated by their behaviour?

Neither of you appear contrite that member's elected/employed to represent your faith, have commited acts that go against the very fabric of what they teach. You cannot argue that "Barnados do it, or male/female family members do it, why should we be singled out?"

I can't speak for Theresa, although your summary of her argument is so far off base it's in a different field. As for me, it isn't my faith. I just like poking holes in weak arguments.

"Hypocrisy, surely, is a much lesser concern".

No, that's the point! The RC Church has no credibility. How can you have "faith" when it is preached by such a corrupt institution as RC inc (Ltd).


I sympathise with this absolutely, and think this is what Theresa means by "bad publicity". But are you trying to invalidate the Roman Catholic set of beliefs by pointing out they're not putting them into practice?

9 February 2010 at 14:38  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

D Singh

“Take your time; and think about it.”

I am afraid you are going to have to help me out here, I have obviously misunderstood this phrase “And if it cannot be with a woman, as St Paul observed, it will be predatory upon the malakoi - the ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ prepubescent ‘pet”

9 February 2010 at 14:42  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

Ah, but your Grace, Stephen Fry is omniscient. It's the BBC. It's what they do.

9 February 2010 at 14:46  
Blogger John.D said...

I don't see multitudes of secularists in here either Graham - what conclusions should I draw from the silence?

Possibly that nobody could really be bothered?

9 February 2010 at 14:47  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Theresa

I did except you from my generalisation however Fry’s critique went well beyond the issue of child abuse.

9 February 2010 at 14:48  
Blogger John.D said...

Or are you the Pope of secularism who speaks for the rest?

9 February 2010 at 14:50  
Blogger John.D said...

I will lay my cards on the table and give you the full insight into my small mind and ad hominem response just to satisfy all fronts.

I don't care what the Faggot Fry thinks anymore than I do care about some University debating society. I am now bored. see you in another thread.

9 February 2010 at 14:55  
Anonymous Theresa said...

'I did except you from my generalisation, however Fry's critique went well beyond the issue of child abuse.'

Ok, pick a topic and I'll discuss it.

9 February 2010 at 14:55  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

John D

“I don't see multitudes of secularists in here either Graham - what conclusions should I draw from the silence?”

This is a very strange remark.

That the visiting team is short of a keeper and a few defenders doesn’t stop you playing ball with the rest of us.

If you want to face the full team pop over to the Dawkins site where you will find 2.5 million posts nearly all challenging the assumptions and morality of your religion along with all the rest.

9 February 2010 at 14:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

That portion of your original which I quoted:

‘Is this not an admission that celibacy, an integral plank of your entire religious structure, is predicated on the expectation that children will be used for sexual gratification?’

And Mr Singh stated, ‘No.’

There is no expectation.

9 February 2010 at 14:57  
Blogger The Magp1e said...

"But are you trying to invalidate the Roman Catholic set of beliefs by pointing out they're not putting them into practice?"

No, they are a fine set of beliefs...on the whole. My RC friends on the shop floor are very good people, the problem lies with the CEO and senior management.

9 February 2010 at 15:02  
Blogger Drosera said...

The Catholic Church isn't a force for good in Germany either. See this report about the Catholic sexual abuse scandal there:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,676497,00.html

9 February 2010 at 15:07  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Theresa

Unbaptised babies will not go to heaven. Presumably Fry has got this wrong?

9 February 2010 at 15:09  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

D Singh

Sorry to be dense but it was your quote from St Paul for which I am awaiting an alternative explanation.

9 February 2010 at 15:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Could you direct my attention to it? (time and date)

9 February 2010 at 15:22  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

D Singh

“And if it cannot be with a woman, as St Paul observed, it will be predatory upon the malakoi - the ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ prepubescent ‘pet”

9 February 2010 at 15:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Date and time, if you please?

9 February 2010 at 15:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Davis

Mr Singh is a busy man. You really shouldn't keep him waiting.

9 February 2010 at 15:35  
Anonymous Hereward said...

Where does St Paul make that observation?

9 February 2010 at 15:37  
Blogger Drosera said...

Bigland,

"But are you trying to invalidate the Roman Catholic set of beliefs by pointing out they're not putting them into practice?"

But they are putting them into practice. One of their beliefs is that a priest can grant absolution following confession. So, when a child-raping cleric goes to his bishop to confess, he can be forgiven and be transferred to another institution or diocese. No need to inform the police...

But what can you expect from a cult that practices symbolic cannibalism? Nothing good can come from such lunacy.

9 February 2010 at 15:50  
Blogger Theresa said...

'Unbaptised babies do not go to heaven. Has Stephen Fry got that wrong as well?'

Yes. There are many ideas and speculations about what happens to the unbaptized, but there is not and never has been an official dogma on it. Believers are free to speculate between various theories that have been put forward, and Limbo has been a popular one, (though not now) but the church's official position is that it doesn't know.

9 February 2010 at 15:50  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Theresa

And your view is....

9 February 2010 at 15:56  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Anonymous

I guess the waiting must be what Limbo is like!

9 February 2010 at 15:58  
Blogger Theresa said...

My view? Simple; I don't know. But it won't be a place of damnation.

9 February 2010 at 16:10  
Blogger Theresa said...

Drosera,

One thing that all Catholics understand, priests and lay people alike is that for absolution to be valid, the person has got to be truly sorry for what they've done and they have got to put the wrong that they've done, right. So in the cases where they did not go to the police, the absolution would not be valid. End of.

9 February 2010 at 16:19  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Theresa

'Unbaptised babies do not go to heaven. Has Stephen Fry got that wrong as well?'

Your response is “I don't know. But it won't be a place of damnation”

I expected better from you Theresa. That reply I am afraid reveals everything that is wrong with your faith. Sophisticated Catholics pick and choose what suits them but somehow are able to still maintain the illusion of faith. I have many Catholic friends who happily use contraception whilst your leader tells the ignorant and destitute in Africa that wearing condoms is not only a sin but perpetrates the lie that they cause rather than prevent HIV/Aids.

This is nothing short of obscene!

9 February 2010 at 16:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Date and time?

9 February 2010 at 16:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Davis

"your leader tells the ignorant and destitute in Africa that wearing condoms is not only a sin but perpetrates the lie that they cause rather than prevent HIV/Aids.

This is nothing short of obscene!"


Surely informing someone, whether ignorant and destitute or not, that they are committing a sin is an act of service?

It gives them a chance to put right.

It would be obscene not to tell them.

9 February 2010 at 16:48  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Date and Time!!!!!!

D Singh you supplied the link/quote

Mr Davis
Here is an opportunity for you to grow up:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/mass-child-sex-abuse-structures-and.html

9 February 2010 at 16:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

How can the provision of a link to another's work be attributable to someone (the provider of the link in this case)as a quote?

9 February 2010 at 16:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

You have already said that you are thick.

Now tell us why you insist upon using Nazi techniques; such as attributing quotes falsely?

9 February 2010 at 16:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis, I am sure on the balance of probababilities, that you would approve of the slogan: 'Work makes you free.'

9 February 2010 at 16:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

You are not original; you emulate the techniques of that murderer Stalin.

9 February 2010 at 17:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

How do you answer to the charge of: 'thicko'?

9 February 2010 at 17:02  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Pick up the shovel, and dig deeper.

9 February 2010 at 17:05  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

D Singh

I think you have finally cracked!

Your machine gun utterances are pure Pinter.

And for the record this is a quote “___ “

9 February 2010 at 17:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

A simply apology will do.

9 February 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Do not add the charge of hypocrisy to your damaged reputation.

You have stated: 'Nothing reveals an argument lost that the resort to ad hominem' (sic)

9 February 2010 at 17:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

If it is of any encouragement to you, I have had to apologise to Lord Lavendon in the past.

You have every thing to gain by apologising: in the eyes of your fellow posters.

9 February 2010 at 17:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Graham

Even to enjoy pride - you need humility.

9 February 2010 at 17:33  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

D Singh

I will happily apologise to you but first I must know of what I am accused! As I am a simple man I would appreciate it being spelt out.

9 February 2010 at 17:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr John D

There is something that I want to thank you for.

You posted the link to the story of the ex-fascist Joseph Pearce from East London.

When I read that testimony; the red hot tears flowed down my cheeks.

Please pray for me - so that I may return.

9 February 2010 at 17:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Davis

A barrack room lawyer you maybe. But a fool you certainly are.

9 February 2010 at 17:59  
Blogger Drosera said...

It's hard to ignore the rantings of the madmen here, but I'll try.

Theresa said,

"One thing that all Catholics understand, priests and lay people alike is that for absolution to be valid, the person has got to be truly sorry for what they've done and they have got to put the wrong that they've done, right. So in the cases where they did not go to the police, the absolution would not be valid. End of."

This presumes that the offenders believe this too. But the fact that their belief apparently did not prevent them from committing their disgusting acts should tell you something. It means that they don't believe that there is a god who knows everything and who will judge them. The only explanation for the behaviour of the clergy in Ireland, and elsewhere, is that they consider their own religion to be a farce.

After all, how many child rapists were in fact turned over to the police? And how many were simply transferred? Do the math yourself.

9 February 2010 at 18:08  
Blogger Theresa said...

." It means that they don't believe that there is a god who knows everything and who will judge them. The only explanation for the behaviour of the clergy in Ireland, and elsewhere, is that they consider their own religion to be a farce"

Ipse dixit.

9 February 2010 at 18:10  
Blogger Theresa said...

Graham,

One poster has summarised the risks of condoms quite succintly here;

http://pennance.us/?p=100

I will add to that, for those who can't be bothered to click, that the failure rate associated with condoms in the case of perfect use is 2% and in the case of average use, between 10% -18%. That's on Wiki, not on a church website. I'll say a bit more about Africa later, but I've got some things to do just now. Back later

9 February 2010 at 18:16  
Blogger Drosera said...

Theresa,

You're a tireless defender of the indefensible.

9 February 2010 at 18:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best writings on roman catholicism are the books by charles chiniquy, available from amazon or chick.com

9 February 2010 at 19:07  
Anonymous len said...

God Hates Religion!
A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.

The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.

Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the molds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.

It is the propensity of man to formulate religion to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion! The apostle Paul refers to it as "self-made religion" (Colossians 2:23), and goes on to indicate that it is of no value against fleshly indulgence. In essence, Paul is saying that "religion is of no value against man's sinfulness." In fact, religion is a co-dependent enabler of the sins

( full article Christinyou .com)

9 February 2010 at 19:21  
Anonymous len said...

It does a massive disservice to God to link Him with Catholicism or any other religion.
The plan for mans salvation was Gods alone, He put it into affect Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.
Unscrupulous men have hijacked Gods plan for salvation and turned it to their own ends.

Please I implore you do not confuse Gods plan with the counterfeit effort of man.

9 February 2010 at 19:33  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I've always thought Stephen Fry to be a rather arrogant and intolerant tosser, his rant at the Catholic church just confirmed this. What is he feeling so guilty about that he has to be so hurtful to the Catholic Church? He comes across as another aggrieved gay who's not saying anything that is not already known. Sin and wrongdoing rears it's ugly head everywhere not just in churches but also in his atheist little world too.

What he is missing is the bigger picture. The good the Catholic Church does in the world far outweighs the negative. In my experience of them they will help anyone who is in trouble. If I go abroad I always take the address of the local Catholic Nuns where I am going in case of crisis as I always know they will take you in and help you whatever. Better than the embassy! The Nuns and Monks are wonderful people.

And what he says about them exploiting the poor and needy peasants in the world is not said with any deeper knowledge at all.

9 February 2010 at 20:20  
Anonymous Bigland said...

Magp1e:
"But are you trying to invalidate the Roman Catholic set of beliefs by pointing out they're not putting them into practice?"

No, they are a fine set of beliefs...on the whole. My RC friends on the shop floor are very good people, the problem lies with the CEO and senior management.


I'm inclined to agree. Though my view is based almost entirely on information from the media.

9 February 2010 at 20:21  
Anonymous Bigland said...

Drosera:
"But are you trying to invalidate the Roman Catholic set of beliefs by pointing out they're not putting them into practice?"

But they are putting them into practice. One of their beliefs is that a priest can grant absolution following confession. So, when a child-raping cleric goes to his bishop to confess, he can be forgiven and be transferred to another institution or diocese. No need to inform the police...


Yet you've also said clergy following these beliefs are "supposed to have higher moral standards than your average citizen".

9 February 2010 at 20:58  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Len...

Hear hear!

The truth will set us free.

9 February 2010 at 21:00  
Blogger Theresa said...

'Theresa, you're a tireless defender of the indefensible.'

Hmm. I think it's maybe just that noone's dared to answer you back before, Drosera. Ok, here's a challenge. Offer me something better. Show me that the secular world and its way of thinking and behaving is better than my church and I'll join you.

9 February 2010 at 21:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saint Theresa!

We love you!

9 February 2010 at 21:10  
Blogger Theresa said...

Right, Africa, HIV, condoms. Nice easy subject. It's actually a damn sight more complicated than you could ever imagine. Here are the main causes of the spread of HIV/AIDs in Africa.

1)War. War means that crops don't get grown. That wage earners die. That children are orphaned. That women and children who would normally not turn to prostitution, do so in order to make money to stay alive.

2)Lack of a structure in which to distribute medicial aid; Lack of an authoritative government to direct aid.The drop in HIV prevalence in Uganda for example, can be traced back to the end of the civil war in 1986, when Obote was deposed and Museveni took over. The country settled down (apart from the north) and it was then possible to start the ABC programme. It would not have been possible otherwise.

Everyone in the West sees condoms as the answer to HIV. Nobody asks how those condoms are distributed, if they can be distributed, especially in more dangerous regions. That once there distributed, how long it's going to be, before you get the next shipment.

3)Lack of long term aid from the West.
NGOs (non governmental organisations) tend to parachute in and parachute out, because to stay longer costs money. Direct aid to Africa from a government can have all kinds of conditions attached, from pharmaceutical contracts, to arms deals. Britain is actually one of the biggest suppliers of weapons to Africa and in the world in general. The last I saw it was number two.

4)Under population of Africa. It'll become clear in a minute why that's a problem.


I'm going to run out of space so I'll do another post, explaining how all these factors play out.

9 February 2010 at 21:30  
Anonymous Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition said...

It does a massive disservice to God to link Him with Catholicism or any other religion.
"The plan for mans salvation was Gods alone, He put it into affect Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.
Unscrupulous men have hijacked Gods plan for salvation and turned it to their own ends.

Please I implore you do not confuse Gods plan with the counterfeit effort of man."

More heresay Len! When will you understand that the only Christian Church and the only way to salvation is through the one true church of Rome.

9 February 2010 at 21:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But if I didn't use contraception, I would have 20 children to feed! It is more likely that the catholic church opposed contraception because it keeps the numbers up. Afterall, that's how you have reached a billion followers. By breeding.

9 February 2010 at 21:33  
Blogger John.D said...

D.Singh

You are most welcome.

9 February 2010 at 21:37  
Anonymous Atheist First said...

Theresa, what Fry actually said and it is a valid point, is that the Church could simply suggest abstaining from sex or for them to be more forceful in suggesting faithfulness. But they go beyond this and suggest it is a sin to use any form of contraception. That's what is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church. Aside from being an imperial power.

9 February 2010 at 21:39  
Anonymous len said...

I don`t remember reading in the bible that salvation comes through the church of Rome?
.................
In fact John 14:6 tells us that Jesus is the ONLY way, "Jesus said to Him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"

9 February 2010 at 21:41  
Anonymous Committee for un english affairs said...

Well I just think that the catholic church is un english. it is for europeans; they did afterall burn people a few hundred years ago. If they were allowed to do this now, Len would be in for the chop.

9 February 2010 at 21:42  
Anonymous another aggrieved gay said...

"He comes across as another aggrieved gay "

And then you go on to say that Fry stated "what is not already known". So you admit his critique do you?

9 February 2010 at 21:45  
Anonymous Greenalien said...

Stephen Fry speaks like a book. I give him two thumbs up.

9 February 2010 at 22:19  
Anonymous Greenalien said...

Theresa, but are you trying to say that condoms should not be distributed? The causes of spread of AIDS are various, indeed, but how are condoms harmful? Are they not effective?


Isn't Catholic Church doing bad, by condemning condoms as evil, and sabotaging their distribution in any way they can?

9 February 2010 at 22:25  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

That is not already known from what the media have already reported.
We know paedophilia has gone on and been discovered and punishment given. On that point he has every right to criticise the RC, but to generalise and say he thinks the whole of the RC Church is dangerous is rather a deluded and incorrect view to have.

9 February 2010 at 22:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older