posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:47 PM
Hope you understand, that it was not meant offensively, but with some humoristic intent.
It always gladdens my grumpy old heart, when christians like you emerge, showing some common sense on the many levels in the makings of a religion.
Even if I am far from sharing your specific religion, I share some of the attitudes you have, concerning what I believe is up and down in life. And
the most important for me is maybe demonstrating whatever 'truth' I believe in as worthwhile, rather than preaching it, or worse, enforcing it on
And hence my former sarcastic comments on this thread. If an ideology resorts to dishing out predigested answers, answers based on the whims,
political or religious ambitions and questionable competence be any 'authority', there will always eventually turn up some 'better' information,
knowledge or understanding, not based on the uncertain sand of leaders formulating inflexible doctrines, but on somewhat more solid ground.
Very, very few people today would believe in a geocentric 6.000 old universe, instead of the present scientific model (I don't believe this
scientific model is perfect, far from it, only closer to 'reality'), so naturally some existential uncertainty can arise. A christian is forced to
accept two contradictory 'realities' at the same time, if s/he wants to believe everything in the bible.
Some flexibility is needed to reconcile opposites into an inclusive whole, and I'm not saying, that religion alone is to blame for having rigid
attitudes. Classical science, pre-quantum mechanics, saw itself as the new 'priesthood' of 'truth' and threw the baby out with the bathwater, by
denying the valuable parts of religion.
Whereas outdated doctrines are outdated doctrines, how difficult it may be for some traditionalists to accept it. In my youth I worked together with a
very pleasant person (we were teachers), he was gay, and at the same time priest in a liberal catholic church. There were NEVER any doubts about his
honesty, integrity or decency from students, parents or the other teachers.
Now such a person and such a christian denomination would probably be considered heretic by other christian denominations. They had taken the liberty
to change some rules. Personally I can only applaud it.
After all these relatively off-topic ruminations, I can finally get to the topic of the thread, by suggesting, that information 'outside'
church-authority or doctrines can assist in answering the question put here. With 'outside' I don't mean any hostile or threatening information,
but something functioning as a supplement to those who believe in some variety of christianity.
Psychology and psychiatry can (though they are still in their infancy as sciences) help in establishing e.g. the 'responsibility' aspect in any
person committing such abominations as pedophilia. Just as some paranormal experiences (and even epinoia) now can be explained as a result of
epilepsy, there are certain medical conditions, which can be measured objectively and clinically, which can give individuals demonstrating
unacceptable behaviour a 'clean responsibility bill' because of insanity.
In the case of an alleged 'satan' the ultimate responsibility will fall on the church itself, as it (the church) is supposed to be THE authority on
the subject, not science.
But no matter what, the church as an organisation failed. I do not condone the hushing up, but shuffling these priests around from parish to parish is
unforgivable. They should have been removed completely and immediately.
The outcome, a thorough springcleaning in the church(es), is a double-edged sword, especially for the Vatican, because a central doctrine,
ineffability, now is under siege and this will have a domino effect. If ineffability in itself is questionable ALL other doctrines can be questioned,
and the whole thing can crumble in a few years. The only way out is a good, long introspection by the church(es), acknowledging the rotten parts and
then seriously changing.
Sorry, I got carried away and continued too long, never quite arriving to point. Maybe some more precision later.