#1. since its under moderation, let me just say. it would be a cold heaven if the earth that thrives on this religion flourishes.

#2. The result may span decades or whichever.
I am not debating statistical or chronological. I am demanding accountability on the suffering.
The suffering of those that come to the church in need of healing and looking for hope, but repaid in abuse.
Given by your logic, just because there are billions of people on this earth, murdering a few is OK. Is that how you defined humanity?
For the record, many of the abuser died without being named or punished!

You say get some perspective, i would counter that and say get some humanity.

#3. Irish Child abuse commission 2009. Where the police are refusing to name the abuser. Is it just my interpretation?

#4. Perhaps they are all evangelical protestant christian church.
But if you are going to claim the glory of the whole christianity, then are you so eager then to shoulder all its crimes? guess not.

So the pope sanction hard labour for different denominations of christianity? Nicely done.

#5. Therefore exorcism is all its form is truly an original Christian ritual/sacrament/etc.

The point is this, why is the christianity so hard up defining and redefining family?

What does pro-life/pro-family and etc actually means when you look back at what happened and still happening in the name of Christianity?

1) Oh, that post is still awaiting moderation…

2) The problem is that the results are inconsistent. You are citing reports that cover different time periods and different-length time periods.

The John Jay report (USA) covers 11000 cases over 50 years; that’s equivalent to 220 cases per year, but not equivalent to 220 priests per year. John Jay’s time period is 1950-2004. Also, 11000 is a drop in the ocean, considering that there are 72 million Catholics in the USA.

The Irish/UK Ryan Report covers 1500 children suffering sexual abuse between 1914 to 1935. Firstly, this is 1500 out of 25000. Secondly, it is only a few institutions that are included in the report, not each and every church in the UK. Thirdly, honestly the results are outdated. 1935???!!!

The Irish Murphy report covers 1975-2004, about 25 years. In 25 years, there are only 29 priests indicted. Honestly, that is like 1 (new) priest per year. And note, I am averaging out; the distribution might be more inconsistent. I think that there are more paedophiles indicted in Singapore in 1 month than there are indicted in the Catholic Church for 25 years!

Based on the links on wikipedia, only 100 out of 5 million catholics in Australia were sexually abused!

So, have some perspective please.

3) That is your interpretation. The report does not mention that the police are “in cahoots” with the Church – considering that there was even anything to be in cahoots about.

And read your link again:-

“”"
In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church’s actions have suggested that in re-assigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the US public school system when dealing with accused teachers.
“”"

Notice that the US public school system also follows the same policy.

4) Err, well, according to your article, yes, since the only churches identified are Evangelical Churches.

And as for the Inquisition, it is a more complicated matter, if you choose to look beyond 19th-Century anti-Catholic stereotypes and Monty Python (and Simpsons and South Park). The authorities responsible for burning protestants and other heretics were the secular authorities, who did not get permission to engage in the burning itself. The Papacy was far more moderate; the strictest punishment that was levied in Italy (practically ruled by the Pope) was hard labour building cathedrals and churches; no burning at the stake.

The Spanish Inquisition was conducted in response to what the Castillian Monarchy – not the Papacy – felt was a threat to their power. The famous witch-burning manual, the Maleficos Malicarum, was German in origin, and despite its preface, never received official sanction by any member of the clergy in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) , and certainly not by the Holy See.

No cases of witch-burning in Portugal.

5) “Christianized paganism” means pagan behaviour that receives a Christian label. Christmas is not a christianized paganism. The only “pagan” feature of Christmas is its date; the practices and philosophy of Christmas differ totally from whatever pagan fertility ritual it replaced.

#1. You have not answer the question, what is the point of these morally superior teaching if resulting in altrocities?
Simply calling it collateral damage is not good enough.

#2. 4% is in New york, so?
Do we need to list down country by country on roman catholic child sex abuses scandals?
You should know the numbers better than me in that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

#3. Refer to the link above to see what’s vatican’s response initially to all the scandal.
One should pay particular interest in what happened in Ireland, especially the police are in cahoot with the church to cover up.

#4. African Exorcism is purely work of evanglical christian, hmmm really now.
It’s true there’s no with hunt craze in those countries. But in Portugal and Spain the Roman Catholics are too busy burning protestants to bother with the witches.
Its call the inquisition.

What is christianized paganism? Wouldnt you say Christmas is too a christianized paganish?

1) The actions/effects of Christians shows how much worth they put into the teachings of the Church; they do not prove whether those teachings are correct or wrong. The subjective-value is affected by the actions, not the objective-value.

2) 4% tells you the proportion of priests involved; so that is 96% of priests not involved in the scandal. But what an aggregate of 4% doesn’t tell you is that 75% of the 4% are in New York.

3) It is disturbing, but the Church didn’t actually cover it up. That is the wrong impression distributed by a handful of atheist organizations who are – as usual – out to discredit the church like vultures over a dead body. The USCCB in fact issued a public statement and the Vatican undertook its own series of investigations. Perhaps one might criticize the Vatican for choosing the wrong mitigation policies, but one cannot say that they stood still.

And on the doctrine of the family: Church teaching does not just cover the formal aspects; it also covers intangible aspects such as mercy. So the Church needs to balance retribution with mercy; going too far either way compromises the message of the Church.

4) Blame King James for that. (Hehe.) Incidentally, this has nothing to do with your allegations in the previous paragraph. The African exorcisms are fully the work of evangelicals, with no Catholic involvement whatsoever. The three Churches involved in these are the Lighthouse, Liberty Gospel and Apostolic, none of which are ecclesiastically related to the Catholic Church.

The New American Bible, which I use (and is the USCCB’s official version), has “Thou shalt not let a sorceress live” instead “Thou shalt suffer not a witch to live” (Ex 22:17 NAB, Ex 22:18 KJV). KJV was rejected in the 17th Century by the Catholic Church because it contained many mistranslations, and this was obviously one of them. As an interesting side-note, An American sociologist notes that “hardly any witch-craze took place in the strongly Catholic countries of italy, Portugal and Spain”. This shows that witch-hunts are not a Christian phenomenon; they are a Protestant and particularly Calvinist phenomenon.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

These exorcisms are not Christian in character; they are Christianised paganisms.

You said ‘The truth-value of the Church’s propositions are independent of whether its detractors engage in Poisoning the Well’

I have to disagree, especially when ones proposition are about morality.
The action/effect of your believers justify the meaning of the teachings, if not what’s the point of this self-perceived moral superiority?

Lets get specific here, lest you think me not serious ;

1. Christian child sex abuses cases.
The John Jay report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the 110,000 priests and the dioceses affected spent in total 1 billion dollars in settlement.

This is appalling to outsider and even more traumatic for those that are unfortunate to be the victims. Even more disturbing is when the church’s stand is all about traditional Family, yet resulted in enviroment that facilitate this crime against helpless children, then try to diffuse it with a huge cover up story.

2. Child exorcism in African evanglical churchs.
Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of “witch children” reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files.
Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria’s 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. In the past month alone, three Nigerian children accused of witchcraft were killed and another three were set on fire.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html

All these cruelty and death visited upon helpless children because of this verse
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” ? What happened to Pro-Family? Children?

3. Dealth Penalty for Homosexuals in Uganda.
Latest news linking the American Christian right Richard Cohen to Uganda Death Penalty for Homosexuals in Uganda.
The bill goes even further than the death and life sentences mentioned above. It also includes prison sentences for people who fail to turn in LGBT acquaintances, and even for landlords who rent to LGBT people. It’s a witch hunt.

Even Roman catholics would not agree to death penalty, but this is acceptable for to impose on GLBT? Bear in mind Uganda is a country with Christians of all denominations made up 85.1% of Uganda’s population.
.
All this are the direct effects of the teaching of christianity, or one of its many interpretation.

Tell me now how should one view the teaching/propositions of the church these days that bring about all the above altrocities?

Finally please do bear in mind these absolute truth does not belong to the church alone. There are more than one religions that is based on the judeo-abrahamic tradition (if you refer to that as the truth)

And If were I the recipient of the above, i would rather dismiss the whole teaching along with the teachers and learn the same thing all over again from somewhere else (or not bother at all).

.

1) Wow, great … Turning the Tables to refute Poisoning the Well. *sigh*. The truth-value of the Church’s propositions are independent of whether its detractors engage in Poisoning the Well.

2) The mainline hasn’t opened up voluntarily. the liberals are shoving their alternative interpretations down the throats of the mainliners. The Church is not opening up of its own accord because of internal processes; it is being forced to open up by external pressure.

That is why there is so much heated debate between the conservatives and the liberals. The conservatives dislike the un-charitable manner the liberals are using to force their own views into implementations of Church policy; whilst the liberals decry the un-charitable attitudes the conservatives take against those who do not conform to their stereotype.

3) Well, what is truth affects everybody; or else we should be able to argue that the Theory of Evolution should be kept within scientific space, since not everyone consents to it. But that is not a policy atheists are willing to accept, no?

Kezu (#47),

2) CNY predates ancestral worship; CNY is meant to celebrate the coming of spring, but at a deeper level.

3-4) That is custom built on love. All customs and traditions have some grounding, even if we don’t know what they are exactly.

1) Yes, the Christian Post has done so, and that is good, for the Reporter’s Notes does – in this instance – confirm the editorial opinion of the Post.

2) I think that you miss the point here. The Christian Post does not make any such stand. Its stand is rather a more nuanced one. To paraphrase the thesis:-

“”"
Some netizens have attacked the Archbishop for making a sermon that attacks single parents and homosexuals. We wish to refute this claim on two grounds:

(1) The sermon’s topic is a discussion of witnessing to the World, not a discussion of the rights and wrongs of individual lifestyles, homosexuality or otherwise.

(2) The comments which are the basis of this accusation are technically not part of the actual text of the sermon, so saying that they are is a lie to the public. They are instead points made to clarify certain points in the sermon after the sermon. In other words, they are a commentary on the sermon, not the sermon itself.
“”"

I fail to see where your allegation fits into the thesis as presented above.

3) Looking at the Straits Times’ article, blaming the reporter is justified since – as usual – the reporter has chosen to zero in on a specific part of the speech without looking at it in entirety. Typical Straits Times journalistic quality, and one point that has been noted countless times over in other threads on TOC.

Straits Times seems to work on assigning arbitrary classifications to each group in Singapore society and then moulding whatever is expressed by these groups into those classifications lock, stock and barrel; religious groups are no less immune to this slip-shod mode of journalism than are Opposition Parties and “fringe groups”.

4) Well, as I see it – after reading the Reporter’s Notes in entirety, which I advise you do too – the conflict is over what liberals like you thought that he meant (due to the slip-shod journalism or perhaps censorship of ST) and what he actually meant.

The Archbishop didn’t say something else; but he meant something else. He shared his clarification of the structural meanings of the terminology, but he did not clarify – or wasn’t asked to – what the contextual applications of those structural meanings were.

Looking at the Reporter’s Notes, I deduce the following argument:-

“”"
Our society today faces a crisis, and that crisis is Individualism. One effect of individualism has been the derogation of classical family norms, which has led to the low birth rate here in Singapore. This echoes the situation that led to the decline of Ancient Greece.

As faithful Christians, we must work to direct society away from this dangerous Individualism back to the Light of the Gospel.
“”"

That makes your article wrong on three counts:-

(A) Rev Chew “attacks” the philosophy of Individualism. He does not attack homosexuality or divorcees or orphans or whatever.

(B) You confuse cause with effect. Insufficient babies is not the cause of moral decline; moral decline is the cause of insufficient babies.

(C) You have applied a Fallacy of Equivocation. You have presented an example given to illustrate an argument as if it were the argument itself. This is totally un-academic.

A side-note: Using capitals in posts shows an un-Christian etiquette, unless you can justify that they are being used for mere emphasis, and not to express “anger and resentment”.

5) I agree. Let us continue debating the real issues, but please, let us not misrepresent what people actually say or mean. That, incidentally, would run counter to the principles of the Listening Process, which you have stated previously that you endorse.

Love and custom are mutually exclusive.

How many of us still remember the true purpose of the custom of Chinese New Year? Celebration of beginning of spring? Ancestor worship?

But we all still willing reunite for family dinner no matter how far apart the family is.

That’s Love, not custom.

your poisoning the well fallacy is interesting.
But its only applicable it THAT church teaching is the truth.

However, it is not the case now isnt it?
Its divided and questioned and debated upon and open itself up
to many interpretations.

So like what is been said here, if that truth does not applied to all, … or yet to all (optimistically) then it should not be allow to spill into secular space, no?

What’s striking here is the position that it’s OK for the archbishop to make his points not in his public speech but in a private interview. So we are told: “The comments that drew a public uproar were mostly made in the context of an interview the mainline church leader granted the journalist after the service – during which the archbishop was apparently asked to clarify what he meant by the terms he used – rather than in public as his report properly noted.”

The blame then appears to be shifted to the Straits Times reporter: “The article did not mention the substance of the archbishop’s exhortation to his members. Many had the impression that the church leader was simply being critical of those in non-traditional family units and encouraging Anglicans to do the same.”

I must say that such an approach taken by any party — Christian Post or The Anglican Church — cannot be more mistaken. The outrage was NOT over whether the archbishop said something publicly or privately but over WHAT he actually said, in a public or a private capacity. It was also over what he happily shared as his own CLARIFICATION of his words — as all reports confirmed. In other words, the archbishop didn’t mean something else.

So, considering the merit of journalistic clarity, I suggest the spotlight be turned away from the reporter back to the real issues at hand.

Gwee Li Sui

1) Ah, I see.

2) Simply put, there are many aspects of a family. One aspect may be be perfect, but another may not.

3) For those in arranged marriages that found true affection; good. They have met the perfect family. (Incidentally, “true affection” refers to more than just sexual attraction.)

For the orphans who found kind and loving foster parents, I am glad for them too. But I will still acknowledge that the circumstances that cause them to be orphaned in the first place represents a social imperfection; that hopefully as a society we can work toward an outcome where no child needs to end up orphaned.

The fact that the orphan is orphaned indicates an imperfection in the orphan’s biological family, whatever imperfection that might be. It does not indicate an imperfection in the foster family.

The foster family is legitimate as long as there are only two parents, and they are of different sexes. (I don’t like the word “gender” because it is more subjective.

On a side note, I am also realizing now that family in itself is a many-faceted concept, and (part of) the reason why liberals and conservatives are at loggerheads is because they are making arguments for different aspects. I would agree that the conservatives are taking the macro-perspective -societal construction in general – but failing to note the micro-perspective; conversely, the liberals take the micro-perspective – owing to their individualism – and fail to recognize the macro-perspective. The conservatives present the macro-perspective as the micro-perspective and the liberals like Dr Gwee treat the micro-perspective as the macro-perspective.

That is why – whatever Dr Gwee thinks – I do accept the Listening Process by the Anglican Communion. Hopefully, both the macro-perspective and the micro-perspective can be synthesized for a fuller realization of human life.

1) What makes love love?

2) As I told kezu, morality and legality are two different things. The argument is not whether we have a “license to f**k” – as you so crudely put it – but how/whether we ought to use the “license to f**k” that we have.

3) Is everything in the stone age necessarily bad? Or are we just arrogant moderns here?

4) Poisoning the Well Fallacy. The conduct of the “moral” fathers is independent from the truth of what they teach. The Church can teach the complete truth, but not follow it properly; that doesn’t mean that the truth is in error.

To use an analogy: A student catches his health education teacher smoking after a lesson on how smoking is bad because it causes cancer; should now the student disregard everything that he/she was taught earlier just because of the teacher’s conduct?

5) Love and Custom are not mutually exclusive, or else we might as well stop celebrating Chinese New Year!

But you did say ‘All families are still families.’ Yeah!

However, i dont like your next phrase, about imperfection of family due to illegitimacy of some marriage. (still not sure what you mean by this)

Let me ask you what do you say to the faces of those in arranged marriages (that eventually found love and affection) and oprhans growing up in loving foster families?

@Gwee Li Sui – This is a great article on democracy and love including all types of families. I absolutely hate how some Singaporeans put themselves through hoops arguing that the licence to f**k only applies to certain “classical compositions”

Lol. I wonder what sexual affairs the anglicans and moral protestors guiltily resort to behind closed doors, trapped by stone-age “morality”.

Look the Catholic church and all the child abuse done by the “moral” fathers.
Preaching about god on one hand.
Abusing little kids for three decades on the other.
Should we trust what these preachers say?

Families of LOVE work, not families of custom.

You twisted and looped with both terms ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ to a point
i almost believe you agree with me. (call me delusional)

But you did say ‘All families are still families.’ Yeah!

However, i dont like your next phrase, about imperfection of family due to illegitimacy of some marriage.

What do you say to the face of those in arranged marriages (that eventually found love and affection) and children in loving foster homes?

Kindly elaborate please…

You finally agree with me!

1) That is because marriage is what founds a family. Well, physically, what founds a family is the consummation of marriage, but the wedding acts as a prelude to that. Marriage – as in the relationship between husband and wife – is also what maintains the family.

2) Not exactly. A marriage is only legitimate if both husband and wife ‘surrender’ to each other. A family is slightly different, because of the status of children as gifts from God. (see below.)

4) Well, a little caution here. Children are still children, regardless of what conditions they are born under. So whatever may be said about their parents’ relationship, it has no bearing on how the children – legitimate or illegitmate by secular society’s standards – ought to be treated. I am not implying that any children – even the children of the mail-order bride ought to be discriminated against.

The most legitimate form of marriage is procreative, not reproductive. The point of calling the act pro-creation is that it is supposed to be the participation in the creation of new life, not a carbon copy clone to what is already existing.

Because of the unchangeable nature of the children’s condition, all families are still families, but they are imperfect families with illegitimate marriages.

5) The definition of marriage is exclusive, not the definition of family.