91热爆

If the Pope has no universal supremacy then why does the Orange Order care if he visits Scotland?

In Canada the Orange Order is considered to be somewhat bizarre, sort of on the scale of Scientology and Mormonism. Should the group send a contingent to protest a papal visit to the UK if one actually happens this fall? That is up to them.

I just checked our fall travel schedule and discovered happily that it coincides with the pope tour. If the show goes ahead then I will definitely leave my husband at the and go back to London to join in. Down with that sort of thing.

(The Goodwood Revival is not to an event to jump for Jesus but a celebration for fine automobile enthusiasts.)

"Is Pope Benedict too compromised by revelations about how he handled sex abuse allegations against priests to continue leading the Catholic church?"

Interestingly there might be more than a few among Papa's troubled flock who would rather not see him at the present time. Of course their reasons would be very different.

That Chaplain is not alone in his views. The majority of Orangemen will in no way protest the Pope's visit. They are appalled and embarrassed by the statement.

What makes it worse is that the Orange Leadership were warned by a number of Grand Chaplains not to issue this statement in the first place. They said that is was 'anti-catholic' and 'sectarian' and offered an alternative statement, which called for peace and the common good to prevail and even prayed for the "good estate of the Catholic Church":



Even the PR company advised against the statement but Grand Master and Rev. Alistair Smyth would not listen and stubbornly pressed on ahead.

They wanted the Scottish and English Orange Order to support them in protesting the Pope. But the Scots refused and said it was a mistake and that they did not want to be a part of it.

So with Grand Chaplains, the PR company and the Scottish Orange Order all opposing the statement, what did Bobby Saulters and Rev. Alistair Smyth do? They made a fool out of themselves and brought shame on the Orange Institution, all in an effort to appease the fundamentalists in 'Orange Reformation'.

Why did they listen to the DUP negotiating team during the Hillsborough agreement and hold back with this statement until now? And why did they not listen to the advice of senior Grand Chaplains, PR experts and the entire Scottish Order?

John, the reason is very simple. They are sectarian idiots. That is the problem with fundamentalism - it always gravitates towards the lowest knuckle-draggingest common denominator. The vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives; the stupidest nutcase who spews the most toxic bilge, that moment from other nutcases a following receives.

There are plenty of reasons why Mr Ratzinger should be exposed to the disapproval of the British public, and it is arguable that his promotion of the Myth of the Space Pixie and His Magic Crackers should be one of those reasons, as well as his corporate responsibility for child abuse, but surely not from *another* bunch of repressed Pixie-wielding crazies?

John, Helio:

Yes, it is a bit of a dilemma. While I wouldn't want to ban the Pope's visit, I would like to protest about him being accorded the status of a Head of State at taxpayer's expense. And while I don't want to sleep with strange bedfellows in the oh so tolerant and freedom-loving Orange Order, there is frankly a lot to protest about. Here's just a half dozen:

1. Ratzinger as head of the CDF, 1981-2005, has clearly led the cover-up of child sex abuse.
2. Ratzinger has opposed the distribution of condoms, thus contributing to AIDS in poor countries.
3. Ratzinger has promoted segregated education through 'faith schools'.
4. Ratzinger has opposed equal rights for gays, lesbians etc.
5. Ratzinger rehabilitated the holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson
6. Ratzinger is rehabilitating Pius XII, the 'Nazi Pope' (De Gaulle).

John Orange reformation is not a fundamentalist grouping...they are a Christian group which seeks to establish prayer triplets and have orangemen practising their faith rather than just talking about it... which is something all Christians should support.

There were two draft letters about the Pope coming and for some unknown reason Rev Smyth choose the worst one although i didn't agree with the quote from the common book of prayer in the other unpublished statement, i was at the GOLI meeting where the draft was discussed and to be quite frank I felt that Rev. Smyth was out of his depth in comparison to Rev. Dickinson but well Dickinson was proving to be too much of a thorn in the side of grand lodge so he was got rid of and replaced by smyth, John if most orangemen are against the statement then why did no one oppose it at grand lodge where over 200 were in attendence? or why did no one oppose it when it was read in their own local lodges as part of the grand lodge report?? I personally think it was a load of nonsense but it was a step in the right direction none the less...

You've got to admit - the NSS and the Orange Order on the same side of a debate has a certain comic value to it.

In Northern Ireland they could have a well attended debate about which group hates the papacy more. I'm willing to moderate...

Although it could be a boon for the NSS. They could protest the Pope's visit, and then protest the Orange protest at the Pope's vist.

The NSS would not deny him the right to visit the UK as can be seen from the petition

Petition the PM
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to disassociate the British government from the Pope's intolerant views ahead of the Papal visit to Britain in September 2010.

We urge the Prime Minister to make it clear that his government disagrees with the Pope's opposition to women's reproductive rights, gay equality, embryonic stem cell research and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV.

We ask the Prime Minister to express his disagreement with the Pope鈥檚 role in the cover-up of child sex abuse by Catholic clergy, his rehabilitation of the Holocaust-denying bishop Richard Williamson, and his decree paving the way for the beatification and sainthood of the war-time Pope, Pius XII, who stands accused of failing to speak out against the Holocaust.

We also request the Prime Minister to assure us that the Pope鈥檚 visit will not be financed by the British taxpayer.

Sign this petition on the No.10 website

Who will ever forget the scene in Edinburgh in 1982 when Bible-wielding Protestants shouted fenian bee at Pope John Paul who was only here on a private visit to his flock?
Pope Benedict has accepted an invitation from the Prime Minister and will be the guest of Her Majesty The Queen.
Maybe Cameron would get a few extra votes if he promised to have the invitation withdrawn?
If you want to go to heaven when you die the Catholic Church is still a better bet than the Orange Order.

Re#11
Thanks Ally. But I don't think that the Orange Order would want the Pope's passport taken away either. They just think it was wrong for the government to invite him, and are calling for a protest.

But if I'm wrong, and the OO want Pope's stopped at our borders, could someone dig out a reference?

GV

You know something, Brian, for all your humanistic veneer you really are just an old fashioned ant-Catholic bigot. Pathetic.

Would Jesus be in the Orange Order?

I don't think that's a fair characterisation McC. In fact I'm sure it's not. I'm not sure what you mean by "old fashioned". I take it you mean something like "Protestant" or "Anglo-Saxon.

Can anyone passionately oppose Roman Catholicism without being a bigot?

More to the point, was anything in Brian's post *wrong*, or is it just that Chris doesn't like hearing it? Chris, you're a human being. Brian's a humanist. He *can't* be bigoted against you. However, the institution of the Roman Catholic Church and its current CEO have recently been engaged in some despicable behaviour. Your loyalty is cute, but really rather misplaced. There is an element of proper tragedy in all this - the hubris and expediency engendered in some people who, in other circumstances, might have trodden a noble path, is causing their downfall. The pride of a corporation that deluded itself that it was above the law, above morality - that it could even *define* morality! That it could issue whatever blatant nonsense it wanted (such as the eucharist being the "body and blood of Jesus"), and the sheep would just lap it up. The utter disdain for the very people who upheld it - it is exactly analogous to the feudal exploitation of and contempt for the very peasant class without which they would not survive.

Is Ratzinger a Bad Man? I actually don't think that is accurate. He is as fallible and perverse as the rest of us, but this is hubris, this is pride coming before a fall, this is Tragedy. Like Macbeth, you feel a bit of sympathy for him in the end.

If this organisation were a political party, criticisms like these would be fully accepted. But since it is a Pixiemongering scamjob, we are supposed to treat it with more respect? I rather think not.

1. Ratzinger as head of the CDF, 1981-2005, has clearly led the cover-up of child sex abuse - the opposite of the truth.
2. Ratzinger has opposed the distribution of condoms, thus contributing to AIDS in poor countries - the opposite of the truth - Uganda.
3. Ratzinger has promoted segregated education through 'faith schools'. In the European Convention this is known as a "human right"
4. Ratzinger has opposed equal rights for gays, lesbians etc - Ratzinger has supported the rights of Christians to be Christians, again a human right.
5. Ratzinger rehabilitated the holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson. He didn't "rehabilitate" him - he lifted an excommunication - it's not the same thing
6. Ratzinger is rehabilitating Pius XII, the 'Nazi Pope' (De Gaulle). If you think Venerable Pius XII was a Nazi then you're an idiot and entirely ignorant of history - or just a bigot who refuses to face the truth.

Mcc:

It is obviously too much to ask that you stick to the arguments and cut the personal abuse. I don't mind, but it hardly strengthens your case. Quite pathetic, really. Why should a strong criticism of a medieval, authoritarian institution be seen as bigotry? All the points I listed about Ratzinger refer to his policies. Is any criticism of them to be denounced in this way?

I have strongly criticised free Presbyterianism and the Orange Order on this blog. Is that also bigotry? I think, mcc, that you need to define what you mean by this term. And maybe you could tell us if it is bigotry to describe the Orange Order as bigoted.

1. There is an even more evidence in the last 48 hours from Wisconsin suggesting that Ratzinger as head of the CDF covered up the abuse of 200 deaf children by Father Murphy.

2. The Pope's opposition to condoms is clearly making matters worse. The Times, 18th March:
Rebecca Hodes, head of policy, communication and research at Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, said that if the Pope were serious about preventing HIV infections he would focus on promoting wider access to condoms and information. 鈥淚nstead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans,鈥� she said. The World Health Organisation says that 鈥渃onsistent and correct鈥� condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent.

4. Does this mean that Ratzinger supports the right of Christians to be homophobic? Is that not bigotry?

6. I suggest you read Hitler's Pope by John Cornwell.

1. "The opposite of the truth" - Eh, I think you have to explain that one MCC. It would appear that, across the globe at the moment, some very good factual evidence is supporting Brian's claim. Is everyone wrong and only you are right? That statement, with absolutely no argument, makes you look rather idiotic.

2. "The opposite of the truth - Uganda." Again, to retain (sorry, attain) some sort of credibility, you might need to unpack that one for us. Stopping fluids containing HIV moving from one person to another CONTRIBUTES to the spread of HIV? Nonsensical.

3. One of the first papers we were asked to write in Senior Seminary was, "Do you think the situation in Northern Ireland at present (1980) would require the Catholic Church to drop its (human) right to have separate schools in this particular area of the world, on moral grounds?"
(I think the idea behind the question was that if children got to know each other at a young age, they might not grow up to murder each other.)
I can understand why someone as far removed from the situation as Ratzinger might oppose the idea, but whats your excuse? So that your children can go along to a church service and conclude at the end of it, "It was nice, the priest had a nice stole on and the music was nice", as you commented elsewhere? MCC, who gave you permission to make our faith look so shallow and so ridiculous?

4. Ratzinger knows exactly the extent of the volume of homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood and in the Hierarchy. It is rife. If every gay man left the priesthood tomorrow, the Roman Catholic Church would collapse.

5. So now you finally admit that Ratzinger did indeed lift the excommunication on holocaust denier Williamson. I seem to remember you on here at the time, claiming that Ratzinger didnt know, that it wasnt his fault, etc.. yawn, etc.. Here is a man who lifts an excommunication on a Holocaust denier, but threatens (in 2001) abused children with excommunication if they dont keep quiet about their abuse. Tell me, as an outsider, what do you think of the human race?

6. I seem to remember on here months ago, you coming out with this same drivel about Pius and accusing people of not knowing their history. I cant remember who it was, but someone who knew their history came back at you with a detailed post explaining to you Pius' support for the fascists in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. It was detailed and verifiable. And you call Brian an idiot?

MCC, your last sentence is so telling - "A bigot who refuses to face the truth." Consider.

Brian, calling Venerable Pius XII "Nazi Pope" is personal abuse. Your post was not argument but a tissue of assertive untruths. Really what is the point - we've had endless threads on condoms which haven't worked at the population level as they encourage the sort of behaviour that leads to the spread of AIDS, and it's clear logic that if people followed the Church's teaching there would be no AIDS; we've had endless posts on Pius in which the same tired lies are spread, the same contemoraneous remarks by leading Jews ignored, all the actual evidence ignored. I've read Cornwell's book and several other books that completely refute it. I never denied that the Pope lifted an excommunication - I merely disagreed that it was some sort of exhoneration of holocaust denial which it clearly wasn't, not least since the Pope didn't even know about that.

As for the essay RJB had to write - what sort of rubbish seminary was that? What subject were you studying? "Evidence across the globe"? Take the Milwaukee case - you have a lawyer losing a case and so he tries to soften up public opinion with this rubbish. Ratzinger was told about the accusations forty years after they began, twenty years after the police investigaged them and took no action. and the priest dies four months later. Where exactly is the cover up? I listened to the 91热爆 news tonight and it was a disgrace - phrases like "the Pope must have known". Assertions by a disgruntled ex priest.

As I think I said before, RJB, if you don't like my blog, don't read it.

I see we now have an orange order member standing as a BNP candidate.

DK

Mcc:

The term 鈥楴azi Pope鈥� was originally de Gaulle鈥檚, not mine. In the book Hitler鈥檚 Pope John Cornwall argues that Pacelli (Pius XII) aided and abetted the Nazis in order to to increase and centralise the power of the Papacy. He also argues that Pacelli was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews.

Goldhagen鈥檚 A Moral Reckoning also deals with Pacelli鈥檚 antisemtism. Not only was he an antisemite, but also the Church as a whole as an institution was thoroughly, and perhaps inextricably, permeated by anti-Semitism. He quotes Pacelli鈥檚 1919 letter about the Munich insurrection, 鈥渁 concentrated barrage of antisemitic stereotypes and charges鈥� (p46). In the letter Pacelli equates Judaeism with Bolshevism, exactly the same equation made by the Nazis.

In 1949 Pacelli excommunicated all Communists in the world, including millions who never shed blood, but did not excommunicate a single German or non-German who had served Hitler - or even the Catholic-born Hitler himself.

"disgruntled ex-priest" - aah, the projection gets deeper.

MCC, for months now I've been trying to get a handle on you. Why would anyone say the things you do? Why would someone consign their intelligence to the dustbin and continue to defend the indefensible? Why would someone so regularly attack priests in such a petty manner for, for example, the way they dress, yet, in comparison, have very little to say about abuser priests and even run to the defence of those who covered up?

What happened to you MCC? Did you study for the priesthood and not make it? Is there a resentment there against guys who did make it and you see yourself as somehow better than them?

There certainly has to be an explanation for your behaviour. There isnt an ounce of spirituality or any gospel awareness in anything you say. There is very little 'redemptive' in what you say.

I'll continue to read your blog and I'll continue to expose and challenge the garbage you pedal as Catholicism. I also feel that it is important on here, as one of the few Roman Catholics, that you do not get to post stuff unchallenged, apparently speaking on behalf of our Church, when in fact, it is just your caustic wee world in print.

RJB and Christopher you are being very naughty boys - don't you know this was supposed to be a Protestant thread for Protestant people? We'll have no Roman hegemony here! ;-) Especially so because I wanted to ask CC to summarise the debate between Mr Dickson and Mr Smyth for me. I have read both statements and, to be honest, would find it difficult to slide a blade of the green grassy stuff between them - maybe CC or John could explain the important differences.

Yours fraternally, Parr

post 22, what a confused political world he must live in, as the BNP basically accept an "utd nationalist ireland".

Parr

Do you mean that it is okay to slaughter each other and give vent to all sorts of billious hatred and antipathy towards each other - as long as we do it on another thread?

What does it tell you when the former Orange leader Rev. Martin Smyth tells the Institution to learn from its mistakes?

What does it tell you when Rev. Alistair Smyth isn't prepared to answer whether he will demonstrate against the Pope in Scotland or England or not?

What does it tell you when ordinary Orangemen and 'every citizen' of the UK aren't jumping on the band wagon and sayinging "lets protest the Pope"?

It tells you that this is major mistake by the Orange leadership. They should do the Christian thing, admit their mistake, ask for forgiveness and take a back seat.

He also argues that Pacelli was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews.

Isn't the same thing also said about Martin Luther Brian i.e. that he was anti-semitic and actually had a hatred of the jews ? But wait...... Wasn't Luther a Roman Catholic priest. Oh dear.

Peter:
Yes, he was very anti-semitic and recommended throwing pig shit at Jews ('On the Jews and their Lies').
He was also, like most Christians in the western world in the 16th century, a member of the Holy Catholic and Roman Apostolic Church. Anti-semitism was then a characteristic of the Church. Alas, none of Luther's 95 theses attacked it for that.

Nick Griffin the BNP leader was on Christian TV and said... he got a better reception from that channel than from a certain other one that went out of its way to set him up.

Revelation, Channel 585, sky.

RJB - # 27

I was thinking of CC - in post # 12 on the "Athiest in the Pulpit" thread he asks Will for a thread to discuss matters of interest to Protestants. Will hears his prayer and grants his request - and, lo and behold, in no time at all the discussion centres round the Pope! I mean, is there no balm in Gilead??

It doesn't appear, however, as if Protestants are all that interested in discussing Protestant things. I am actually really interested in the differences between Mr Smyth and Mr Dickson (honestly, I am, really) but no-one will enlighten me. I want to know what important features differentiate the two statements but there is a deathly silence.

"I wanted to ask CC to summarise the debate between Mr Dickson and Mr Smyth for me. I have read both statements and, to be honest, would find it difficult to slide a blade of the green grassy stuff between them - maybe CC or John could explain the important differences."

well the differences are quite simple.... Rev Dickinson says the order should be Christian and should be made up of Christians... he thinks it's hypocritical to say we are a christian order when we have drunken men on parade and murderers etc in our ranks, he feels that we should try to follow Christ and emulate Him rather than call ourselves protestants whilst getting drunk and causing riots...

Rev Smyth feels that if we dress up as mickey mouse and dance about as chinese dragons handing out sweets etc then nobody will notice the riots and drunken violence that accompanies our parades, he feels that getting grants is more important than the order's Christian ethos and is basically a "yes man" for Grand Lodge...

There are no differences between Rev Smyth and Rev Dickinson. In their opinions, they are both deluded and extreme. They offer no hope whatsoever to anybody. In their viewponits, there is no grace, no charity and no common sense. I wonder what the Presbyterian Church will do in light of this?

@CC

"if we dress up as mickey mouse and dance about as chinese dragons handing out sweets etc then nobody will notice the riots and drunken violence that accompanies our parades"

Hallelujah! There's something we agree on CC, and I'm overjoyed to see an Orangeman point it out on a public forum.

@MCC

It isn't at all bigoted to suggest that Pacelli and Ratzinger have a case to answer. I may not agree with everything that Brian and RJB have said. But as Brian's references show, their critique is not the property of fundamentalists and extemeists. Goldhagen my be very controversial, but his credentials are impressive. Cornwell is a respected author.

These aren't "Dan Brown"-ish fantasies. The critique demands a serious answer.
At the moment it also seems that Ratzinger's competence and judgment deserves scrutiny. The abuse happened "on his watch" as it were. Now if Vatican secrecy can be set aside, perhaps Ratzinger will be seen to have made good judgments with the information available to him.
But if this was a Minister for Justice/91热爆 Secretary who had just been promoted to Prime Minister we would expect an open inquiry. (If not a resignation on principle.)Liberal Democracies expect accountability. It does not seem that the Vatican has attuned to the times.

It's also entirely possible to respect the "office" of the Pope and still criticise the man who holds the office.Google " Saeculum Obscurum" - although I expect you're already aware of this period of Church History. **Everyone** concedes that very bad men can be Pope.

There are substantial questions that need substantial answers. This is not just a matter of the secular and liberal (or Protestant) press hounding the Catholic faithful.

GV

Anyone genuinely interested in the truth of the New York Times story about the Pope might benefit from reading this article .

Anyone genuinely interested in the truth about Venerable Pius XII should go to or read The Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi David Dalin.

CC and John - thanks for your replies - there appears to be a slight difference of opinion as to Mr Smyth, probably a perspective issue.

I think the Orange Order has simply out-lived any conceivable purpose and we are witnessing its death throes. The alliance of ultra-conservative reformed Christians with beer-swilling theological illiterates when there is no longer any unifying common purpose to their conjunction is bound to be fraught.

I imagine most of the evangelicals who contribute here would see the overt anti-Catholicism of Orangeism as something which crosses the boundaries of doctrinal disagreement into personal or communal antipathy and, as such, a barrier to the effective communication of the Gospel. The Orange Reformation faction has lost this, once significant, part of its constituency because the imperatives of the Kingdom are seen to outweigh those of the province.

For many in urban areas the Order fulfils a social function: on the positive side its halls are places to associate and drink, its bands foster a kind of koinonia and are a focus for those feelings of pride in self which have so little outlet in many disadvantaged communities. On the negative, although there is no informed religious dimension whatsoever, in my limited experience there can be nonetheless an ugly visceral sectarianism. The concerns and reasoning of Orange Reformation would be as foreign to this sector as a High Mass in Latin - and about as comprehensible.

In the rural areas with which I am most familiar you have a bit of everything. The odd Bible-basher is benignly tolerated because at the end of the day that's what it's all about but nobody listens that closely or takes him that seriously. The odd bon viveur is tolerated because sure didn't his father and grandfather like a drink too - what else would you expect. There is a kind of vague theoretical anti-Catholicism which does not translate into personal animosity towards individuals at all. The 'Orange' was once a binding force in the community, the centre of social activity, but changes in rural society have diminished that role considerably so that now it is little more than a historical relic, a living memory of what used to be.

I am interested in these issues because I can trace my family's involvement in the Order back to 1815, I still (very) occasionally wear the sash my great-great grandfather wore. While disagreeing with just about everything the Orange Order institutionally stands for, I remain a member and I consider it important to continue to be so as a mark of solidarity with the community in which I grew up. It was difficult to justify my position even to myself during the Drumcree period, to be honest it doesn't get any easier. Oddly I have yet some residual sentiment for the Order and I still very much enjoy the "Twelfth" - if the leadership want to keep the thing alive they have to decide very firmly where it's going: the Joker look (funny mask, sinister heart) is not a good one (to that extent I agree with CC).

Rabbi David Dalin mainly uses that book to attack Palestinian Muslims. He was courting the American Right.

But there are good coherent defences of Pius' Papacy, and no, Cornwell and Goldhagen don't have the last word. I'm just saying that there is a clear case to be answered, not that it can't be answered. But most of all, it does not take anti-catholicism to see that.

GV

Some response to the Critique of Ratzinger can be found here -

which is worth quoting on "Crimen Sollicitationis"-

"The so-called "confidential" instruction was published by the Vatican, appeared in English in 2001, and has been on the Vatican website (in Latin) since at least the middle of 2005."
"It has been 'discovered,' 'revealed' or 'exposed' by so many reporters since then that it might give pause to those who doubt the possibility of the resurrection of the dead."

I'm still not convinced that "Crimen Sollicitationis" was wise and useful for a Church dealing with sexual abuse. The lack of reference to secular law in "Crimen Sollicitationis" seems foolish. It gives the impression that the complexities of canon law took precedence over the safety of children.

Another problem is that the Canon Lawyers who, as expert witnesses, testify that "Crimen Sollicitationis" cannot justify coverups
are all, well, canon lawyers. They are steeped in the ethos of the church, and there are no secular experts who, as peers, can verify the interpretations of the canon lawyers. The best that we can do is find canon lawyers that are out of favour with the Church.

GV

"I imagine most of the evangelicals who contribute here would see the overt anti-Catholicism of Orangeism as something which crosses the boundaries of doctrinal disagreement into personal or communal antipathy and, as such, a barrier to the effective communication of the Gospel."

Amen

It's also worth checking these out (and this should keep the mod. busy)



George Weigl defends Ratzinger from allegations of a cover-up here (it's the same article "Coundrel times" referenced by McC, but in a more readable format)





FR R J De Souza in "Culture change in the Church" gives a different spin on the problem, and interpretats Ratzinger as a man who, quite correctly, didn't trust Bishops to deal with the matter.

"In the 1960s, like much of society and after the Second Vatican Council, the Church simply abandoned her disciplinary life."

"A culture of laxity had so infected bishops that their disciplinary muscles had severely atrophied. It was not as if they were vigilant rulers in all aspects, but perversely indulgent of sexual abuse. Indulgence was shown to abuses of all kinds"

"In the late 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger launched a review of how such cases were being handled. In 2001, he and Pope John Paul II lost patience. That year 鈥� before, it should be noted, the explosion of the American scandals in 2002 鈥� local bishops were told they no longer could handle the canonical aspects of such cases on their own authority."

"The backlog from the sins, shame and secrecy of the past is still to be dealt with. It will take some time. The victims' pain endures, the Church's shame remains. The abdication of discipline in the Church has taken a terrible toll. Slowly though we are becoming more Catholic and restoring the years that the locust hath eaten."

GV

Most Orangemen really don't know the difference between Roman Catholic Doctrine and basic Protestant Teaching, so really I don't know what all the fuss is all about?, maybe this could be used as a smokescreen to take away from all the major abuse which has been going on within the Roman Catholic, UK/Irish Church for many years and its public revealing and scandal.

GV

There is of course another sociological viewpoint to all of this.

The individual who chooses to break the code of silence adhered to by the group or who sees a higher truth than that followed by the pack.

What will happen to CC if he continues to demand that a Christian ethos pervades Orangeism?

The Mason who decides that privileges bestowed upon 'the boys' and denied to outsiders is immoral and who decides to blow the whistle?
(The goat - If we've all been there, we all have something 'on' each other. Pretty good way to maintain group cohesion. I am of course speaking metaphorically.)

The Catholic Hierarchy operate in the same way as most human groups. They all know the dark side, they are all in it together, 'If I'm going down, you're all going down!!" So they circle the wagons, identify the threat, isolate him, discredit him and expel him. Ask Diarmud Martin.

"The abdication of discipline in the Church has taken a terrible toll."

No, my friend. The group's bullwarks have been breached. They will now move heaven and earth, using all their power, to patch up their defenses.
Those who show loyalty will be rewarded. Those who 'caused' this threat to the group will be isolated and expelled, quietly if possible.

This group is expert at it. Thats why the've been around for so long.

RJB

I wouldn't agree with everything in those articles. They do provide a bit of balance.

But I would agree with the explanation that you offer above. Actually, it's similar to the problem that the Church faced pre-Reformation. And according to Euan Cameron it took doctrinal change to enable moral and ecclesiastical reform.

GV

John D - I absolutely agree that most Orangemen are unaware of the doctrinal differences between Roman Catholicism and historical Protestantism. I used to work with a guy from the Shankill (many years ago), he wasn't an Orangeman but he did play in a loyalist flute band. He and I had occasional conversations about religion and I was astonished to learn that he thought Communion was something only Catholics did and that the Trinity was a Catholic doctrine (strictly speaking he was correct here but he meant specifically Roman). Absolute basics yet totally foreign to him. He never went to church yet I have never seen anyone so cross as he was when I once tricked him into crossing the threshold of a Chapel - I really thought he was going to deck me.

The kind of hatred that this ordinary decent, in fact rather pleasant, guy felt for Catholics, and hatred is the only correct word to use, really fascinated me. It cannot be considered religious, nor indeed even can its origin truly be said to be religious, it is surely the result of some kind of trbalism.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The glove has now come off the fingers . Here the whole world can see what the Orange Order truly are,and prove themselves to be, Sectarian Bigots,living in the past.
Catholics will be out in their thousands,to welcome The Holy Father,like they did John Paul 2nd .
Note he will be in Edinburgh,on the Feast Day of St., Ninian,who brought and established Catholicism in Scotland from Rome,in 4th century AD,with his message of Good Works through the intercession of Our Blessed Lady ,and The Saints,which was taught long before The Orange Order with their misinterpreted biblical theories were invented.
We welcome you Holy Father, to Romes Special Daughter,Scotland.
God Bless Our Pope