• MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent? Why the fuck do you think any policy that hides child abuse is okay?

    If you know a kid is getting hurt and you don’t say anything, you are a giant piece of shit. If you defend those that don’t say anything, you are a giant piece of shit. I hope you reflect on that before putting some imaginary sky daddy rules before a living and breathing child. The same ones he told you guys to protect and you decided to rape them instead.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent?

      No I’m arguing that it is well within your rights to argue for changes in that basically ancient church law. If that’s what you want to do, go one. I would actually agree.

      But if you instead pretend that this is not about the seal of confession but hallucinate how the modern church is somehow going out of its way to protect child abuse (like a lot of commenters here do) you have completely lost the plot.

    • WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I’d argue, and this isn’t easy, the church can continue to use the rule. After all, it is from “God”. Who are we to define the rules. But any priest (and above) that doesn’t report it, is an awful human being. Stick to dogma, but accept the consequences of being a human. If a child is abused and you can stop it, pay the price to make it stop. Child is safe; you go to hell - fair deal. No mater what, someone is going to suffer. Make the “saintly” call. And make it known!

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I’d argue, and this isn’t easy

        Then don’t? There is absolutely no reason society needs to obey objectively evil arcane rules because some dude who has absolutely no say in how we run society says we should.

        I still have absolutely no idea why people would jump in to defend the churches right to keep CHILD ABUSE secret. It seems like you would either be afraid of getting discovered, or you have so little faith in your church that you’re afraid they’re going to get discovered.

        • Ooops@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          or you have so little faith in your church

          I will tell you a secret: Not everything in the world is about tribes or team sports. I personally deem any organized religion as an abomination.

          But when a “remember that the confession’s confidentiality is absolute, has been exactly like this for nearly a millenium and you are beholden to god’s/church laws first an foremost” (so the same unchanged statement as always) is reframed as the church somehow explicitly going out of its way to protect child abuse specifically people should actually notice that they are being manipulated.

        • WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I’m not afraid nor am I a member of any church. I am firm in my stance that there is no god. Small or little G. If you read my post again you will see that my point is, even if you are going to go to hell, you are obliged to report abuse. Again, report it. Fucking report it. If the cost is your eternal salvation, you will fucking report it.

          They is my point. There is a cost to everything. No matter what you believe, be ready to pay it.

          Next time, please read what someone says and not what you want to believe they say. The world would be much better that way.

          • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            I’d argue, and this isn’t easy, the church can continue to use the rule.

            The rule of shielding child molesters. I read exactly what you said and quoted it. Now I’m going to enjoy my weekend and not give you any more time to defend child molesters, because what the fuck.

            • WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Are you serious? I’m not defending them. I’m saying, if you have a religion based on stone-age ideas that are not allowed to change (because it’s a religion and God doesn’t really exist so he can’t talk to you) there is no coherent way you can change the rules. It’s not like a sports group. Only “God” can change the rules. Don’t change the rules. BREAK them. Ignore “God”.

              I’m not sure why you are so insistent that I defend child molesters. You accused me of belonging to a church. I get the feeling this might be more true of you. Again, I believe in no god. I belong to no church. I defend no molester (child or otherwise).

              I hope you have a nice weekend. I hold no animosity towards you. We are on the same side. We only disagree about semantics and human behaviour. Don’t be angry.