20 May 08
The more I thought about this story, the more I think that there is something deeper here. It is not really about the mass. It really isn't about the boy's behavior. The emotions are escalated because what we think this is about is harder to grasp. It is really about why has God allowed this to happen. Scrape away the mother's hurt about feeling ostracized and excluded by the church, you will find a mother who yearns for an answer as to why her kid is ostracized and excluded from what is "normal." Scrape away the priest's need for order and control of his service and I think you will find a struggle to find a beneficent God in this story.
The exclusion, real or imagined, only serves to heighten the anxiety and pain of this family.
21 May 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitAgain, a false analogy, IMO. The priest doesn't have the power cure the little boy of his autism. This was a communion service, not an Oral Roberts faith-healing service. In the future, when you quote the Bible to make a point, please quote it in the proper context. Thanks....and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics...
And he replied, "Get those people out of here before they disrupt my church service!"
21 May 08
Originally posted by StarrmanEven a cursory look at the history of the RCC reveals an institution that worships the God of power and money. This is but another example.
Shameful. Any church that truly cared about the welfare of its flock would allow the kid in. Jesus would have and it serves only to illustrate that the RCC cares not for Jesus' way and instead for having an easy workload.
21 May 08
Originally posted by gaychessplayerNo, he's pointing out that the Jesus wouldn't have turned the boy away from his service, if the stories about him are even remotely true.
Again, a false analogy, IMO. The priest doesn't have the power cure the little boy of his autism. This was a communion service, not an Oral Roberts faith-healing service. In the future, when you quote the Bible to make a point, please quote it in the proper context. Thanks.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanAs highlighted before, the parish priest did offer alternative accommodation i.e. a mediator. He only resorted to a restraining order because the family refused the proposals, despite the boy's dangerous behaviour to other parishioners.
Shameful. Any church that truly cared about the welfare of its flock would allow the kid in. Jesus would have and it serves only to illustrate that the RCC cares not for Jesus' way and instead for having an easy workload.
Furthermore, the actions of the parish priest do not represent the Roman Catholic Church. At most, they represent the diocese. As of yet, Rome has not issued any directives on how to respond to austistic boys in church.
Not sure why I write. You probably don't want to argue your case - it being totally prejudced.
21 May 08
3 edits
Originally posted by gaychessplayerWhy doesn't the priest have that power? Didn't the apostles have it after Jesus left? How did it get lost?
Again, a false analogy, IMO. The priest doesn't have the power cure the little boy of his autism. This was a communion service, not an Oral Roberts faith-healing service. In the future, when you quote the Bible to make a point, please quote it in the proper context. Thanks.
21 May 08
Originally posted by StarrmanYes, yes, one minute we're playing up the historical improbability of Jesus' existence, next we can say precisely what he thought ... Didn't he at one time ask some lepers to quit bugging him? Couldn't have been feeling very Christ-like that day ...
Shameful. Any church that truly cared about the welfare of its flock would allow the kid in. Jesus would have and it serves only to illustrate that the RCC cares not for Jesus' way and instead for having an easy workload.
21 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy sceptical beliefs on the existence of Jesus and the beliefs of his followers about how he behaved are not linked. It is perfectly reasonable for me to attack the image of and beliefs about Jesus which his followers hold, regardless of my own considerations on him.
Yes, yes, one minute we're playing up the historical improbability of Jesus' existence, next we can say precisely what he thought ... Didn't he at one time ask some lepers to quit bugging him? Couldn't have been feeling very Christ-like that day ...
21 May 08
Originally posted by StarrmanI guess "Jesus would have" should have read "I think that Jesus' followers (in an as-yet unspecified historical context) would believe that Jesus would have". Or perhaps you could say, "The hypocrisy exhibited in this thread by self-righteous atheists (not to mention the disgusting appropriation and misrepresentation of a tale of suffering merely to flagellate an object of hatred) is enough to make anyone choke -- Jesus would have". Asshats, the lot of you.
My sceptical beliefs on the existence of Jesus and the beliefs of his followers about how he behaved are not linked. It is perfectly reasonable for me to attack the image of and beliefs about Jesus which his followers hold, regardless of my own considerations on him.
21 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes, silly me, the church was justified. More than that, I was a fool to think I might condemn an amoral action by an institution which represents an omni-benevolent god, because it would be somehow hypocritical of me to do so.
I guess "Jesus would have" should have read "I think that Jesus' followers (in an as-yet unspecified historical context) would believe that Jesus would have". Or perhaps you could say, "The hypocrisy exhibited in this thread by self-righteous atheists (not to mention the disgusting appropriation and misrepresentation of a tale of suffering merely to fl ...[text shortened]... f hatred) is enough to make anyone choke -- Jesus would have". Asshats, the lot of you.
21 May 08
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat action would you have taken in the priest's place, bearing in mind ConrauK's remarks? Tied the boy to a pew, so he could attend mass without endangering people around him?
Yes, silly me, the church was justified. More than that, I was a fool to think I might condemn an amoral action by an institution which represents an omni-benevolent god, because it would be somehow hypocritical of me to do so.
21 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAllow the family to attend Mass, and reserve seats in the back for them. Have an assistant provided by the Church that can help escort the child out if he gets violent. Inform the congregation of the special precautions needed in dealing with the child, and allow the family to leave the church first so that the child does not injure parishioners in his haste to leave. If the child is consistently disruptive during services, have a priest offer the family communion upon their arrival to church, or allow them to take communion at some other time during the day.
What action would you have taken in the priest's place, bearing in mind ConrauK's remarks? Tied the boy to a pew, so he could attend mass without endangering people around him?