Father Browne's Ticket

[Eric Sauder]

Jan wrote: "...have other members been following all of these child molestation cases involving priests?"

I can't even begin to fathom what this has to do with Titanic. A gratuitous mention of Father Brown doesn't make it "on topic." It seems to me that posts like this really don't belong on this board...or am I wrong?

Kathy S. wrote: "This is a Titanic forum, not one in which to gratuitously bash the Roman Catholic Church. I find this <snip> rant outrageously offensive. Please stick to the topic at hand."

I have to agree with Kathy. This isn't the Let's-Bash-The-Church board. I'm sure there are plenty of those out there for those who are willing to look.

Timothy wrote: "Being a Catholic myself I feel compelled to speak out if I wish."

You have a perfect right to do so, but this not the proper venue to air your grievances with the Church.

"Others have vented their intolerance of recent occurrences within the Church, including Phil, the moderator."

Actually, if you go back and read Phil's post carefully, he doesn't vent about the Church. That aside, the people who did what you claim were wrong to do it here. The problems within the Church have absolutely nothing to do with this subject of the board. If you want to discuss the sexual preferences of Titanic passengers or crew members, that's fine. But anyone's opinion of the Church or how they should deal with the issue now before them is totally out of place here.

"Although the thread is no longer about Father Brown, it is a legitimate line of thought and exchange."

It is a legitimate line of thought and exchange for this board only if it has to do with Titanic, which it clearly doesn't.

For the record, I am not Catholic, but I was still very put off by the gratuitous slaps at the Church. I know that I'll probably be ignored or that someone will write back and take me to task for what I've said in this post -- they'll do so in a vain effort to validate their non-board-related messages -- but if anyone can show me how what is going on presently in the Church is a pertinent topic to this list, I'm all ears.

Eric Sauder

 

[Bill Sauder]

Tim:

You have made a string of statements regarding the Roman Catholic Church that I believe are not only untrue, but made in an attempt to deface its reputation and dishearten believers.

For example, you state that:

1) By combining all "deviate" behavior the Church has unwittingly encouraged pedophilia.

This of course is not true. The Church makes a wide distinction between illicit sexual acts and gives detailed guidance to priests for the care of: adultery, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, child-molestation, bestiality, sadomasochism, spousal abuse. They clearly are not the same problems and are not treated as such at the pastoral level. Further, if a truly onerous sin is confessed, the priest will attempt to persuade the penitent to seek appropriate secular care, or try to persuade the penitent to accept a confessor with special academic training such as a priest with a degree in marriage counseling. A Church that is indifferent to these problems would not go to these lengths to have them solved.

I can only assume that you make this assertion because you have picked up the mistaken notion that “sin is sin is sin”. While all sin alienates us from God, not all sins are equally serious. Many sins have mitigating details, and penance is proportional to the injustice done.

2) The Church is full of hypocrisy.

Of course it is. Jesus said it would be. Your pointing it out in this way and in this forum helps nothing and only insults those people that are working for improvement.

3) [The Church] buries it's (sic) head whenever sexuality is an issue.

This doesn’t make sense. The Church cannot be criticized for ignoring sexual issues and at the same time be criticized for a pro-active stance on abortion. I imagine your complaint is that the Church as not abandoned the ancient faith fast enough to gratify you. There are hundreds of Protestant denominations in the United States; the theology of each and every one reflects some individual’s dissatisfaction with a church somewhere else. We now have “churches” that are so removed from Christ, his name is never mentioned -- he’s just some kind of mascot.

Catholicism is not a free-form religion. You as an individual do not get to pick and choose what in large terms are right and wrong. That has been revealed to us by God through revelation (the Bible and Tradition) and interpreted by the Church. Murder is wrong because God says so, not because it’s the chic thing to chatter about at Starbuck’s.

There are a few people that leave the Church and sincerely follow the example of Buddha, to “follow the inward light” and seek the Godhead out for themselves. These are brave souls and I wish them well.

The vast majority of ex- and disobedient Catholics have reduced religion to the level of any other American consumer product. We are always amused and satisfied when scripture condemns someone else for a sin we ourselves do not suffer from but are deeply resentful when we ourselves are admonished. Their “solution” is to move to a church where their pet sins are no longer defined as sin.

“Bring me a different flavored Jesus,” cried the Duchess. “I don’t like the way this one tastes.”

4) [The Church’s] condemnation of condoms …is an absurdity in light of their other problems.

Again, this is a Push-me-Pull-You mismatch of logic. If the Catholic Church suddenly supported the use of condoms, which of their other “problems” would be solved? — Oh yes, the problem of gay militants breaking into mass and throwing condoms at the priest.

By the way, Orthodox Judaism and Islam have the same prohibitions as Roman Catholics. I don’t recall any temples or mosques being desecrated and shown on PBS. Why is that?

Before I leave the subject, I am curious: Tim, can you explain to me why the Church prohibits the use of condoms? I mean, are you criticizing the Church’s logic, or just the Church? Or are you repeating a criticism that you heard elsewhere and asking it cause everybody else is?

0-0-0-0

Well, there you go Tim… that’s the nickel tour. Kathy thought your remarks were offensive and so do I, for the reasons described above.

Before you get too badly bent out of shape, you mention that you are Catholic. I will take that to mean Catholic in the “Kevin Smith” sense of the word. You may recall from a Sunday School long ago a nun with a ruler going on about “seven spiritual acts of mercy“ in which included a call to “counsel the doubtful” and “instruct the ignorant” etc. Please consider this critique one of those seven acts… you get to choose which.

Just so you don’t think you were singled out, I thought that Jan’s comments were also misplaced and offensive. I have no idea why the topic of child molestation was brought up in the first place. It’s a pretty big jump between Fr. Brown’s ticket arrangement and pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church — a subject that every thinking person should know is going to touch raw nerves to no good end. However, Jan had been so well replied to by so many, I didn’t feel that my comments would add anything, but then you chimed in and here we are.

Now here’s my gripe:

This is supposed to be a Titanic Research forum. Not a “naughty vicar’s” forum, not a “let’s fix the Church” forum. I use E.T. a serious research tools, but the usefulness of E.T. is greatly compromised because so many members cannot stay on topic and my mail basket gets flooded with what is, in effect, off-topic spam.

The physical, mental, and sexual abuse of children by people in authority is a subject that needs unflagging attention, but so does AIDS research, affordable heath care, equitable wages, the abuse of women, and the end of torture. As worthy of attention as any of these topic are, they must be excluded from E.T. simply because they are not related to the subject of Titanic.

And now you know why I stay in the technical forums.

Bill Sauder

P.S: I had no idea Eric was going to post. We had not even discussed the matter but as you can see, we think like ... sometimes.

 

[Encyclopedia Titanica]

Thanks everyone. I confess I deviated myself (but only as regards the topic!) because I felt that Jan's post had to be addressed. Now that there has been a fair exchange of views this thread must revert to topic.

 

[Richard Coplen]

Okay people, i think it's time we returned to the original topic.....we've gone way off the subject!!!!!

 

[Timothy Brandsoy]

Yes we have, and my apologies for adding to it.

So, ( to bring it back ) have all of Father Browne's photos been published? Who owns them?

Tim B

 

[Jan C. Nielsen]

Just a footnote to the prior discussion: it looks like people are taking the circumstances into their own hands. Yesterday, in Los Angeles, someone filed a RICO lawsuit against Cardinal Roger Mahoney. This federal statute was enacted to use against organized crime. "RICO" stands for "Racketeer Influenced" and "Corrupt Organizations" act. The statute has been used against many other groups, other than mobsters, including abortion protesters, the Ku Klux Klan, and others -- quite effectively. It also provides for trebling of damages. I think a similar lawsuit was filed in Florida. I'm, frankly, shocked. Who would have thought such a thing would ever happen . . .

This isn't any fly-by-night lawsuit, either, the plaintiffs are represented by a leading California trial lawyer named Lawrence Drivon.

 

[M.A. Yollick]

Ben Holme,
I realize this is an older post. Could you please tell me where you got your information on Mabel Fortune. Thank you.

 

[Brandon Whited]

It's mentioned in Alan Hustak's "Titanic: The Canadian Story".


Cheers,

-B.W.

 

[Ben Holme]

Hi,

As Brandon pointed out, my source is "Titanic: The Canadian Story", although I believe her biography here on ET is just as detailed (see 1st class passenger list). I am in contact with members of the Fortune family who may have additional information on this more elusive daughter of Mark and Mary and her post-1912 actions/movements.

Best Regards,
Ben

 

[Iain Stuart Yardley]

Afternoon all,
Nothing to do with Father Browne but maybe to do with the subject of Titanic/Gay connections:

(Hoping that I don't offend anyone by possibly reading too much into this) but...reading through the ET bios some months ago, I concluded that Thomas McCaffry and Thomson Beattie were "together", as both are described as best friends, closest companions and 'almost inseperable'. I just assumed it was a euphonism for being a gay couple. I apologise in advance if I drew the wrong conclusion.

Cheers,

Boz

 

[Timothy Brandsoy]

I thought it might be a good time to start a new discussion thread, GAYS ON TITANIC, Gays and Fr. Brown (or any Priest) are irrelevant to Titanic.

Tim