Does This Sound Familiar

by Francois 2 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Francois

  If you replace the word "catholic" in the following story with "Jehovah's Witness" it would fit like an old shoe. This confirms my theory that you become just like the person or thing you hate. In hating the catholic church, the JWs have become just like them.

  What do you think?

  May 31, 2002 -- ROME - A Vatican-sanctioned journal has attacked the U.S. media for "morbid" behavior in its coverage of the priest sex-abuse scandal, and denounced what it called anti-Catholic attitudes that imply priests are monsters.
  The article will appear tomorrow in the twice-monthly Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, which is considered authoritative because its content is approved by the Vatican.

  The article, the journal's second in two weeks on the scandal that has shaken the U.S. Catholic Church to its core, also says Pope John Paul II is concerned that priests accused of abusing minors should not be subjected to "summary trials."

  One part of the nine-page article implicitly criticizes U.S. television networks for coming to Rome in such great numbers and placing media equipment outside the Vatican to cover a meeting on the crisis in April.

  "Such a deployment of equipment gave the impression that, beyond the objective, grave and dramatic facts and the legitimate and rightful reaction to such a phenomenon, the entire episode was accompanied by a lot of morbid and scandalistic curiosity," the article says.

  Hundreds of reporters covered the two-day meetings.

  Another section of the article suggests that some media had handled the story in a knee-jerk fashion, gloating over the church's problems.

  "For many newspapers and television stations, maybe it seemed too good to be true to be able to slap the monster of the day on the front page, and this time, it was the turn of the Catholic clergy," it says.

  The article claims the American media coverage of the sex scandals had been influenced by what it calls an "anti-Catholic and, therefore, anti-Roman and anti-papist" spirit.

  It says the media applied "apparent fair play" in its coverage of the scandal, but claims an underlying anti-Catholic attitude had "snaked its way through America recently."

  Francois
• 

  outnfree

  Hauntingly familiar, Francois!

  I was so saddened this morning to read the transcripts from the JW Office of Public [and r&f JW Dis-]Information site to read that Dr. Rodney Stark has once again spoken up FOR the Society by calling into question the truthfulness of "people who have quit a group and for some reason or another are harboring a grudge."

  (JanH, Tell me again why I should respect this guy?)

  Brooklyn has gone back to circling the wagons, screaming "Persecution!" Just look at the subject headings on the Stark video: How Reliable Are the Views of Dissidents -- slammed before the learned professor even opens his mouth! and How to Maintain Moral Standards -- implying that the above-mentioned 'dissidents' have none and then actually making the inference that Witnesses and Mormons have better moral standards than Methodists!

  Sick! Sick! Sick!!!! -- Witnesses MAY have a a strict moral rulebook, but many, many 'witnesses in good standing' are NOT adhering to the rules. We all have anecdotal (or personal?) experience of this.

  Nonetheless, at least the Pope is rightly concerned that the accused priests not be Shanghai-ed. He is right that they should be given a fair, impartial trial in a court of law, should the evidence support wrongdoing. The Watchtower Society, on the other hand, would rather a JW molester NOT face trial unless their hands are forced in 'clergy reporting' states.

  Also, at least this Jesuit publication admits that there ARE "objective, grave and dramatic facts" that have come to light and that there exists a "legitimate and rightful reaction to such a phenomenon" as child molestation by clergy. The Watchtower Society's STILL EXTANT (according to it's latest correspondence to the congregations shared elsewhere on this forum) two-witness rule would have those with only ONE witness react with inaction and silence, no matter what the victim personally knows to be true.

  So sad.

  outnfree
• 

  Francois

  How many times in your experience was a JW disfellowshipped for something other than immorality or drunkeness?

  To listen to JWs tell it, most people disfellowshipped are kicked out for littering. Well. I lived with my elder uncle for several years. He was so busy "keeping the congregation clean" he had no time for his family. He would leave in the middle of the night to go spy on people. He was always gone to some JC meeting or other. It was a real laugh a minute watching his kids asking for a missing daddy all the time.

  I think there is going to be a lot of charge, countercharge, denial, and misrepresentation by the society and the run of the mill JW as the society collapses in slow motion over the next decade or so. Might as well prepare for it because if we allow ourselves to get too overly excited or disgusted or stressed-out or whatever over all that period, we'll kill ourselves with frustration. It's taken a long, long time to get to this spot. Let's savor every wiggle, every denial, every lie, and every half-truth that comes out of Brooklyn because we'll know full well that all those things are motivated by fear.

  We have 'em on the ropes. They will fall like a ripe apple, the only question is when, and over what issue. Let's get out the popcorn as someone suggested, and enjoy the show.

  Francois