• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Penn & Teller episode on Catholicism draws outrage

Tricky said:
The Catholic Church declared it a sin to watch "The Life of Brian". That's probably why nobody ever heard of the movie.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We just re-watched that movie last night! I'd forgotten how, with subtle elegance, they demonstrated religious schisms and factions forming (shoe vs. gourd, shoe off vs. shoe on, gourd meaning one thing vs. gourd meaning another, etc...), it was really quite brilliant!
 
Nursefoxfire said:
We just re-watched that movie last night! I'd forgotten how, with subtle elegance, they demonstrated religious schisms and factions forming (shoe vs. gourd, shoe off vs. shoe on, gourd meaning one thing vs. gourd meaning another, etc...), it was really quite brilliant!
Click to expand...

Speaking of subtle, I've got a lovely sack of bricks to show you.
 
My friend and I were just discussing Catholicism and the P&T show in particular. I understand why people are religious, I even understand why people follow particular branches of particular religions. What I fail to understand is why any adult would continue to associate themselves with an organization that actively covered up systematic child rape over a period of decades.

I don't care how much I loved an organization or who was in it: friends, family, lovers, whatever. If I found out that the organization I was a member of had covered up child rape and sheltered the rapists that would be my last day there. Period. I just don't see why people continue to associate themselves with it, especially when there are so many alternatives to choose from.
 
Uh, skeptical, do you know what systematic means? Because last I checked, the Catholic Church doesn't have a list of protocols for messing with young boys. Systematic really doesn't fit in your sentence.

I do find the hiding of these priests horrible and think the offenders (the less than 1% of them) should be defrocked and subject to prosecution. Thats why I make sure my donations don't go the the Vatican's general fund or the Peter and Paul fund. Those are where the settlement money come from.

Personally, I think Penn is a self important, loud mouthed rectal breach whose "documentaries" can be on par with Michael Moore's when it comes to honesty. He should be his own subject some time.

However, he often does raise points that need discussing and I've always voiced the opinion that the Church should address the reasonable issues raised by shows like this. Even if it is to dismiss the sensationalism and vilification producers like to employ. Boycotting or demanding its removal only adds fuel to the fire.

I wonder how many of the people who were so happy Penn did this episode feel the same about his gun control and political correctness episodes.
 
Donal said:
Uh, skeptical, do you know what systematic means? Because last I checked, the Catholic Church doesn't have a list of protocols for messing with young boys. Systematic really doesn't fit in your sentence.
Click to expand...

You are correct. They have a list of protocols as to how to protect the ministry's pedophiles.
 
skeptical said:
especially when there are so many alternatives to choose from.
Click to expand...

But there aren't any alternatives if you take the whole thing even slightly seriously. How can there be an alternative to the one true church of the one true god - regardless of what the priests may be up to?

I'll never understand people who do change their religion. I can see how after a lot of study you can reach the conclusion that sect A has a better understanding than sect B, but that should be somewhat rare.
 
Of course Catholics are offended. Penn & Teller are exercising their constitutional First Amendment right to be ********. They're very good at it.
 
I'm not the biggest fan of B!, but anything that enrages Donohue and drives him one step closer to having his head explode on national television has got to be a good thing.
 
I was pretty sure they didn't ambush tactics in their interviews, but that isn't Michael Moore's only dirty trick. At about 8:25, there is a point where Penn states "According to some studies, anywhere from 20-50% of all priests may be gay".

Excuse me, but since when do we accept the phrase "according to some studies" around here? I've seen other episodes of B!. They are usually pretty good with citing what studies they reference to. Even if the study itself is dubious, they at least give you a starting point.

Also, with Sabina Guzzanti, they were actually pretty sketchy about the details of her "persecution".

Who exactly threatened her? Were there government officials showing up with arrest warrants (or whatever Italy's equivalent is)? Was there an official statement from the Vatican calling for her arrest? I did a little research, and the only real details I could find seem to be that it was done by an overzealous prosecutor citing a law from Mussolini's time that no one really took seriously.

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy B!, I just see it for what it is. P&T use it as the soapbox for their particular points of view. And they are honest about that.

And I have lots of problems with how the RCC does things. I want to see the priests accused of sexual abuse at least investigated. To hide them and spirit them away hurts the children that are the victims, the public image of the Church, and the priests who are being falsely accused but aren't allowed to fight.

I want to see more modern changes brought to the RCC.

But this show and most of the posts here aren't about skepitcal discussion to solve a problem. They are about jumping on a bandwagon at an easy target.
 
Last edited:
Donal said:
Uh, skeptical, do you know what systematic means? Because last I checked, the Catholic Church doesn't have a list of protocols for messing with young boys. Systematic really doesn't fit in your sentence.
Click to expand...
The U.S. Marine Corp also doesn't have a set of protocols for doing "code reds". I suggest you watch "A Few Good Men" to see how they dealt with that argument.
 
bignickel said:
The U.S. Marine Corp also doesn't have a set of protocols for doing "code reds". I suggest you watch "A Few Good Men" to see how they dealt with that argument.
Click to expand...


You know that was just a movie, right? And "code red" referred to a disciplinary action the Marines were ending.

You and a few others seem to want people to think the Catholic Church at one point encouraged to sexual abuse of young boys. I wait on baited breadth for your proof.

And try not to use Tom Cruise projects as proof.
 
Donal said:
Uh, skeptical, do you know what systematic means? Because last I checked, the Catholic Church doesn't have a list of protocols for messing with young boys. Systematic really doesn't fit in your sentence.

<snipped>
Click to expand...

But in the B! episode, one of the contributors showed a document that the Vatican had issued to its higher-up officials, and it's a complete guideline for dealing with the fallout from messing with young boys.

As I recall, it says that both the accuser and the accused must remain completely silent about the issue, otherwise they're excommunicated. Also, no aspect of the issue can be brought up until 10 years after the victim has reached adulthood, or they'll be excommunicated. it's all right there, laid out in a formal document.
 
skeptical said:
My friend and I were just discussing Catholicism and the P&T show in particular. I understand why people are religious, I even understand why people follow particular branches of particular religions. What I fail to understand is why any adult would continue to associate themselves with an organization that actively covered up systematic child rape over a period of decades.

I don't care how much I loved an organization or who was in it: friends, family, lovers, whatever. If I found out that the organization I was a member of had covered up child rape and sheltered the rapists that would be my last day there. Period. I just don't see why people continue to associate themselves with it, especially when there are so many alternatives to choose from.
Click to expand...

Well get this: I've pretty much been a lifelong atheist. I was agnostic in high school and afterwards kind of realized I'd prefer to live in a godless universe so I kind of "picked a side".

Now my long-time girlfriend is of Portugese descent: her mom came from the Azores at a young age, sings in the church choir every week, the island they came from was an island of several sightings of the Virgin Mary - believe me its the real deal over there. They're definitely a religious family but they're not zealots. The father is decidedly un-religious. My girlfriend, an environmental engineer, is not church-going but I would call her "culturally catholic".

In any event, my exposure to her family has kind of lightened my impression of Catholicism considerably. I mean, every religion and every branch has its sins of the past, or even, ongoing sins.

But I don't even *think* of kiddy diddling when I think of the catholics I know in my own life, it doesn't enter my mind the odd time I attend a service in her hometown. I think instead of the ways in which it has binded their family together in positive ways, provided a sense of community - and while I have my atheist checklist of the foolhardy things it encourages such as magical thinking, etc - thats a laundry list that can be weighed against almost any religion.

Now - I do think the whole Pope thing is a bit ridiculous, and perhaps the rap sheet on catholicism is a bit longer than some other denominations given its serious power (and we all know power corrupts) - but at the same time I don't begrudge my girlfriend's family's catholicism (which is probably good for our long-term prospects - though I cringe at having to committ to raising our kids catholic) and see it as more of a cultural heritage rather than an albatross hanging around their necks.

I did happen to catch the show and it was alright. Some legitimate complaints there and some entertaining moments but I thought they could maybe have hit some other notes. I don't know why the comedian needed so much time. I guess its kind of a big subject for 30 mins..;)
 
Last edited:
Donal said:
You know that was just a movie, right? And "code red" referred to a disciplinary action the Marines were ending.

You and a few others seem to want people to think the Catholic Church at one point encouraged to sexual abuse of young boys. I wait on baited breadth for your proof.

And try not to use Tom Cruise projects as proof.
Click to expand...

Wrong. As I said, watch the movie to see how they dealt with YOUR argument: that if it's not 'written down' then it's not something that exists in the normal command structure.

As others have pointed out, it's been happening for years, and the church has not discouraged it, tried to root it out, or stop it. They've simply shifted problem priests to a different area, where it could happen all over again. Whether it was 'encouraged' or not was besides the point, although with the regularity that it was continually covered up, you can see why the South Park episode was so funny with the priests therein arguing that abusing altar boys was essentially a job perk.

(oh yeah: I also know that South Park is 'fictional'. No need to point that out, too)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom