CrossCuT Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 The question is, rather, where these anonymous people on the internet got all of this information. I still hold to innocent until proven guilty, and I definitely hold that you should take anything from the internet with a grain of salt. It is only fair and right to not lay blame and condemnation upon the Duggars unless these accusations are eventually proven correct. Too many people are ready to burn the Duggars at the stake because of this or that. The Romans weren't idiots when they thought it a good idea to instate the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. He is guilty because his official record was posted online since it was available for public access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Its far better to assume the worst in this situation and guard them from future scandal or public duress than assume things are hunky dory...and for what purpose? For a tv show? Who said anything about continuing the show? I'm talking about what happened when the abuse occurred and afterwards, when the show was made. It is only fair to assume that the parents consulted the children first to make sure everyone was okay with it before they signed the deal. He is guilty because his official record was posted online since it was available for public access. I never said he wasn't guilty. I'm talking about the parents and the agreement to do the show. It's only fair to assume that they consulted their children first, and it's not fair to just assume that the girls were still in a traumatic shock over the abuse. It could very well may be that they were all perfectly fine and wanted to do the show, or were at least indifferent to it. It may also be that they weren't, but as we don't know about that, it's not fair to make snap judgments and condemn the parents over mere speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgnatiusofLoyola Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 He is guilty because his official record was posted online since it was available for public access. Yup. Also, "Innocent until proven guilty" does apply here because Josh Duggar has made a public confession. The police records listed Jim Bob and Michelle's names since they are adults, but Josh's name was removed from the record because he was a minor at the time the acts were committed. We also do not know the names of the victims, and I hope we never learn them, unless one or more of the victims decides she wants to speak out. I still have concerns about whether the victims received appropriate counseling, but the least we can do is to protect THE VICTIMS' privacy. The records have now been destroyed, so the names of the victims won't be revealed (assuming everyone is doing their job correctly) unless one or more victims decide to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Who said anything about continuing the show? I'm talking about what happened when the abuse occurred and afterwards, when the show was made. It is only fair to assume that the parents consulted the children first to make sure everyone was okay with it before they signed the deal. I never said he wasn't guilty. I'm talking about the parents and the agreement to do the show. It's only fair to assume that they consulted their children first, and it's not fair to just assume that the girls were still in a traumatic shock over the abuse. It could very well may be that they were all perfectly fine and wanted to do the show, or were at least indifferent to it. It may also be that they weren't, but as we don't know about that, it's not fair to make snap judgments and condemn the parents over mere speculation. Nah I disagree. I think the mere fact that they turned their large family (What they continually call a beautiful blessing from God) into a spectacle for a tv show already means they were not thinking about their children. Honestly, I think any reality show that revolves around children to such an extensive degree should either not be allowed entirely, or that there needs to be some extreme controls over the children exposure on the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgnatiusofLoyola Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Who said anything about continuing the show? I'm talking about what happened when the abuse occurred and afterwards, when the show was made. It is only fair to assume that the parents consulted the children first to make sure everyone was okay with it before they signed the deal. I never said he wasn't guilty. I'm talking about the parents and the agreement to do the show. It's only fair to assume that they consulted their children first, and it's not fair to just assume that the girls were still in a traumatic shock over the abuse. It could very well may be that they were all perfectly fine and wanted to do the show, or were at least indifferent to it. It may also be that they weren't, but as we don't know about that, it's not fair to make snap judgments and condemn the parents over mere speculation. I'm not as trusting as you are that the girls affected freely consented to do the TV show. If the victims were indeed asked, I expect they were under a lot of pressure to consent, since the show not only means additional income for the Duggars, but also because the Duggars see the show as a platform for their particular "brand" of Evangelical Protestantism. We may never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Nah I disagree. I think the mere fact that they turned their large family (What they continually call a beautiful blessing from God) into a spectacle for a tv show already means they were not thinking about their children. Honestly, I think any reality show that revolves around children to such an extensive degree should either not be allowed entirely, or that there needs to be some extreme controls over the children exposure on the show. And that's a very big accusation that cannot be founded unless we were to ask the parents if they had the right intentions with the show. It is only fair to assume that they had the best and purest intentions with it. We have no solid proof otherwise, and it is uncharitable to merely assume the worst about people. Now, you're perfectly fine with saying that the fruits of the show were bad for the family or whatever, but we cannot judge their intentions. I'm not as trusting as you are that the girls affected freely consented to do the TV show. If the victims were indeed asked, I expect they were under a lot of pressure to consent, since the show not only means additional income for the Duggars, but also because the Duggars see the show as a platform for their particular "brand" of Evangelical Protestantism. We may never know. That's the thing: We'll never know. So there's no use in arguing about it or laying blame to people when we will never know the facts in this life. I choose to assume the best, and will continue to do so unless proven factually otherwise. That is the fairest thing to do, and I would do it even if I didn't like the Duggars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 And that's a very big accusation that cannot be founded unless we were to ask the parents if they had the right intentions with the show. It is only fair to assume that they had the best and purest intentions with it. We have no solid proof otherwise, and it is uncharitable to merely assume the worst about people. Now, you're perfectly fine with saying that the fruits of the show were bad for the family or whatever, but we cannot judge their intentions. That's the thing: We'll never know. So there's no use in arguing about it or laying blame to people when we will never know the facts in this life. I choose to assume the best, and will continue to do so unless proven factually otherwise. That is the fairest thing to do, and I would do it even if I didn't like the Duggars. Actually, based on some of the postings that people are digging up from 2007 we DO know. Read that stuff. IT is clear that the Duggars were using the "free will" gifts from others to sustain their life...and they needed that to continue what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 The question is, rather, where these anonymous people on the internet got all of this information. I still hold to innocent until proven guilty, and I definitely hold that you should take anything from the internet with a grain of salt. It is only fair and right to not lay blame and condemnation upon the Duggars unless these accusations are eventually proven correct. Too many people are ready to burn the Duggars at the stake because of this or that. The Romans weren't idiots when they thought it a good idea to instate the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. How did they get ahold of it? Who knows. The fact shows that they were privvy to it back in 2007. And we already know Josh isn't innocent....he confessed. However, that isn't my issue. My issue is the adult duggars who decided to go forward with this even after they knew things were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) This. Please see my posts above. It's primarily about the child's effect on salvation, not other things though they can be linked. Edited May 28, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I guess Id like to point out my issues with the broader sentiments and the inconsistencies I see as a non Catholic with what you said. It seems like people obsess so heavily over homosexuality in all its social contexts but never hold the same accountability for other "sins" or "Catholic moral teaching". Children grow up in homes with unwed parents, broken families, single mothers, etc etc etc. All of these people are completely fit to care for the needs of a child, but your argument is that they cant foster a moral upbringing as dictated by the church for the salvation of their soul. Would that extend to non Catholic families as well since a false faith wouldnt be able to save them as much as the one true faith? And are you equally against unmarried heterosexual couples, single mothers, or single fathers adopting? Since in both instances they either lack a mother or a father or they lack the fundamental moral aspect of a real marriage? I just find it very inconsistent when these things pop up and I really dont feel inclined to go out of my way to have empathy towards your plight when you only hold a minority group accountable. Honestly, homosexuals are really just the hated group flavor of the century. I am sure once things cool down we will accept them as much as all those heinous single mothers who have sex out of wedlock. People have NO issues with them. Im just waiting till this blows over too. I don't see other sins as not being serious. I'm not focused on just homosexuality or even just sins against purity, though they are serious. But I think the reason this issue seems serious like that, is because in other cases, they are not as against natural law (or not at all) so they can be remedied... they can also have a negative effect on the child's salvation too, and that is still serious. Yet here not only is the child's view of morality affected (which is major enough, in ANY case) but also their view of natural law.... once a society loses its respect for natural law, that's like a further step down the road. I would prefer for a child's parents to be married rather than not married. I'd want for them to have a mother and a father, if possible. If I were in charge of adoption, I would give preference to stable married moms and dads. If it's a common law relationship the kid might get the wrong idea, if its a single parent (like a widower) that is different (because no sin is happening) but it would be nice for the child to have a parent of both sexes. (however, if someone has a child and is then widowed, there's nothing wrong at all with them raising the child, there is no sin or scandal at all). The thing with homosexual relationships is that there's an additional error of thought: not only does the child get the idea that "marriage doesn`t matter``, but that `you can marry anyone` - not just someone you can have a child with, with is according to natural law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 This grates my nerves, too. If I saw even half as much fuss over other blatant and obvious sinful "lifestyles", I don't think it would irritate me so much that you're attempting, MLF, to argue a point with weak (untrue) "evidence". My evidence is not anecdotal evidence etc, or even any studies, though I mentioned this. My evidence is simply that: it`s a sin, and it`s against natural law.. which is just basic Catholic teaching. That`s my main reason for opposing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 There's this guy on my Facebook who post Bible verses 24 7 and is always going on and on about the sin of homosexuality. Just recently him and his wife divorced and he's already with another girl (his best friends ex) and his best friend is with his ex wife. And they all live together in the same house. Obviously this guy doesn't represent all Christians but just reading this thread makes his hypocrisy and ignorance that more appalling. He's anti Catholic somewhat too. To be fair most of the Catholics I've interacted with aren't obnoxious like him with their Bible thumping. One poster called him out recently saying Jesus had a lot more to say about adultery and divorse then he did about the sin of homosexuality. I used to be like him too so hopefully he comes around. Although I don't support gay marriage my opinion on all of this has flipped upside down in the last 5 years. Mainly by meeting gay people in the real world and seeing they're nice people (the ones I met) just trying to live their life. Are they going to hell? I don't know. Am I going to hell? I don't know. We're all flawed messed up people no matter how hard we try to convince others we're not. We don`t have to think that homosexuals are terrible evil hateful people etc in order to disagree with their actions. Someone could be the most wonderful person in some ways and be sinning in other ways. Just as people in general. Someone might be living a very pure life but have low patience and get angry easily. etc. I`m not saying all sins have the same gravity. Some are more grave than others. I`m just saying that as Catholics, we don`t need to dislike homosexual people we meet of course we`re all flawed messed up people, all of us (except Mary.) But this doesn`t make the actions any less grave in themselves - not commenting on the person`s own culpability - but the action itself, as if written in a moral theology handbook. We don`t have to dislike or judge the person, to see the sin and feel sorrow for it, and pray for them.... I`m thinking of how the Saints approached this. St Gemma knew a prostitute. This woman - who knows how she ended up in that situation. St Gemma took her in, in some way (like giving her money or work) so she can get out of this. Did St Gemma love her, of course! She also grieved for her sin and did everything she could to help this woman to stop sinning. That was part of the charity. so if we know someone homosexual... we need to treat them with kindness and no different from anyone, because we`re all human. We don`t have to judge their amount of ignorance, culpability, etc. - things that God would judge. Yet we don`t have to excuse the sin, in fact it`s helpful and charitable to encourage them to chastity, even if by our example and hopefully words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Im personally not really convinced of the whole traditional family set up having that much of an impact on the child's psyche. Relationships and how we define them is ever evolving and changing. What we thought of as the ideal childhood situation a century ago or a millennial ago may not be the same now. I havent done a ton of research into the topic, but I am more of the mind that a healthy environment with supportive, loving adults (Regardless of the occupants gender, sexual identity, marital status) is the best thing for a child. I mean, we used to think that biracial marriages were the terrible too. Turns out a child can be raised by two people from different ethnic backgrounds and still be normal. I think...personally what I`m trying to get at is the part about salvation. Not so much psychology though this can be related and linked. But primarily - how would this arrangement, whatever it is, affect the child`s understanding of Divine law and in this case, natural law. I think that if a child is taught from the beginning to disregard these things, it`s way more difficult to understand them later in life - still possible, but it`s like a chain that is broken and needs to be started from the beginning again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Personally, using their family size as a marketing ploy for a reality TV show does not show good parenting in my eyes. They essentially turned their family life into a spectacle like animals in a zoo for people the gawk at. The innocent children will be ridiculed for the perception of their family through no fault of their own. I have NEVER supported the exploitation of your family for monetary gain. I think the show should have been canceled a long time ago simply for the sake of preserving the children from the eyes of the masses. There are so many women in Hollywood who have fought for protections against paparazzi filming or taking photos of their children. This I agree with. I feel the same way. Even if the family doesn`t see it that way, to `the world``the show is basically saying: `look at these weird people with tons of kids, let`s see what they`re up to today.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 But you can't assume that my experience was not theirs. We have no clue what their experience was and how they healed. It is only fair to assume that Jim Bob and Michelle consulted their daughters first to make sure that they were in a healthy position to do the show. It's uncharitable to simply assume that they took the offer without speaking to their kids first, as the kids are essentially the point of the show. I think it's uncharitable, immature, and unwise to assume anything. We don't know. That's the point: we don't KNOW. It's unfair to other victims of abuse for you to assume that no one struggled with their situation or the effects. It's grand that you've healed so miraculously from what was apparently a very traumatic situation, but that is not the case for all victims of abuse. You also don't know the extent or details of the abuse incurred by others. Further, every person is affected by and copes with abuse differently. So again I will say, you cannot take your experience and assume it's everyone's. Who said anything about continuing the show? I'm talking about what happened when the abuse occurred and afterwards, when the show was made. It is only fair to assume that the parents consulted the children first to make sure everyone was okay with it before they signed the deal. I never said he wasn't guilty. I'm talking about the parents and the agreement to do the show. It's only fair to assume that they consulted their children first, and it's not fair to just assume that the girls were still in a traumatic shock over the abuse. It could very well may be that they were all perfectly fine and wanted to do the show, or were at least indifferent to it. It may also be that they weren't, but as we don't know about that, it's not fair to make snap judgments and condemn the parents over mere speculation. I don't think it is fair or prudent to assume the parents did anything. I know the Duggars are a family-meeting style family, but Michelle and Jim Bob seem to be the kind of parents who pray about what's best for their family, make a decision, and then tell the family what's going to happen. If I wanted to play the speculation game (I don't), I would guess they probably asked for everyone's input (after giving them some reflection time), prayed about it, made a decision, and went forward. But like I said, we don't know. It's not fair to decide (or assume) either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now