Question for Catholics

[benfranklin]

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight. I do not belong to any church. But as one who was brought up Catholic, I am always curious about what is going on in the Church. And these issues are getting a lot of attention now.

Modern American Catholics (MACs) professed to greatly admire Pope JP II, but were highly critical of him for not changing Church doctrine on issues like abortion, homosexuality, birth control, etc., etc. MACs hate to see him go, but look forward to the possibility of a new Pope who will bring the Church more in line with their own views.

The Catholic Church is a religion, and according to my dictionary, a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Pro-life, non-gay, etc., are not positions taken by the Church, they ARE the Church. How can someone say that this is my religion, but I don't agree with its principles and values and beliefs?

Love him or hate him, JPII was adamant about not varying from the core beliefs of the Church. I find it incredible that anyone could say, this is my church, I don't agree with the beliefs of my church, therefore the church should change its beliefs. Am I the only one who finds this paradoxical? Or hypocritical? If you don't belive what "your" church believes, why don't you join a church that teaches what you believe in?

Finally, one of the bedrock truths of the Catholic Church embedded in my mind forever from the schooling of my youth is that the Pope is infallible in pronouncements about Church doctrine. Again, what's wrong with this picture? MACs say that they are Catholics, and JPII was their Pope, and that as Catholics they believe that JPII is infallible in matters of doctrine. BUT the Pope is wrong and the Church is wrong and the Pope needs to change his beliefs to conform with my beliefs, because I am a modern American, and I know what's what.

At the risk of interjecting poker into this forum, this to me is like saying that my game is limit holdem, and I don't like any other games. But limit holdem might be better played with 4 pocket cards. And let's play it hi-lo split. And even better, let's make it pot-limit.

To go back to that definition of religion, the key word in talking about religion is "faith". You have to have faith that your religion is correct, and follow it. You can't prove anything about religion, you have to believe it. The Catholic Church is a faith. Islam is a faith. Judaism is a faith. How can you claim to belong to a religion and not have faith in its teachings? I don't get it. I guess I'll just go find a good Omaha/8 game.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
one of the bedrock truths of the Catholic Church embedded in my mind forever from the schooling of my youth is that the Pope is infallible in pronouncements about Church doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong on both counts (at least concerning the Roman Catholic Church) and the rest of your assertions are baseless.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
one of the bedrock truths of the Catholic Church embedded in my mind forever from the schooling of my youth is that the Pope is infallible in pronouncements about Church doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong on both counts (at least concerning the Roman Catholic Church) and the rest of your assertions are baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding the first quote, that is the definition of religion in my dictionary. It is copied verbatim. It seems to me to be a reasonable description of the common meaning of the word religion. If you don't like, propose a better one, don't just tell me that my dictionary is wrong.

Regarding infalibility, the following is from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

[ QUOTE ]
EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680).

[/ QUOTE ]

[vulturesrow]

Actually, the Pope is considered infallible in the terms that ben described. Im not surehow you think this is wrong.


Ben,

As a Roman CAtholic, I couldnt agree with you more. I loved JPII, I think he will probably be renamed John Paul the Great and deservedly so. I dont understand people who say I am religion x but religion x is wrong on this this this and this. Esp. in the case of the Catholic Church where we look to the Church for guidance and interpretation of scripture and God's will.

[PoBoy321]

Regarding your first quote, the description that you took from the dictionary is inaccurate with regards to the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is an institution with a set of beliefs, moreso than a set of beliefs with an insitution to enforce them. Much in the same way that an American can disagree with American foreign policy and still be an American, a Catholic can disagree with Catholic positions on soccial issues and still be a Catholic. There are very few beliefs that all Catholics must have, those being the Immaculate Conception, Christ's Resurrection and maybe one or two others. The rest is up to debate.

As for Papal Infallibility, he is NOT infallible in pronouncements about Church doctrine. It has always been the Church's position that the Church is a human institution, human's are fallible and therefore, the Church is fallible. However, there are some instances (there have only been 2 in the 2000 year history of the Church) in which the Pope will make a pronouncement which is infallible (there are a few criteria for what makes a pronouncement infallible, and I'd look them up but I have class in a half hour and need to do some work for it, so I'll find it later). Your original statement made it appear that the Pope was infallible in ALL pronouncements, which is flatly wrong.

So I'll say it again.

[ QUOTE ]
You're wrong on both counts (at least concerning the Roman Catholic Church) and the rest of your assertions are baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Modern American Catholics (MACs) professed to greatly admire Pope JP II, but were highly critical of him for not changing Church doctrine on issues like abortion, homosexuality, birth control, etc., etc. MACs hate to see him go, but look forward to the possibility of a new Pope who will bring the Church more in line with their own views.


[/ QUOTE ]

These MACs are who Traditional Catholics (like myself) playfully refer to as "Ala Carte" Catholics...Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe in the Faith. Many of these want the Church to accomodate, accept, and conform its teaching to their particular behaviors (e.g. birth control, abortion, and living together before marriage) The Church teaches what it does because She believes those teachings are firmly rooted in the Gospel, the teachings of Christ, and Church Tradition. It isn't the Church's job to change its teachings to fit a particular member's behavior, rather it's that member's responsibility, in wishing to remain in full communion with the Church, to modify his or her behavior to conform with Church teachings.

What is striking about the American Church is that the Faith in more conservative and traditional Dioceses continues to thrive in the way of Mass attendence, new members and priestly vocations (like Wichita KS or Lincoln NE) while it struggles in those areas in more "liberal" Dioceses like Los Angeles.

[KJS]

[ QUOTE ]
How can someone say that this is my religion, but I don't agree with its principles and values and beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I also grew up Catholic and attended 12 years of Catholic school. I am not a believer in any religion today. My parents are still churchgoing folks but my mother is quite dismayed about the Vatican's views on the role of women and gays. If she were to read your post I believe she would answer that she very much enjoys the rituals involved in being Catholic, ie. mass, baptism, weddings, funerals, and uses those times to reflect on her life and faith in God. The fact that she disagrees with the church hierarchy on social matters does not compel her to give up on the positive side effects she gets from attending mass and being in a community of believers. She also attended Catholic college during Vietnam and Vatican I, and is very much a believer that instead of leaving the church, you agitate from within. To that end, she is a part of a group of women who are working towards the goal of having women priests.

I think many people belong to groups but don't agree with their principles 100%. But these disagreements are not so bad to overwhelm the benefits of membership.

KJS

[CCass]

Your question is about Catholics specifically, but I think it could be applied to many religions. I have never understood how anyone that calls themselves a Christian (follower of Christ) could ignore/disagree with something written in the Bible (especially the New Testament). It is either the inspired word of God, or it isn't.

God expects us to form our lives around his Word, not form his Word around our lives.

[Dead]

The bible allows slavery.

I guess Christians shouldn't be allowed to disagree with it.

[BCPVP]

That's your half of the bible /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
It is either the inspired word of God, or it isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

How does "inspired" translate into "a verbatim record of all of God's teachings"?

[PhatTBoll]

For most Catholics, the church isn't something you chose in the first place; it's a community that you are born into. Just like any community, you will have people who think that things can be better if some policy changes are made. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not.

Church doctrine has evolved over the years because some people saw things that needed to be changed and they did something about it. Many of them are now saints.

[Cyrus]

It was the year 2525 and man finally made it to another inhabited planet.

We made friends with the inhabitants of that planet, called Trooba. We also got to study their customs and stuff. Here's a summary of the report sent back to Earth by our brave explorers:

"The Troobans live on land. Water covers about 70% of Trooba. The land changes form completely randomly, due to volcanic and seismic developments, every hundred years or so. This does not prevent Troobans who live in the East (where the three Suns rise every morning from) to proclaim their land as Holy Land and the home of the one and only god, Tsi.

In that Holy Land, there are (a) one wall dating back from three thousand years, (b) the central bone of the skeleton of a wise Trooban that died fours thousand years ago, buried in some sort of a tomb, and (c) a giant cube-like stone that the Troobans have painted with the Seven Holy Colors (we can only see one.) Every year, Trubans that are faithful to the Tsi make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and then (a) alternatively hit their two heads on the Holy Wall, (b) place their two Ziklis on the bones of that dead guy (it's the equivalent of human kissing), and (c) walk around three times that giant rock thing, reading prayers to Tsi from their Holy Palmpilots.

Only two of the three sexes of Troobans are allowed in that Holy Land -- the third sex, called Poo Zi, is forbidden to approach by penalty of death.

Troobans are nothing like we've ever seen on Earth. Not that we have seen many two-headed, feathered beings of course (outside Congress) but I'm just saying. Troobans can see about ten times more from the colour spectrum than us humans and Poo Zis can see a hundred times more than the other two sexes! And, since, Trooban fashion changes every month, Poo Zis, who are all very fashion conscious are changing their "have nothing to wear" wardrobe every spring. Cloth makers rule over Trooba.

Back to the Tsi religion. Tsians have two persons who are their Holy Men. One sports a yellow bandana around his left antenna. Troobans are supposed to rise to their toes and kiss the bandana respectfully. This is the Trooban Holy Man Vatt? (the question mark is correct) and is considered to be the representative of Tsi on Trooba. Everything the man says is considered to be wise and holy. To avoid confusion, he makes signs with his hands when he wants to go pee.

The other person is always walking around with sunglasses and what look to us like gigantic headphones. This guy is called the Holy Man Fil and it is considered a bad omen to walk ahead of this guy because he immediately puts a curse on you! Still, followers of Tsi enjoy following him and getting lots of Holy Abuse and a sprinkle of Holy Spit on them and their children.

Now, about patriotism.

Troobans do not have flags as such -- so they kinda broke out in laughter when we raised and saluted our ol' Stars & Stripes. Some school buses came also, and unloaded children to watch the spectacle. Later, a Trooban confided to us that it seems hilarious to them to see grown humans saluting a specific combination of colours on a piece of cloth. That's what they said! We are seriously thinking that maybe the Communists have landed on this planet a coupla centuries ago.

I'm sending full details about the sex between the three sexes of Trooba in a separate form."

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
It was the year 2525 and man finally made it to another inhabited planet.

We made friends with the inhabitants of that planet, called Trooba. We also got to study their customs and stuff. Here's a summary of the report sent back to Earth by our brave explorers:

"The Troobans live on land. Water covers about 70% of Trooba. The land changes form completely randomly, due to volcanic and seismic developments, every hundred years or so. This does not prevent Troobans who live in the East (where the three Suns rise every morning from) to proclaim their land as Holy Land and the home of the one and only god, Tsi.

In that Holy Land, there are (a) one wall dating back from three thousand years, (b) the central bone of the skeleton of a wise Trooban that died fours thousand years ago, buried in some sort of a tomb, and (c) a giant cube-like stone that the Troobans have painted with the Seven Holy Colors (we can only see one.) Every year, Trubans that are faithful to the Tsi make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and then (a) alternatively hit their two heads on the Holy Wall, (b) place their two Ziklis on the bones of that dead guy (it's the equivalent of human kissing), and (c) walk around three times that giant rock thing, reading prayers to Tsi from their Holy Palmpilots.

Only two of the three sexes of Troobans are allowed in that Holy Land -- the third sex, called Poo Zi, is forbidden to approach by penalty of death.

Troobans are nothing like we've ever seen on Earth. Not that we have seen many two-headed, feathered beings of course (outside Congress) but I'm just saying. Troobans can see about ten times more from the colour spectrum than us humans and Poo Zis can see a hundred times more than the other two sexes! And, since, Trooban fashion changes every month, Poo Zis, who are all very fashion conscious are changing their "have nothing to wear" wardrobe every spring. Cloth makers rule over Trooba.

Back to the Tsi religion. Tsians have two persons who are their Holy Men. One sports a yellow bandana around his left antenna. Troobans are supposed to rise to their toes and kiss the bandana respectfully. This is the Trooban Holy Man Vatt? (the question mark is correct) and is considered to be the representative of Tsi on Trooba. Everything the man says is considered to be wise and holy. To avoid confusion, he makes signs with his hands when he wants to go pee.

The other person is always walking around with sunglasses and what look to us like gigantic headphones. This guy is called the Holy Man Fil and it is considered a bad omen to walk ahead of this guy because he immediately puts a curse on you! Still, followers of Tsi enjoy following him and getting lots of Holy Abuse and a sprinkle of Holy Spit on them and their children.

Now, about patriotism.

Troobans do not have flags as such -- so they kinda broke out in laughter when we raised and saluted our ol' Stars & Stripes. Some school buses came also, and unloaded children to watch the spectacle. Later, a Trooban confided to us that it seems hilarious to them to see grown humans saluting a specific combination of colours on a piece of cloth. That's what they said! We are seriously thinking that maybe the Communists have landed on this planet a coupla centuries ago.

I'm sending full details about the sex between the three sexes of Trooba in a separate form."

[/ QUOTE ]

A nominee for POTY!

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible allows slavery.

I guess Christians shouldn't be allowed to disagree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in the Bible does God or Christ say that Slavery is good?

[Dead]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that the bible said it was good. It was allowed, however:

* The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),
* The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
* The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)
* The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
* The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
* The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
* The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
* When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)

Those are all Old Testament passages above. Here are some New Testament ones:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

It's pretty clear that a servant in ancient times was a slave.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that the bible said it was good. It was allowed, however:

* The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),
* The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
* The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)
* The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
* The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
* The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
* The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
* When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)

Those are all Old Testament passages above. Here are some New Testament ones:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

It's pretty clear that a servant in ancient times was a slave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead,

You do realize the ancient concept of slavery was quite different then what we think of in the context of slavery in America?

[Dead]

Yes.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think many people belong to groups but don't agree with their principles 100%. But these disagreements are not so bad to overwhelm the benefits of membership

[/ QUOTE ]

So if your local bank supports and protects pedophiles, along with a long history of killing/persecuting anyone who tries to use another bank other than theirs, you'd still bank there, right?

The catholic religion is about the only entity in the world that seems to get let off the hook for this on a regular basis.

b

[jack spade23]

I understand your attitude regarding pedophiles and the church, but the church to my knowledge isn't currently "killing/persecuting anyone who tries to use another (religion)". there was a lot of corruption in the church back in the day, don't get me wrong, I've taken the AP euro course. But how are they now attempting to promote the killing of followers of other religions?

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
I've taken the AP euro course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, lol lol lol lol..........

Ahahah ahaha hahah ahahah

That is all.

(5 on th AP test in like 2000)

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your attitude regarding pedophiles and the church, but the church to my knowledge isn't currently "killing/persecuting anyone who tries to use another (religion)". there was a lot of corruption in the church back in the day, don't get me wrong, I've taken the AP euro course. But how are they now attempting to promote the killing of followers of other religions?



[/ QUOTE ]

So if the Nazis all of a sudden started a goodwill campaign you'd look past all that they've done in the past and use this same argument, right?

Not to mention, I guess we'll just conveniently ignore the pedophilia bit. Like most catholics seem to do. That is, unless it's their kid that gets touched.

b

[Dead]

That's incredibly offensive.

It is not the Pope's fault that there is pedophilia in the church.

Imo, It is partly because of the celibacy rule that some priests turn to this disgusting practice.

But let's face it. The Pope has been out of it for much of the past few years. He developed Parkinson's and his mind started to go.

I blame the Cardinals but not the Pope.

There is no easy remedy for this problem. But the Catholic church has done so much good for so many people. They are on the forefront of combatting world hunger and so many other important issues.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
That's incredibly offensive

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is incredibly offensive that the church did that in their past.

[ QUOTE ]
It is not the Pope's fault that there is pedophilia in the church

[/ QUOTE ]

I blame much more than just the pope for that. The catholic church hiearchy. Especially the tolerance for it that has been shown not only by the church itself but the followers.

[ QUOTE ]
Imo, It is partly because of the celibacy rule that some priests turn to this disgusting practice

[/ QUOTE ]

That explains pregnant and raped nuns, maybe, not pedophilia. This is like saying being gay you're more likely to be a pedophile. Please. Don't even insinuate that it's only because of celibacy that this was widespread.

[ QUOTE ]
But the Catholic church has done so much good for so many people. They are on the forefront of combatting world hunger and so many other important issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, africa thanks them, Im sure. They've done a wonderful job addressing AIDS issue there.

What other important issues are they really combatting?

b

[Dead]

You know, I'm Jewish, so maybe I'm not the person you should be addressing these questions to. Perhaps I shouldn't have even replied to this thread considering that I'm not Catholic.

Maybe vulturesrow can answer your post better.

[Dr Wogga]

.....some things nver change. I can say unequivocally, that even in Trooba, you're still a huge eff'ing dick

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, I'm Jewish, so maybe I'm not the person you should be addressing these questions to. Perhaps I shouldn't have even replied to this thread considering that I'm not Catholic.

Maybe vulturesrow can answer your post better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead,

Thanks for at least partially sticking up for the Catholic church. As for Bernie's post, I can answer them pretty simply. First off, I am assuming that he is referring to the Inquisition. Lots of misunderstanding on that period in history, mixed in with dose of anti-Catholic bigotry. I am not denying that the were wrongs committed, but it hardly invalidates the Church as a whole. As for the pedophilia thing, that was just about an exclusively American phenomena, which speaks more to the state of American culture than anything else in my opinion. I do agree that those members of the Church hierarchy that attempted to cover things were wrong. AGain, it hardly invalidates the Church as an institution, in spite of Bernie's lame Nazi analogy.

[Dead]

[censored], I didn't even see the Nazi analogy.

That IS really offensive, Bernie.

Comparing the Catholic church to a bunch of Nazis is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, I am assuming that he is referring to the Inquisition. Lots of misunderstanding on that period in history, mixed in with dose of anti-Catholic bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Misunderstanding? Even the crusades, huh? Just a misunderstanding that people were murdered because of a heretical thought or opposing belief. ok.

i guess it really wasn't that big a deal, huh?

The nazi comparison is comparable. Many people have died because of religious differences in the name of the catholic church and/or christianity itself. Note the wonderful vatican also showed support for the nazis. After all, they were killing followers of a 'competing' religion.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the pedophilia thing, that was just about an exclusively American phenomena, which speaks more to the state of American culture than anything else in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, well then it's perfectly fine how the church has handled that then...

Please keep giving them money. They need it for better lawyers.

[ QUOTE ]
I do agree that those members of the Church hierarchy that attempted to cover things were wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This includes the vatican. Front and center.

They thank you for your support.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
That IS really offensive, Bernie.



[/ QUOTE ]

It should be offensive to followers of the church what the church has done. It should be so offensive that no one should ever give another dime to them.

[ QUOTE ]
Comparing the Catholic church to a bunch of Nazis is one of the dumbest things I've ever read

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever even read what the church did in the past? Including when the nazis were in power? The nazis weren't the first ones to try genocide on a grand scale.

b

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Misunderstanding? Even the crusades, huh? Just a misunderstanding that people were murdered because of a heretical thought or opposing belief. ok.

i guess it really wasn't that big a deal, huh?

The nazi comparison is comparable. Many people have died because of religious differences in the name of the catholic church and/or christianity itself. Note the wonderful vatican also showed support for the nazis. After all, they were killing followers of a 'competing' religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

The misunderstanding I referred to was your apparent lack of knowledge of the Inquisition or the Crusades. I am not trying to whitewash anything here. There were some bad acts committed in the name of the Church.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, well then it's perfectly fine how the church has handled that then...

Please keep giving them money. They need it for better lawyers.



[/ QUOTE ]

The reason for pointing out the pedophilia incidents were unique to American Catholic Church was a) a response to Dead's theory about celibacy being the cause of that and b) to point out that the pedophilia probably had more to do with general state of American culture than anything to do with the Church.

[ QUOTE ]
This includes the vatican. Front and center.

They thank you for your support.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be a nit Bernie. I think it is fairly obvious that was a typo. In case it isnt, let me say, I dont support the cover up of these incidents and just for the record some members of the hierarchy did call those guilty to account.

Id also like to address this :

[ QUOTE ]
The nazi comparison is comparable. Many people have died because of religious differences in the name of the catholic church and/or christianity itself. Note the wonderful vatican also showed support for the nazis. After all, they were killing followers of a 'competing' religion.


[/ QUOTE ] and this:

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever even read what the church did in the past? Including when the nazis were in power? The nazis weren't the first ones to try genocide on a grand scale.


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Explain to me when the Catholic chuch tried to commit genocide.
2. Explain to me how the Church supported the Nazis.


Im quite certain you have nothing that even approaches the realm of credibility to post in regards to those two questions.



Fact remains, that just because the Church is made up of imperfect people who have at times done bad things, doesnt invalidate the Church as an institution.

If you think otherwise, maybe you should renounce your U.S. citizenship since we killed all those Indians back in the day huh?

[Dead]

Apparently Bernie is a believer in collective guilt.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason for pointing out the pedophilia incidents were unique to American Catholic Church was b) to point out that the pedophilia probably had more to do with general state of American culture than anything to do with the Church

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think pedophilia is limited to american culture. I think it's more publicized in american culture, not more likely to happen.

[ QUOTE ]
and just for the record some members of the hierarchy did call those guilty to account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they dragged their feet and recommended no jail time for the offenders. Rather wanting to handle it from within. Then they conveniently pulled the rug out from under american churches so they wouldn't be held financially liable for any lawsuits brought by the victims. If you put your kid in a chain daycare center, and someone molested him. It's akin to the entity to say, sorry, he's just an employee. We don't pay for their actions even if it was in our place of business. Like that would ever fly.

Yes, they did wonders and should recieve accolades.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Explain to me when the Catholic chuch tried to commit genocide

[/ QUOTE ]

Start with the Albaginsian crusade of 1109. They even killed many of their own followers in the process. Are you denying that they tried to wipe out heretics and followers of other religions(muslims)? How about much of southern france?

[ QUOTE ]
2. Explain to me how the Church supported the Nazis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Letting nazis take roman/italian jews to the nazis. It's been speculated whether they turned over italian jews to them. Harboring nazi officials. I think the pope actually addressed this issue a couple years ago, apologizing for the vaticans actions during that time.

Big whoop.

[ QUOTE ]
Im quite certain you have nothing that even approaches the realm of credibility to post in regards to those two questions

[/ QUOTE ]

You must really have a distorted, lily white view of the church and vatican to deny that there would be any examples that have been documented on either issues. Especially if you can so easily just brush it to the side and actually call them, misunderstandings. Wow.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently Bernie is a believer in collective guilt

[/ QUOTE ]

How much more would they have to do to finally force you to abandon them?

That said, you can have the same beliefs while not patronizing their church. They've shown that they've done more than enough to deserve it. But again, for some reason, they get let off the hook. Name another entity that has done even close to what they've done in their past and yet still gets supported in droves. Who else do you/would you put up with this from?

It's absolutely amazing.

b

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]

How much more would they have to do to finally force you to abandon them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I'm NOT Catholic. I'm Jewish.

Therefore, none of the rest of your post applies to me.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I'm NOT Catholic. I'm Jewish.

Therefore, none of the rest of your post applies to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question still stands. Would you willingly support an entity that has a similar history of atrocity? You don't have to be catholic to answer that question as it doesn't have to pertain to a religion.

Do you have a problem with a simple question?

Btw...If you want to play the 'jewish' card, why are you in a thread about catholics? How's your reading comprehension?

b

[Dead]

Why are you in the thread if you aren't Catholic? And don't use the phrase "Jewish card" ever again.

[Bigdaddydvo]

Apparently anti-catholicism is the only form of bigotry acceptable these days.

The Church admittedly has its sins, many of which are quite serious (including crusades, inquisition, and pedophilia). Which is why this most recent Pope went to such extensive lengths seeking repentence for them. Many continue to not understand the concept of a Church that is "divinely inspired" (which leads to spirtual truths), yet is a "human institution" (which explains the sins of the Church). If you're ever up to it I could go into extensive detail of how the Church ensures its spirtual truths are safeguarded in a fallible, human run institution.

The Church has Her sins, no doubt, but the contention that She has done more harm than good is ignorant, uninformed, and just plain laughable.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently anti-catholicism is the only form of bigotry acceptable these days

[/ QUOTE ]

Woe is me....

I always thought that bigotry against white men was the only acceptable form. I'll have to update my notes.

[vulturesrow]

I could easily post a point by point answer to your bs but its clear to me that no useful dialogue can be hand when you are so blinded by your hate of the Church and Christianity in general.

So to sum up, I am not saying the Church has never done wrong or that the people in the Church have never done wrong. No one has or ever will assert such foolishness. The fact of these sins doesnt call the Church as an institution into doubt. Your contentions about the Inquisition and the Crusades, while they have some credibility, are easily answered by objective study of history and your claims about the Church's actions during WWII are flat wrong.

Im not sure what the genesis of your virulent anti-Catholicism/Christianity is but I hope in time you can overcome it. I'll say a prayer for you.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying the [Christian] Church has never done wrong or that the people in the Church have never done wrong. No one has or ever will assert such foolishness. The fact of these sins doesnt call the Church as an institution into doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid the fault lies not with the execution of the theory but with the theory itself.

There was a time when, among leftist circles, the crimes of Stalinism were not ascribed to Communism itself but to the erroneous ("grossly erroneous") application of Communist theory by Joseph Stalin. In fact, this was the position of Trotsky and other Communist dissidents (or deviationists -- choose your term). This excuse persisted for decades after WWII and came to be finally refuted only through the works of French philosophers and sociologists, starting in the 1950s. They showed that the fault (the seeds of barbarism) lie at the very heart of Marxism-Leninism. (Those guys were not capitalists. One of the main theoretical publications at the time was "Socialism or Barbarism?" The latter referred both to capitalism and Stalinism.)

Same thing with monotheistic religions and, in this case, Christianity. While no one can seriously dispute the enormous humanitarian work of the Church, or the importance of some political and social positions that the Church has supported, it remains an inhibitive factor in Man's progress towards greater knowledge, greater individual freedom, better social organisation, etc. Despite its many appearances (and disguises) as the solution, it's the religion itself that is the problem.

By the way, the structural similarities between a major monotheistic religion and Communism, if one ignores the content of the respective "teachings", are so many as to render the two belief systems nearly identical.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Man's progress towards greater knowledge

[/ QUOTE ]

Werent members of the Church responsible for keeping much knowledge alive during the Feudal Ages? Do you know of the Pope John Paul II's support for the sciences? The [Catholic] Church has always been a home of reason in spite of some missteps.

[ QUOTE ]
greater individual freedom

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you jest. Again I refer you to Pope John Paul II who spoke and wrote eloquently about the dignity of man and the importance of freedom, who not only spoke against Communism but also the excesses of capitalism! (which btw should do your heart well to know that these writings by John Paul II have moderated my feelings about unadulterated capitalism /images/graemlins/wink.gif )


[ QUOTE ]
better social organisation

[/ QUOTE ]

Im just a dumb neo-con so Ill be honest and admit Im not sure what you are getting at here. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, the structural similarities between a major monotheistic religion and Communism, if one ignores the content of the respective "teachings", are so many as to render the two belief systems nearly identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure what structural similarities you are referring to but to divorce the Church from its teachings is artificial and sets up a disingenuous comparison. Still I guess I find that comparison somewhat less offensive then Church=Nazism.

I know its fairly obvious, but I think the Church is +EV for the world. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Dead]

Anyone who compares the Catholic church to a bunch of Nazis has NFC about the Catholic church, and as such, should not be commenting in this thread. The stance of the Catholic church against the Nazis was well documented. I could argue that the Catholic church did not do enough to try and stop the Nazis, but there can be no doubt that there is a huge difference between the Catholic church and Nazism.

[Cyrus]

I will respond only to the comments that my comparison between the (Christian) Church and Communism inevitably drew. The rest of my post's content is self-explanatory about my positions on the matter of Christianity as organised ideology so I see nothing that needs to be added.

Both Dead and Vultures got it wrong, Vultures less so. (Dead even saw "Nazis" where I wrote Communists, but that's alright!)

I specifically asked that a structural comparison be made. (Yes, that means irrespective of the content of the teachings! You should know why.) And a structural comparison between the two constructs, the monotheistic religion of Christianity and the political ideology of Marxism-Leninism will trivially produce striking similarities. The conclusions one can draw from these similarities should not be dismissed. Most people do not even consider them, let alone examine them.

It is my position that the fault lies in the structure. Not in the teachings (the "content") as such. (And I am not a structuralist, John, in case you are watching.)

[vulturesrow]

Cyrus,

Point of order. I think Dead may have been referring to Bernie's posts comparing the Nazis to the Church.

I understand your assertion, I am just asking two questions about it.

1. What are the structural similarities that you are referring to?
2. Dont you think it is a bit artificial to separate the teachings of the Church away from it for the purposes of comparison? If not, why?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
(Dead even saw "Nazis" where I wrote Communists, but that's alright!)

[/ QUOTE ]

As VR said, I was referring to Bernie's posts comparing the Catholic church to a bunch of Nazis. I found that offensive.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Cyrus, I don't see how the structural similarities between the Catholic Chuch and Communism has any real point. Most organizations are formed in the same mold as well. Or where you trying to imply something else from your post? that because communism is bad that the Church must be bad because they have similar structural characteristics?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you in the thread if you aren't Catholic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was a catholic for the first 12 years of my life. Forced to attend a parochial school for 8 years.

[ QUOTE ]
And don't use the phrase "Jewish card" ever again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then don't play it.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I could easily post a point by point answer to your bs

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt it. Anyone who just shrugs off the churches vile past as 'simple misunderstandings' doesn't hold much credit with me either.

[ QUOTE ]
but its clear to me that no useful dialogue can be hand when you are so blinded by your hate of the Church and Christianity in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

We will agree to disagree. We are not converting eachother. It's not that I don't mind christianity, even though I don't believe in it, that's not my problem with it. It's organized religion in general that I don't like. History has proven many times why it sucks. In time it will prove it again.

[ QUOTE ]
Im not sure what the genesis of your virulent anti-Catholicism/Christianity is

[/ QUOTE ]

A good study of their past history sealed that for me. I wouldn't voluntarily support any institution with that track record. How can one 'simply' overlook it?

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of these sins doesnt call the Church as an institution into doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? It should make you doubt the vatican. Especially on their motives. I've already mentioned you can be catholic without supporting the vatican. Who else do you support that has their track record? Who's blinded?

Again, it's amazing what people let them get away with that they wouldn't tolerate from any other institution. Religious genocide aside, of course.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
posts comparing the Catholic church to a bunch of Nazis. I found that offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see a difference in killing people for their race as different from killing people for thinking/believing differently?

It should be equally offensive.

b

[vulturesrow]

Dead was right, you need to work on your reading comprehension. For the last time, I didnt call the past misdeeds of the past misunderstandings! I was talking about your lack of understanding of history.

I have serious doubts about your serious study of the Church's past, esp. given your take on the Church during WWII.

And the fact that you think you can be Catholic and not support the Vatican blows my mind. You would think one that went to parochial school and was CAtholic as you said would know better than this.

[Dead]

Don't waste your energy. He's obviously a Hitchens fan.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
1. What are the structural similarities that you are referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Briefly, the notion of unalterable holy texts, from which all wisdom flows; the heterodoxy of those texts (in M/L, historical Determinism "wrote" it, while in mon.rel. like Christ., Yahveh was gravious enough to hand it over to us); the strict interpretation by whichever human has power (i.e. Stalin over Trotsky; or Vatican over Copts, Aryans, and other "heretics"); the inclusionary/exclusionary rules of participation; the interpretation of all human history through the ideology's "analytical tools" (material dialectics in one, enlightnent by the Holy Spirit in the other); anointed and approved messengers and interpreters of the Truth (priests, Politburo); etc.

To borrow a line from Fawlty Towers, "There is enough material there for an entire conference".

[ QUOTE ]
2. Dont you think it is a bit artificial to separate the teachings of the Church away from it for the purposes of comparison? If not, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

My religion's teachings are strictly humanitarian. You would not find anything to disagree with in outr teachings! I guarantee that.

We also have a little code of conduct whereby we kill anyone who dares leave the religion. Not to worry. It's just necessary in order to better spread the religion's message. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Like I said, sometimes the means are the end.