Calling nominal and liberal Catholics

Post Reply New Topic

If women would just follow the churches example and become closeted homosexual men, we wouldnt have this problem. Eve is up to her old tricks again.

Incorrect, and I honestly wouldn't know because I've never learned about their life experiences. I am, however, willing to hazard a guess that their contentions with the Catholic Church are more eloquently stated than yours.



Nice straw man you've got there.



I wouldn't consider myself "educated," but I am intelligent enough to "look beyond the bubble of religious dogma." I also possess enough intellectual honesty to concede that religion has, in fact, done some good things for its followers as a social organization and that it would be illogical to lump the "good" with the "bad."

Last edited by CoMF on 09 Mar 2012, 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0safHyhPo[/youtube]

Before Ratzinger became Pope, he was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. If it sounds like something politically correct, it really is. One of its earliest names was the Inquisition, and that is kind of a bad word this day and age. Ratzinger essentially held the title of Supreme Inquisitor, and it is not shocking that, based on the precedents started by Pius IX and his anti-modern strong-arming to consolidate power, that he would continue such beliefs. He actually wrote a paper stating why women cannot be priests. This belief system trickling down from Pius IX led to an increasingly conservative priestly base, and frankly liberals and other moderates were shouldered out, leaving only conservatives and pedophiles to feel welcome.

So:



It is, especially under the "receptive to reforms" part. You just haven't lived for that long. Apparently you believe it has to happen in one shot for some reason. Usually movements don't fall like that.

Not at all. With an organization as large as the Catholic Church, that's probably going to take decades.

Oh, no doubt about the last part Like I said, I'm not an intellectual. I don't have an academic degree, and English is not my first language. (I like to think of the American English that I've come to use as my third language, my second language being the British English that I learned at school).



Thanks What better way to respond to a straw man than to compare it to another, remarkably similar straw man?



See, there is an example of my insufficiently eloquent and concise English. I could have worded that better. The sentence had two parts: "intellectuals who are capable of critical, rational thought" and "who can look beyond the bubble of religious dogma". The latter doesn't require intelligence or education. The only precondition is being outside the bubble. I'm afraid that is impossible for a religious believer, no matter how educated.

As long as one remains inside the bubble of faith, certain thoughts and considerations are rejected as blasphemy by the meme and are quickly rationalized away. The more intelligent a person, the easier it is for them to come up with a rationalization. Look how you responded to criticism of the RCC, for example. You immediately found a way to rationalize and discard it. "It's just somebody who had a traumatic experience with a wayward pedophile priest or something. Someone with an axe to grind who shouldn't be taken seriously."

That's how the meme works. When faced with a choice between intellectual honesty and the continued belief in an eternal life that has been promised by a corrupt church (along with the threat of hellfire and damnation if one were to step out of line), believers will inevitably choose the latter. That's the only reason that the RCC still exists in this day and age.

Thanks for the videos. This part was quite upsetting, and I can't see how anybody knowing these facts could possibly continue to support this criminal organization:



I already supported the initiative of Dawkins to arrest Ratzinger during his next England visit (the Vatican is not recognized as a country by the UN, so diplomatic immunity does not apply), as well as the charges against Ratzinger for crimes against humanity that were brought up before the International Criminal Court by two German lawyers. If I needed any more reason to believe that this person belongs behind bars and his criminal empire should be brought down with him, this information would do the trick. This cannot be allowed to go on or to go unpunished.

Hum... Yes and no. Many great thinkers were Christians and believers. For example, Machiavelli was religious, he went to church, baptised all his children, practiced religion like everyone else, and generally believed his religion was the right one; yet he criticized the Papacy for its temporal power and inept management, and was generally amoral with regards to which religion is practiced, be it false, so long as it is useful. When writers wanted to say something Church-unfriendly, they were just careful, and said things like "no one would challenge the righteousness of our religion" while doing the opposite (e.g chapter XI of The Prince).

I don't think that being out of the "bubble of faith" makes one much more rational. Actually, I don't think any how can truly be out of it. They just change. Democracy is as strongly believed and as little reasonned that it is, basically, faith (or rather, dogma). There are arguments in favour of democracy, and it can be said that it is the best system, etc., don't get me wrong, but that is not the point: the point is that no one thinks about it, and almost all less conventional ideologies present themselves as more "democratic" or as "truly democratic", or say they represent the people or its will. Anyone advocating a dictatorship would be seen as completely silly.

Of course, nowadays, some believers become recognized as such by behaving like raging zealots, but that shows nothing about believers and belief in general, only about raging zealots.

Eh, don't sweat it.



Like I said, some believers choose not to be a prisoner of fear and stay within the church for other reasons. It could be because they were raised in that faith their entire life and wouldn't feel comfortable if they left, or because they want to be buried beside their loved one, or because they haven't given up trying to lead by example in the hopes that the Church will adopt a less hardline stance.

To me, always viewing religion in a negative light without ever acknowledging that sometimes, it does do good things is showing the same ignorance and closed mindedness that you speak out against.

I have no quarrel with people who have been raised in the Catholic faith, and it's not my aim to ridicule them. I'm attacking the RCC as an organization. If believers feel that this is blasphemy, intolerance, persecution or ridicule, that's not my fault. But this feeling is certainly part of the problem. An organization that aids and protects child rapists should not be revered, worshipped or defended. If otherwise good and honest people feel compelled to do this, I have to assume that their minds have been corrupted by this cult. People need to wake up and realize what kind of monster they're feeding.



How can it be ridicule or condescension to decry child rape on a massive scale? See, that's what I'm talking about. You may not be a Catholic, but you seem to subscribe to the mindset that everything under the flag of religion should be exempt from criticism because the truth hurts the feelings of religious believers. Even sexual child abuse should remain unchallenged for the sake of religious tolerance. Religion doesn't deserve this special status, no matter how strongly people feel about it.



How many crimes against humanity does this criminal organization have to commit before the defense "but they also do some good" begins to sound like "but Hitler also built highways and gave everybody a job"? I'd say we have long reached that point.

The RCC provides no service to society that couldn't easily be replaced by more effective secular institutions. This organisation has leveraged, and sometimes extorted, vast amounts of money from faithful people over the centuries, including the poorest of the poor. Most of that money has been used "for the glory of god", i.e., to increase the power and political influence of the church, build extravagant and wasteful places of worship, and allow the upper ranks of the clergy to live a life in luxury. Some of it has found its way back to people in need, but that doesn't make this business a charity. Nor can it possibly excuse the crimes against humanity committed by the RCC.

You're attacking an organization that some people are attached to regardless of whether or not they're blind to the injustices being committed by their clergy, much like some people are attached to the deeply flawed government we currently have in the United States regardless of whether or not they're blind to the injustices being committed by their elected officials. Forcefully abolishing that construct is going to create more problems than it solves.



Was it the pope or a corrupt bishop who protected the criminal? Would the punishment fit the crime if you held parties that shared no complicity in the obstruction of justice accountable for the actions of a degenerate priest? Can you prove that this "conspiracy" extends to the highest levels of the Catholic Church? What you're asking for is a pretty hefty punishment based on your own personal conceits rather than solid evidence. Punish the bishops and priests? Absolutely. Punish the entire heirarchy of the RCC right down to the parishoners? Not without proof, you're not. Your zeal does not trump due process.



It's not, but you have yet to prove that this is the M.O. of the entire Catholic Church extending right up to the Pope himself.



Incorrect. What I do subscribe to is the idea of due process and justice, as well as not collectively holding innocent parties accountable for the actions of one or two individuals.



Indeed, it should not be immune from prosecution regardless of whether someone plays the "religious tolerance" card or not. I would also like to iterate that this is a double edged sword. (e.g. Should Native Americans be arrested for drug crimes because they use peyote in their religious ceremonies?)

For the record, no, I'm not equating drug use to pedophilia, and I actually believe that drugs should be decriminalized and treated as a health rather than a criminal issue. I'm demonstrating that the same standard (i.e. "religious tolerance" is not a legal defense for something which is a crime under the law) can be used against someone whom you might sympathize with.



Circular reasoning. Try again.



Would you care to support your assertion that the RCC is completely incapable of doing any good for society?



To the best of my knowledge, the RCC stopped selling indulgences a long time ago and isn't currently spearheading any crusades.

^^^^^^^

Did you watch my videos?

################################

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOamsF5r3TE[/youtube]

The US government has its share of flaws and issues, but it doesn't aid and protect vast numbers of child abusers. Besides, it provides a vital service without which the country couldn't function (anarchists might disagree with me on this, but the example of Somalia shows that a country without a central government descends into chaos).

The Catholic Church has no such function nowadays. Things were different when the RCC had a monopoly on education in medieval Europe. But I believe that the Dark Ages would have literally been a lot brighter if this had not been the case and scientific thought could have continued unoppressed and uninhibited from where the ancient Greeks left off.



I suppose you didn't watch the second video that HerrGrimm posted. Here is the relevant part in writing:

In 2003, Ratzinger was Prefect of The Congregation of The Doctrine of The Faith. It was his job to deal with the child abuse scandal that was brewing. His first act was to write a letter to the Catholic Bishops, ordering them on pain of excommunication not to talk to the police or anyone else. Investigations should be handled "in the most secretive way restrained by perpetual silence".

The Mexican founder of the Legion of Christ movement, Marcial Maciel Degollado, was protected from his own catalogue of child abuse. "One cannot put on trial so close a friend of the Pope" said Ratzinger when the allegations could no longer be denied. Marcial was "sentenced" to "a life of prayer and penitence", and Ratzinger described the whole affair, and that of Bernard Law of Boston, as "causing suffering for the Church and for me personally".

In case that you don't know, Joseph Ratzinger is the guy in the image below who nowadays goes by the name Benedikt XVI.



The RCC also has a history of talking the parents of victims into not pressing charges, or outright threatening them into silence. If a case goes to court, the plaintiffs are pressured into a confidential out-of-court settlement. Those who don't agree are blamed and accused by unconscionable church lawyers in court. One parent of an abuse victim was asked by a church lawyer if he had properly taught his son the "virtues of modesty" and "the Catholic Church's teaching against sexual activities outside marriage." (link)

The only thing that is more disturbing than the selfish denial and mitigation strategies of the church and the complete lack of empathy for the victims is the sheer number of cases. According to the 2004 John Jay Report, there were 10,667 allegations of sexual child abuse against 4,392 priests in the USA alone. And those are only the cases that we know of. Who knows how many more were hushed up, or never reported by the victims out of shame and embarrassment.



See above.



I also support the decriminalization of drugs. In addition, I don't think that Native Americans should have to live in reservations and be subjected to US laws, but that's an entirely different topic. The most important difference in this case is that nobody is forced or physically violated in your example. People who voluntarily use narcotics only harm themselves, if anybody.



I'm not sure that you understand what circular reasoning means.



That is not what I said. Please read my above sentence again.

Let me explain in more detail where I'm coming from: There are many secular charities that don't discriminate against gays and lesbians (link). And the hospitals, kindergardens and schools that are operated by the RCC aren't charitable institutions. They operate with a great profit margin, since the nuns that work in these places (at least in Germany) receive no wages.

In addition, these church-run institutions are subsidized by taxpayer money in Germany and several other European countries. But despite this fact, non-Catholic parents have been told that their children can't attend a Catholic kindergarden (which are misused for religious indoctrination, I migh add). In case of hospitals, I know from experience that Catholic hospitals tend to be a bit... let's say minimalistic. And I could imagine that German Muslims and Buddhists have mixed feelings about the crucifixes on the walls of patients' rooms, the Bibles on the tables, and the nuns in the hallways. People shouldn't be subjected to religion in public institutions, imho.

Alas, the existence of these institutions prevents secular ones from being built in their place, since this would be uneconomic. These public services also give the church a great deal of influence and leverage in political matters. For example, the German RCC has successfully protested against exemptions from shopping hour laws for tourist cities and prevented shops from opening on Sundays. A religious organization shouldn't have this kind of influence in a secular country. Separation of church and state, including separation of religion and the public sector, is a crucial hallmark of democracy.



I didn't mention indulgences or the crusades. Devout Catholics are expected to tithe (or, in case of Germany, to pay their church tax). Even the poorest feel compelled to tithe in order to ensure their imaginary salvation. It's essentially a racket that uses the promise of an afterlife and the threat of eternal pain to cheat people out of their hard-earned money. Church members are also being talked into willing their property to the RCC in exchange for a special place in heaven. There is no need to point at historical times.

But thanks for bringing up the utterly un-Christian history of the RCC, which was full of corruption, oppression, wars, and political scheming. The more political power and influence the RCC lost in the Western World, the more advanced and free our societies became. I believe it is time to take the next logical step in the disempowerment of the Catholic Church. Not because it is a religious organization, but because it is a harmful, corrupt and criminal one.

That may be true, but it does aid and protect some of the worst examples of humanity.



I agree that no good will come of the RCC being lead by hardcore individuals not receptive to logic or reason, but the point I'm trying to make is that it can indeed provide a modicum of vital services to the community. I'm speaking in the context of individual churches rather than the Vatican.



In all honesty, I did not, but I'm also no fan of Ratzinger either. I suspect that the discretion he called for was guided by ulterior motives. While I'm certain that he probably hasn't changed in this regard, he did those things before he became pope.

Did the College of Cardinals elect him as Pope with full knowledge of his checkered past? I cannot say for sure, but if that is indeed the case, I find it troubling.



The RCC certainly isn't doing itself any favors with confidential out-of-court settlements. I could understand if these were just torts, but we're talking about the sexual predation of children and adolescents. That's not something you just sweep under the carpet. You might find it interesting, however, that the victim's father did not renounce his faith despite the anger the felt towards those who allowed those things to happen.



The church obviously has a serious problem on its hands and needs to start cooperating with law enforcement in addition revising their policies for dealing with these incidents. It probably won't eliminate them entirely, but it will definitely not harm their reputation as much as trying to sweep everything under the carpet.



Agreed.



Circular reasoning is when the premise of an argument is the same as its conclusion. Your point wasn't invalid, but the way in which it was presented was.

Sometimes, I'm just as guilty of this as anyone else.



Question 1: Do all religious charities discriminate against the LGBT community?

Question 2: Do secular hospitals, kindergardens and schools that operate with great profit margins get a free pass simply because they don't use religious icons?

Mind you, I think it's hypocritical for an organization to call itself a "charity" when the bulk of its income goes towards "administrative expenses," but if you're trying to play the "greed" card I'd like to remind you that there are plenty of secular organizations that suffer from the same affliction.



Can't really relate to that as I live in the United States, but I believe that the use of taxpayer money should be left to the taxpayer's discretion.



Why would I, an agnostic, want to attend a Catholic school or university that only serves other Catholics when I can get an education of equivalent or better quality from many alternatives? Sounds like a non-issue to me.



Define "minimalistic." I'll hazard a guess that you're referring more to the quality of services provided rather than decor.



Unless it's being solely run and financed by the government, it's not "public." I also wouldn't care what religious imagery was displayed in my hospital room if I were receiving medical services of reasonable quality for little to no cost and I had nowhere else to go. Sometimes, you just gotta sacrifice principle for practicality.



Are you implying that RCC has a monopoly on the health care industry and public/private education or that any secular organization is inherently "better" than even the best religious one? If not, I apologize. If so, please elaborate and provide supporting evidence.



Here, in the United States, we call those "Blue Laws," and they've mostly fallen into disfavor so I cannot relate unfortunately. However, I feel that forcing a mandatory "sabbath" on everyone, including those who don't necessarily subscribe to it, is unnecessary.



Duly noted, but here's some food for thought: Replace "faithful people" with "constituents," "glory of god" with "greater good," "places of worship" with "public projects," and "upper ranks of the clergy" with "politicians," and "the church"/"RCC" with "nation" and "government" respectively.



One man's "church tax" is another man's "membership fee," but I agree that it should not be compulsory for those who are neither members of the church nor regularly use their services.



To do otherwise would've been intellectually dishonest.



I attribute that more to enlightenment and the changes it brought to society, but you're entitled to your opinion.



If only you felt the same way about governments...

I think he subscribes to the mindset that everything under the flag of religion should not be attacked only by the fact that they are religious.

I was waiting for someone to say it nicer than me. I can be too blunt at times.

It is quite obvious CoMF only knows that the child rape happened and nothing else. The fact he responded to me without looking at my entire post is ridiculous, and it is even more ridiculous that he passed over CrazyCatLord's post that had a quote from it and just kept going ignorantly with a weak argument.

Ratzinger was John Paul II's right hand man, so I doubt they didn't keep each other in on the loop. Cardinal Bernard Law, who was at the epicenter of the child rape scandal, was whisked away to a PROMOTED Vatican post to avoid interrogation, among other cover-ups.

################################################################

I just noticed Vexcalibur's edited post.

The concept of the immorality of condoms and contraception is almost exclusively from the conservative Catholics. Thomas Aquinas said that contraception was worse than rape or incest, and nothing changed much in the views since. Paul VI's encyclical during Vatican II condemning contraception was a double down of power. Numerous Catholics noted their relationships were greatly negatively affected by the denouncing of contraception before that meeting. I think I read somewhere that like >90% of Catholics practice contraception, and it seems reasonable and not at all hypocritical. Given who made the decision on contraception, I figured a great number of people were just not going to take it seriously and use condoms and other devices regularly.

So you're right somewhat in the OP. Nominal and liberal Catholics should feel left out by the conservatives in the structure, and they should question if the hierarchy really has the laity and others in mind, or their own views instead.