Not the best of time for the |Catholic Church

[Bill Mattocks]

The link between celibacy and childmolestation is a bit of a stretch i see that, but it do believe there is a connection. Because celibacy is a requirement for church service, people who have 'problems with sexuality' magically gravitate to the church.

Then why do they also gravitate towards other Christian churches, teaching positions, scout leaderships, and martial arts instructions? None of those require celibacy. I suspect it is the position of authority over children that attracts molesters, not the celibacy requirement.

It is a haven for those that have come to tend a hostile attitude towards what is simply a part of life. -But just because they disdain sexuality in others and play pure lacking experience, doesn't mean they can uphold the farse.

I don't think you understand the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to sexuality. Priests take vows of celibacy so that their primary responsibility is to serve God (and other reasons which we can get into if you wish) but the Church itself celebrates sexuality inside of marriage.

So aside from simply turning bitter after 20 years or so, when they feel some kind of attraction of a sexual nature, they can be overpowered by the feelings under whatever conditions. It is in the selfish nature of man to think that he can be the exception to a rule. Then there are those that are quite concious of their actions, which is the most evil.

I think you're way off base here. Any kind of proof would be useful.

To me it is utterly inconceivable, but there are people also that have pedophile tendencies. I do find it shocking that the church tollerates and hides it and claims some therapy.

I also find it shocking, and I share your view that therapy does not seem to cure pedophiles.

I strongly disagree with this. No less than a seven nation army and some serious clockwork orange style therapy could ever help the situation. and i do not really believe in therapy for priests. It's like therapy for a police man that shot people on purpose. Impossible. They're priests, they're supposed to uphold a certain standard.

I agree that the situation is intolerable.

To me this is not about religion or no religion. That would be ignoring the problems at hand, which are that there are people using the church as a cover for haneous crimes against the soul, the church itself is losing credibility as a positive social force.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

Sortof a subject it would be advisable not to touch with even a very long pole, that is, sexual abuse. I would nevertheless dare it, but the subject for me is that the criminals here are hiding out under the cover of rightiousness and enlightenment. So wrong, so wrong. Don't you think?
From my perspective as someone who tries to be real in respecting the soul in all people, it makes me mad.

It makes me mad too. And sad, and sick at my soul.

I call for UFC at bible study.

Um, what?

 

[Blade96]

Yes I do have an issue with religion Bill but not against many religious people. There is a difference. The vast majority of my friends are religious, and we get along very well, most of my family is religious, and again no issue.

However like you, I do have an issue when I hear about a cover up protecting pedophiles. Also when I hear about the Texas school board changing text books so that bronze age stories are taken as scientific truth, when children die because their parents don’t believe in blood transfusions, when religious leaders think it’s a good idea to promote suicide attacks, when members of two major religions try to push to the national agenda the need to start the “end time” so the rapture can start, when hypocritical people pick and choose what stories to follow and what stories to dismiss from the old and new testament, when religious organizations get tax breaks on the backs of hardworking people. In that context, yes I do have an issue with religion.

On this forum we have developed a community that can belittle, make fun of, and be critical of any and all subject. I have seen yourself and many, many others get worked up about US politics, gun laws, and US involvement around the world. Why should religion get a bi? Because its religion? Because it hurts peoples feelings? Because it forces people to look critically at their beliefs? People need to not swallow the cool-aid provided, they need to question their entire religion, not just the 10% they have been force fed since infancy.

I stand by what I said earlier, Religion is a plague, and I for one can't wait till its all gone from the face of the earth.

I actually agree with that bit about koolaid.

and when I was 15 one of my school friends in my class in jr high got cancer and he died. His parents wouldnt give consent to a blood transfusion to try and save him. I was only 15 so was he and it scarred me. Who the **** would take a god who may or may not even exist over their own son or trying to save their own son? **** that.

and everything I ever read about religion since then. My parents were into church stuff when i was little. Hell, they forced me to get confirmed at age 11 - even though I didnt want to and I made it clear.

Like ken, most of the friends I ever had and my family believe in God. I was still able to be on great terms with them. However, I do believe that most of them though they may not act or show it because it would be evil - think that they hold the truth and we atheists I'm not, I am agnostic-atheist because I believe in the possibility of a god (agnostic) but dont believe on just blind faith (the atheist part) but the theists do seem to have this superiority righteous attitude about them though they may not show it or act it.

and my sensei is not different. On friday night was having a God-y discussion and asked him why he believes in god. He said the world is too complex for it too have just all happen by chance like the big bang theory. Its true the world is complex, but that in itxself isnt 'proof' as I would define it. Anyway I told him I'm agnostic. he said 'You believe in god and one exists - you just dont realize it yet' like my beliefs are naive. and I was like Wtf? I adore my sensei to bits, but - Wtf?

Why can't theists even think that, No there is not absolute proof and maybe our thoughts might hold some water?

I just needed to have a vent. Because I dont say No you're wrong. I admit, Theists could be right. We just dont have any proof , or at least how I would define 'proof'

Of course then there are the ones who think We arent going to heaven if we dont convert and believe. I wont start with that. I mean I dont think Well you're not an agnostic like me so....No nono. Its just wrong.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I actually agree with that bit about koolaid.

and when I was 15 one of my school friends in my class in jr high got cancer and he died. His parents wouldnt give consent to a blood transfusion to try and save him. I was only 15 so was he and it scarred me. Who the **** would take a god who may or may not even exist over their own son or trying to save their own son? **** that.

and everything I ever read about religion since then. My parents were into church stuff when i was little. Hell, they forced me to get confirmed at age 11 - even though I didnt want to and I made it clear.

Like ken, most of the friends I ever had and my family believe in God. I was still able to be on great terms with them. However, I do believe that most of them though they may not act or show it because it would be evil - think that they hold the truth and we atheists I'm not, I am agnostic-atheist because I believe in the possibility of a god (agnostic) but dont believe on just blind faith (the atheist part) but the theists do seem to have this superiority righteous attitude about them though they may not show it or act it.

and my sensei is not different. On friday night was having a God-y discussion and asked him why he believes in god. He said the world is too complex for it too have just all happen by chance like the big bang theory. Its true the world is complex, but that in itxself isnt 'proof' as I would define it. Anyway I told him I'm agnostic. he said 'You believe in god and one exists - you just dont realize it yet' like my beliefs are naive. and I was like Wtf? I adore my sensei to bits, but - Wtf?

Why can't theists even think that, No there is not absolute proof and maybe our thoughts might hold some water?

I just needed to have a vent. Because I dont say No you're wrong. I admit, Theists could be right. We just dont have any proof , or at least how I would define 'proof'

Of course then there are the ones who think We arent going to heaven if we dont convert and believe. I wont start with that. I mean I dont think Well you're not an agnostic like me so....No nono. Its just wrong.

I hear you. It bothers me as well when others who are religious proselytize. Their faith may require it, but I really don't want to hear it most of the time. When I want to hear about religion, I go to Mass.

I also fully accept that all of my religious beliefs could be no more than wishful thinking and imagination. That's OK with me, I didn't ask for proof or any promises. If it turns out I'm wrong, I don't feel I will have wasted my life or done anything that I would have done differently if I did not believe.

There also isn't any disproof, as you say. Nothing either way.

So I go on believing, but not expecting anyone else to. Everybody has to find their own path, I say. Live and let live, leave others alone and hope that they will leave you alone in return.

In the meantime, as I've posted before, I get a huge kick out of these videos - Mister Deity. It pokes fun at religion and takes special aim at the big huge logical discrepancies and contradictions, but to me that's fine; it's all in good fun. And the agnostics and atheists love it; it satisfies their need to be right about religion being wrong. Check it out if you have a healthy sense of humor and a tolerance of others poking fun at your own beliefs (or lack of them) along the way.

http://www.mrdeity.com/

 

[Ken Morgan]

Referring to someone's Deity as an 'invisible man in the sky' isn't getting anyone to confront their beliefs, and I'm sure you know that. It's designed to be insulting, because you wish to insult. I get that, sometimes I wish to be insulting too. I choose not to be offended, but amazingly, when one's intention is to instruct, addressing the classroom as 'Hey idiots!' doesn't often get the results one desires.

If you want me (or anyone) to look critically at our beliefs, there are better ways of doing it than being rude and insulting.

So "god" isn't invisible and he doesn't live in the heavens? I may be literal, but isn't that what many religious people believe? I've had my feelings hurt here many times on various issues, that's for me to deal with. If this subject hurt your feelings, that's your issue to deal with.

I argee, everyone should mind their own business. Everybody, religious and otherwise need to become better critical thinkers, thats not telling the world or anyone specific what to do, its simply what i believe. Do i expect anyone to do it simply becasue I said it? phht, of course not. But you are correct, the sooner everybody starts minding theri own business, religion included, the better.

 

[kaizasosei]

Then why do they also gravitate towards other Christian churches, teaching positions, scout leaderships, and martial arts instructions? None of those require celibacy. I suspect it is the position of authority over children that attracts molesters, not the celibacy requirement.

You're right. But my reason is, it's the church.-But i guess, it doesn't make it worse...so mote seems my point.

I don't think you understand the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to sexuality. Priests take vows of celibacy so that their primary responsibility is to serve God (and other reasons which we can get into if you wish) but the Church itself celebrates sexuality inside of marriage.

this seems a bit idealistic to me. More than often what i mentioned bears considerably true.

I think you're way off base here. Any kind of proof would be useful.

actually i think i don't want to get much closer to this than this.



About the UFC, i meant i think that there is lots of fairness and common sense missing in the church.
...either that or beating some oppressive mofos-)





peace

 

[Ken Morgan]

I hear you. It bothers me as well when others who are religious proselytize. Their faith may require it, but I really don't want to hear it most of the time. When I want to hear about religion, I go to Mass.

I also fully accept that all of my religious beliefs could be no more than wishful thinking and imagination. That's OK with me, I didn't ask for proof or any promises. If it turns out I'm wrong, I don't feel I will have wasted my life or done anything that I would have done differently if I did not believe.

There also isn't any disproof, as you say. Nothing either way.

So I go on believing, but not expecting anyone else to. Everybody has to find their own path, I say. Live and let live, leave others alone and hope that they will leave you alone in return.

In the meantime, as I've posted before, I get a huge kick out of these videos - Mister Deity. It pokes fun at religion and takes special aim at the big huge logical discrepancies and contradictions, but to me that's fine; it's all in good fun. And the agnostics and atheists love it; it satisfies their need to be right about religion being wrong. Check it out if you have a healthy sense of humor and a tolerance of others poking fun at your own beliefs (or lack of them) along the way.

http://www.mrdeity.com/

Agreed. :asian:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So "god" isn't invisible and he doesn't live in the heavens? I may be literal, but isn't that what many religious people believe?

Yeah, that's a common response from the Dawkins folks. Sorry, Ken, not biting. See, it's insulting and you know it's insulting. I'm not insulted, not offended, and my feelings are not hurt; but you do intend to hurt feelings by using terms like that. Acting innocent isn't really working.

I've been down this road with people who are much better at it than you; even those who are much more hostile to religion than you. But let me recap, and then I have to go do some grocery shopping.

1) I agree with you that the Catholic Church has much to answer for, and I'm in favor of criminal investigations into the cover-ups regarding pedophiles in the Church.

2) I agree with you that there is no proof that God exists in any form whatsoever, and I also agree with you that people should not shove their beliefs down anyone's throat.

3) You stated that you have no problem with religion, but that's not true, you do. You stated you have no problem with people who are religious, but that's not true, you do. You've been confronted on both points, and you basically admit it yourself. You justify it by playing word games in which you use insulting words and then insist they're not insulting because they're actually accurate. Yes, I get it. No, it's not offending my shell-like ears or making me cry.

4) Being a prick is not the way to convert anyone to your way of thinking; and I should know, I'm a champion at being a prick when I want to be one. So I can easily conclude that your purpose is not to convince anyone of the correctness of your argument, but simply to be a prick. I leave you to it.

Now I must do my grocery shopping. Take care.

 

[Blade96]

I hear you. It bothers me as well when others who are religious proselytize. Their faith may require it, but I really don't want to hear it most of the time

No, I like discussing religion and such. If I didn't, I wouldnt have started a discussion about God with my sensei (and i also talk about religion with others as well) I like hearing what do people believe and why do they believe this. I like to get to know people. and my sensei and I are good friends.

Its just when they implicitly or explicitly say my beliefs are naive and they think they have the truth that gets my goat.

 

[kaizasosei]

and my sensei is not different. On friday night was having a God-y discussion and asked him why he believes in god. He said the world is too complex for it too have just all happen by chance like the big bang theory. Its true the world is complex, but that in itxself isnt 'proof' as I would define it. Anyway I told him I'm agnostic. he said 'You believe in god and one exists - you just dont realize it yet' like my beliefs are naive. and I was like Wtf? I adore my sensei to bits, but - Wtf?

I don't know if your sensei is perfectly correct or not. But his ideas sortof checkout with me. But fact is, that religion itself sows the seeds of doubt,confusion and ignorance by being mindless, selfrightious and imposing. I myself becoming so turned off of spiritualty(particularly many conventional forms) because of such reasons, it was a great realization for me at the age of twenty to see that that what mankind has created, in machines and technology is nothing compared to what nature is. And that all the illusion of moving flashing and wonderous things blinded me for years from the real miracle machine that is life and the cosmos, universe, nature, being.
I feel like i can see the confusion like two apparitions fighting in a dream. But not always fighting for peace, reason or with all their heart. Unfair and mean. So the cycle of meanness is perpetuated further...


Some arguments will go on and on, in a circular way like a train around a round track, never reaching anything. And religion does seem to start some of those arguments sometimes, but that doesn't mean that a person should not have the right to understand everything for themselves.




j

 

[Ken Morgan]

Yeah, that's a common response from the Dawkins folks. Sorry, Ken, not biting. See, it's insulting and you know it's insulting. I'm not insulted, not offended, and my feelings are not hurt; but you do intend to hurt feelings by using terms like that. Acting innocent isn't really working.

I've been down this road with people who are much better at it than you; even those who are much more hostile to religion than you. But let me recap, and then I have to go do some grocery shopping.

1) I agree with you that the Catholic Church has much to answer for, and I'm in favor of criminal investigations into the cover-ups regarding pedophiles in the Church.

2) I agree with you that there is no proof that God exists in any form whatsoever, and I also agree with you that people should not shove their beliefs down anyone's throat.

3) You stated that you have no problem with religion, but that's not true, you do. You stated you have no problem with people who are religious, but that's not true, you do. You've been confronted on both points, and you basically admit it yourself. You justify it by playing word games in which you use insulting words and then insist they're not insulting because they're actually accurate. Yes, I get it. No, it's not offending my shell-like ears or making me cry.

4) Being a prick is not the way to convert anyone to your way of thinking; and I should know, I'm a champion at being a prick when I want to be one. So I can easily conclude that your purpose is not to convince anyone of the correctness of your argument, but simply to be a prick. I leave you to it.

Now I must do my grocery shopping. Take care.

 

[Blade96]

I don't know if your sensei is perfectly correct or not. But his ideas sortof checkout with me. But fact is, that religion itself sows the seeds of doubt,confusion and ignorance by being mindless, selfrightious and imposing. I myself becoming so turned off of spiritualty(particularly many conventional forms) because of such reasons, it was a great realization for me at the age of twenty to see that that what mankind has created, in machines and technology is nothing compared to what nature is. And that all the illusion of moving flashing and wonderous things blinded me for years from the real miracle machine that is life and the cosmos, universe, nature, being.
I feel like i can see the confusion like two apparitions fighting in a dream. But not always fighting for peace, reason or with all their heart. Unfair and mean. So the cycle of meanness is perpetuated further...


Some arguments will go on and on, in a circular way like a train around a round track, never reaching anything. And religion does seem to start some of those arguments sometimes, but that doesn't mean that a person should not have the right to understand everything for themselves.

j

I agree. Humans have created some wonderful things. Lots of them trying to mimic nature. Such as the ability to fly - admittedly not like birds, but we can fly with our machines.

But its true - it will never be like nature, life, and the cosmos. It is amazing.

In that, we agree. and is why some people - like my sensei and you - would conclude there is a Creator. or some divine being.

 

[yorkshirelad]

.
On the one hand, I do not believe that the Laity has any business dictating to the Church what policy should be; the Church is not a democracy or a republic. We do not vote.
.

I've only read this thread this far, so I don't know how this thread has gone so far, but here goes my opinion. I'm a born and raised catholic. I was preached to from a very young age about having "one catholic and apostolic faith". I was lectured to about doing the right thing, and told my confession to some guy in a cubicle, who was no better than me on a Saturday before mass on Sunday morning. Then we'd give whatever measly amount of cash we could as a tithe, so that the Poniff and his bag o ***** cardinals could live the life of luxury they have become accutomed to.
Cardinal Law and Cardinal Mahoney should be strung like Mussolini from the balconey on st Peter's square along with Benedict himself for the misery they have caused the innocent's among their Catholic flock. I remember feeling physically ill when the Catholic abuse scandal in Ireland first broke out in the media in the '90s. Seeing the vile picture of Brendan Smith in the paper made me want to go myself to his trial and look him dead in the eye when he was sentenced.
Noone can deny that Benedict has done his upmost to limit the damage done to his prcious organization by stratgically resituating a number of pedophiles into positions where they were free to abuse again.
The live the most lavish lifestyles while their flock suffer and they've done so since the beginnings of the faith. They've caused misey to their flock including; beatings, sodomy, separation of families. They have controlled the political destinies of nations and oppressed the masses.
I agree that the faithful and the Church hierarchy are separate and my heart goes out to the faithul, but they should start voting with their wallets. When a scandal hits the church and they do nothing but limit the damage to their own bank accounts, catholics should just stop giving tithes. They'd only last so long without the money of the faithful for a while, until the'd have to start selling off their multi billion dollar real estate.
I believe in God and Jesus as his son, but the catholic church are the antithesis of Christianity as far as I'm concerned. Ye, they decry their flock for using condoms. I wonder if the priest who sodomized innocent children used them....probably not.

 

[kaizasosei]

I am quite certain there is a creative force. As even a storm can be personified in the concept of deity, one could call that force god.
But noone can say, none of us really know. We may feel and believe but to claim something boasts some kind of elite knowledge.

The question then would be, just how human and how regulated this force is. I mean, does the universe really 'love' us. Well, who knows, i guess it depends how you say it and when.

I have read, regarding the creative force, that it would be more likely that a tornado passing through a junkyard assemble a boing 747 than life being random. Also, watches are made by man and in a desert, you won't find a watch amongst the sands unless a person left one there. Deserts don't produce watches. So how is it with intelligent beings even animals? What made us? Or, What have we become?

j

 

[kaizasosei]

Good input Yorkshirelad! The last comment with the condoms was a bit hard.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I’ve always been curious, but can someone please explain to me why the RC church tells its members that artificial birth control is wrong, but natural birth control is OK?
Besides the obvious, what’s the difference? Isn’t birth control, birth control?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I’ve always been curious, but can someone please explain to me why the RC church tells its members that artificial birth control is wrong, but natural birth control is OK?
Besides the obvious, what’s the difference? Isn’t birth control, birth control?

If you're interested in Church doctrine, the answer is found in the Humanae Vitae. "Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible." This forbids artificial means of contraception.

Likewise, the Church says "If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier."

Until the 1930's, most Protestant churches also condemned any form of contraception other than the rhythm method. They slowly changed to permit contraception in some circumstances, and finally as one wished, whenever one wished.

The Church believes that every marital act (sexual intercourse) should be completed as God intended it. If it does not result in a pregnancy, that is God's Will. Anything that makes pregnancy impossible is thwarting God's Will and is sinful.

 

[Blade96]

I agree that the faithful and the Church hierarchy are separate and my heart goes out to the faithul, but they should start voting with their wallets. When a scandal hits the church and they do nothing but limit the damage to their own bank accounts, catholics should just stop giving tithes. They'd only last so long without the money of the faithful for a while, until the'd have to start selling off their multi billion dollar real estate

This reminded me of something. Last year, the catholic dioscese of the church in st john's Newfoundland held a contest and offered a house to whoever won. I saw the advertisements they had in the paper. There was nothing of who organized this - unless you looked closer and there was the tiny tiny words at the bottom - the church catholic dioscese. They were confronted about this and they said - admitted they didnt want to say who they were because then people might not buy tickets. They had hoped to raise $one million for the church. What happened was they lost money and had to give away the houses anyway. Gee - I wonder why they didnt want to reveal who they were? No surprises there.

http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=262162&sc=79

This is a story on it. with comments.

 

[Carol]

I also do not think that celibacy was the cause for child molestation. By most accounts, the priests charged with the molestation in my Archdiocese did not lead a celibate life and had numerous affairs with other adults (men in particular) before they sickened in to the despicable being that indulged themselves with children.

Like nearly all sex crimes, the root cause of the issue was probably not sex, it was power. Is there anyone that cannot see the power trip from a priest molesting an altar boy or altar girl?

Right after the priest scandal broke in the Archdiocese of Boston, donations to the church plummeted. Many of the Catholic-run were essentially put out of operation, or had to reorganize so severely that they could not have the impact they had before. At one point, a local charity near me had a sign up that said your donations remained with the charity and its attempt to help people, and none went to the Vatican. That is how pissed off local Catholics were. Tom Riley didn't prosecute Bernard Cardinal Law out of selfishness and incompetence...he did not want to lose the election over prosecuting the Cardinal. Riley lost his seat to Martha Coakley (Scott Brown's opponent) who was actually able to put the priests behind bars, but at the time was not able to touch Law as he was not in her jurisdiction.

I don't think people should be obligated in to supporting the Church, or even being religious if that is not their cup of tea. However, I look at what has happened in my very own city. In the early 1900s, the only hospital for my city (then a mill town of 28000 people) was 8 beds in a rented home. The Sisters of Charity from Montreal emigrated here to build a very much needed 70 bed hospital....which is still in operation today, and one of the better hospitals in the state.

Bishop Guertin Prep, within 5 miles of me, is one of the best high schools in the state. Isn't a sound, academically-rigorous education the best foundation a young person can have for a life of thinking critically and making sound, rational decisions?

I don't disparage anyone for not being religious, for not liking the Church, or for not agreeing with all the Church does. I don't hide my own criticisms...and there are better Catholics than I am that disagree with the Church quite vociferously. But if anyone wonders why anyone in the modern day supports Roman Catholic efforts...for many people who have needed a health care or education in my county, they are many examples of Catholic organizations serving the community right here at (my) home. I can't disparage them for making my world a better place.

 

[Carol]

I’ve always been curious, but can someone please explain to me why the RC church tells its members that artificial birth control is wrong, but natural birth control is OK?
Besides the obvious, what’s the difference? Isn’t birth control, birth control?

Its only when a sperm gets wasted, that God gets quite irate

 

[jks9199]

If you're interested in Church doctrine, the answer is found in the Humanae Vitae. "Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible." This forbids artificial means of contraception.

Likewise, the Church says "If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier."

Until the 1930's, most Protestant churches also condemned any form of contraception other than the rhythm method. They slowly changed to permit contraception in some circumstances, and finally as one wished, whenever one wished.

The Church believes that every marital act (sexual intercourse) should be completed as God intended it. If it does not result in a pregnancy, that is God's Will. Anything that makes pregnancy impossible is thwarting God's Will and is sinful.

One further note: Modern Natural Family Planning is much more than the rhythm method; a few minutes on a search engine can turn up plenty about it. When done properly and consistently, it can be very effective. The problem is that it's not nearly as simple as using a condom or taking a pill.