The pope...

[Bill Mattocks]

There ya go. It's as if certain religions think all should live by their set of rules even those not of their flock which I heartily disagree with.

Well of course they do. The RCC (like many religions) believes it represents the One True Faith. This means that the way we do it is the way it should be done. The things we believe are the literal truth. The rules we set should be followed by all.

You might consider getting used to that. Any religion that claims to be the One True Faith is going to behave similarly. There's no escaping it. What you seem to be wanting is for the RCC to equivocate and suggest that it's not the One True Faith, or that it might be wrong about its beliefs, morals, or rules. That won't ever happen.

But here's the thing; this is not the Middle Ages, and you're free to disagree. The RCC cannot impose its rules on you, it can only keep insisting it is right, while you insist that it is not. Opinions are like that.

I'm a good person, an ethical person, I don't think I should have a metaphorical finger waggled in my direction because I my wish to do X, Y or Z that a certain religion may not belive in.

I find it interesting how many people do not believe in Christianity, religion, the RCC, the Pope, etc, etc, and yet they want absolution, justification, or acknowledgment that their way is OK from these organizations. What is it you want from the RCC, an "I'm OK, You're OK" certificate?

 

[Big Don]

Certain choices should not be up to organizations like the church to have a say in. Thing is the church seems to have an opinion on everything. Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, etc I don't think they should be speaking on. Opposing or supporting anything for all people should never happen, lord over your own flock.

Yeah, because some people don't deserve freedom of speech...

 

[Omar B]

Did I give you the impression I wanted absolution, justification or acknowledgment from these organizations? I have a problem with people being classed as sinners or heathens or infidels or whatever other name there may be just because you don't share their philosophical stand.

I'm pointing out that as you said, these religions think they are the one true way, but they should realize that they are not the only way and things like abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, stem cell research, etc is outside their sphere of influence and rightly should be ... except for their adherents.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm Catholic, may I come visit? At my own expense of course. I was unaware that I was a religious fundamentalist, though. News to me.

I would not take away from you the right to choose to frame your beliefs as you wish, Bill. We have been around that track before and came to the conclusion that the way your couch your belief is, from my point of view at least, offensive to no-one.

To argue, however, that the postions held by the Catholic Church as an institution are not fundamentalist must mean that we use the term in different ways. Which is okay as long as we know that we have that difference of interpretation.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Did I give you the impression I wanted absolution, justification or acknowledgment from these organizations?

Yes, you kind of did. Wingeing about being a 'good person' (which by the way I believe you are, no problem there) and the RCC chooses not to recognize that.

I have a problem with people being classed as sinners or heathens or infidels or whatever other name there may be just because you don't share their philosophical stand.

I understand you have a problem with it, but it's not going to change.

I'm pointing out that as you said, these religions think they are the one true way, but they should realize that they are not the only way and things like abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, stem cell research, etc is outside their sphere of influence and rightly should be ... except for their adherents.

They certainly realize that they do not wield temporal power. In the case of the RCC, it's become quite political and nuanced in its approach to other faiths. However, it has not watered down its message about its core beliefs. It believes abortion is wrong, etc and it's going to keep believing that and of course keep saying that.

I can see you think the church SHOULD believe differently, but it's not going to. That's why I suggested you should get used to disappointment in that sense. Yes, you have a problem with organizations that behave in ways that are contrary to logic. They'll keep doing it, so you're going to continue to have a problem with them. :shrug:

 

[Omar B]

Yes, you kind of did. Wingeing about being a 'good person' (which by the way I believe you are, no problem there) and the RCC chooses not to recognize that.

I understand you have a problem with it, but it's not going to change.

They certainly realize that they do not wield temporal power. In the case of the RCC, it's become quite political and nuanced in its approach to other faiths. However, it has not watered down its message about its core beliefs. It believes abortion is wrong, etc and it's going to keep believing that and of course keep saying that.

I can see you think the church SHOULD believe differently, but it's not going to. That's why I suggested you should get used to disappointment in that sense. Yes, you have a problem with organizations that behave in ways that are contrary to logic. They'll keep doing it, so you're going to continue to have a problem with them. :shrug:

Was I whingeing? Didn't think I was! I've got an uncle who's a priest so I get to hear that whole deal every now and then. Never mind that both his daughters got pregnant before marriage or in one case before even finishing high school ... to be a fly on the wall in that house when he found out! You should see him and my father (who's Hindu) talk, there is a lot of lecturing on one side and a lot of smiling and nodding on the other.

No, I don't think they should believe anything different Bill. I only take issue with them thinking their rules should be a universal. But as we all know, that's not going to change. But at least I can ***** and moan like an old codger now now, get my practice in.

 

[Empty Hands]

However, reference the 'blame' in this thread, there are some truly hateful things about Catholicism being said; I'm trying not to take it personally.

I wouldn't equivocate "Catholicism" with "Catholics", or even necessarily "Catholics" with "Pope Benedict" or "priests." I understand how it can come across that way however, no one wants to feel attacked for their core beliefs. You are not responsible for what others have done, even if they are part of your group.

In my experience, the ones who feel the angriest about the Church are the ones who were once a part of it. That can be experienced as a personal betrayal. I never grew up in the Church, despite being baptized Catholic, so I have a pretty unemotional view of the whole mess, and can see the similarities to other groups and institutions. My father left the Church though, when they tried to prevent him from marrying my mother. My grandfather left the Church recently, after the full weight of the scandal became clear. All of the victims and their families who are seeking accountability, the ones running the "smear campaign", were all Catholic too - they put their trust in the Church and the trust was broken. Those are the people I see who are angriest.

I don't know if that is feeding this thread, but it is something to keep in mind. That, and the hypocrisy you earlier mentioned fuels it as well.

 

[Sukerkin]

Have you ever heard of the Vatican City State? Benedict is the head of a state. His visit included meeting the head of your country.

Of course I have - that was the fiction used to excuse his Pope-ness nicking my quid (by which you can take it that the historical footing of the Vatican as a state is not one I care to accept (me being Emperor of the Universe and all that )).

When I wrote "Why they agreed to this I don't know" I didn't mean I did not know about the status of the Vatican but rather that the usage of this to give an expenses-paid pass to a religious leader on a religious, rather than a political, mission was beyond my ken.

:lol: Benedict as a religious fundamentalist. Spoken like a person who has never once read aything he has written and relies on the press for their knowledge of him. Anyone who has read anyting this man has written since before he was created Cardinal to the current day could say he is a man of faith, an impressive intellectual. What they cannot say is that he is a fundamentalist. Unless you want to empty the word "fundamentalist" of any sort of actual meaning.

But seriously, Sukerkin, you're obviously well informed on matters. I'd be very interested in hearing which books of the pope's you've read wherein you find evidence of his "fundamentalism." Oh, heck, in all hoesty, I'm interested in hearing which books of his you've read, period. I mean making a comment like that means you've obviously read at lest something he's written. Right? In toto, of course, not an excerpted line or two in the local newspaper. Please direct me to the work(s) in question where you see this so I can read them.

Feel free to not include media statements or rants from people like Christopher Hitchens. I'm interested in your exposure to what Benedict has actually written himself.

Thanks in advance.

Pax,

Chris

Just to clarify the meaning of the sentence I wrote that provoked your personal attack on my intelligence and education. I said I don't want him or the institution that he heads in my country at my expense. I consider the RCC to be a fundamentalist faith - you clearly do not. Which is not a point of conflict between us (at least up until the day we meet on opposite sides of the war to come between secular and temporal powers). As I said to Bill just above, perhaps we use different criteria when utilising the term.

Until then, feel free not to talk to me anymore.

I don't think you realise the tone you take with people is highly likely to get you punched in the nose out in the 3D world (by making things personal rather than a discussion, no matter how hot, about a topic of interest). You must either be one hugely intimidating fellow or behave differently when talking to people face-to-face.

Thankfully, I can put you on ignore now if I so choose, which as a Mod I couldn't (or rather wouldn't as I thought it was my duty to monitor what was said). I'd rather not as it disrupts the flow of discussions when bits are missing but given that I don't have to put up with things on-line that I do in the real world it is a step that is one click away (thank the non-existent mythical sky-god for small mercies).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I wouldn't equivocate "Catholicism" with "Catholics", or even necessarily "Catholics" with "Pope Benedict" or "priests." I understand how it can come across that way however, no one wants to feel attacked for their core beliefs. You are not responsible for what others have done, even if they are part of your group.

Believe me when I say that my wife and I are not happy campers right now, neither about the scandals or about the way they were covered up. We're angry, we're upset, and we're not the only ones. My wife's uncle is a retired Catholic priest; he's not happy either.

On the other hand, Pope Benedict is my spiritual leader, like it or not. This is something I have no choice in unless I bail on my religion. To hear him trashed by Catholics is one thing; to hear others whom I like and respect say he's not welcome in their country and call him a Nazi and a child molester...not easy to hear.

In my experience, the ones who feel the angriest about the Church are the ones who were once a part of it. That can be experienced as a personal betrayal. I never grew up in the Church, despite being baptized Catholic, so I have a pretty unemotional view of the whole mess, and can see the similarities to other groups and institutions. My father left the Church though, when they tried to prevent him from marrying my mother. My grandfather left the Church recently, after the full weight of the scandal became clear. All of the victims and their families who are seeking accountability, the ones running the "smear campaign", were all Catholic too - they put their trust in the Church and the trust was broken. Those are the people I see who are angriest.

Don't blame them.

I do hold some wonder though; especially with all the friends I have in England. I stay in touch; I hear them go on at great length, sounding quite a bit like Paisley in his heyday to hear them talk, and yet NOT ONE WORD about their own Church of England and it's similar peccadilloes. I'm not saying theirs are worse than ours or vice-versa. But I would not be shouting about the Archbishop of Canterbury if he came to the USA, nor calling him a variety of foul names; if for no other reason than not wanting to offend my friends. I might think ill of him (actually I don't) but I'd keep i to myself.

I don't know if that is feeding this thread, but it is something to keep in mind. That, and the hypocrisy you earlier mentioned fuels it as well.

Nah, it's not just here. A lot of my English friends on on Twitter; you'd think they had just been visited by Satan in person (some swear the Pope is Satan, so there you go). Add to that the fact that I just relocated to Michigan from the South USA, where the Pope is generally referred to as a 'Red Shoed Whore' by good Baptists, and our church was vandalized every Christmas when we put up our Creche, and you might start to feel a bit put upon.

And when it comes down to it, although I try hard to separate my friends opinions of my religious leader or my religion from their opinions of me, sometimes it is a bit hard - if you think my religion is ****, what kind of respect can you have for me? I guess it's better to know than to not know, but it's still a feeling that creates gulfs rather than making them smaller. As much as I feel angry at the RCC, I begin to feel that if I remain RCC myself, I will only be able to have friends who are RCC. If others hate my faith, I can't imagine they like me that much.

 

[Sukerkin]

Can't Rep you for that last post, Bill (the stacks full sad to say).

Rest assured that it is entirely possible to vehemently disagree with a persons faith and still treat them with the same respect as you did before arguing about it.

I've been discoursing religion into the early hours with my father practically every time we meet for over thirty years now. I think none the less of him as a man for truly holding in his heart a belief that, to not honey my words at all, I find patently ridiculous. The same is true of him in his frustration that I cannot see that he is right :lol:.

 

[Big Don]

Can't Rep you for that last post, Bill

I can, and did

Rest assured that it is entirely possible to vehemently disagree with a persons faith and still treat them with the same respect as you did before arguing about it.

Problem is, a large portion of the atheists around aren't merely non-believers, but, haters of religion, see Bill Maher...

 

[Omar B]

Believe me when I say that my wife and I are not happy campers right now, neither about the scandals or about the way they were covered up. We're angry, we're upset, and we're not the only ones. My wife's uncle is a retired Catholic priest; he's not happy either.

On the other hand, Pope Benedict is my spiritual leader, like it or not. This is something I have no choice in unless I bail on my religion. To hear him trashed by Catholics is one thing; to hear others whom I like and respect say he's not welcome in their country and call him a Nazi and a child molester...not easy to hear.

Don't blame them.

I do hold some wonder though; especially with all the friends I have in England. I stay in touch; I hear them go on at great length, sounding quite a bit like Paisley in his heyday to hear them talk, and yet NOT ONE WORD about their own Church of England and it's similar peccadilloes. I'm not saying theirs are worse than ours or vice-versa. But I would not be shouting about the Archbishop of Canterbury if he came to the USA, nor calling him a variety of foul names; if for no other reason than not wanting to offend my friends. I might think ill of him (actually I don't) but I'd keep i to myself.

Nah, it's not just here. A lot of my English friends on on Twitter; you'd think they had just been visited by Satan in person (some swear the Pope is Satan, so there you go). Add to that the fact that I just relocated to Michigan from the South USA, where the Pope is generally referred to as a 'Red Shoed Whore' by good Baptists, and our church was vandalized every Christmas when we put up our Creche, and you might start to feel a bit put upon.

And when it comes down to it, although I try hard to separate my friends opinions of my religious leader or my religion from their opinions of me, sometimes it is a bit hard - if you think my religion is ****, what kind of respect can you have for me? I guess it's better to know than to not know, but it's still a feeling that creates gulfs rather than making them smaller. As much as I feel angry at the RCC, I begin to feel that if I remain RCC myself, I will only be able to have friends who are RCC. If others hate my faith, I can't imagine they like me that much.

I can only imagine what that must be like Bud. It's pretty terrible for me to hear and I'm not even religious, I may not feel, but I do understand your pain. A couple of those posts did get a little out of control didn't they?

 

[Empty Hands]

Problem is, a large portion of the atheists around aren't merely non-believers, but, haters of religion, see Bill Maher...

Just because one hates religion, does not mean one hates the religious. It's kind of like "love the sinner, hate the sin"...

 

[Empty Hands]

And when it comes down to it, although I try hard to separate my friends opinions of my religious leader or my religion from their opinions of me, sometimes it is a bit hard - if you think my religion is ****, what kind of respect can you have for me?

I understand. As someone with a lot of bad things to say about religion though, I have no issues with most of its practicioners. How could I? Almost everyone I love and respect, including my wife, my parents, and most of my friends, are religious. I love them all the same. Similarly, they manage to love me even if they might think I'm going to Hell (no one has said so). Or that I might be a Nazi.

Again though, I understand that it doesn't make it any easier to feel under attack. Human institutions will always fail, because they are run by humans. Those who put their faith in an institution will have their faith broken, it is inevitable. Better then not to construct your faith around what fallible humans will do.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I can, and didProblem is, a large portion of the atheists around aren't merely non-believers, but, haters of religion, see Bill Maher...

A large portion??? This is based on what evidence? A poll? A survey?

I can think of only maybe a half dozen high profile atheists who don't hold back on their criticism of religion, and as our own Bill Mattocks says, if you don’t like it, don’t listen. But why should religion get a bi on criticism? Because its religion? I would argue criticism has made western democracies better, has made education and science better and it makes individuals better. I hope and trust that the criticism the RC church is getting lately will make it better in the future.

I can think of a half dozen high profile atheists, but I can think of more than a dozen high profile religious extremists who spew their venom all over the airways. Why is it OK for religions to have extremists, but not atheists? Funny I can’t find one quote from an atheist blaming Haiti’s earthquake earlier this year on the Haitians.

Nut cases are not definded by their religious/non-religious beliefs, by their race, by their colour, by their gender, by their nationality or by their culture. They occupy space everywhere.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Of course I have - that was the fiction used to excuse his Pope-ness nicking my quid (by which you can take it that the historical footing of the Vatican as a state is not one I care to accept (me being Emperor of the Universe and all that )).

So it's a fiction that Pope Bnedict is on a state visit? That must be news to the Queen. You had best inform ehr majesty that she has been fooled by those evil papists. Perhaps she could treat a few of them the way Henry VIII did back in the day. You said you approved of his dealings with the Church, after all. And we know what a great guy he was to members of the Church.

When I wrote "Why they agreed to this I don't know" I didn't mean I did not know about the status of the Vatican but rather that the usage of this to give an expenses-paid pass to a religious leader on a religious, rather than a political, mission was beyond my ken.

Like I said the pope visited the Queen as the head of the Vatican City State. It's not entirely untoward that wile on such a visit he would engage in some religous ceremonies for the faithful. If you have a problem with that take it up with your duly elected representative and point out to them where such activity runs counter to your Constitution. Oh, that's right. You don't have a Constitution.

Just to clarify the meaning of the sentence I wrote that provoked your personal attack on my intelligence and education.

Trust me, I went easy on you. Your statement equating Benedict with a religious fundamentalist was possibly the most idiotic thing I heard in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

So, speaking of which, how about sharing with us all the works of Benedict that you've read that led you to make the claim that he was a religious fundamentalist? I'm still waiting to hear about even one from you. I personally haven't read his entire corpus but in works such as

The Spirit of the Liturgy
A New Song for the Lord
In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Creation and the Fall
The Nature and Mission of Theology
Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today
Principles of Catholic Theology
The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood
Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions
God is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life
Jesus of Nazareth
Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life
Mary: The Church at the Source
Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World
Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
Theological Highlights of Vatican II

you will find no trace of religious fundamentalism.

Isn't that what you found when you read his works for a first hand experience of the man's thought before denigrating him in public like this? I mean, obviously I've only read a portion of the man's corpus so I could easily be missing something. Please, by all means, share with us all the works that you have read and specify the passages wherein you found Benedict's fundamentalism jumping off the page at you. I am really rather interested in hearing what you found and where it was located.

I said I don't want him or the institution that he heads in my country at my expense.

That isn't all that you said. Which you know.

I consider the RCC to be a fundamentalist faith - you clearly do not.

I clearly do not because I have an actual familiarity with what the Church teaches. Your position that the Catholic Church is fundamentalist simply uses a devil word to paint an institution you disageree with in a bad light. It's not surprising given the widespread anti-Catholic bigotry present in the U.K. Heck, I've even seen it first hand there myself and from a friend of mine who is from England. But hey, bigotry of that sort is just part of the old English "eccentricity" I'm sure

Which is not a point of conflict between us (at least up until the day we meet on opposite sides of the war to come between secular and temporal powers). As I said to Bill just above, perhaps we use different criteria when utilising the term.

You make your original post, then get caught by me having nota thing to stand on to make it, you don't even offer one work of Ratzinger's that you've read to show you have anything other than a characiture of the man and this is the best you can do? Oh, come on. Man up and tell me what you've read by Benedict that qualifies you to call him a fundamentalist. If you have the stones to honestly do so.

Have you even read - or even listened to - the addresses he's made since being in the U.K. in toto? Are you intellectually honest enough to do that, when it comes to the Catholic Church?

Until then, feel free not to talk to me anymore.

So, I should take this as a "You got me, I've not read Benedict at all and am not actually interested in educating myself before making a judgement about the man" answer then?

I don't think you realise the tone you take with people is highly likely to get you punched in the nose out in the 3D world (by making things personal rather than a discussion, no matter how hot, about a topic of interest). You must either be one hugely intimidating fellow or behave differently when talking to people face-to-face.

Funny, I was kind of thinking the same thing about you. Personally, I'm not intimidating at all. But, unlike you, I know what I'm talking about in this area.

You walk around where I'm from making bigoted comments like you did here and eventualy people are going to start disagreeing with you. If you think that the proper response to one who demonstrates that you've been making statements that are based on ignorance and bigotry is to punch the person responsible, well that's your business.

Thankfully, I can put you on ignore now if I so choose, which as a Mod I couldn't (or rather wouldn't as I thought it was my duty to monitor what was said).

Oh, sure you could. Or, perhaps more constructively, you could refrain fom making bigoted comments in the first place. (Maybe we'll just call that "Plan B.")

I'd rather not as it disrupts the flow of discussions when bits are missing but given that I don't have to put up with things on-line that I do in the real world it is a step that is one click away (thank the non-existent mythical sky-god for small mercies).

Hey iggy me or don't, it's irrelevant to me. But if you make more bigoted comments about the pope don't expect me not to tell you exactly what I think. Your attempted slap in your comment above is laughable, too. It just shows how even now you can't shake that bigoted view of yours. But like I said previously, apparently it's OK to be a bigot about some things. Right?

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Statistics? Techincalities? "Every person is a sinner?"

I am glad people like you call me a moron and a bigot.

Hey, thanks for proving my point when I said:

Any incidence of abuse of a child is a horrible crime and a sin. It should be punished under the law and any priest found guilty of such behavior should be removed from ministry permanently.

But I'd appreciate a bit of parity in the presentation of sexual abuse in the media and perhaps by members of this board. Where is the moral outrage about the astronimically high rate of sexual abuse of minors suffered at the hands of public school employees, for instance? Hmm.

Your post is most appreciated. Maybe not for the reason you think it would be. But it is.

Pax,

Chris

PS
Could you please show me where I called you a moron or a bigot? I don't recall dong so. It should be easy enough for you to produce the quote of mine wherein I mak that charge against you. Or by "people like [me]" you mean people other than me and decided just to lump me in with them? Hmmm, that soundsa bit like referring to "those people" in certain other threads, doesn't it?

 

[Empty Hands]

So, speaking of which, how about sharing with us all the works of Benedict that you've read that led you to make the claim that he was a religious fundamentalist?

From "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS", 1986:
"To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."


In January 2010: 'The pope made his comments in an address to diplomats in his yearly assessment of world events. The main theme of the address was the environment and the protection of creation.
"To carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism," he said.
"Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes," he said.'


Apparently, Gay marriage now threatens the environment. Or something.


And of course, "“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society,”


He's hardly the worst, but the charge isn't indefensible.

​

 

[Bruno@MT]

What you are (intentionally?) overlooking, is the Pope, while being the head of the Roman Catholic Church is ALSO a Head of State.The Pope is ex officio head of state and head of government of Vatican City, functions dependent on his primordial function as bishop of the diocese of Rome. The term Holy See refers not to the Vatican state but to the Pope's spiritual and pastoral governance, largely exercised through the Roman Curia.His official title with regard to Vatican City is Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City.
Do you complain about the costs incurred when Putin or Obama or other heads of state visit?

Well, one could argue that the difference is that Putin or Obama are the leaders of countries that are global power brokers who have a significant impact on the worlds economy and politics. The pope otoh is the leader of a postage stamp sized plot of land, roughly the size of a football field, with almost zero impact on the world's economy, and only a mild impact on politics.

You don't bring out the big guns for every 2 bit leader who wants to visit. We certainly don't expect it when e.g the Belgium PM or crown prince visits the US or UK. I can't imagine that it would cost 20 million then.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I do hold some wonder though; especially with all the friends I have in England. I stay in touch; I hear them go on at great length, sounding quite a bit like Paisley in his heyday to hear them talk, and yet NOT ONE WORD about their own Church of England and it's similar peccadilloes. I'm not saying theirs are worse than ours or vice-versa. But I would not be shouting about the Archbishop of Canterbury if he came to the USA, nor calling him a variety of foul names; if for no other reason than not wanting to offend my friends. I might think ill of him (actually I don't) but I'd keep i to myself..

The main difference seems to be that -according to the stories that are coming out- that the institution of the church actively tried to sweep things under the rug. You get child molesters in any church or organization where you have children: the boy scouts, the (any) church, ...
that is not what this is about. But generally, when such people are found uot, they are reported, not protected to protect the image of the organization.

Nah, it's not just here. A lot of my English friends on on Twitter; you'd think they had just been visited by Satan in person (some swear the Pope is Satan, so there you go). Add to that the fact that I just relocated to Michigan from the South USA, where the Pope is generally referred to as a 'Red Shoed Whore' by good Baptists, and our church was vandalized every Christmas when we put up our Creche, and you might start to feel a bit put upon.

Aye. I can see that. You're now a minority in your own country.
But the main reason for those reactions you see / hear about is that the pope IS the spiritual leader (as you already mentioned). To quote a former US president: the buck stops with him. And rather than speak up about it and reassure the people that this will no longer be tolerated, we get a speech about how it wasn't the fault of the child molesters because they couldn't help themselves. Combined with the fact that the church knowingly put children at risk by reassigning those priests to a new parish... I'd say that some of that anger is deserved.

I make no excuses for vandalism though. That is just wrong, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

And when it comes down to it, although I try hard to separate my friends opinions of my religious leader or my religion from their opinions of me, sometimes it is a bit hard - if you think my religion is ****, what kind of respect can you have for me? I guess it's better to know than to not know, but it's still a feeling that creates gulfs rather than making them smaller. As much as I feel angry at the RCC, I begin to feel that if I remain RCC myself, I will only be able to have friends who are RCC. If others hate my faith, I can't imagine they like me that much.

I don't hate your faith (you probably know this from our earlier discussions on the RCC). At this moment I don't have a problem with the RCC faith, but with the internal policy makers. And given that I still belong to the RCC (admittedly, I don't follow all church doctrine so we can argue about hom much of a catholic I really am), I feel I have that right. Even if I didn't belong to the RCC, I would be capable of separating the individual people from the faith itself, just like I don't blame Islam for 9/11, christianity for the crusades or atheism for the soviet gulags.

If policy makers have the power to take a moral stand but don't do it, then I can hold them responsible without blaming whatever organization they belong to.