Reform within the Catholic Church.

[KingofJorvik]

The Catholic Church receives a lot of stick for being backward or outdated. It's incredibly unpopular among those not part of it. However, it is, as I learned to my surprise, huge. It has 1.18 billion adherents, more than half of all Christians worldwide. As a Catholic, I find myself having my beliefs subjected to scrutiny and ridicule. However, a lot of the criticism take a form little better than prejudice.
A article from the Liberal Conspiracy, a leading Left-wing blog, on my church's stance regarding Euthanasia said " "This is, after all, a church that expects its followers to mumble incantations in front of a large statue of a mostly naked European bloke nailed to Roman torture implement and includes an act of ritual cannibalism in its rites… so who's really obsessed with death here."
Examine the language here. "Incantations", "cannibalism". This is the tone of Ian Paisley's rabidly anti-papist Free Presbyterian church in northern Ireland, not of rational secular debate. The faux-sympathy over child sexual abuse feels similarly galling, used as an opportunity to attack the church rather than express genuine concern for victims. Catholics are similarly disgusted by the events but feel the need to close ranks and not show it due to the criticism that their whole church receives as a result of a few terrible cases. Rather than criticism the few disgusting men perpetrating the crimes, people prefer to few the problem as a standard practice and believe it is widely accepted by church members.
Reform needs to come from the members of the church, as the Church itself is notoriously inflexible with regard to external pressures. The cover-ups and scandals are most likely to harm the members rather than outsiders.

[basics]

" Examine the language here. "Incantations", "cannibalism". This is the tone of Ian Paisley's rabidly anti-papist Free Presbyterian church in northern Ireland, not of rational secular debate."

KingofJorvik,

There being no such thing as rational secular debate with the word of God it follows that Paisley, if indeed he has uttered these words, is quite correct. I would doubt that any Roman Catholic priest has the knowledge of the Scriptures that that man has but then is it not always to men like him that Catholics vent their ire?

[Knize.Vladivoj]

KingOfJorvik: So painfully true. See, Anti-Catholicism is mostly based on "pick up the giant, you have a big body to shoot on".

[Rich86]

Seriously?

Firstly you've picked one line out of the entire article and basically said oh look it's terrible! it's insulting! as an attempt to discredit the article - I've not read the article myself but I know better than to judge its merits based on one line.

Secondly;

The faux-sympathy over child sexual abuse feels similarly galling, used as an opportunity to attack the church rather than express genuine concern for victims.

Isn't that a massive assumption? You've no way of knowing this to be true and you're making assumptions about the personal beliefs of another whom you have most likely never met. Even if it was faux-sympathy (which I doubt....child abuse is disgusting and unacceptable, I doubt many are anything other than sympathetic) it doesn't matter....child abuse is wrong and it should be rooted out - the Catholic Church has had a great many failings in this area and until it changes its ways it should be targetted.

Rather than criticism the few disgusting men perpetrating the crimes, people prefer to few the problem as a standard practice and believe it is widely accepted by church members.

Well the actions of Catholic Church itself is what has led to this. The Catholic Church has been found to have been covering up these disgusting actions on numerous occasions; if the Catholic Church wanted 'justice' as much as we do then they would hand these men over to the authorities - not cover up their crimes.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...-by-priests.do
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8381119.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1180905.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7100920.ece (bottom paragraph)

[KingofJorvik]

basics,
Paisley has more knowledge of scripture than any Catholic? Really? 1.18 billion people and not one of them knows scripture as well as Paisley? Besides, you've missed my point. You can expect that sort of rhetoric from Ian Paisley, due to his church's opposition to Rome. My argument is not with or about Paisley. You shouldn't expect it or get it from an secular political blog on a major issue where calmly and rationally debating the issue would achieve more than a vitriolic rant. It's not the word of God that's being debated either. In this instance, it's the position of the Church on Euthanasia and it's interpretations of said word. A somewhat more secular matter.

Rich86,
I have attempted to discredit the article because, unlike you, I have read the whole thing and I disagree with it's content. My aim here is not to go through every line of the article and assess it's relative merits. Are you suggesting that I'm not allowed to quote from an article without assessing the whole thing? http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/04...teful-attacks/ It's not long. As I have said, I disagree with what it's saying. I'm allowed to do that.
Those articles you've linked help my point slightly. They're about the church, not the victims. Three quarters of the victims were non-sexual. Yet we only ever here about the sexual ones. Why? Because they're easier to attack the church with. But overall, you have unknowingly agreed with me. It is the Church's fault, you're absolutely right. Be careful to separate 'the Church' and it's members. It's members, which make up 20% of the USA's population and 10% of the UK's, are as appalled as everyone else. However, if we mention to anyone that we are, we get told that we are all party to it and the general feeling is 'How dare you feel sorry for them when it was YOU that did it!'. The reform, as I have said, needs to come from the members, not the church, because clearly the church is both unwilling. But you direct focus over the administrations failings and cover-ups at those who had nothing to do with it, the everyday men and women who call themselves Catholics but have nothing to with how the church is run. I assure you, we want justice, because it is young Catholics, young members of our church, who get abused. It is the central administrative body that needs reform and attacking the everyday members achieves nothing except making them close ranks and make them less likely to support you.

[basics]

" My argument is not with or about Paisley. You shouldn't expect it or get it from an secular political blog on a major issue where calmly and rationally debating the issue would achieve more than a vitriolic rant. It's not the word of God that's being debated either. In this instance, it's the position of the Church on Euthanasia and it's interpretations of said word. A somewhat more secular matter. "

KingofJorvik,

Your original posting made an accusation about people's attitude to the church of Rome citing Paisley as an extreme example thus bringing on my response because it is highly improbable that you have ever heard Paisley preach from the Scriptures to make any judgement at all. If we take what he has said from edited highlights as per the likes of the BBC that is where the likes of you get the impressions you do and that in no way reflects the real man. Let's hear what the atheists have to say however and most of them were baptised Roman Catholics.

My own opinion is that Rome is the longest running dictatorship of modern times which by its doctrines and ambitions has and is overseeing the deaths of multitudes, past and present, for which it has no Scriptural basis whatsoever. Its leadership is false based on a misapplication of Scripture authenticated by a man who was never a Christian in the first place, him being baptised on his deathbed by an Arian bishop. Oh and by the way it took Roman Catholics to notice these falseties and bring them to the attention of the world. Historically its called the Reformation.

As for euthanasia I think you and I both know that Rome cannot condone it for the simple reason that it considers all life to be sacred and that from conception. Why a man or woman has to be born again to become sacred doesn't seem to bother it as it has made its stand even though Jesus told others they were conceived in sin. No, it says that all life is sacred but fails to suggest when sin takes its place in the human condition which is rather contradictory since it believes in original sin.

But, to get round that it claims that the act of baptism is when a child is born again, becomes more sacred than in the womb, and so becomes regenerate enough to be called a Christian belonging to the Roman Catholic church, which is the only church because to Peter was that authority given even though he was the Apostle to the Jews besides there being no evidence other than Catholic tradition that he was ever in Rome. And if he had been it is certain that on getting there, there would have been a bishop already in office since Paul made that a must wherever he and his fellow workers went.

So you see Rome has many problems to solve before looking at euthanasia this coming down to the very structure of itself. As a church it has no similarities with that as at Pentecost, indeed the role of bishop which Peter repudiated was eventually to usurpe all that the original stood for as a servant to the people rather than ruler of the people. The church at pentecost was all inclusive in its workings whereas Rome works to a quite different standard wherein only a bishop can sack a bishop. No, my friend, Rome does need reformation but not by itself, rather the supernatural one that stems from above.

[Rich86]

I have attempted to discredit the article because, unlike you, I have read the whole thing and I disagree with it's content. My aim here is not to go through every line of the article and assess it's relative merits. Are you suggesting that I'm not allowed to quote from an article without assessing the whole thing? http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/04/20/lib-dems-face-more-spiteful-attacks/ It's not long. As I have said, I disagree with what it's saying. I'm allowed to do that.

And I've not said otherwise. As I pointed out originally however, you cannot just quote one line, say you don't like it / it's insulting etc and expect anyone to take on board what you're saying.

I've read the article - it's not so much an article as a 'snippet' - the whole article itself is poorly written but I agree with what the author is trying (and failing) to get at; that we should support issues such as euthanasia.

Those articles you've linked help my point slightly. They're about the church, not the victims.

They are about the Church [b]cover up[/i] - a cover up harms the victims past, present and future.

Three quarters of the victims were non-sexual. Yet we only ever here about the sexual ones. Why? Because they're easier to attack the church with.

Or perhaps because sexual crimes are considered worse (and hence invariablly carry a larger sentence than most non-sexual crimes)?

It's members, which make up 20% of the USA's population and 10% of the UK's, are as appalled as everyone else. However, if we mention to anyone that we are, we get told that we are all party to it and the general feeling is 'How dare you feel sorry for them when it was YOU that did it!'.

That's not how I feel...I can't actually think of anyone I've ever met who would say that Catholics are not allowed to be equally outraged at the horrific treatment of young children by some Catholic priests.

The reform, as I have said, needs to come from the members, not the church, because clearly the church is both unwilling. But you direct focus over the administrations failings and cover-ups at those who had nothing to do with it, the everyday men and women who call themselves Catholics but have nothing to with how the church is run. I assure you, we want justice, because it is young Catholics, young members of our church, who get abused. It is the central administrative body that needs reform and attacking the everyday members achieves nothing except making them close ranks and make them less likely to support you.

The church is the 'leading body' the symbol, the power, the control - if the church does not lead the way nobody else will...ultimately the church is viewed as the representation of Catholicism world wide - in the same way David Cameron and his cabinet ministers as viewed as "the conservative party" and their actions are considered those of the Conservative party. I've not focused on the 'everyday men and women' - show me where I have please? I'd be interested to see....it is right and correct to focus on the admin and cover ups - for these are what allow these paedophiles to escape justice (not once, not twice, not thrice......).

You seem to acknowledge that that the 'top' of the church needs change....you keep trying to say everyone is attacking the 'little guy', the normal hard working 9-5 bloke who is a member of the church - they aren't. People are focused on attacking the top of the church - the part you says need reform.

I must admit though I am curious as to why you wish to be part of an establishment which covers up this type of thing. I am a member of a very large organisiation as part of my job (it has nothing to do with religion or atheism or anything like that). If I found out it had been involved in a cover up for similar things I'd resign.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Newsflash! Non Catholics don't dislike your church because it's big and powerful. We dislike it because of it's horrendous actions, whether it be covering up pedophiles, kidnapping Jewish kids and brainwashing them (19th century), or genocide (crusades mainly). A history to empirical observations in astronomy doesn't help either.

[Knize.Vladivoj]

Newsflash! Non Catholics don't dislike your church because it's big and powerful. We dislike it because of it's horrendous actions, whether it be covering up pedophiles, kidnapping Jewish kids and brainwashing them (19th century), or genocide (crusades mainly). A history to empirical observations in astronomy doesn't help either.

Ye olde new factoids ligtninge, Sire: Pack the Crusades already. The Western Church back then was united. Are you confident that all those people would be Catholics?

[Ancient Aliens]

Newsflash! Non Catholics don't dislike your church because it's big and powerful. We dislike it because of it's horrendous actions, whether it be covering up pedophiles, kidnapping Jewish kids and brainwashing them (19th century), or genocide (crusades mainly). A history to empirical observations in astronomy doesn't help either.

Or being a trigger for the collapse of the Roman Empire and the propogation of the Dark Ages/repression of the Renaissance! Yay! you Catholicism for practically ruining world history!

[Mikesmith08]

Newsflash! Non Catholics don't dislike your church because it's big and powerful. We dislike it because of it's horrendous actions, whether it be covering up pedophiles, kidnapping Jewish kids and brainwashing them (19th century), or genocide (crusades mainly). A history to empirical observations in astronomy doesn't help either.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the crusades were acts of genocide in anyway shape or form and in writing what you have you have unwittingly highlighted what KingofJorvik is saying, a small number of instances in a 2 millennia old history committed by a comparatively small number of men, yet the whole of the catholic church is held responsible.

[Ancient Aliens]

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the crusades were acts of genocide in anyway shape or form and in writing what you have you have unwittingly highlighted what KingofJorvik is saying, a small number of instances in a 2 millennia old history committed by a comparatively small number of men, yet the whole of the catholic church is held responsible.

Why shouldn't it be? By standing with the Catholic Church, you are standing with the actions of those men. You are standing with every Pope that ever had an army. You are standing with every Papal-sanctioned crusade. You are standing with every devious plot that the Papacy ever had in the Medieval and Renaissance periods.

[Knize.Vladivoj]

Why shouldn't it be? By standing with the Catholic Church, you are standing with the actions of those men. You are standing with every Pope that ever had an army. You are standing with every Papal-sanctioned crusade. You are standing with every devious plot that the Papacy ever had in the Medieval and Renaissance periods.

, dude. The Crusades, as much as they were not a good move, were NOT commited by any Pope´s personal army. Seriously, read my response up there. I even doubt that the core of Crusader army would join Catholic Church today. So where is the potential to indict CC per se for the actions taken in past?

[Primo]

Actually, the Crusades were the only reedeeming actions of the Catholic Church, in my personal opinion. It was because of the Fall of Byzantium and the knowledge spread by the Crusades that Europe arose from the Dark Ages.

Should Catholics today be blamed for actions of the past? No. But the stigma associated with the actions of the Church, past and present, will always be associated with the followers of said church. And it rightfully should, because you have ing history books just like non-Catholics, and you can clearly and easily see any of the attrocities committed by the Church, and by the Popes themselves.

I also find it hard to believe that anyone on a website dedicated to historical accuracy, such as this, would ever be Catholic, considering what Catholicism did to erode the Roman Empire, an empire considered by many to be the apex of classical civilization.

Why shouldn't it be? By standing with the Catholic Church, you are standing with the actions of those men. You are standing with every Pope that ever had an army. You are standing with every Papal-sanctioned crusade. You are standing with every devious plot that the Papacy ever had in the Medieval and Renaissance periods.

So you also believe that germans should always be associated with nazis? With crimes? Same logic. I don´t think you actually know what you are talking about, because that is way better than you knowing it and still talking the same way.

I deeply despise those crimes commited by the church. People like you like to blame this on the church, just to have one more "reason" to take it down.

Or another example: Should every american be hold responsible for all crimes the americans ever comitted?

You see that you are taking a path that doesn´t lead in a nice direction.

Apart from that, you are utterly wrong, I consider myself to be catholic, priests consider me to be so, and yet I am not standing to those crimes, what definitly breaks your statement.

I will not adress your "Hate" part. I don´t think it needs to be.

[Dominicvs]

Why shouldn't it be? By standing with the Catholic Church, you are standing with the actions of those men. You are standing with every Pope that ever had an army. You are standing with every Papal-sanctioned crusade. You are standing with every devious plot that the Papacy ever had in the Medieval and Renaissance periods.

Incorrect, the Church has made many a public statement and as an official stance that they regret their actions of the past - the crusades, the witch burnings, etc... and are completely against it. So if you are with the church, you should be completely against that. They acknowledge they were responsible, but are completely against it.

I hate the Catholic Church for that. It makes me hate their little robes, their little moronic hats, their pedophilic priests, their celebacy, their hypocritical rites and rules, and their repugnant, quaint, holy book. I hate Catholicism more than I do any other religion, and any person of historical inclination should as well.

And that is why we don't take your argument seriously. Man, I loved the Roman Empire more than anything else in history, that's part of the reason I became Catholic, because the Church is the closest thing we have to the modern day embodiment of the Roman empire. I am studying to become a historian as well, so I am very history inclined, history is my life.

But seriously mate, when you say idiotic things like pedophilic priests, thats just plain dumb and shows little maturity. People like you are what causes the church to have this immature stigma.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The Catholic Church receives a lot of stick for being backward or outdated. It's incredibly unpopular among those not part of it. However, it is, as I learned to my surprise, huge. It has 1.18 billion adherents, more than half of all Christians worldwide. As a Catholic, I find myself having my beliefs subjected to scrutiny and ridicule. However, a lot of the criticism take a form little better than prejudice.
A article from the Liberal Conspiracy, a leading Left-wing blog, on my church's stance regarding Euthanasia said " "This is, after all, a church that expects its followers to mumble incantations in front of a large statue of a mostly naked European bloke nailed to Roman torture implement and includes an act of ritual cannibalism in its rites… so who's really obsessed with death here."
Examine the language here. "Incantations", "cannibalism". This is the tone of Ian Paisley's rabidly anti-papist Free Presbyterian church in northern Ireland, not of rational secular debate. The faux-sympathy over child sexual abuse feels similarly galling, used as an opportunity to attack the church rather than express genuine concern for victims. Catholics are similarly disgusted by the events but feel the need to close ranks and not show it due to the criticism that their whole church receives as a result of a few terrible cases. Rather than criticism the few disgusting men perpetrating the crimes, people prefer to few the problem as a standard practice and believe it is widely accepted by church members.
Reform needs to come from the members of the church, as the Church itself is notoriously inflexible with regard to external pressures. The cover-ups and scandals are most likely to harm the members rather than outsiders.

They are incantations. The Catholic Church does teach that at communion you do, literally, eat the flesh of Christ. That's either cannibalism or your teachings are wrong?

Paisley is not representative of secular debate because he has nothing to do with secularism.

And I find your suggestion that people are pretending to be upset that the Catholic clergy, in many countries, on many occasions, with many perpetrators raped children and then covered it up to be utterly repugnant.

[Manco]

First thing that needs to happen is for the RCC to entirely drop its internal legislative bodies that don't purely deal with theological matters.
The RCC has no business in deciding what and what won't be persecuted or even simply handed over to secular authority.
They also need to start excommunicating the paedophiles, those who failed to report the cases and those who actively hampered criminal investigations, if people like the liberation theologians still can get excommunicated then that scum certainly can.

Had they done that decades ago, none of the current crises would have happened as the perpetrators would either have been long in jail or no longer part of the RCC.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'm not convinced the conduct of the Crusader Kings is exactly to be blamed on the Pope. Beyond the obvious "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "God Wills It" paradox the basic outline of the Crusades made sense:

The people who worship Baphomet (Muslims) who we preferred to coexist with peacefully despite their devil worship and barbarism, have been attacking pilgrims and preventing them from visiting holy sites. We asked them nicely and they're being jerks. Therefore you should go teach them a lesson. If you do I'm sure Jesus will be understanding about it. I mean he said turn the other cheek, but you know they're just going to stab us in the Kidneys. If we give them an inch we give them a mile. And they worship Satan and are going to hell anyways. We're doing them a favor.

I think it's reasonable...

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I'm not convinced the conduct of the Crusader Kings is exactly to be blamed on the Pope. Beyond the obvious "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "God Wills It" paradox the basic outline of the Crusades made sense:

The people who worship Baphomet (Muslims) who we preferred to coexist with peacefully despite their devil worship and barbarism, have been attacking pilgrims and preventing them from visiting holy sites. We asked them nicely and they're being jerks. Therefore you should go teach them a lesson. If you do I'm sure Jesus will be understanding about it. I mean he said turn the other cheek, but you know they're just going to stab us in the Kidneys. If we give them an inch we give them a mile. And they worship Satan and are going to hell anyways. We're doing them a favor.

I think it's reasonable...

The Pope is directly to be blamed for the Crusades. By giving everyone a get out of jail free card (complete forgiveness for all sins), the worst sorts of people (rapists, murderers, arsonists etc..) joined the crusading armies.

By all means kill bad people (politicians, nobles, clerics, and others who allowed discrimination against Christians), but don't slaughter or cannibalize populations.

[Knize.Vladivoj]

AA: I read that. Did you? Because the modern historians are mostly rejecting Gibbon´s argumentation that Christianity destroyed Rome.