Catholic Bashing

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

I didn't read the rest of your post, I stopped here. It is not an Atheist site, one of the authors is Catholic.

Sadly, and respectfully, I think your mistaken. Most of the authors are not Catholic. Most are Atheists\Agnostics with "axe's to grind".

Why does it state agnosticism\atheism at the top?

Also why are the statements are so negatively biased against Catholicism.

Notice most of the articles are written by Austin Cline "atheist blog".

exp. "Austin's Athiesm blog"

atheism.about.com...

Sorry, to me this site is very biased from the get go.

Why do you personly not like Catholicism? How did it negatively affect you in the past?

Originally posted by EricD
Hi,

The Pope's ability to speak infallibly is limited to when he speaks ex cathedra (which has been done, I believe, less than 6 times in the history of the Church). If the Pope were to say that green is better than blue, that 5 + 5 is 12, that Almond Joys are better than M&M's or that Australia is a place of myth where Unicorns live Catholics would feel free to disagree with him.

Eric

[edit on 15-10-2008 by EricD]

Sorry, I might have mixed "impeccability" with infallibly.

So hypothetically based upon apostolic succession and a infallible magisterium If the Pope and the Bishops got together at a official Council, like the Council of Trent. And stated "God's favorite candy is M&M's" Then M&M's are now the official "manna" of God's Church. And part of Church Dogma, correct?

(Sorry this lowers God to a sells jingle, but please help my limited mind understand you.)

Originally posted by msnevil

Sorry, I might have mixed "impeccability" with infallibly.

So hypothetically based upon apostolic succession and a infallible magisterium If the Pope and the Bishops got together at a official Council, like the Council of Trent. And stated "God's favorite candy is M&M's" Then M&M's are now the official "manna" of God's Church. And part of Church Dogma, correct?

Neither the Pope nor the Magisterium tend to make official proclamations about things that are self evident. You aren't going to find many debates about whether the sky is blue, fire is hot or M&M's are the worlds best candy. Now if the question was whether or not Peanut M&M's were better or worse than regular M&M's there may be need for the Pope to step in.

Mmmmmmm.... M&M's.

Eric

reply to post by msnevil


Okay, I’m not going to get into it with this site again with people’s mere opinions, biased or not I have yet to see anyone tackle the historic evidence that is fairly presented. If you think it is presented with bias then please post the quote, post the history, and tell me how it is being warped by a site with several diverse authors, some Catholic, some atheist, some Agnostic.

Why do you personly not like Catholicism? How did it negatively affect you in the past?

This topic is not about my opinion or feelings toward organized religions; I’ve already stated how and why I judge an organized religion, by how I see it participating within this society and past societies. This topic is about Catholic bashing. In my first post in this thread I pointed out why some may bash this religion, I also stated that I did not agree with all of the criticism and that I myself did not have all the answers. I have also clearly stated I do not believe in bashing a religion, just logical criticism.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by pieman

 

I disagree with you but I’m not going to tell you to grow up, I think it is rude and narrow minded to assume I don’t know what I’m talking about because of whatever age you believe I am, if I agreed with your opinion you wouldn't make my age an issue.

i feel it is worth pointing out that i didn't tell you to grow up because of your opinion, i don't really care which opinion you hold, it's irrelevant to the thread. i told you to "grow up" because you said you would not change your opinion on the subject, regardless of facts or context.

your chronological age or the opinions you hold don't have any bearing on the statement, you could be 16 or 60 and agree with me or disagree, if you said you absolutely would not change your opinion, i'ld tell you to grow up.

just so you know, i've changed my opinion on the catholic churh at least 10 times and i have no set opinion as to why the church is bashed, so i'm very happy to believe i'll change my opinion again.

In matters of politics and religion it is always crucial to remember:

Don't Attack the Poster, attack the content of the post!

When you delve into the person, you are no longer contributing to the subject - thus the post has no value.

Vent via u2u if you feel so inclined - but remember the T&C applies even inthe personal communication on this site.

Just a humble word of advice for those who care to heed it.

MM

[edit on 17-10-2008 by Maxmars]

I agree with Speakeroftruth in that they are the most powerful and wealthy religion out there, so naturally they draw the most attention. I am sure that if Scientology for example, was to surpass them in wealth and influence, that Scientology would be the new target.

Also when an organization is as large as the Catholic church and they tell everyone that they need to follow their rules or else they will be damned to hell for all of eternity, they will also face some scrutiny. People will be much quicker to point out any hypocrisy they see and question anything that they hide from the public.

It is mainly an issue with the size and power of the organization.


signature
Let them eat war! That's how to ration the poor.

The American Dream has fallen apart at the seam.

***Mod edit - One Line Post. Please review. ***




[edit on 10/17/2008 by yeahright]

reply to post by Maxmars


fair point, generally i would agree with you.

in this case, the subject of the thread is the motivation of the people that attack catholicism. where i have discussed a fellow member, it is within this frame of reference. the member expresses opinions that i view as attack and typifies a lot of people that would participate in these attacks, again, in my opinion.

to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of the church would be pretty off topic so arguing the points with the poster would feel to me to be distracting at best, whereas saying that the attacks on the church based on history but ignoring historical context is typical of many attackers and using the poster as a good example is reasonably on topic and a valid contribution.

i also felt it was worth pointing out, in the context of the thread, that i was not attacking the poster due to her age or opinion, but rather her attitude.

i was trying to clarify my original point, as i am doing here, because i think it's a valid observation in the context of the thread.

reply to post by pieman


To be fair, I wasn't actually referring to your comments.

Such topics are always fertile ground for getting emotional. Great thread though!

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by pieman

 

I disagree with you but I’m not going to tell you to grow up, I think it is rude and narrow minded to assume I don’t know what I’m talking about because of whatever age you believe I am, if I agreed with your opinion you wouldn't make my age an issue.

i feel it is worth pointing out that i didn't tell you to grow up because of your opinion, i don't really care which opinion you hold, it's irrelevant to the thread. i told you to "grow up" because you said you would not change your opinion on the subject, regardless of facts or context.

your chronological age or the opinions you hold don't have any bearing on the statement, you could be 16 or 60 and agree with me or disagree, if you said you absolutely would not change your opinion, i'ld tell you to grow up.

just so you know, i've changed my opinion on the catholic churh at least 10 times and i have no set opinion as to why the church is bashed, so i'm very happy to believe i'll change my opinion again.

I said in my second or first post in this thread: I don’t know if I’m right or wrong about the church’s intentions. I admit that, I have never been unwilling to change an opinion, that was your interpretation of what I said, I meant whatever you say to me in this particular thread is not going to change my mind about why people judge the Catholic Church harshly, because for every fact you present I have one to counter it. Not that you've presented one fact I've asked for anyway. Could you please show me what facts you referred to in your first reply to me?

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I have never been unwilling to change an opinion, that was your interpretation of what I said, I meant whatever you say to me in this particular thread is not going to change my mind

Not wanting to get out of line here, but I am confused. Your original statement was...

You aren’t going to change my opinion no matter what evidence you present, and no matter what evidence I present I’m not going to change yours because both sides are valid, I’m merely trying to show why I formed my opinion with historical examples, my opinion like many others is far more than what I put out in one post.

This sounds like your mind set is pretty firm. Why could something in this thread not change your mind? If you are 'willing' to change what is to say something stated here cannot do it? It could come from anywhere.

I am not saying you are stubborn, but as I did mention earlier, you could do well to look at other sources that have a more positive outlook on the church. I have learned alot from taking advice from other members here. I am not in a position to 'change my mind' but then I am not the hardened Catholic hater I have been made out to be either.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Again, I clearly stated whatever evidence he presents in this thread. Yes when it comes to that kind of confrontation my mind is pretty made up, because I’ve been in these threads more than once debating with people like him. In my first and second post in this thread though I stated in a broader sense that I do not know all the answers and I could be wrong.

you could do well to look at other sources that have a more positive outlook on the church.

Again I will state, for the last time, I posted that source because someone asked me to back up a claim with facts, and I did so. I have never stated that one source shapes my opinion of the Catholic Church.

The site referrenced by rapinbatsisaltherage is biased in that it clearly leans in one direction, that being opposition to Catholicism. Bias need not always be consisdered negative though, for example if I answer every query about Catholocism with reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church that too would be biased.

Rapin has asked that the assertions of that site be contradicted. I find it hard to consider it as a historically worthy reference as history is rarely capable of summary in one webpage and an attempt to give an overview of, for example, the Church's actions during the second world war. Let me try to answer the charges with similar brevity.

1. Catholicism and Nazism: Dachau had a special "Priest's Block" where out of 2720 clergy held 2579 were Roman Catholic - 1034 did not survive. The names of 711 catholic clergy held in the little known "specialist" concentration camp of Sachsenhausen on the outskirts of Berlin have so far been discovered.
This is not the total of deacons, priests, bishops incarcerated by the Nazis. The recent acclamation that Pius XII was complicit (by action or inaction) in the Holocaust contradicts Jewish scholarship and his receipt of the title "Righteous Gentile" for being instrumental in saving +700,000 jewish people.
The "article" on the website proposes that because the Church was a conservative institution and fascism was a right wing conservative movement then the Church must have supported it - that is the old logical fallacy of the undistributed middle.

2. Freedom & Dogma: Surely you can see this is not an "historical" piece of research it is the author's opinion concerning whether Catholic Universities should have a Catholic Ethos. Catholic Theologians are surely suppossed to be Catholic.

3. Death penalty: The Church does not stand resolutely against the death penalty. The Church, in keeping with its care for the common good, now (rightly) affirms that the circumstances in which it is necessary are greatly reduced. The Cathar controversy is an odd issue to bring up in relation to this. Albigensians were not declared heretical because they were pacifists but because they offered a version of manichaean heresy which proposed, dogmatically that there were two equal and opposite forces in control of the universe one entirely good, the other entirely evil. The good was responsible for all spiritual things, the evil for all material things. Hence they practised willing suicide by starvation and forbade sexual relations between married people as well as everyone else. Strange group to use in support of anti-Catholicism because if you think our moral commands are rough, you should try the Cathar's for size.

4. Priests abusing children: the author chooses not to go into details of the entire scandal but prefers to use the tactic of using a person's experience of this reprehensible crime to bolster his own argument. Shameful use of another person's history to meet his own objective and doubly shameful as his objective is not even clearly outlined. "Gee, I wonder...", that's appropriate terminology when treating this devestating crime used in sarcasm or not? The author, refraining from expanding upon the story, warrants little response. When Pope Benedict recently met some survivors of clerical sexual abuse he did so quietly, he did not parade them out onto the steps of the nunciature to feed the medias appetites at a press conference. He met them quietly and humbly and, I imagine apologetically. This scandal is not resolved but the process has well begun.

5. Clerical Celibacy: Mr Cline wishes to discuss this regulation of the Catholic Church why? As a secular humanist it is his concern because? Does he wish to propose that because western priests were married in the early Church the current regulation dating back as prescriptive for over 1000 years and in traditional practice twice as long shows "hypocrisy"?
(continued below...)

(...continued from above)
The practice of clerical celibacy IS founded upon scriptural sources which recommended such as 1Cor 7:32-33and Matthew 19:12. The evolution of the practice has been both theological and pragmatic the greatest impulse to its formalizing as an obligation was the Milanese crisis of the 11th Century where the clergy were more concerned with the material wellfare of their families than the spiritual welfare of their flocks. Celibacy today persists as a sign of contradiction to the culture of the current age.

6. What is Roman Catholicism? As a list of "resources" I presume this needs no comment.

7. Electing the next pope? Another list of "resources" however the author does need corrected on one point "all of the power of the papacy is vested in a single man" this is incorrect. The "power" of the papacy is one which is a continuation of all the generations of pope's, clergy, laity who have preceeded him. The power of the papacy is the power of catholicism which never depends upon the capricious will of one man.

8. Catholic Doctrine and Your Health: Here's a tip Mr Cline if you desire condoms, abortions or euthenasia don't go to "Sacred Heart" hospital. The free market ensures that people are given choice, this is one choice. It is also a choice the government allows for those medical practitioners and patients who do not wish to be associated with that which is morally reugnent to them. Catholic Health Care, with and often without state funding, has been of enormous benefit to innumerable people throughout the world and throughout many ages.

The other headings are resource based, Mel Gibson's film is irrelevant.


Child abuse, celibacy, hospitals, finances all the usual are dragged up here by Mr Cline. Why point out the hypocrisy of a Church that has a particular sexual ethic in these particular areas? Because that sexual ethic is a contradiction to the current culture's permissive materialism. It's hard to claim the Church's sexual ethic is wrong if you really open your eyes and look around you from mutant fish to 42 million abortions a year (anyone want to step up and celebrate that one?) so it's the old magician's trick of distraction - talk about apparent "hypocrisies" so people won't notice the Church is actually right.
As with permissiveness so with (the well connected) materialism. Talk about the "greedy" Church, point out occassions of apparent hypocrisy so we don't have to listen to it's talk warning against unfettered greed and the injustices of inequality.

Speak out against permissiveness, materialism and selfishness today and you're gonna get lots of bashing.

reply to post by Supercertari


Hey, thank you for the lengthy overview. Whatever historical references you find inaccurate (as in factually inaccurate and not just your opinion or dislike of how they are painted) could you please cite me sources that show the inaccuracies? I’d like to pass them on to the site.

While I don't bash Catholics, hell, my wife is a Catholic, I just think that Catholicism is not what I "know" according to my experiences. I don't see the need for a human to forgive me for my sins and tell me what I need to recite to be forgiven for my sins. That is up to God. I don't need some "saint" or Virgin Mother to intercede on my behalf with God. I can talk directly to God and he is quite able to let me know his answers. That and I wonder what the hell the Catholic church does with all the riches they seem to have collected over the centuries. Why don't they spread the wealth around. Maybe then we wouldn't need a Barak Obama to "redistribute the wealth of citizens".

I agree with Kyred. Cathic's take alot of beliefs outside of the bible. When I pray I pray directly to God through the power of Jesus. And when I pray I can ask forgiveness and God as his will intends can forgive me. I dont need a preacher to forgive me. And I do believe that cathic's have alot to hide. Mind you not all cathics. I think the major parts of cathics in leadship and control the cathic beliefs are the ones to worry about. There are many seprate cathic churches that dont really have anything to do with the roman cathic church.

reply to post by kyred


Catholics have care for the wider community of humanity and the Ecclessial community of the Church which the sacrament of reconciliation and intercession of the saints both involve.

The individual priest does not forgive sins per se but does so as part of the indivisible headship of Christ present in the ministerial priesthood. This was conferred on the Apostolic Church through Christ's commisioning of Peter, Matthew 16, and latter extension of this power to bind and loose to the other apostles in John 20:23. The priest represents Christ and the community in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and that second aspect is significant when one considers rarely do sins not affect others.

Catholics are not removed from direct communication with God, indeed another objection many non-Catholic Christians have is our belief that in the Eucharist we each, and communally, experience union with the very Real Presence of Christ. When you think about this it is really a strange set of accusations and disagreements "1. You put priests and saints between you and God. 2. You claim intimate union with the real presence of Christ." So we are too far from Him while being too close?

Devotion to the saints is involvement in an Ecclessial community which is not limited by temporal or spatial borders. The Blessed Virgin Mary received such abundant graces that God's messenger himself declared that she was "blessed amongst women" and as the ark within which the Incarnation became a reality she was inspired to declare, in humility, that all ages would call her blessed" - which I and many other Catholics continue to do. I ask her and the other saints to pray for me as I ask other Christians to do so who I physically meet and communicate with. Why wouldn't I? We believe we are one Church on earth, purgatory and heaven. The saints are those who are already in heaven, in the Father's presence. As any Christian might ask a friend to say a prayer for them in whatever might be their sacred place I feel confident asking the saints to do so for me in the most sacred of places.