Catholic Hatred. (Impossible Thread, Episode #2)

reply to post by adjensen

Dear adjensen,

I think your explanation is entirely reasonable and I appreciate it. I hope you'll stick around to offer more information and correct me where I go wrong.

I"m really hoping that everyone leaves this thread with more understanding of the Church.

With respect,
Charles1952

I did a search for Child Abuse Catholic Church - BBC News. Here are the lowlights: - all different cases

16th September 2013 - Austraila Child Abuse Commission Begins
4th September 2013 - Vatican recalls Dominican republic envoy amid abuse claims
4th September 2013 -Two Derry Homes to be focus of historical abuse
15th August 2013 - Third Australian monk implicated in Fort Augustus sex abuse scandal
26th July 2013 - Fresh claims over Catholic sex Abuse
17th July 2013 - Anger over missing abuse files
10th July 2013 - UN questions Vatican over Child abuse
29th May 2013 - Northern Ireland victim Abuse

Some other startling links:
16th March 2013 - Pedophilia not criminal offence says Durban cardinal
12th March 2013 - Los Angelese diocese pays $10 million for settlement of abuse case
8th March 2013 - Catholic church in Scotland knew of 20 child abuse allegations
26th February 2013 - Cardinal keith O brien upset at his resignation
21st February 2013 - Cardinals Dolan and Mahony quizzed on child abuse
21st February 2013 - Abuse survivor calls on Cardinal Brady not to attend conclave
21st February 2013 - Historical Abuse Inquiry investigates 35 NI institutions

I think that covers the last 9 months only - this is pretty damning

reply to post by templar knight

Dear templar knight,

Thanks for your links, but you weren't quite clear about your conclusion. It seemed only one of the links referred to abuses occurring in the last 10 years, and that one, about the Nuncio returned to Rome, is only an allegation in the press at present. By "suspending" him and bringing him back for investigations, the Vatican seems to be acting properly.

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

Dear guitarplayer,

Perhaps I'll have to dig up some links to recent threads. There do seem to be some extraordinarily strong feelings against Catholics. But if, as you say, there is no hatred, then I am a happy man indeed.

With respect,
Charles1952

I have posted on other sites discussing theological points and any time you bring up Mary, Peter or the Pope along with traditions as opposed to scripture they get all “your just a Catholic hater” and will not discuss the points brought up. One site that use to be a blend of Christian backgrounds was freerepublic it has total been taken over by the Catholics with no dissenting view tolerated. I had post and posted many a theological subjects for years and got into some heated discussions on the RCC and got banned as a troll.

reply to post by charles1952


As far as the RCC and Hitler it is historical fact that the church ran the ratlines that got a lot of high ranking nazies out of Germany.

FlyersFan

charles1952
What’s behind this hatred?

- Some of it is just self righteous ignorance that they get from people they trust. Like when Baptist preachers claim that Catholics worship Mary. The people trust their preachers to tell them the truth. But the preachers do not. Catholics do not worship Mary.

Concerning prayer whom in the bible is our prayers to be directed towards? Who is our advocate? It is not Mary or the Saints.

reply to post by charles1952


As this is thread to question why there is so much hatred toward Catholics and to some degree from Catholics, I would like to also mention that I found the book and the movie The Da Vinci Code to be very divisive and was designed to undermine the Roman Catholic Church. After they accomplished that, it was a strike at the very heart of Christianity itself. But the whole movie was nothing more than wag the dog.

The Da Vinci Code was not even original, it was borrowed from Holy Blood, Holy Grail and that was borrowed from ancient legends formed in the time of the alleged King Arthur. Might I just say, for those who are really unaware believing the Catholic Church has been involved in this "conspiracy" aren't conscious of the legend of King Arthur. They call him "the once and future king" for a reason, they believe Avalon will once again rise from the mists and King Arthur will one day rule from England again.

So if you have a legend based on a future king, then it is an attempt to supplant Jesus Christ as king. And this is how they involve Catholics. If King Arthur sent Sir Galahad and Sir Gawain out to search for a holy grail, then for the people who want King Arthur to return will have to remove the Catholic church, because the Catholics would seem to be in possession of the Holy Grail. And because there really was no King Arthur, then the Catholic church did something with the Holy Grail. This led to the Templar Knights legends and so forth.

We know there were Templar Knights, but to say they were seeking the Holy Grail just takes it back to the King Arthur legends. The legends have cast the Roman Catholic church into some super-mystical, secretive organization and the disparity is mirrored in what we do know of the Roman Catholic church. When people discover the Catholic church is not the stuff of legend like the Holy Grail stories, then they have to construct even greater elements to the stories.

This misinformation is now excused while people then springboard from theory to theory, making the Catholic Church seem worse to every generation. And because they can't justify the legends made during the Dark Ages, they then blame the Catholic church for the Dark Ages, as though the Catholic church has made this conspiracy, but at the same time disregard every document from the early church fathers. People then believe that Constantine created the Catholic church and wrote the Bible. It goes back to the original legend of Avalon and King Arthur, because you don't really hear anything against the Catholic church pre-Constantine, pre-Nicean Council.

Much of the hatred has arisen from people falling for the legends instead of actually reading about the Church at the beginning. They seem shocked when we tell them that early Christians were persecuted, even at the time of the Nicean Council. They don't even seem to understand the early Middle Ages and neither do they really have a clue about the Crusades. They don't have the comprehension that Europe was in a fight for its life. Had it not been for the army of the Catholic church, then Europe would be Islamic today.

The hatred against the church really is not against Catholicism, but the very heart of Christianity. Catholicism is just the scapegoat. For Protestants, you really need to know that the Protestant Reformation was funded by the Ottoman Empire. Your churches were built by Muslims who paid for the Protestants to destabilize Europe in advance of invasion.

I am a Protestant and can make this charge because it has serious ramifications. I think the time has come now to embrace each other and forgive each other. But Protestants, you need to really consider how Catholicism kept Europe from becoming Islamic. Had it not been for them, none of us would be Christian today. That's a very sobering thought to me.

reply to post by charles1952

I was going to come in wearing my "student of history" hat, but adjensen has already covered the English-American side of that.
It's also noticeable in modern European history that the countries where the Catholic church has been dominant (Italy, France, Spain) were also the countries that developed strong Communist parties, and this was evidently about reacting against that dominant position. If you remember the Don Camillo stories, they were about this conflict.

I can add that if people are conspiracy-orientated, an organisation with a reputation for power, wealth and secrecy is bound to be a target. The Masons are another target on this site for the same reason (rather ironically- wasn't it the Catholic Church who first identified the Masons as a Bad Thing?).

guitarplayer
reply to post by charles1952

 

As far as the RCC and Hitler it is historical fact that the church ran the ratlines that got a lot of high ranking nazies out of Germany.

Read this book...Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944. Hitler was not in conspiracy with the Catholic church and burned many Catholic churches. He despised Catholicism. But in order for the Catholic Church to remain operative in Nazi Europe, it had to concede in some ways. But Hitler goes on record to say the priests are going against the Nazi regime and have to be eliminated.

You also read in the indictments at the Nuremburg Trials of the Catholic Church facing this of priests being tried by the Nazis and sent to the camps to be killed. It was not the Catholic church as a whole and you really have to think about what was going on during that time.

Hitler even says in his own words that Jesus was the son of a whore and a Roman soldier. That's against Christianity as a whole.

reply to post by guitarplayer

Dear guitarplayer,

I am really sorry you were banned. Unless you were behaving in an unacceptable manner, your subject or your views shouldn't get you punished.

I'm not sure I'm expressing this properly, but I don't mind Catholic haters if we can talk about things. I'm not fond of a conversation using phrases like "Devil worshiper," "Heretic," or "Pagan," but talking and listening is good for the mind.

I've never been on FreeRepublic, but I can guarantee that I won't complain because of your opinions.

Let me make a couple of posts on the Sex Scandal, and we can get back to it.

With respect,
Charles1952

WarminIndy
reply to post by charles1952

 

"For Protestants, you really need to know that the Protestant Reformation was funded by the Ottoman Empire. Your churches were built by Muslims who paid for the Protestants to destabilize Europe in advance of invasion."

Do you have any reference links to this statement? All I find is Luthers On War against the Turk where he advocate keeping the Turks out of Germany.

Ok, it's time to throw out some thoughts on the sex scandal. (I thought that would catch your eye.)

First of all, abusing anyone is sinful and often a crime, whether it's sexual, emotional, or in any other way. Catholic priests did abuse minors, and many cases were covered up.

Let me take this in two parts. First, the abuse itself.

According to the best available data (which is pretty good mostly coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 as well as several other studies), 4% of Catholic priests in the USA sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published at this time that states that this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4% figure appears lower than school teachers during the same time frame and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men.

Although these stories are horrific to hear, they are almost never about incidents that occurred since the late 1980's. Incidents of abuse in the past 20 to 25 years are quite rare compared to incidents during the 60's and 70's. This is also true for other groups such as school teachers. Incidents since the 2002 crisis in the USA unfolded are especially rare.

Research tells us that about 80% of clergy sex offenders abuse post pubescent teens, not pre pubescent children. So, the phrase "pedophile priest" is a misnomer. You might say that it doesn't matter. Both categories involve victimizing minors. True, but the risk factor profile as well as the evaluation and treatment prognosis is much different between the two groups. Besides, while people may be worried about young children being victimized they may neglect the more likely victim, the teen. (Emphasis added)

www.psychologytoday.com...

An extensive 2007 investigation by the Associated Press showed that sexual abuse of children in U.S. schools was "widespread," and most of it was never reported or punished. And in Portland, Ore., last week, a jury reached a $1.4 million verdict against the Boy Scouts of America in a trial that showed that since the 1920s, Scouts officials kept "perversion files" on suspected abusers but kept them secret.

"We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, told Newsweek. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

www.washingtonpost.com...

I think it's fair to conclude that while priests were abusers, fewer were than in other groups, such as teachers and men in general. It's hard for me to realize that a minor was safer with a priest than with a man picked at random. That's certainly not what we're told.

Considering the coverage given to the Church, you'd think they were, by far, the worst offenders. But they weren't. I'm not sure of the reason for this, but I wonder if "Catholic hatred" played a part.

On the topic of the cover up of the sex scandal (Got you again, didn't I?) the most important question to me is "Why?" Is there a good reason, or an explanation, or no explanation at all?

I found a good article which reaches into the flaws and weaknesses of the Church at the time, and I recommend it to you if you have the interest and the time. Here are some excerpts:

Once individual Catholic bishops became aware of it, why did so few of them act decisively? Actually, there are several reasons. I will argue that the most important purely institutional reason was the weakness of the curial culture in Rome in responding to widespread secularization within the Church—but it is important to recognize at least three other more positive factors that also played a role in what has since proven to be an extended inadequate response:

1.The first of these positive factors is the learning curve. The dominant professional psychological opinion when sexual abuse was at its worst was that offenders could be sent for treatment, rehabilitated, and returned to service. It was understandable, then, that there should be a period in which this approach was tried.

2.The second positive factor is a perfectly proper reluctance on the part of the Church to involve the civil authority in internal Church affairs. There is a long and vital tradition of the independence of the Church which is necessary to its spiritual mission. Sorting out when to turn a priest over to civil authorities can be difficult.

3.The third positive factor is the desire, not only on the part of Church leaders but often on the part of victims, to handle such matters as quietly as possible. The culture of forming victim groups and demanding reparations was not nearly as strong in the 1970s and 1980s as it has since become, especially in the area of sexual abuse.

Nonetheless, it must be admitted that:

1.with respect to the first factor, Church authorities were very slow to learn;

2.with respect to the second factor, the Church failed to eliminate the need for civil involvement by handling the problem effectively in-house; and

3.with respect to the third factor, it seems clear that the desire to handle things quietly was often motivated by a desire to preserve the personal reputations of the priests and bishops involved rather than by pastoral concern for victims. Even worse, punishment of abusive priests was sometimes staved off by the threat of exposing other priests and bishops if the matter were pressed.

www.catholic.com...

The article talks about the role of the Popes and the Church management, or the Curia, identifies weaknesses and makes positive suggestions. As I say, worth the read.

reply to post by guitarplayer

Dear guitarplayer,

Prayers to Mary and the Saints? There is some justification for it. You may not find it convincing, but at least it's defensible.

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4).

So, for Step 1, we can see that we can offer intercessory prayers for others. It doesn't interfere with Jesus as the 'Mediator." But, notice all are urged to be "Intercessors."

But what about those in heaven? We're told to ask them to pray with us.

Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

Not only do they pray with us, they pray for us.

"[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

www.catholic.com...

And praying to the saints is not a new invention.

Scholarship has established that the practice of praying to saints was present in some circles of Judaism before and after the appearing of Christianity. This creates a kind of precedent for the possibility that Christians would permit this practice.

Here it is necessary to consider the patristic witness and what kind of evidence it gives. For those who do not accept the inherent divine authority of the Church Fathers, the Fathers’ claims (and those of other early Christians) can still count as historical witness to what Christians believed during, before, or after their writings. The initial argument to be made in favor of a pre-Nicene practice of prayers to saints is very short and simple. We have examples of pre-Nicene Christians praying to saints; therefore it was probably permissible.

We are left with at least three significant locations where several Christians (including some official teachers) believed in prayers to saints at a relatively early date, perhaps almost a century before Nicea. This may not prove to those with a Protestant mindset that the practice is Apostolic. Nor will it convince every listener that the prayers to saints were practiced “everywhere, at all times, by all”. But it does provide some evidence that the practice was quite widespread, quite early, and taught by some important Christians. If we abide by the same standards of evidence that we use for other doctrines (the eternal generation of the Son, baptism in the name of the Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit) then it is hard to deny that prayers to saints were common among early Christians.

energeticprocession.wordpress.com...

It's hard for me to see how praying to the Saints is prohibited by Scripture, but I'm happy to listen.

With respect,
Charles1952

guitarplayer

WarminIndy
reply to post by charles1952

 

"For Protestants, you really need to know that the Protestant Reformation was funded by the Ottoman Empire. Your churches were built by Muslims who paid for the Protestants to destabilize Europe in advance of invasion."

Do you have any reference links to this statement? All I find is Luthers On War against the Turk where he advocate keeping the Turks out of Germany.

Sure, there are many sources out there, but I should have mentioned that it was Suleiman who actually funded them.

Ottomans in Europe

And

Suleiman the Magnificent

Besides invasions and campaigns, Suleyman was a major player in the politics of Europe. He pursued an aggressive policy of European destabilization; in particular, he wanted to destabilize both the Roman Catholic church and the Holy Roman Empire. When European Christianity split Europe into Catholic and Protestant states, Suleyman poured financial support into Protestant countries in order to guarantee that Europe remain religiously and politically destabilized and so ripe for an invasion. Several historians, in fact, have argued that Protestantism would never have succeeded except for the financial support of the Ottoman Empire.

Emergence of Europe

I tried to find the most reputable sources outside of Wikipedia, and there are many. But it is evident from historical documents that in Suleiman's perspective, he needed to keep the war going between the Christians.

reply to post by charles1952


Read Foxe books of martyrs and then return to this thread. The catholic church has slaughtered millions of christians over the years. They are a pseudo-christian cult that employs a form of paganism in their idolatrous worship of Mary and the saints and the worship of icons and statues.

Also read some Martin Malachi, a now deceased catholic priest. He asserts that the Vatican has been overtaken by a cabal of satanists. Satan now runs the catholic church. The church itself closely matches the description of the whore of Babylon in Revelations 17.

The fact that homosexuals and pedophiles flock to the priesthood should be a cause for alarm right there. No, I have no love for the catholic church and neither did any of America's christian forefathers. I think the Puritans even banned several pagan catholic rituals such as christmas.

Thanks for the discussion, Charles. I will be an interesting ride.

The first time I ever heard any Catholic bashing was on a Christian radio program. I was shocked, really shocked, because I never heard any Catholic priest, nun, deacon or lay cathecist talk negatively against the Protestant Church. It is a church that isn't into condemnation. The only thing I learned about Protestantism is that they do not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Welcome to ATS and find out we are illuminati, worshiping Mary and worse. I have tried to clear up a few misconceptions, but find it is a hard sell.

I did go to Catholic grade school and attended Mass daily and Catholic High School, but I also walked away from the Church as a teen, no specific reason. I must honestly say that I did not take it's teaching to heart in following the basic requirements of the faith. That changed in my late 20s. Heck, I was a kid who knew more than they did. I did fasten the scripture reading to my soul with whoops of steel. I love Jesus and never doubted in His Divinity.

My love of God is something I come by honestly. I have relgious on both side of my family tree. My father's dad died of the swine flu before he was born. He grew up in a rectory where his uncle was the Pastor and his sister, my dad's mom, was housekeeper. When my dad told me that is uncle who essentially took the role of his father was the greatest man he ever knew made a stong impact on me. I have miles to go and grow, but all - in all I find the Church to me my home.

To the poster who said he was turned off by the discussion of Hell, I find the lack of discussion of Hell to be a shame. Maybe they went too far in one direction and over-corrected. They dwell on God's mercy and love. I have some funny, heartwarming experiences I will share that pertain to my fatih.

I strongly encourage anyone who wants to understand the faith to get a copy of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church.

Well, I'll share a few brief articles in hope that people will understand a few things a bit more. It's late so I wll check back and see how things are rolling along here. I do hope FlyersFan checks in as I consider her knowlege on the teaching of the Church spot on.

Where is Purgatory in the Bible?

Top Ten Misconceptions of the Catholic Church

Regarding the top 10 articles. the author also wrote one about the top ten misconceptions on Islam.

reply to post by charles1952

Good morning Charles!

I am going to make an admission here: I did not read the entire thread and am posting this in response to your initial post only. I guess that would be an official disclaimer by definition...

As the furthest thing from being a "Catholic hater" you can think of a non-Catholic being I would like to chime in. Until the uber self-righteous judgemental people of from the pro and anti Catholic sides of the debate come down off of their high horses and really listen to each other the reality that lies somewhere in between will never be discovered. I have been witness to all sorts of ignorance from both sides when it comes to discussing ANYTHING that has to do with the RCC. On these very boards I have been accused of being a Catholic basher/hater for daring to even ponder anything that comes from the Vatican and I have been accused of being a Catholic/ sympathizer- also been accused of being a militant Atheist. I am none of these things but have been attacked by the indignant for perceived offenses as minor as quoting a news article title as the title of a thread!

The majority of my family are Catholic, even I attend mass upon occasion even though I became a Southern Baptist many years ago. If I can't ask legitimate questions without being attacked why the heck would I want to keep asking for abuse by continuing to participate in such threads? The only reason I responded to this one is because it is yours Charles, it is also why I am responding only to your post and didn't read the rest- it's a good day so far and I really don't want to get a headache from what I'm liable to read there!

Anyway, good to finally find you around here! I'm still learning to navigate the new digs here and I still get lost sometimes! Have a great day buddy!

Love and respect, littled16

reply to post by charles1952


There are good people in all religions it is the leaders of these religions that we tend to hate more so.

The two Babylon's by Rev Alexander Hislop . The Pagan origins of the catholic church. St Peter's square is in the symbol of a sun wheel (seen from above). The Popes sceptre has a pine cone a pagan symbol of eternal life. There are many more .

The Vicars of Christ The dark side of the papacy by Peter de Rosa. The history of the Popes and what they did, the book if pretty damning. The Pope is suppose to be God's man on earth..Not

The sexual abuse of course.

Jasenovac concentration camp(WW2) it was worse than Auschwitz. It was backed by the Vatican

By their fruits you will know them. After knowing all this and you still want to be a catholic I don't know what to say.

SevenThunders
reply to post by charles1952

 

Read Foxe books of martyrs and then return to this thread.

I've read it. It's Church of England propaganda.

The catholic church has slaughtered millions of christians over the years.

Prove it. I've seen people claim that before, and no one has ever come up with any academic historical evidence, just biased propaganda.

Also read some Martin Malachi, a now deceased catholic priest.

I've read it. It's bollocks. Malachi Martin was known for mixing fiction with fact and never had any evidence to back up his claims in that book.

The fact that homosexuals and pedophiles flock to the priesthood should be a cause for alarm right there.

I believe that Charles1952 has accurately demonstrated that the percentage of pedophiles among the Roman Catholic priesthood is below that of the general population, so your claim is invalid.

No, I have no love for the catholic church and neither did any of America's christian forefathers. I think the Puritans even banned several pagan catholic rituals such as christmas.

Thank you for your adroit example of irrational and baseless Roman Catholic hating, it was quite timely. I think the only thing you missed was a reference to Alberto Rivera.