Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on July 17, 2007 By Dr Guy In Religion

One of our esteemed members decided to post an article concerning a religion where he stated:

I should comment that I am pretty much against the Catholic Church

Some of the reasons he stated are historical, if somewhat prejudicial, and are ones that the Church in the modern era has had to deal with in their quest to return to its roots - that of being a faith based, and not a political based organization. And some are an attempt to bestow upon an fallible organization a measure of perfection that does not exist in this world.  And still others are a gross mis-interpretation of a teaching that many do not understand, yet continue to decry and denounce in their ignorance.

Let us look at these three different aspects of these accusations.

The first is easy enough to identify.  They deal with Historical facts.  The inquisition, the heresy of Galileo, and the Crusades.  All of these are historical facts, that are undeniable.  And to deny them would be akin to denying the holocaust.  But they are historical.  The implication in the linked article is that since these were done in the name of the Church, then all descendants must bear the shame of those forefathers.  That those descendants must renounce their faith, because the Church (not the faith) is imperfect and has done evil.  They are guilty, because their ancestors are guilty.  And not even necessarily their ancestors, but the acquaintances of some of their ancestors.

It matters not that the descendants have apologized for those deeds. It matters not that the descendants have repudiated the deeds.  It matters only that those deeds were committed by the fathers, and thus the sins must be visited upon the children.

Now we come to the point where this faith based organization must know not only all that has been, but all that will be.  In 1933, the Church signed a concordat with a sovereign nation stating they would get out of Politics.  Something they had been in since Constantine back during the Roman Empire.  Something they were never meant to be.  And something they should never have been.  And yet, into the 20th century, they were still involved with the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire.  So they got out.  By signing an agreement with the government of Germany.  At the time, a democratically elected government whose primary concerns were not with ruling the world (that would come later), but in getting the country out of the worst depression they had ever seen.

While this was a mistake, at the time, no one knew the evil that was to occur under the new leadership of Germany.  But we are to believe, again, that this is a heinous crime.  And the crime was in not being omniscient.  They should have known that the evil was to come, and never signed the agreement, and that they did sign it before the evil was perpetrated upon the world, is irrelevant.  For they must be omniscient.  Because people say they are.

And because they signed this agreement, then all the works of the Catholics throughout Europe,  those who sacrificed their lives for the persecuted, was just a dog and pony show.  Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  hey!  They must have been pretending.

Finally we come to modern day deeds.  Yes, what WE do today WE are responsible for.  At least in most circles.  But what did the Church do in the current day?  There are 2 charges.

One: The participation in the genocide in Rwanda by priests and nuns,

Two: Hundreds of years (no kidding or exaggeration) of tacitly permitting the sexual abuse of parishioners, specifically including children, by priests

That is right.  The church and all 1.1 billion members participated in the genocide in Rwanda.  And not another soul in the world did so.  Nope, none of the other 5 billion people participated, just the 1 billion Catholics.  And how did they participate?  How many people were killed by Catholics?  Well, that gets kind of murky, since even the author does not indicate that a single Catholic raised up arms against the Hutus and Tutsis.  NO, the only allegation is that they did nothing.  But the other 5 billion people sure did a lot, right?  They sure stopped the massacre from happening!  I remember well, the brigades of Americans (non-catholic of course), Israelis, English, French, and Germans marching in there to stop this slaughter.  I remember it very well.  Maybe you do as well?

But not the Catholics.  Not a single Catholic sacrificed their lives for that massacre.

And the pedophilia?  Yep!  A crime that did not exist prior to it being discovered in the church, and what is even better, would not exist were it not for the church.  And its 1 billion members!  That is right!  You heard it here first!  The Church, and its 1 billion members are all pedophiles, or so we are to believe.  Because only Catholics are pedophiles, and they must all be because we have found some priests that are.

Forget those men behind the curtain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

Forget the hundreds of instances where headlines have blared that "This teacher and that teacher" is convicted of it (they must all be Catholics too). Forget all the felons rotting in jail (they are all Catholics too).  Just concentrate on the 13,000 charges (not all proven yet - except the fact they are Catholics) in the last 50 odd years against those evil Catholics.  Do away with those Catholics, and problem solved!  You do not need to worry about any one else!

No way is it possible that perhaps those inclined to pedophilia are attracted to occupations that put them in contact with children.  No, all those teachers are Catholics, all those Felons are Catholics, and all those Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imams are really Catholics in disguise.  Problem solved.  The final solution is to kill all the Catholics.

Then we have this statement: When Ratzinger was a Cardinal, he helped conceal the severity of the problem. And this is the man that has the audacity to say that you are "wounded" in your beliefs if you do not acknowledge him?

Yes, the author now is an expert on theology, and knows more about interfaith dialog than any one else.  So he can now state the intent and reason for the claim of "wounded" irregardless of its context: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288976,00.html

Let just pretend again that the Pope (who is all Catholics after all), is again saying that, now not only all Muslims are evil (Exact quote from Manuel Il Paleologus, a Byzantine Emperor, not a pope):

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

Since he quotes a historical text to a CLASS on theology, he must have originated the quote, and firmly believes in it.  Just like the statement he re-released recently that the experts in the media took to be a slam on protestant churches, instead of what it was.  A re-statement of a working paper for the reconciliation of all Christian faiths. "The wound" that is talked about is reflected in the Popes belief that his faith is the right one.  But as we can guess from these wanna-bee Theological experts in the mainstream media and elsewhere, ONLY Catholics believe that.  All other people of faith must then believe that their faith is not the right one, and they are just waiting on a street corner for a bus to come along with a better one.

I guess we have 5 billion people that just cant wait to find a better creed and faith.

And finally we get to the last item.  One corrected so many times, it truly boggles the mind that people would continue to perpetrate it.  I guess some just love to revel in their ignorance instead of trying to discern the truth, or even seeking it.  Even worse, when presented with the truth, they chose to ignore it, because ignorance is so much more fun.  But for the record:

Pope ... ....always correct and infallible...

Is incorrect.  The pope is only infallible when he goes Ex-cathedra, which means speaking for the faithful, and that has occurred only twice in the last 500 years.  All the other times, he is speaking as the leader of the faithful - much like Bush speaks for all Americans (ha ha).  He is the head teacher, as the role of priest has its roots in the Jewish faith, and that of the Rabbi - which means teacher, his words carry more weight than the other teachers and the students.  But last I checked, no teacher is right all the time, and no man is either.  And the Pope, outside of his role as head teacher, is just that.  A man.

So please, slam those 1 billion plus Catholics for all these sins.  We can even make a special place for them, since they are all evil and do only evil.  But at least get your facts right when you are marching them to the gallows.


Comments (Page 2)
8 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jul 23, 2007
I see a lot wrong with a lot of religions, certainly there is no shortage of improvements they can all make. I would suppose that in the coming decades and generations that mankind is going to largely outgrow religion as both a staple of society as well as a guiding factor in peoples lives.

A lot of people see the way others pervert their religions for the purpose of greed and destruction and fewer and fewer younger people live strictly by the teaching of any religion; Preferring to make their own lifestyle and choices with less and less influence from religion. I can see a few decades, generations, or centuries where science advances so far into the future, these decedents of ours, will be so sophisticated they won't raise their children to be guided by religion but by ethics and natural law. With a huge population on the planet people are going to have to learn to get along better and better in order to make it work.

Assuming the world doesn't collapse into some sort of technological dark age which is pretty unlikely considering how rapid things are moving today, or go into some sort of under culture or technology rejection and rebellion, I think people will advance really quickly when the pace is quickened in daily life and parents struggle much harder to make give their children the best life possible. You can see that sort of thing happening in China already, a country moving from a 3rd world existence rapidly onto center stage. Other countries with an internet awakening and a natural desire will follow suit.

on Jul 23, 2007

I see a lot wrong with a lot of religions, certainly there is no shortage of improvements they can all make. I would suppose that in the coming decades and generations that mankind is going to largely outgrow religion as both a staple of society as well as a guiding factor in peoples lives.

I see that happening already.

A lot of people see the way others pervert their religions for the purpose of greed and destruction and fewer and fewer younger people live strictly by the teaching of any religion; Preferring to make their own lifestyle and choices with less and less influence from religion.

Unfortunately, religion is made by man, and is thus susceptible to man's sins.  That is the way it has always been, it is just more recognizable today due to the increase in communication.

on Jul 23, 2007
"Unfortunately, religion is made by man, and is thus susceptible to man's sins. That is the way it has always been, it is just more recognizable today due to the increase in communication."

Some would argue, true believers would argue that religion was made by God through man, yet I would argue and agree that of course religion is man made.

Some people don't get that. For those of us that have that insight or belief we are the ones with no faith, the people that just believe in it because it's better for them to do so when it comes to an afterlife, they have this "faith".

I like to ask them, what if this is the "afterlife"?

What if what we are living today is the "afterlife"?
on Jul 23, 2007
Some would argue, true believers would argue that religion was made by God through man, yet I would argue and agree that of course religion is man made.

Some people don't get that.


I would say to them they are confusing faith with religion. Faith is devine in nature (in my case via the Holy Spirit), but the trappings that make up how we worship is religion, and that is all man made.

For those of us that have that insight or belief we are the ones with no faith, the people that just believe in it because it's better for them to do so when it comes to an afterlife, they have this "faith".

I like to ask them, what if this is the "afterlife"?

What if what we are living today is the "afterlife"?


It could be, but then their faith (or religion for those who do not try to separate the 2) tells them it is not. And in the end, without a way to prove my version, versus your version, versus his or her version, what it comes down to is Faith. For faith is a belief, not a fact.

on Jul 23, 2007
All a bunch of statements and questions that have no real answers and mean different things to different people.

It's amazing the degree people let their lives be directed as well as influenced by these things.
on Jul 23, 2007
"All a bunch of statements and questions that have no real answers..."
Simply because you have given up looking for the answers or grown tired of the search, doesn't mean that there aren't real answers.

"It's amazing the degree people let their lives be directed as well as influenced by these things."
I find it amazing the degree to which people are their own gods. Those who claim that faith and religion are wrong seem to make themselves into the all power and all mighty. To a degree I would even defend your ability to do so. Free will is a everyone's ability, regardless if they thank the Maker or not. You can choose whatever you want. However, I find it interesting that you have it all figured out and don't appear to consult higher sources (let me first preface this by saying that I truly don't know you, and I offer no insults here, I'm just stating what seems to be apparent).

Devil Advocate:
Higher sources? Who needs them? God, if I even choose to believe in Him, gifted us with free will and a great brain. He, and again not saying there is one, allowed us everything to be self-determinant. Therefore, there is no need for higher sources to consult.

Counsel:
Why, indeed? Were you not a child once? Did you not act, think, learn as a child once?

DA:
Why is that important to anything? I'm not a child anymore.

Counsel:
When was that exactly that you stopped being a child, acting like a child, and thinking like a child? The problem is that we know exactly when we were a child, but we find it nearly impossible to explain when or how we actually stopped being a child. That's what's wrong with us. We think we aren't children, and in many ways we are not. But we will always retain some of our child-nature. Primarly, we do so when we think. It is Socrates who repeated over and over, name in the Mino, that he truly knows nothing. One of the wisest minds the world has ever known claims to know nothing. He always was searching for truth. As do I. Knowing that truth is bigger and more complex than I will ever be, I know that I will not get all of it, or even most of it. But I will always be trying.
And how do we go about it? Consulting higher sources. In the end, if you want to take the athist's point of view, what is the Church? The Church is a line of scholars starting 2000 years ago. They have been searching for the fullness of truth, as they have already found the fullness of life. These scholars have been dedicating every waking moment of their lives to the search. They have looked high and low. They have compared it to the baseline and have adapted each nugget as they can. They have uninterruptedly collected sources from 2000 years of history, and especially even before that. With all of the scholastic research and teaching and debates and searching, the Church has been, arguably, the longest running and largest source of inquiry into the truth in all of history (it is a big claim, and I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this too sometime). With millions of scholars, hundreds of thousands of debates, nearly every source of philosophy or religious document available to them, what is the Church? It is a higher source on the quest for truth. Remove God from the entire equation. The Church is an incredible amalgamation of knowledge.

Devil's Advocate:
But why do I, or anyone, need to consult a higher source? It's ridiculous. I think I'm right and that's enough for me.

Counsel:
Why, indeed? Why did you ever listen to your math teacher? Why did you ever listen to your parents? Why did you ever listen the news or read the paper? Why did you ever reference a dictionary or an encyclopedia? We were not born with omniscience. We must acquire knowledge from others. At a certain point though, some people think that they are beyond that point, regardless of their actions. The more one studies, the more one realizes how little he/she knows, this is basic wisdom. To further wisdom, one must then resolve to keep getting more information from higher sources.
I will rest with a quote from George Burns, "too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair."
on Jul 26, 2007
Thank you Dr Guy for writing this article. I'm glad that certain claims made against the Church are being addressed and refuted.

Regarding the Church's signing the 1933 Concordat with Germany and certain false accusations against Pope Pius XII as indulgent toward Nazism and indifferent (supposedly silent) to the fate of the victims of Nazi persecution, I would like to reference SConn1's blog entitled, "Catholic Church stands up for Saddam Hussein" written this last February.
In my view, now that the Vatican archives have been opened and according to testimonies, documents and private letters that have been made public, it has been shown
that Pope Pius and the Catholic Chruch did come to the aid and save persecuted Jews

DrGuy Posts:

I will also state, for the record again, that the vast majority (Cardinal Law not withstanding) of Catholics Abhor and detest the crimes of pedophelia within the church. And that it is Catholics who have brought it to light! I will also say that the pendulum has swung back - probably due to light being shown on this issue, so that now, there are a lot of allegations that are simply not true (and on that I have personal knowledge and evidential knowledge). But those allegations are still counted among the sins of the clergy, unfounded as they are.

Well said.


I've been following the sickening clerical sex abuse scandal rather closely ever since 2001.

Today, tthere are many excellent books that have comprehensively exposed the broad based, exceedingly aggressive homosexual network that entered the Church in the early 50's. There hasn't been a diocese or a Catholic who has been spared the anguish and embarrassment of seeing or reading of the evil deeds of priests and hierarchy. I believe as Paul Likoudis, author of “Amchurch Comes out” does “that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and is protected by Him; but it must be recognized that for a variety of complex social reasons, cliques of the ‘devil’ --to use Dostoyevsky’s term--managed to come to power in the Church and have used their power and the Church's resources to destroy her from the inside, to wreck her credibility, to sully her image, to make her appear ridiculous in the eyes of the world and in the minds of the faithful. In the end, they will be on the losing side of history, but the damage they have wrought will be enormous.” In the Gospels Jesus points to the wheat and the chaff that will always be present in the Church and the millstones prepared for those who corrupt the morals of the children--and adults---and the accounting that would be expected by prelates and priests at the Last Judgment.

Today, I hope and pray that the Church is being purified and what has been called the homosexual network is being routed out. The depth of the crisis has finally been exposed and the Church is working through the bitter aftermath...priests defrocked; some in prison, and the damage wrought to young souls untold.


Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien headed a seminary review that examined all 229 U.S. seminaries for "evidence of homosexuality," as well as for faculty members who dissent from Church teaching. The review has been completed but a final report is yet to be issued. The Vatican’s position (which makes it the Church’s position) insists that homosexual men must be barred from entering the seminary.





on Jul 26, 2007
"Simply because you have given up looking for the answers or grown tired of the search, doesn't mean that there aren't real answers."

I guess you don't know what the fuck you are talking about cowboy.

By the way, Barring homosexuals isn't going to solve any churches problem. What they need to do is dump the abusers, and the bishops that moved these abusers around the church, and any cardinals who approved of the bishops dealings. They also need to get on the side of the law and prosecute these abusers who have both damaged these peoples lives and the sacredness of the church.

However, there is a priest shortage so they are lowering standards just like the military which means those with questionable histories, suspected but not proven remain in the shadows of an organization that should be both ashamed and awakened.
on Jul 26, 2007
many excellent books that have comprehensively exposed the broad based, exceedingly aggressive homosexual network that entered the Church in the early 50's


if the church believes the problem is sexual orientation, a few more generations will become prey instead of learning to pray. predator priests are pedophiles. those who choose to molest boys are no better nor worse than those who molest girls.
on Jul 26, 2007
What they need to do is dump the abusers, and the bishops that moved these abusers around the church, and any cardinals who approved of the bishops dealings. They also need to get on the side of the law and prosecute these abusers who have both damaged these peoples lives and the sacredness of the church.


exactly. (we musta been posting simultaneously...great minds and all that)
on Jul 26, 2007
Kingbee posts:

if the church believes the problem is sexual orientation, a few more generations will become prey instead of learning to pray. predator priests are pedophiles. those who choose to molest boys are no better nor worse than those who molest girls.


We know now after the US Conference of Catholic Bishops ordered a national study on the extent of sexual abuse of minors since 1950-2002 (John Jay report) as well as a supplementary study of the causes and consequences that the problem is not clerical pedophilia, but homosexuality. The fact that 80 to 90% of the molester priests are homosexual hasn't been widely published or discussed isn't surprising becasue focusing on homosexuality even by predator priests, is taboo becasue society has been indoctrinated through homosexual propaganda to look upon homosexuality as just an alternative lifestyle.

But the facts and figures are there for those with eyes to see.

Pedophilia strictly speaking is the sexual molestation of a pre-pubescent child of either sex, and the overriding abuse is that of older children from 12 to 18 and as much as 90% of the cases are sexual abuse of teenage boys.


We don't have a pedophile crisis in the Chruch; it's a homosexual one that the Holy Father has properly addressed by the Vatican document that bans homosexuals from entering the seminaries and therefore the priesthood.





on Jul 26, 2007
Dr Guy posts:
Unfortunately, religion is made by man, and is thus susceptible to man's sins. That is the way it has always been, it is just more recognizable today due to the increase in communication.


Dan Greene posts:
Some would argue, true believers would argue that religion was made by God through man, yet I would argue and agree that of course religion is man made.



Dr Guy Posts:

I would say to them they are confusing faith with religion. Faith is devine in nature (in my case via the Holy Spirit), but the trappings that make up how we worship is religion, and that is all man made.


I think that religion is the natural (moral) and supernatural bond, a relationship that binds us to God. Everyone of us has the natural religion written on his heart--that is the power which prompts man to be good and to do good for the honor of the Supreme Good which is God Himself.


The Catholic religion centers on expression of our moral obligation to our fellow man, to our family, to the state and to society. These moral obligations rest upon knowing, loving and serving God.

Religion is a system of doctrine and worship that is considered to be of divine origin.

This is how religion is stated in the 1929 edition of the Catholic Dictionary.

"Religion in the widest sense is the union of man with God. Objectively, it consists in doctrines and precepts by which man seeks to bring aobut this union. Religion is true when its doctrines and precepts are either dictated by right reason or revealed by God. If the former, it is called natural religion. If the latter, supernatural religion. Religion is false if when claiming to be revealed it is unable to show a divine guarantee, or when its dogmas and practices sin against right reason and cnscience.

Subjectively, religion is the attitude of the man who rules his thoughts, words and actions according to right reason and revelation. In this latter sense, religion is a special virtue allied to justice becasue it prompts man to render to God what is due Him by strict right from His rational creatures. As such religion is a strict obligation incumbent on every man. It is also the means by which man is to work out his final destiny."

Religion is the basis of individual and social morality, therefore domestic infelicity, intemperance, economic injustice, dishonesty, crime, and treason increase to the degree that man departs from its precepts.



on Jul 27, 2007
DR Guy posts:
All Catholics have issues with the Church. That's what being Catholic is.

One of the basic doctrines is to question. For in questioning, we come to either a greater understanding,


And in the end, without a way to prove my version, versus your version, versus his or her version, what it comes down to is Faith. For faith is a belief, not a fact.


You're right about all Catholics having issues with the Church. I hadn't given much thought of it as such, but you're right. By the same token, the more I learn about the Chruch, the more solid my faith becomes.

I think religion calls for belief by both faith and study (examination). Religion begins with divine faith first which is an intellectual assent of the mind to something unseen. It's an acceptance of a truth upon the authority of someone else; in Catholicism it is divine authority, taking God at His word, that He has been handed down through His Apostles and their successors.
on Jul 27, 2007
We don't have a pedophile crisis in the Chruch; it's a homosexual one that the Holy Father has properly addressed


just as a dumbbell is neither dumb nor is it a bell, a pope more concerned with damage control than damage done to victims of his priests is neither holy nor any sort of father.

But the facts and figures are there for those with eyes to see.


and without axes to grind or goats to scape.

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

Other Approaches

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.



source
on Jul 27, 2007
society has been indoctrinated through homosexual propaganda to look upon homosexuality as just an alternative lifestyle.


huh?

you're claiming homosexuals (other than hypocrites like ted haggard) want the rest of us to believe their native sexual orientation is a 'lifestyle'?
8 Pages1 2 3 4  Last