Support NeoGAF

[Foxix Von]

Check out: The Dream and The Tomb, by Robert Payne. Very well written, almost reads like a story, lots of attention to the major "characters", and it has viewpoints from both "sides".

*googles* alright now this is something I can get behind, this looks awesome. Thanks

 

[Monocle]

He called gay marriage 'demonic in origin', a 'destructive pretension against the plan of God'. He insists that adoption of children by gay couples is discrimination against children.

The pope doesn't deserve respect.

Yep, he's a raging bigot. I wish him the professional and personal misfortune he so richly deserves for attacking the very people he should be wielding his influence to help. I despise the hypocrisy he represents.

 

[akira28]

This is 100% wrong. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Catholicism is not Protestantism. You can be Unitarian, Lutheran, Baptist, Full Gospel, etc. without belonging to a church.

You are not a Catholic without the sacraments.

Hell,the entire idea of the Mass is oriented around the three: liturgy of the word, the liturgy of the eucharist and communion. There's a reason two thirds of mass is effectively oriented around the eucharist - it's THE critical symbolic rite of the Catholic faith.

The problem with this is that The Church has wedged itself in quite the strategic space, within the eye of the needle, where it doesn't really belong.

And now the Church shows itself incapable of being a responsible body.


although some people referring to "the Catholic Church 100%", may not know how truly large the body is. The body is troubled, but the problem is the controlling body of the vatican. The body at large is always in danger of being diluted by the church followers, and the leadership sees it as their role to combat against that, or at least defend the conservative values.

 

[el retorno]

Right, so get some of your friends together and form a church and do that. There have been schisms before. Don't belong to an organization which is subordinate to the actual Vatican we have. Form a true-Church-in-exile.

If God commanding that everyone support this particular, horrible institution is an inherent part of the religion, then, fine, the religion is evil.

This really ignorant. You can't form a new Church, there is only one in the Catholic belief system. Christ ordained it when according to catholics he made Peter pope

 

[TheNatural]

You are complicit in the action if you are aware yet don't criticize the US for it's infractions against human rights, yes.

If you're going to discuss something, you always discuss both sides of the coin. That tends not to happen when people think of things in black or white with no middle ground.

 

[FyreWulff]

Benedict XVI didn't cover up child abuse cases. In fact, he was quite severe against pedophile priests.

.

Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Mo., was found guilty of failing to tell authorities about a priest suspected of sexually exploiting children. Finn was the first U.S. bishop convicted of protecting a priest in a sexual abuse case. Finn remains in office.

 

[Caboose]

This is all very entertaining.

When are ya gonna take out the shovel and bury them all, Hunner?

 

[Gotchaye]

This really ignorant. You can't form a new Church, there is only one in the Catholic belief system. Christ ordained it when according to catholics he made Peter pope

Uh... this doesn't seem to bother the Eastern Orthodox folks. I thought I was pretty clear that what I was describing was a rejection of the legitimacy of the particular institution in the Vatican as the one true Church.

I want to say that Mormons also do their own thing despite thinking there's only one true church.

 

[Deified Data]

By this logic, I'm personally responsible for everything the US government covered up or ever committed an act of malice because I'm a US citizen.

You're a citizen, not a part of the government. Individuals within an organization are held accountable on an individual basis, but as organizations the US government is responsible for war and the Catholic church is responsible for covering up abuse. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. My argument is that the Catholic church as a whole is amoral, not that all Catholics are amoral for belonging to the church.

But that's not unusual, the army has covered up sexual abuse for decades, Jewish Orthodox communities still do it to the point where parents of abused children are expelled when they go to law enforcement for help. As horrible as it is, it's not unusual for people that have gathered a lot of power to value their reputation above anything, including Justice for the most heinous crimes.

Indeed. I dispute none of that.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Ugh can y'all spin this off into another thread so we can talk about the history of the papacy and what this means for the Catholic Church? I'm saying this an athiest, this is ridiculous now.

Seriously.

 

[el retorno]

.

I don't know if he's right but that doesn't say anything about the former pope...

The catholic church is a huge organization with thousands of priests the Pope isn't watching every single one. That's not to say that the Church shouldn't set up a better way of finding these offending priests but every example of misconduct isn't the pope covering it up.

 

[akira28]

Uh... this doesn't seem to bother the Eastern Orthodox folks. I thought I was pretty clear that what I was describing was a rejection of the legitimacy of the particular institution in the Vatican as the one true Church.

Who? You mean the people we don't acknowledge anymore? We ignore their phone calls and don't see them on the street? Never heard of them.

I want to say that Mormons also do their own thing despite thinking there's only one true church.

yeah pretty sure even a Catholic bishop of the most ornate cathedral ever would balk at the marble pools and giant horned cattle statues. They'd be like "umm....this is kinda wiiierd."

 

[zkylon]

Trending in Argentina right now: #LosArgentinosDominamosElMundo

Means "argies rule the world".

rofl

 

[Foxix Von]

The scientific method is appropriate to apply to "belief systems" as long as those belief systems make any objective claims about reality, which Catholicism does.

It wouldn't be of much use for critiquing religion as a whole though, only the parts of it which claim to have an acting effect on reality, no?. The overall scope of the criticism would be pretty narrow I'd imagine.

 

[G-Unit]

I'm done here, footballgaf here I go.

Freedom of speech and respect!

Yeah im dying without that ever happening, humanity sucks

 

[KtSlime]

This really ignorant. You can't form a new Church, there is only one in the Catholic belief system. Christ ordained it when according to catholics he made Peter pope

Or did he make Mary Pope?

I don't think we know enough about the formation of the early Church to say they didn't make some things up, things that would put them in a very strategic place of power and control.

TheNatural: I'd like to know which side of the coin is "shuffle around priests so they don't get prosecuted for raping children" sits on.

 

[el retorno]

Uh... this doesn't seem to bother the Eastern Orthodox folks. I thought I was pretty clear that what I was describing was a rejection of the legitimacy of the particular institution in the Vatican as the one true Church.

I want to say that Mormons also do their own thing despite thinking there's only one true church.

Yes, but you're saying that they have to change their faith or have a giant schism not to be bigots. Why can't they fight for change within the institution?

I still voted and participated in the US government during the Bush Administration even if he was doing things I thought were wrong. Was I supposed to reject the legitimacy of the government if I didn't think he was fulfilling his duties or do I respect the institution while doing and attempting to do everything in my power to change it?

Or did he make Mary Pope?

I don't think we know enough about the formation of the early Church to say they didn't make some things up, things that would put them in a very strategic place of power and control.

I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of that. Just that is their belief and dogma, I'm not a catholic. I'm pretty sure the bible made some stuff up and exagerated stuff that didn't actually happen

 

[BlackJace]

Very few people here have any idea of what they are talking about.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Very few people here have any idea of what they are talking about.

Good thing you're here to set some things straight.

 

[TheNatural]

You're a citizen, not a part of the government. Individuals within an organization are held accountable on an individual basis, but as organizations the US government is responsible for war and the Catholic church is responsible for covering up abuse. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. My argument is that the Catholic church as a whole is amoral, not that all Catholics are amoral for belonging to the church.

It depends on what and who you're defining. It's a very small amount of people complicit in both actions. The neighborhood priest who does nothing but good and helps the poor and has been at a parish for years is a lot different than the high level archbishop that knows something and has control over it. Most priests are ground level neighborhood priests with a small community.

It pisses me off when people generalize a giant amount of people because of the 0.0000001% actually in power.

"TheNatural: I'd like to know which side of the coin is "shuffle around priests so they don't get prosecuted for raping children"' sits on."

The 0.0000001% who actually have control of that. No different than the 0.0000001% that decided to spend trillions on wars the US populace was against over the past 60 plus years. I know I don't appreciate it when radicals want me to fucking die or go away because I live in the US because something I don't control happens.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

I love how there is an "Americas" vs "America" argument between all this noise, what else can we add?

 

[BlackJace]

Good thing you're here to set some things straight.

What am I to say without setting people off? We have two sides flinging shit at each other. There's no way to return this thread to an acceptable level of discourse.

 

[el retorno]

It depends on what and who you're defining. It's a very small amount of people complicit in both actions. The neighborhood priest who does nothing but good and helps the poor and has been at a parish for years is a lot different than the high level archbishop that knows something and has control over it. Most priests are ground level neighborhood priests with a small community.

It pisses me off when people generalize a giant amount of people because of the 0.0000001% actually in power.

"TheNatural: I'd like to know which side of the coin is "shuffle around priests so they don't get prosecuted for raping children"' sits on."

The 0.0000001% who actually have control of that. No different than the 0.0000001% that decided to spend trillions on wars the US populace was against over the past 60 plus years. I know I don't appreciate it when radicals want me to fucking die or go away because I live in the US because something I don't control happens.

The catholic church is very much like a government (Only two states can even fathom having that many people under their rule) so I completely agree with your analogy

 

[ElectricBlue187]

First non European pope in, oh, 1200 fucking years holy shitttt

 

[TheNatural]

The catholic church is very much like a government (Only two states can even fathom having that many people under their rule) so I completely agree with your analogy

Yes, but you're saying that they have to change their faith or have a giant schism not to be bigots. Why can't they fight for change within the institution?

I still voted and participated in the US government during the Bush Administration even if he was doing things I thought were wrong. Was I supposed to reject the legitimacy of the government if I didn't think he was fulfilling his duties or do I respect the institution while doing and attempting to do everything in my power to change it?

Good post as well.

 

[el retorno]

First non European pope in, oh, 1200 fucking years holy shitttt

we also had the first pope to resign in a long ass time.

 

[WedgeX]

Bishop Gumbleton of Detroit seems to like Francis I.

Retired Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, a well-known peace activist and liberal Catholic, said today that he was pleased with the selection of the newly elected Pope Francis, an Argentinian cardinal who became the first pope ever chosen from Latin America.

“So far, terrific,” Gumbleton said.

Gumbleton noted Bergoglio’s Jesuit training and the choice of his name -- Francis -- which appears to pay homage to St. Francis of Assissi, the 13th-Century saint who is one of the most recognized in the world. St. Francis was known for living a life of simplicity and service to poor people.

“St. Francis tried to live the radical gospel view of Jesus – simplicity, poverty and he didn’t want a hierarchy. All of those signs look very promising,” Gumbleton said.

“He lives a Franciscan life, even though he’s a Jesuit,” Gumbleton said. Bergoglio also is the first Jesuit, a member of the order of the Society of Jesus, to become the leader of the Catholic Church.

“He lives in a small apartment … doesn’t have a cook or housekeeper,” Gumbleton said, comparing the new pope to the lifestyle of other Catholic prelates.

 

[Gotchaye]

Yes, but you're saying that they have to change their faith or have a giant schism not to be bigots. Why can't they fight for change within the institution?

I still voted and participated in the US government during the Bush Administration even if he was things I thought were wrong. Was I supposed to reject the legitimacy of the government if I didn't think he was fulfilling his duties or do I respect the institution while doing and attempting to do everything in my power to change it?

IMO, because it's basically irredeemable and because there's no good reason not to leave. There are obvious reasons not to try to secede from the United States, but the Vatican doesn't have a whole lot of coercive power. The US government is also basically democratic, whereas the Vatican is authoritarian; when you leave a democracy, you empower your political opponents directly, but when you leave an authoritarian institution you only weaken the leadership. There are undoubtedly some people who are in a position where they might be able to do more good inside the system than outside, but even for many people in the official hierarchy, leaving would send a more powerful message than anything they can do from inside. The only clear exceptions I can see are people who are reliant on the goodwill of the institution - low-level employees of the Church, say. I think pretty much everyone else is obliged not to give them any money, at the very least.

 

[Freezie KO]

It wouldn't be of much use for critiquing religion as a whole though, only the parts of it which claim to have an acting effect on reality, no?. The overall scope of the criticism would be pretty narrow I'd imagine.

Well, that's why I included the initial critique of "factual inaccuracies about how the world works" with other critiques of the Church's moral/subjective opinions such as "gays are bad" and "condoms are bad."

You're correct though that the factual/objective critiques of religion are different than subjective critiques about whether or not homosexuals are evil who shouldn't adopt children. Once the factual/objective critiques are established, however, it becomes much more difficult for people to build a foundation for their morality based on the same institution.

For instance, let's say there was a book that claimed the Earth was created in 7 days. This same book said to stone gays because they're evil. Those are two distinct claims. But once the first claim is effectively disproven, the book's sense of authority and legitimacy is harmed. So while the factual/objective critique is separate from the subjective critique, they're not entirely unrelated.

I think this plays to the larger question of why anyone would tie something like "Condoms are evil," into something actionable like "Let's donate money to help poor people." Aside from the fact that you're actively giving harmful information to the people you're allegedly helping, you carry unnecessary baggae with you. Effectively, it'd be better to just have an organization that merely helped the poor without the silliness.

 

[Fenderputty]

Every priest did that though right? Everyone who walked into a church did that? That's who you're generalizing. The Catholic church isn't one little building, it's hundreds of thousands of different people involved on every level in every city of the world. 99.999% of people who go to a Catholic church haven't seen a high position Cardinal in their lives.

Some of you are so full of shit it's funny. You bitch on an internet forum when it's convenient for you.

If you don't believe in a certain religion or political movement, then of course it's convenient to point out all the horrible acts involved with people in that organization, then generalize everyone else in it as exactly the same.

But when it's something someone likes or supports then it's a different story. "Oh hey Apple has a new shiny iPhone. Who gives a fuck some of the people who made my shiny new product are committing suicide because they're paid slave labor wages for 80 hours a week, ooh a new charger."

This bullshit gets old. If a part of something I'm not in does something bad, then 100% of everyone in it is bad, and 100% of everyone in it should fuck off and die.

This is a giant crock of shit. Sure a lot of priests and vast majority of the Catholic Church members don't agree with all the pedophilia, but the Church as an organization did nothing to curb such behavior. All they did was cover things up and push it under the rug until it couldn't be hidden any longer. Moving priests and dodging court rooms is absurd. There was a thread on here regarding a rather prominent father in NY who even implied that children are the seductors in many of these cases. The main organization that sets and enforces the doctrine and course of the church is corrupt as fuck. What I don't understand is how Catholics continue to be members of such an organizaion. If the church is willing to hide child predetors, why would one assume they have any moral authority over anything ... ever.

EDIT: Apple doesn't sell me morality or paths to heaven.

Nope. I get that you need it for various religious sacraments but if you identify as it and don't want to deal with the Catholic Church then why should you have to denounce being Catholic? That's pretty self-defeating and makes it that much easier to force a connection with such a rotten institution.

If you don't go to church to confess your sins, then they're not absolvesd. If you don't believe you need the church to absolve your sins, you're Catholic in name only. Why would one willingly be Catholic and not absolve their sins? That's like willinglly going to hell.

 

[el retorno]

Also people need to realize that the Pope is not anything like Jesus, he can do things wrong (papal infallibility is widely misunderstood) and the Church can and probably will backtrack on many issues like gay rights (they might not accept marriage but that's a different story) and not lose authority.

 

[Gotchaye]

IMO, because it's basically irredeemable and because there's no good reason not to leave. There are obvious reasons not to try to secede from the United States, but the Vatican doesn't have a whole lot of coercive power. The US government is also basically democratic, whereas the Vatican is authoritarian; when you leave a democracy, you empower your political opponents directly, but when you leave an authoritarian institution you only weaken the leadership. There are undoubtedly some people who are in a position where they might be able to do more good inside the system than outside, but even for many people in the official hierarchy, leaving would send a more powerful message than anything they can do from inside. The only clear exceptions I can see are people who are reliant on the goodwill of the institution - low-level employees of the Church, say. I think pretty much everyone else is obliged not to give them any money, at the very least.

To expand on this, even if someone were a freakin' Cardinal, surely they would have a much bigger impact on the Vatican by loudly leaving the institution while declaiming the various horrible things it does than by remaining inside and quietly trying to nudge it on to a better path without ever making it very obvious what their actual politics are. Really, the Pope and very likely candidates for Pope seem like the only people who could really do more good inside than by loudly exiting, and you don't get to be Pope without a long paper trail of bigotry such that it's unlikely you would actually desire to do good there, although there is always hope that a Pope will really crack down on the child abuse stuff.

 

[Red Liquorice]

Gawd. He looks even jollier than the last one. Hope they put some odour-eaters in those ruby slippers for him.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Also people need to realize that the Pope is not anything like Jesus, he can do things wrong (papal infallibility is widely misunderstood) and the Church can and probably will backtrack on many issues like gay rights (they might not accept marriage but that's a different story) and not lose authority.

The Church has become more and more right wing lately. Hopefully the new Pope changes that but I kinda doubt it.

 

[el retorno]

What I don't understand is how Catholics continue to be members of such an organizaion. If the church is willing to hide child predetors, why would one assume they have any moral authority over anything ... ever.

The Catholic Church as also defended slavery, executions, conquests and hundreds of horrible things. Why is Child abuse now something that pushes them over the edge? The Church doesn't say it can't do wrong.

I forget what their doctrinal stance is. I think its something about how they never "teach anything wrong"

The Church has become more and more right wing lately. Hopefully the new Pope changes that but I kinda doubt it.

The Church hasn't "become more right wing" they just haven't changed with the rest of the world. They will eventually either that or they will die out in places that have (I can see them staying relevant in places like Africa which is much more traditional in social issues)

 

[Jackpot]

Benedict XVI didn't cover up child abuse cases. In fact, he was quite severe against pedophile priests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As a cardinal Ratzinger personally chaired a meeting on a paedophile priest and approved his transfer to another diocese, and was even updated when he returned to duties. Didn't even consider referring the guy to the police. The priest went on to molest children for a second time.

Funny. Unless he shows true remorse for those actions, by his own rules, he's going to Hell.

 

[ComputerMKII]

The Church has become more and more right wing lately. Hopefully the new Pope changes that but I kinda doubt it.

Discussing the Church in terms of left-right politics is a bad idea.

 

[el retorno]

Gawd. He looks even jollier than the last one. Hope they put some odour-eaters in those ruby slippers for him.

Reminds me of Woody Allen in that picture.

 

[Fenderputty]

The Catholic Church as also defended slavery, executions, conquests and hundreds of horrible things. Why is Child abuse now something that pushes them over the edge? The Church doesn't say it can't do wrong.

I forget what their doctrinal stance is. I think its something about how they never "teach anything wrong"

Those are all very valid reasons to question the catholic church. I left before my confirmation, but started questioning early on. I remember learning about the dark ages and how the church was corrupt during these times. How they extorted money out of people for paths to heaven and how they used Latin to keep the congregations ignorant to actual doctrine.

I had already left the Church by the time these child predation cases were coming out. This was before I had lost my faith too.

I honestly think most people figure, "different times" when trying to rationalize the things in your post though.

 

[TheNatural]

Apple doesn't sell me morality or paths to heaven.

LOL what the fuck does it matter WHAT someone is selling if you're supporting something that the 0.00001% in power of that organization have done if they've been a part of some malicious act.

The oh so high and mighty keyboard activists keep saying "well there's no reason to support them at all because of that 0.000001%" Yet if you give me a list of every product or item you own, I can point out some horrible human rights violation they've done or covered up, that you probably already knew about, but didn't bother you a bit. Wonder how many people here smoke and give money to the biggest cancer producing product in human history so they can keep getting generations down the line hooked until they die from it?

Meanwhile you're generalizing people like the run of the mill priest who's probably put in more work for the poor in a month than you have your entire life.

Damn it's so easy to tell other people how to live their life and where to put their time because of what that 0.00001 power do. As long as it's not me right?

 

[teruterubozu]

I like that he's a Jesuit, but hmmm that may be about it.

 

[Monocle]

TheNatural's made up statistics sure make his point compelling.

 

[el retorno]

Those are all very valid reasons to question the catholic church. I left before my confirmation, but started questioning early on. I remember learning about the dark ages and how the church was corrupt during these times. How they extorted money out of people for paths to heaven and how they used Latin to keep the congregations ignorant to actual doctrine.

I had already left the Church by the time these child predation cases were coming out. This was before I had lost my faith too.

I honestly think most people figure, "different times" when trying to rationalize the things in your post though.

The Church hasn't said that it endorses the child abuse so to me it feels like they're drawing a line in a way that doesn't make much sense, the catholic church is the one true church for them I don't see how the ages change anything. I mean I'm not a catholic so I understand why someone would leave but I understand why someone would stay in.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

TheNatural's made up statistics sure make his point compelling.

He got a sassy mouth.

 

[Monocle]

The Church has become more and more right wing lately. Hopefully the new Pope changes that but I kinda doubt it.

I think there was at least one fairly progressive candidate, but naturally he wasn't picked.

 

[Jackpot]

"well there's no reason to support them at all because of that 0.000001%"

In Belgium, every single Catholic church was found to have a paedophile scandal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ch-escaped-sex-abuse-finds-investigation.html

Slightly more than one millionth of the clergy.

 

[NeonZ]

If you don't go to church to confess your sins, then they're not absolvesd.

There's such thing as mass confessions nowadays. You don't need to talk directly with a priest if you don't want to do that, just go to a mass with a confession segment.

Several texts written by people acknowledged as "Saints" by the Church also mention salvation by praying or works. So, it's not that one sided.

Why would one willingly be Catholic and not absolve their sins? That's like willinglly going to hell.

Catholics do have the concept of purgatory though. You don't need to be sinless when you die, you just need to not be sinful enough to avoid going straight to hell.

I think this plays to the larger question of why anyone would tie something like "Condoms are evil," into something actionable like "Let's donate money to help poor people." Aside from the fact that you're actively giving harmful information to the people you're allegedly helping, you carry unnecessary baggae with you.

Well, the Church doesn't just say that Condoms are evil though, they say that casual sex shouldn't be practiced, and Condoms should be avoided because they're tied to that kind of behavior. "Condoms are evil" is only harmful information if you only get half of the Church's message.

 

[ComputerMKII]

In Belgium, every single Catholic church was found to have a paedophile scandal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ch-escaped-sex-abuse-finds-investigation.html

Slightly more than one millionth of the clergy.

It's not a problem with the Catholic church, it's a problem with Belgium. Sick shit happens all the time there.

 

[Salsa]

oh fuck as a fellow south american: not an argentinian! fuck!

 

[TheNatural]

In Belgium, every single Catholic church was found to have a paedophile scandal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ch-escaped-sex-abuse-finds-investigation.html

Slightly more than one millionth of the clergy.

124 victims over 40 years and I'm guessing most were multiple offenders. There are over 400,000 priests worldwide, not counting how many may have served from 1950 until now that have passed.

I would like to see a total incident number, but I'm going to guess it's not up to even a 1% total rate.