Is the catholic church a force for good?

[Lion IRC]

In 1975, the Church issued a document called "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics"
(by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

That document explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of sexual immorality among priests.

As far back as 1967, the Catholic Church has been warning its bishops about the potential risks of perverts infiltratating the clergy. Risks, associated in no small part with the rapidly developing
''sexual revolution'' in which adultery, pornography, homosexuality and moral relativism (its all good!) were becoming more accepted.

[Darkstar]

The Church does NOT cover up criminal acts. The Church is the body which calls them crimes in THE FIRST PLACE!

This is what the Church says...

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:20)

Catholic sex abuse cases
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07...60367.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...rches.html

"This is what the Church says"
Exactly, what it says. The church does not promote child molestation nor does it officially condone such actions, and yet such actions have been covered up on a large scale. Is this consistent with church teachings? No. Hence my confusion over why it would be done.

[EGross]

The Church does NOT cover up criminal acts. The Church is the body which calls them crimes in THE FIRST PLACE!

It has recently been reported that a group of Vatican members have been blackmailed by the gay prostitutes that they have hired.

Ok, not really a crime.

It has been reported that the Vatican is ware of the acts of pederasty and have been using it's power to keep the offenders out of jail and to transfer them to other locales.

It obviously is not a real crime, just using clout to protect a dying religious structure.

The "Vatileaks" shows an abuse of power and an unwillingness to change.

You are right, nothing really illegal.

What they did to empower the Nazis during the Holocaust was also not a crime, it was just a black mark.

And their refusal of turning over the names of the Jewish children who were saved in WWII, but given over to Christian familes to be raised as good catholics, isn't really a crime either.

While it's earlier history of death squads and torture units certainly would have been called crimes, that's all in the past.

And that's why the head of the church is a living version of Dorian Grey - the corruption is there, but hey, look at those cute red shoes!

---

But I would not expect someone with an Avatar of an upside-down man to see reality right-side up!

[Lion IRC]

The Church does NOT cover up criminal acts. The Church is the body which calls them crimes in THE FIRST PLACE!

This is what the Church says...

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:20)

Catholic sex abuse cases
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07...60367.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...rches.html

"This is what the Church says"
Exactly, what it says. The church does not promote child molestation nor does it officially condone such actions, and yet such actions have been covered up on a large scale. Is this consistent with church teachings? No. Hence my confusion over why it would be done.

Would it help alleviate your confusion to learn that there are atheists and pedophiles hiding in the clergy doing stuff with a clear conscience because, unlike real Christian priests who do think God
exists and punishes such sins, those atheists and pedophiles DONT CARE WHAT GOD THINKS.

[Darkstar]

Would it help alleviate your confusion to learn that there are atheists and pedophiles hiding in the clergy doing stuff with a clear conscience because, unlike real Christian priests who do think God
exists and punishes such sins, those atheists and pedophiles DONT CARE WHAT GOD THINKS.

I think you're missing my point. While I doubt that pedophiles are automatically non-"true" Christians, that has never been my argument. Even if we assume that all of the child molesters aren't "true christians" (or christians at all) that doesn't change the fact that sex abuse in the church has been covered up on a large scale, in fact it makes it even more confusing that the higher ups didn't deal with it, if the molester priests weren't "true christians" or the equivalent.

[EGross]

Catholic sex abuse cases
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07...60367.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...rches.html

"This is what the Church says"
Exactly, what it says. The church does not promote child molestation nor does it officially condone such actions, and yet such actions have been covered up on a large scale. Is this consistent with church teachings? No. Hence my confusion over why it would be done.

Would it help alleviate your confusion to learn that there are atheists and pedophiles hiding in the clergy doing stuff with a clear conscience because, unlike real Christian priests who do think God
exists and punishes such sins, those atheists and pedophiles DONT CARE WHAT GOD THINKS.

Would you like to explain which Athiests promoted and perverted the teaching of the Church by starting the Crusades or inquisitions? Or the Church that sought to canonize Queen Isabella, the patron saint of the Inquisition? Did not a real Christian seek such a thing?

Or to include Protestants, was Martin Luther a real Christian when he wrote "The Jews and their Lies" and commanded his followers to attack and beat the heritic Jew? And those who obeyed, where they not true Christians?

Or were all of these Athiests? Was Pope "Pius" the XII an Athiest?

In other words. And while you may say that there are those who do bad because they do not believe in a God, I would dispute that and say that there are those who ARE believing Christians who DO believe in a God and demonstrate that morality does not come from the Church, but that humanity can be moral without its hypocricy.

Like the Christian who has a lapse and lusts after his neighbor's wife, even though he doesn't act upon it and is now doomed because the thought police God knows what he was thinking. Maybe he will get 10 minutes in Hell as a punishment. Who knows?

At that moment that he had that lapse, was he no longer a Christian? Was he suddenly an Athiest?

No, he was a Christian, and what he did harmed nobody (having a thought), but if he is a true Catholic, the guilt will set in and he will need to atone.

And I would suggest to you further that your perception that "not a real Christian" (in place of Athiest, since I doubt you know the truth of another's beliefs) did those things, then how do you explain the segments in the seminaries themselves, (something I can personally attest to), who will, as we have read recently, eventually will rise in status and have important roles in the Church, and get caught up in a male prostitute scandle?

These are Christians, not athiests. They just compartmentalize their God as a bit of convenience.

Power corrupts.

[Esquilax]

Darkstar, Egross, it's pointless. Lion's set aside his rationality in order to defend his faith, so it's obvious that nothing we can say to him will penetrate the shield of idiocy he's erected around him.

Honestly, if he's willing to believe that atheists have infiltrated the church (to what end, Lion? What are atheists likely to gain from this arrangement?) and that pedophiles have entered the church- apparently to take advantage of protection by the clergy when they rape a child, and yet still Lion sees no culpability for the church- then what's the point? There's apparently no depth of dishonesty and delusion that he's not willing to sink to for this. Why bother?

[EGross]

The problem is, and I experience this when I was a believer, is that when representatives of your faith, who are true practtioners of that faith, say or do disgusting things, you need to be loyal, or segregate them as part of a different segment of the same core faith, since your group doesn't do that, or leave.

I, like you, don't have such a problem anymore. There is freedom in being disconnected from idiots who claim that Hurricane Sandy was the result of [insert sin here].

[Gabriel Syme]

The Catholic Church is the single largest force for good in the world.

It provides 26% of the worlds total healthcare provision (it runs 117,000 hosptials and health-centres world wide). It provides free healthcare to millions of people, who have no other source of healthcare.

It is the world largest non-Governmental educational body. It provides education to millions of people worldwide, many of whom would otherwise go without. It champions the eglitarian nature of education - it is a human right - and in many societies, it is often the only organsiation which will educate female citizens.

It runs a global network of relief and aid agencies (CARITAS), which spends approx $2 billion on the poor and needy per annum.

Anyone clamining this record does not repesent the Church being a force for good in the world is a f*ck-wit basically. No other conclusion about such a person is possible.

The debate linked to in the original post is very poor (I have seen it before).

To give an example of how relevant its content is - none of the above info is mentioned within it.

Its is essentiallly a "bash the Catholic Chruch" event, not a serious debate. The anti-Catholic speakers were:

- Christopher Hitchens; an alcoholic, arrogant narcissist and attention seeker who would say anything - anything - no matter how outrageous, ridiculous or controvrsial, if he thought it would have got him some attention. His style of debate is to take the piss and act self-righteously - not look at the facts. He was a performing monkey essentially. His attacks on the Church convince only those who know nothing about the Church, Christianity, or History.

Christopher hated religion because he arrogantly felt he was too intelligent for it (same way he thought he was too intelligent for most things; such as common courtesy, good manners, advice on safe levels of alcohol drinkining etc).

I often felt sorry for Christopher when he was alive, he looked like he could be great company, but often seemed to be a very bitter man - as people who need the crutch of alcohol, every day, often are.

- Stephen Fry; a self-regarding homosexual man who - like many homosexual people - cannot seem to adopt an objective view of his disordered sexuality. In the modern day he is famous for nothing, bar being a famous homosexual (20 years ago, he was a decent small-time bit-part actor in comedies - Blackadder, Jeeves and Wooster etc) .

He dislikes the Catholic Church because it has the courage to tell the truth about human sexuality -a truth which he would prefer not to hear. He even has the audacity to say "What is it for?" to applause from the crowd, as though the point of the Catholic Church is not obvious, or cannot easily be found out. (Hint - its for doing the type of massive good listed above, you stupid-ass bufter).

What these men have in common is that their public personas are carefully honed acts. They are also both very charming, erudite speakers - and this fact alone often seduces people to believe what they say, never mind the accuracy of what they say.

In opposition, the program organisers chose a batty old woman, (who - quite apart from religion, is already viewed in the UK as a figure of fun), and an African Bishop who spoke only heavily accented english and at times seemed to struggle to follow what was being said - a very strange choice, given they could easily have invited any UK clergyman, who has english as his first language.

Even with its choice of those who are chosen to represent Catholicism, the program maker is subtely trying to influence the viewer, before the show even begins.

The producers want the anti-Catholic postion advanced by charming, funny, eloquent men. But the Catholic position must be advanced by an an elderly lady and a clergyman from the 3rd world. The subliminal messages being sent here are very clear, for those who have the wit to recognise them.

Ultimately, as the debate does not feature any info, such as I give above, and most of the simpletons in the audience voted agaisnt the Church, it shows how skewed and removed from reality which many secular peoples perceptions of religion are.

Many secular people base their opinions on what they have been told by the likes of Fry and Hitchins, they do not like to inestigate and find things out for themselves.

---

galileo may disagree.

If you disagree with the other poster about the massive ongoing contribution the Catholic Church has made to science, pleases visit my "Science v religion" thread in this forum.

I have been massively underwhelmed by the reponse to it so far.

Normally atheists like to suggest religion is anti-science, or "stupid shit" (to use your own terminolgy).

But - as in my thread - when asked to substantiate and defend this position....they cannot* - why do you think this is? Is it maybe because they dont really know what they are talking about?

(*if they can - we are still waiting).

[EGross]

So we have a scale? On one side, all of the good. And on the other side, a pile of corpses and emotionally and physically tortured beings.

You want to argue that the side where the pile of dead and wrecked bodies is not as heavy as the side that represents the charity work.

I suppose that one could make the argument that the Chuch is the "New Church" and all of the horrible things of the past has been erased.

But you speak of people who despise what the church actually stands for cannot think for themselves.

I would suggest that the opposite argument is the true one.

Theft, murder, torture, refusing to save lives, rape, pederasty, and so much more. Even if you say "New Pope, we start over", we all know that some of it will continue. The stolen papers from the last Pope expressed his dismay that the guys running the show are unwilling to be a force for good.

---

The Catholic Church needs a new Martin Luther, but a nice one this time!