What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

Well that's because Pius XII was an appeaser and was very wary of offending Hitler, not to mention he always considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. The last one addressing the German Reich was Mit brennender Sorge (as I mentioned the one penned by Achille Ratti never was officially proclaimed) and from then until March 19 1945 when Pius XII released Ben Volontieri the Papacy was more or less silent on the matter . Mother Pascalina amongst others did do much to help Italian Jews, but that was always off the books without official sanction.

You've read the Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi David Dalin?

Is it your opinion that the non-believers here have anything like the formal training you have? If not, why bother? There are other venues where your intellect and education will be put to better tests.

I doubt it, who would want to waste their life getting a degree in what most here would consider folklore or mythology? I didn't really come here to have academic debates, I came mostly looking for other non-believers to chat to since I spend the vast majority of my time surrounded by believers. It's nice having somewhere to talk about other things with similar minded people.

Catholics have Catholic get togethers don't they? What's so strange about me wanting to talk to other non believers?[/quote]

But then you engage me in a discussion of the very topics you want to get away from. What's up with that?

This is something that I think is very telling...in an atheist forum, the subforum with the most threads and views is the Christianity forum. And right now, for any number of reasons (not all of them positive I concede), I'm the one everyone is enjoying taking shots at.

Either way, you're obviously not talking about "other things with similar minded people". Your talking about Catholicism with me.

If there is no God, then for what purpose does the pope need to control us? And if there is a God, again, for what purpose does the pope need to control us?

Finally, has your study focused primarily on the historical issues surrounding the Church? Or would you say you have a solid formation in scripture also?

Power I personally think. For much the same reason men have always waged war, they want fame, they want wealth, they want to have power over their fellow man. I think Catholicism has over the centuries developed an increasingly autocratic bent, really rather reminiscent of the late Roman Empire. You ask why the Pope needs to control you? I don't think he actually does anymore on a financial front, the Vatican bank propped up with the funds from the Lateran Treaty and the nothing short of miraculous fund raising powers of Cardinal Spellman barely more than half a century ago has ensured the Catholic Church no longer requires it's members to prop it up financially as it sits as one of the biggest players on the stock market. What the curia may need people for is support, money's all well and good but you never get what you want done without boots on the ground acting out your ideas.

And what would be the ideas that I'm supposed to be acting out on behalf of the Vatican, Metis? (I need to know in case I'm not doing something!)

That said while religion is a curious device and can be set up for a purpose sometimes it supersedes it. We know Shinto was set up solely to promote awe and reverence of the Japanese emperor who claimed to be the son of God. When the Emperor finally falls after World War two and renounces his claim does the religion end? No, it carries on. Now it has no purpose, its values and rituals are so deeply ingrained in Japanese culture it rolls on ahead without a pilot. The Catholic Church is organized in a manner suited to a large fiefdom, now it commands a far larger population but without the temporal power to force it's laws. Its lead to an interesting change of tactic alright, moving from direct force to financial lobbying and influencing politicians indirectly. It has adapted better than most, and I suspect it will do so for centuries to come as it devises new ways to explain changes within.

That's going to be a great disappointment from your co-non-religionists here.

I don't profess to know what the Pope wants, Francis appears to me a rather amiable man. I don't doubt it is likely he truly believes he is doing the best he can for humanity. Just because one is in the leading position doesn't mean one always understands everything about how what you command came to be. Forgive me if this sounds vague Randy, Religion is a difficult subject to grasp anyway (most Religious Studies/Theology students would argue it's actually a non-category since it can be used to describe just about anything) but religious motives are far less concrete, and the line between a divinely inspired and mundane reason for something are often fairly blurred and subjective.

As for my training? My Bachelors was more historical based with about a third of my time spent on scripture. When I attended the Orthodox seminary my studies were almost exclusivley scriptural and doctrinal, but I did elect to do that as well since I felt my understanding of Church History was already very broad.

One other personal question:

Your an atheist which means you are opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.
You have degrees from a Protestant university, which means you have studied theology which is opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.
You have a degree from an Orthodox university which means you have studied MORE theology opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Do you think it is possible for you to be objective about what the Catholic Church teaches?

And if so, then what has Catholicism gotten right?