[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12868768
...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for.
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of religion...
Pedophiles come on all creeds... Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Atheists, you name it.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12868768
...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for.
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of religion...
Pedophiles come on all creeds... Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Atheists, you name it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it's a tad difficult for an atheist to rape children systematically and have them shut up due to indoctrination and dogma, saying the priest is right, and you shut the fuck up about what happens within the tightly-shut community, isn't it?
...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for.
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of religion...
Pedophiles come on all creeds... Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Atheists, you name it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it's a tad difficult for an atheist to rape children systematically and have them shut up due to indoctrination and dogma, saying the priest is right, and you shut the fuck up about what happens within the tightly-shut community, isn't it?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12868768
...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for.
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of religion...
Pedophiles come on all creeds... Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Atheists, you name it.[/QUOTE]
But the Catholic Church hierarchy has large history of looking the other way and covering up the crimes of their priests. I hope the heads of other religions are better than the bishops, cardinals (and prior pope) of the Catholic Church.
...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for.
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of religion...
Pedophiles come on all creeds... Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Atheists, you name it.[/QUOTE]
But the Catholic Church hierarchy has large history of looking the other way and covering up the crimes of their priests. I hope the heads of other religions are better than the bishops, cardinals (and prior pope) of the Catholic Church.
FUCK THE POPE
HAHAHA
HOW FUNNY I AM
YOU BASTARDS
HAHAHA
HOW FUNNY I AM
YOU BASTARDS
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]freddieistheloveofmylife_89 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What do you really know about the Catholic church? Are you Catholic? Or do you just get your knowledge from the media puts out?
It is ignorance to judge a group of over a billion people on the acts of a few.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm certainly well-informed regarding the history of the catholic church, and I definitely wasn't pointing a finger at every parishioner in its history. But let's look at the history: surpressing other faiths and their scripture (Gnostics and surely others), the crusades, the inquisition, killing the pope before JPII (it's obvious; he was too liberal for them, and there was no autopsy), JPII fighting AIDS by telling Africa not to use condoms "because they have holes in them", and surely other atrocities I just haven't read about yet. The catholic church has a record that no other institution can match. On the subject of fighting AIDS in Africa, it's the non-catholic countries that are doing the best so far.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes, but it's a tad difficult for an atheist to rape children systematically and have them shut up due to indoctrination and dogma, saying the priest is right, and you shut the fuck up about what happens within the tightly-shut community, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Very good point. Can't argue with you there!
It is ignorance to judge a group of over a billion people on the acts of a few.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm certainly well-informed regarding the history of the catholic church, and I definitely wasn't pointing a finger at every parishioner in its history. But let's look at the history: surpressing other faiths and their scripture (Gnostics and surely others), the crusades, the inquisition, killing the pope before JPII (it's obvious; he was too liberal for them, and there was no autopsy), JPII fighting AIDS by telling Africa not to use condoms "because they have holes in them", and surely other atrocities I just haven't read about yet. The catholic church has a record that no other institution can match. On the subject of fighting AIDS in Africa, it's the non-catholic countries that are doing the best so far.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes, but it's a tad difficult for an atheist to rape children systematically and have them shut up due to indoctrination and dogma, saying the priest is right, and you shut the fuck up about what happens within the tightly-shut community, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Very good point. Can't argue with you there!
Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa?
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.
ugh, the Catholic Church is just too overrated...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa?
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa?
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.[/QUOTE]
Once again, that's a load of bullshit to justify your point of view, Caspar.
First of all, I come from a country where 95% of the people are Catholic, and probably less than 5% of those people agree completely agree with what the Catholic church says.
My grandmother happens to be the most devout Catholic person I know in my family. She goes to church every single Sunday, and prays the rosary all the time. Yet, she agrees with the right to use euthanasia and most of the time she votes for moderate liberals. When the stories of child abuse by priests came on the news, she agreed that if proven guilty they should be prosecuted like anybody else, and the church shouldn't cover up any evidence.
She also agrees that a lot of people twist religion in order to push their own agenda.
So you see, Caspar. Even Catholics are not as narrow minded as you think they are. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusations based on generalizations.
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.[/QUOTE]
Once again, that's a load of bullshit to justify your point of view, Caspar.
First of all, I come from a country where 95% of the people are Catholic, and probably less than 5% of those people agree completely agree with what the Catholic church says.
My grandmother happens to be the most devout Catholic person I know in my family. She goes to church every single Sunday, and prays the rosary all the time. Yet, she agrees with the right to use euthanasia and most of the time she votes for moderate liberals. When the stories of child abuse by priests came on the news, she agreed that if proven guilty they should be prosecuted like anybody else, and the church shouldn't cover up any evidence.
She also agrees that a lot of people twist religion in order to push their own agenda.
So you see, Caspar. Even Catholics are not as narrow minded as you think they are. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusations based on generalizations.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa?
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.[/QUOTE]
Once again, that's a load of bullshit to justify your point of view, Caspar.
First of all, I come from a country where 95% of the people are Catholic, and probably less than 5% of those people agree completely agree with what the Catholic church says.
My grandmother happens to be the most devout Catholic person I know in my family. She goes to church every single Sunday, and prays the rosary all the time. Yet, she agrees with the right to use euthanasia and most of the time she votes for moderate liberals. When the stories of child abuse by priests came on the news, she agreed that if proven guilty they should be prosecuted like anybody else, and the church shouldn't cover up any evidence.
She also agrees that a lot of people twist religion in order to push their own agenda.
So you see, Caspar. Even Catholics are not as narrow minded as you think they are. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusations based on generalizations.[/QUOTE]
I have a mother who comes from Africa and experienced this first-hand. Whoops. I think I'm qualified.
Religion is a very important aspect of life there, and especially amongst the poor, a large majority, almost all of them black and poorly educated. The only things they hear of the world beyond the borders of their community comes from the priest, who echoes Rome. Of course there are exceptions, but few and far between.
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.[/QUOTE]
Once again, that's a load of bullshit to justify your point of view, Caspar.
First of all, I come from a country where 95% of the people are Catholic, and probably less than 5% of those people agree completely agree with what the Catholic church says.
My grandmother happens to be the most devout Catholic person I know in my family. She goes to church every single Sunday, and prays the rosary all the time. Yet, she agrees with the right to use euthanasia and most of the time she votes for moderate liberals. When the stories of child abuse by priests came on the news, she agreed that if proven guilty they should be prosecuted like anybody else, and the church shouldn't cover up any evidence.
She also agrees that a lot of people twist religion in order to push their own agenda.
So you see, Caspar. Even Catholics are not as narrow minded as you think they are. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusations based on generalizations.[/QUOTE]
I have a mother who comes from Africa and experienced this first-hand. Whoops. I think I'm qualified.
Religion is a very important aspect of life there, and especially amongst the poor, a large majority, almost all of them black and poorly educated. The only things they hear of the world beyond the borders of their community comes from the priest, who echoes Rome. Of course there are exceptions, but few and far between.
Every time this happens I can't help but think that maybe if they let the priest marry this wouldn't be such a big deal. Granted, with pedophiles it wouldn't do much good to let them marry, but one does wonder how many turn to pedophilia after years of sexual repression. Not letting them marry is a load of crap anyway...a pope decided that would be a good idea, and I don't think the pope has a hotline to God. That's why marriage was ordained...for those not strong enough to remain celibate.
And then, after all of these pedophile cases, their anti-gay policies and forcing men to remain celibate (because heaven forbid women could preach) they wonder why their numbers are dropping....DUH! It ain't worth the sacrifice, and the sacrifice isn't even required by anything from above...just from some person down below who thinks he speaks for the being above
And then, after all of these pedophile cases, their anti-gay policies and forcing men to remain celibate (because heaven forbid women could preach) they wonder why their numbers are dropping....DUH! It ain't worth the sacrifice, and the sacrifice isn't even required by anything from above...just from some person down below who thinks he speaks for the being above
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]a pope decided that would be a good idea, and I don't think the pope has a hotline to God.[/QUOTE]
One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven.
Thus, the pope decides, God has to follow.
One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven.
Thus, the pope decides, God has to follow.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]a pope decided that would be a good idea, and I don't think the pope has a hotline to God.[/QUOTE]
One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven.
Thus, the pope decides, God has to follow.[/QUOTE]
So which one is God then? It's scary to think that he may be a hermit from years after Jesus was crucified who was a sexual-phobe.
One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven.
Thus, the pope decides, God has to follow.[/QUOTE]
So which one is God then? It's scary to think that he may be a hermit from years after Jesus was crucified who was a sexual-phobe.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Every time this happens I can't help but think that maybe if they let the priest marry this wouldn't be such a big deal. Granted, with pedophiles it wouldn't do much good to let them marry, but one does wonder how many turn to pedophilia after years of sexual repression.[/QUOTE]
You can't just up and say "OK, we will accept married men into the priesthood now." There are too many problems with that. We pay to support the priests now. Are we all willing to pay four or five or six times as much, at least, to support their families as well? I doubt it. And the demands on a priest's time are severe. With a family, he would have much less time to devote to his priestly duties. So we will be paying much more and getting much less.
Do you suppose that we will get many more priests to make up for the lack of time each priest will have? I don't think so. The Eastern Catholic churches have always had a married priesthood, and they have just as many shortages. As do the Orthodox. As to Protestants with married ministers. I don't think ordaining married men in the Latin Church will significantly increase the number of men who choose the priesthood.
If we want more priests, we're not going to get them this way. They way we will get them is to encourage those vocations in our children and not make marriage and having children out to be the ultimate happiness in the world for everyone. It's always, "Oh, when you grow up and get married..." Many people will live much happier lives alone and unmarried. But our cultures do not communicate that to our children. If we raised our children to be good Catholics, to live lives of love and charity, not to be selfish, and to explore fully the will of God in their lives, we would have plenty of priests.
[QUOTE]Not letting them marry is a load of crap anyway...a pope decided that would be a good idea, and I don't think the pope has a hotline to God. That's why marriage was ordained...for those not strong enough to remain celibate.[/QUOTE]
Married priesthood in the Latin church was forbidden for good and practical reasons. If there are good and practical reasons for it to be restored, it will be. But that situation simply does not exist in the world today. Maybe someday it will. But I doubt it will happen in any of our lifetimes.
[QUOTE]And then, after all of these pedophile cases, their anti-gay policies and forcing men to remain celibate (because heaven forbid women could preach) they wonder why their numbers are dropping....DUH![/QUOTE]
No one is forced to remain celibate. If men want to get married they are perfectly free to get married. The Church at this time only calls celibate men to the priesthood. That is their right. Women are another matter altogether. The Church has no right to ordain women. This is not a law that can be changed; it is a matter of the nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
You can't just up and say "OK, we will accept married men into the priesthood now." There are too many problems with that. We pay to support the priests now. Are we all willing to pay four or five or six times as much, at least, to support their families as well? I doubt it. And the demands on a priest's time are severe. With a family, he would have much less time to devote to his priestly duties. So we will be paying much more and getting much less.
Do you suppose that we will get many more priests to make up for the lack of time each priest will have? I don't think so. The Eastern Catholic churches have always had a married priesthood, and they have just as many shortages. As do the Orthodox. As to Protestants with married ministers. I don't think ordaining married men in the Latin Church will significantly increase the number of men who choose the priesthood.
If we want more priests, we're not going to get them this way. They way we will get them is to encourage those vocations in our children and not make marriage and having children out to be the ultimate happiness in the world for everyone. It's always, "Oh, when you grow up and get married..." Many people will live much happier lives alone and unmarried. But our cultures do not communicate that to our children. If we raised our children to be good Catholics, to live lives of love and charity, not to be selfish, and to explore fully the will of God in their lives, we would have plenty of priests.
[QUOTE]Not letting them marry is a load of crap anyway...a pope decided that would be a good idea, and I don't think the pope has a hotline to God. That's why marriage was ordained...for those not strong enough to remain celibate.[/QUOTE]
Married priesthood in the Latin church was forbidden for good and practical reasons. If there are good and practical reasons for it to be restored, it will be. But that situation simply does not exist in the world today. Maybe someday it will. But I doubt it will happen in any of our lifetimes.
[QUOTE]And then, after all of these pedophile cases, their anti-gay policies and forcing men to remain celibate (because heaven forbid women could preach) they wonder why their numbers are dropping....DUH![/QUOTE]
No one is forced to remain celibate. If men want to get married they are perfectly free to get married. The Church at this time only calls celibate men to the priesthood. That is their right. Women are another matter altogether. The Church has no right to ordain women. This is not a law that can be changed; it is a matter of the nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
That all true, but only if you accept everything you are force fed. Let's face the facts here. The Bible was put together (at least the stuff relating to Jesus) hundreds of years after his death. Sure they had criteria for what you had to do to get into the book, but people set those criteria, and since people are fallible than the method they used was fallible. You can't build a castle on a foundation of sand.
The pope is also a man, and therefore fallible. In the very earliest church, there wans't a pope at all. The only head of the church was God, and there was only a Bishope of Rome, just like there were Bishops of other major cities. The Bishop in Rome came into power and precedence after the EMPORER of the "Holy" Roman Empire decided that it was more convient that way politically. Actually, the whole of the way that Christianity is shaped today is due to the Emporer, a political figure. He called the Nicene Council to establish exactly what the nature of Jesus was, and it was the Emporer who had the final say, who was obviously swayed by the power these different views had (various bishops and threats of leaving the church altogether, taking valuable money with it). I believe it was Constantine who was leading that Council, and while many give him great credit for being the first Big Name convert and converting the Roman Empire into Christianity, in reality he did nothing of the kind. He still permitted the worship of other Gods, and even built temples to them AFTER his conversion.
As for the Pope, his role was established by Paul, who had a mysoginistic attitude towards women and desperately hated the act of sex....thus the not allowing priests to marry.
If you want some real, empirical evidence of what the early Church and the office of the Pope was like, Read "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason".
The pope is also a man, and therefore fallible. In the very earliest church, there wans't a pope at all. The only head of the church was God, and there was only a Bishope of Rome, just like there were Bishops of other major cities. The Bishop in Rome came into power and precedence after the EMPORER of the "Holy" Roman Empire decided that it was more convient that way politically. Actually, the whole of the way that Christianity is shaped today is due to the Emporer, a political figure. He called the Nicene Council to establish exactly what the nature of Jesus was, and it was the Emporer who had the final say, who was obviously swayed by the power these different views had (various bishops and threats of leaving the church altogether, taking valuable money with it). I believe it was Constantine who was leading that Council, and while many give him great credit for being the first Big Name convert and converting the Roman Empire into Christianity, in reality he did nothing of the kind. He still permitted the worship of other Gods, and even built temples to them AFTER his conversion.
As for the Pope, his role was established by Paul, who had a mysoginistic attitude towards women and desperately hated the act of sex....thus the not allowing priests to marry.
If you want some real, empirical evidence of what the early Church and the office of the Pope was like, Read "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason".