21720
Post by: LordofHats
I like this new Pope more and more;
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis said the Catholic Church should not allow its bans on gay marriage, abortion and contraception to dominate its teachings, but must be a more welcoming Church where priests are understanding pastors and not cold, dogmatic bureaucrats.
In a dramatically blunt interview with Civilta Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit monthly, Francis said the Church had locked itself up in "small things, in small-minded rules". It must find a new balance between upholding rules and demonstrating mercy, "otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards..."
Francis, the first non-European pope in 1,300 years and the first from Latin America, did not hold out the prospect of any changes soon to such moral teachings.
In the long interview with the magazine's director, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, he also said he envisioned a greater role for women in the 1.2 billion member Church but suggested it would not include a change in the current ban on a female priesthood.
In an remarkable change from his predecessor Benedict, who said homosexuality was an intrinsic disorder, Francis said that when homosexuals told him they were always condemned by the Church and felt "socially wounded", he told them "the Church does not want to do this".
He re-stated his comments first made on the plane returning from Brazil in July that he was not in a position to judge gays who are of good will and in search of God.
In the interview released on Thursday, he added: "By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."
CHURCH SHOULD BE "A FIELD HOSPITAL"
The Church, he said, should see itself as "a field hospital after a battle" and try to heal the larger wounds of society and not be "obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently."
John Gehring, Catholic program director at Faith in Public Life, a liberal advocacy group in the United States, said:
"This pope is rescuing the church from those who think that condemning gay people and opposing contraception define what it means to be a real Catholic.
"Francis is putting a message of mercy, justice and humility back at the center of the church's mission. It's a remarkable and refreshing change."
The interview of some 12,000 words took place over three sessions in August in his simple quarters in the Vatican and was released on Thursday simultaneously in translations by Jesuit journals around the world.
"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that," he said.
"But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time," he said.
Speaking specifically of homosexuals, he said:
"We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing," he said.
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are.
But in several parts of the interview, which took place in his simple quarters in a Vatican guest house where he has lived since his election instead of the spacious papal apartments, he stressed the need for mercy and understanding by priests.
"The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord's mercy motivates us to do better," he said.
The pope also spoke about the role of women in the Church, saying their "deep questions must be addressed".
"We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the Church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the Church," he said.
He hinted that he was open to giving women greater decision-making roles in the Church.
"The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the Church is exercised for various areas of the Church," he said.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't read a "being gay is okay" vibe from this, but its certainly an improvement  And of course I agree with the general message that the Church has become overly embroiled in smaller issues, dragging the whole of the Church with it.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
I'm not Catholic but I really like where this new Pope is taking things.
23400
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
Baby steps... but in the right direction.
50326
Post by: curran12
I -am- Catholic and I really like where this new Pope is taking things. It's certainly no massive overhaul of the entire system, but it is a step in the right direction.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
He seems to be turning out a lot less right wing than was expected.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
I'm also Catholic, and I consider this pope to be a welcome change. I wholeheartedly support moving away from the small rules!
42144
Post by: cincydooley
There's a reason those of us that knew about this guy previous to his ascension to the papacy were happy. This is just one of those reasons.
71489
Post by: Troike
He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.
21940
Post by: nels1031
I like the part where nothing he says is against Church teaching, (he even mentions the catechism being clear on the issues that are brought up) or revolutionary and its still turning peoples heads in a positive direction. Makes you wonder what Church teachings people were reading/misreading or assumed to know prior to Pope Francis.
37231
Post by: d-usa
NELS1031 wrote:I like the part where nothing he says is against Church teaching, (he even mentions the catechism being clear on the issues that are brought up) or revolutionary and its still turning peoples heads in a positive direction. Makes you wonder what Church teachings people were reading/misreading or assumed to know prior to Pope Francis.
It's not really that he is changing church teachings or that people were not interpreting it right.
He is just pointing out that church teachings and sins are no justification for being donkey caves to people.
21940
Post by: nels1031
d-usa wrote: NELS1031 wrote:I like the part where nothing he says is against Church teaching, (he even mentions the catechism being clear on the issues that are brought up) or revolutionary and its still turning peoples heads in a positive direction. Makes you wonder what Church teachings people were reading/misreading or assumed to know prior to Pope Francis.
It's not really that he is changing church teachings or that people were not interpreting it right.
He is just pointing out that church teachings and sins are no justification for being donkey caves to people.
I know, I read the full interview and will reread it again, but look at people reactions in this thread: "progressive" "less right wing" "step in the right direction" . I'll have to find the interview Pope Benedict had where he essentially said the same thing but he had a more scholastic way of saying it and no one really picked up on it. This Pope is a much better communicator to the masses than the previous Pope even though the message is no different.
8907
Post by: cadbren
The small rules are what keep people close to the church. You lower expectations and people feel they don't have to try as hard. I've seen that in sporting/martial arts where clubs that have an easy going atmosphere end up with attendence issues and committment issues as the easy going approach encourages people to slack off in their efforts.
Everytime a mainstream church like the Catholics or Anglicans bring in a more open, more liberal interpretation of the religion they bleed members. Evangelical churches are booming though, muslim mosques are full for the same reason.
Water down your faith and you water down your membership, remove your moral boundaries and your membership drops off.
The churches have been criticized for being behind the times for decades and they attempt to liberalise to address this. Problem is is that most of those being critical never had any intention of belonging to any church, let along the one being criticized.
So the church liberalises, gains no new members, alienates those who believe in the traditional church. Automatically Appended Next Post: This pope is also on a hiding to nowhere. European catholicism is dropping off, dying off. In the future the majority of catholics will be latin American and African, both populations which are very traditional in their interpretation of morality.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
cadbren wrote:The small rules are what keep people close to the church. You lower expectations and people feel they don't have to try as hard. I've seen that in sporting/martial arts where clubs that have an easy going atmosphere end up with attendence issues and committment issues as the easy going approach encourages people to slack off in their efforts.
Everytime a mainstream church like the Catholics or Anglicans bring in a more open, more liberal interpretation of the religion they bleed members. Evangelical churches are booming though, muslim mosques are full for the same reason.
Water down your faith and you water down your membership, remove your moral boundaries and your membership drops off.
The churches have been criticized for being behind the times for decades and they attempt to liberalise to address this. Problem is is that most of those being critical never had any intention of belonging to any church, let along the one being criticized.
So the church liberalises, gains no new members, alienates those who believe in the traditional church.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This pope is also on a hiding to nowhere. European catholicism is dropping off, dying off. In the future the majority of catholics will be latin American and African, both populations which are very traditional in their interpretation of morality.
Where do the people that leave the church usually go?
47598
Post by: motyak
cadbren wrote:In the future the majority of catholics will be latin American and African, both populations which are very traditional in their interpretation of morality.
Like the current pope who this thread is about?
8907
Post by: cadbren
Apparently the current pope does not represent the views of the majority.
He also lets his nationality get the better of him in regards to comments made about the Falkland Islands. Popes should not take sides in border disputes.
43066
Post by: feeder
Is it "mercy" that inspired the pedophile shuffling shell game the Catholic Church has been playing all these years? Each to his own faith, of course, but how anyone still supports a system with such a vile and pervasive practice is completely beyond me.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
No it's politics as usual, we'll see if Pope Francis actually does the right thing and addresses that with some justice. Over all though this is exactly what I expected when they tossed a Jesuit into the big chair, a bit of a shake up.
23400
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
feeder wrote:Is it "mercy" that inspired the pedophile shuffling shell game the Catholic Church has been playing all these years? Each to his own faith, of course, but how anyone still supports a system with such a vile and pervasive practice is completely beyond me.
I was wondering that myself but didn't feel like bringing it up
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Certainly a step in the right direction for the Catholic church, but we're not quite there yet.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
It's almost like he wants the catholic church to start reflecting the teachings of that guy in that book there, what's his name, jesus something.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Crablezworth wrote:It's almost like he wants the catholic church to start reflecting the teachings of that guy in that book there, what's his name, jesus something.
Nah, that's a spanish name. The Lord and Savior was something... Englishy... John right?
8907
Post by: cadbren
Where does Jesus support sexual relations other than the usual man and woman model?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cadbren wrote:Where does Jesus support sexual relations other than the usual man and woman model?
The important question is who cares? Society is clearly moving on, the question is whether the church will continue to cling to its obsolete beliefs and become irrelevant.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
cadbren wrote:Where does Jesus support sexual relations other than the usual man and woman model?
Where does he oppose them?
If the church wants to use the old testament as a moral compass, they better start killing people who work on sundays, wear cotton/twill clothes or eat shelfish.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.
5470
Post by: sebster
cadbren wrote:Everytime a mainstream church like the Catholics or Anglicans bring in a more open, more liberal interpretation of the religion they bleed members. Evangelical churches are booming though, muslim mosques are full for the same reason.
Arguing proper moral teaching through the lens of what grows the membership basis is insane. If something is believed to be right, then that church should argue for it. Arguing instead that something should be taught simply because it'll help maintain membership misses the point of being a church at all - you might have 50 million members but if you have no positive moral force then why bother?
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
It's not just Catholics, you get that kind of stuff thrown your way regardless of what faith you are.
5470
Post by: sebster
cadbren wrote:Where does Jesus support sexual relations other than the usual man and woman model?
He doesn’t, because he doesn’t comment on the issue at all. Because he spent his life dealing with real issues, like charity and humility before God. Which is probably a large part of why he’s revered as such as wise man thousands of years later.
Whereas people who focused on someone else’s sin as a way of trumping up their own virtue, well history tends to regard those people as hateful little donkey-caves.
So you know, homosexuality as a sin… whatever. Spending a large amount of your time preaching against homosexuality and not focusing on poverty and bigger issues, well I think this new Pope has the right idea about that.
cincydooley wrote:I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.
Criticising religion is cool, but it's nowhere near as cool as pretending a conversation about religious morality is religious persecution. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ratbarf wrote:It's not just Catholics, you get that kind of stuff thrown your way regardless of what faith you are.
And atheists will be told they can't have morals. Whatever. Boo fething hoo.
I mean, if you want to go around telling a whole sexual orientation that they're sinful, you don't get to cry when other people judge your religious group.
43066
Post by: feeder
cincydooley wrote:I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.
Belittling someone for their personal beliefs an insecure little dick move at best. The fact that Catholics everywhere did not tear down their leadership when it became apparent how extensively organized the pedophile hiding scheme is, does call into question how steadfast those personal beliefs are.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
cincydooley wrote:I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.
I know right? The new pope is such a hipster...
33125
Post by: Seaward
feeder wrote: cincydooley wrote:I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.
Belittling someone for their personal beliefs an insecure little dick move at best. The fact that Catholics everywhere did not tear down their leadership when it became apparent how extensively organized the pedophile hiding scheme is, does call into question how steadfast those personal beliefs are.
Well, I believe tearing down Catholic leadership is technically known as the Reformation.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Troike wrote:He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.
There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Kilkrazy wrote: Troike wrote:He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.
There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.
Expand on that for me, if you will sir.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I just want to see him throw down on some minor demon and smote him with the holy crucifer RoboPope style. Any Pope who returns people's calls and letters with a personal call is kind of badass.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I know it seems small and maybe even useless but I think a Pope should ALWAYS respond personally to anyone who writes in, that's just the gig in my mind when you take the top job in Rome, you have to guide the church on Earth but more importantly then Church doctrine and teachings, that's guiding the however many million individual Catholics that look to the Catholic Church for guidance in troubled times, and that takes a personal hand sometimes.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
NELS1031 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Troike wrote:He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.
There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.
Expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
cadbren wrote:Where does Jesus support sexual relations other than the usual man and woman model?
He neither supported nor condemned sexual preferences. But what he did say was;
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35-35)
"When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”" (John 8:7)
181
Post by: gorgon
sebster wrote:cadbren wrote:Everytime a mainstream church like the Catholics or Anglicans bring in a more open, more liberal interpretation of the religion they bleed members. Evangelical churches are booming though, muslim mosques are full for the same reason.
Arguing proper moral teaching through the lens of what grows the membership basis is insane. If something is believed to be right, then that church should argue for it. Arguing instead that something should be taught simply because it'll help maintain membership misses the point of being a church at all - you might have 50 million members but if you have no positive moral force then why bother?
What Francis has seen first hand in South America is how evangelical churches have grown not because of conservative doctrine but because of their superior "ground game." They're out among the people, talking to people, helping people, and spreading their message. This is in *strong* contrast to the Catholic Church in the past few decades.
That's why Francis wants his priests out among the people and spreading the Catholic message -- and not the two- or three-issue message we've heard in recent years like the article describes.
From where I sit, he's actually *very* focused on membership. He just realizes the church needs to adapt in order to grow. And that's fine and healthy -- that's what makes it a living religion IMO.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Kilkrazy wrote: NELS1031 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Troike wrote:He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.
There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.
Expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.
Now show me the "considerable effect on shifting things back". What you quoted just said he upheld doctrines that have been the case for centuries. AD ~195 for teachings against contraception, AD ~50 for teachings against abortion, AD ~189 for the ban on the ordination of women. There has been and will be no "progressive Pope" who will or even could change those Church teachings.
5470
Post by: sebster
gorgon wrote:What Francis has seen first hand in South America is how evangelical churches have grown not because of conservative doctrine but because of their superior "ground game."
Agreed - evangelical churches have marketed themselves better and more aggressively for a while now - and that's likely driven most of their rise relative to the main line protestant churches.
But even if that weren't true, even if people essentially hungered for the pettiness of small, literal rules to be obeyed over and above a broader, more complex morality... that'd still be no reason to do it. Give them what they want and grow is advice for businesses who just want to make money, as an approach for churches its crazy.
181
Post by: gorgon
NELS1031 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: NELS1031 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Troike wrote:He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.
There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.
Expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.
Now show me the "considerable effect on shifting things back". What you quoted just said he upheld doctrines that have been the case for centuries. AD ~195 for teachings against contraception, AD ~50 for teachings against abortion, AD ~189 for the ban on the ordination of women. There has been and will be no "progressive Pope" who will or even could change those Church teachings.
Bad choice of words on his part, I suspect.
Still, I hope you're not arguing that JPII wasn't a conservative Pope. Because he was.
21940
Post by: nels1031
gorgon wrote: NELS1031 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: NELS1031 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Troike wrote:He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.
There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.
Expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.
Now show me the "considerable effect on shifting things back". What you quoted just said he upheld doctrines that have been the case for centuries. AD ~195 for teachings against contraception, AD ~50 for teachings against abortion, AD ~189 for the ban on the ordination of women. There has been and will be no "progressive Pope" who will or even could change those Church teachings.
Bad choice of words on his part, I suspect.
Still, I hope you're not arguing that JPII wasn't a conservative Pope. Because he was.
I'm saying that doctrinally he was the same as the entire line of successors.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
It takes a bold man to say what Francis has said here. I think that the Catholic church certainly needs to progress on it's view of certain things.
The gay marriage/abortion part will be a contentious point for many. Some people will quote old Testament, some will quote New. It's an argument that will never end.
But look past that to the third part: contraception. There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined  .
It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.
Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.
/rant
Good for the Pope, Lord knows the CC needs some major PR help.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
NELS1031 wrote: gorgon wrote: NELS1031 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: NELS1031 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Troike wrote:He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.
There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.
Expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.
Now show me the "considerable effect on shifting things back". What you quoted just said he upheld doctrines that have been the case for centuries. AD ~195 for teachings against contraception, AD ~50 for teachings against abortion, AD ~189 for the ban on the ordination of women. There has been and will be no "progressive Pope" who will or even could change those Church teachings.
Bad choice of words on his part, I suspect.
Still, I hope you're not arguing that JPII wasn't a conservative Pope. Because he was.
I'm saying that doctrinally he was the same as the entire line of successors.
He wasn't.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Tldr.
Now once again, expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Show me what doctrines he changed, show me what progressive ideas he rolled back, show me how the Catholic Church regressed under his tenure.
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
cincydooley wrote:I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.
same with Mormons but... they are cooky... trust me I know
(i'm known as an investigator to them)
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
cadbren wrote:Where does Jesus support sexual relations other than the usual man and woman model?
Do you mean other than prancing around with a group of dudes like an ancient-world Menudo?
cincydooley wrote:I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.
Don't single out Catholics here, snowflake. Everyone gets to deal with it. I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
NELS1031 wrote:
Tldr.
Now once again, expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Show me what doctrines he changed, show me what progressive ideas he rolled back, show me how the Catholic Church regressed under his tenure.
You can find that from the footnotes in the Wikipedia article.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Kilkrazy wrote: NELS1031 wrote:
Tldr.
Now once again, expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Show me what doctrines he changed, show me what progressive ideas he rolled back, show me how the Catholic Church regressed under his tenure.
You can find that from the footnotes in the Wikipedia article.
Highlight it for me, as I'm not seeing it.
23
Post by: djones520
Kilkrazy wrote: NELS1031 wrote:
Tldr.
Now once again, expand on that for me, if you will sir.
Show me what doctrines he changed, show me what progressive ideas he rolled back, show me how the Catholic Church regressed under his tenure.
You can find that from the footnotes in the Wikipedia article.
Telling other people to dig through 285 links, to find evidence supporting your own claim? Bad internet debate form man, real bad.
38250
Post by: poda_t
-Shrike- wrote:I'm also Catholic, and I consider this pope to be a welcome change. I wholeheartedly support moving away from the small rules!
He's not moving away from the small rules though, he's admitting that those rules are small on the grand scheme of things, and refocusing obsession with minutiae back to a focus on the macroscopic.
Astohim not being right wing.... Well... Heis, after all, still a catholic.... Automatically Appended Next Post: Quoting a Wikipedia article, that goes against your argument, and then using it as support for your argument, is bad debate. Full stop. Using Wikipedia is crap to begin with, and it's crap to slant the quote fromwikipedia too. I noticed the part that read:". Held firm on all orthodox catholic stances." kind of a giveaway for conservative.
77757
Post by: Soteks Prophet
Aerethan wrote:There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined  .
It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.
Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.
The penalty for one mortal sin is the same as for two.
Also there's nothing in the bible mentioning the Trinity either..
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote: I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others. 
If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote: I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others. 
If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.
I think he's referring to the few bad apples that use the bible to judge others, who give the church a bad rep. I've encountered a few who use it to judge others. At the same time I've encountered more folks who use it to do good for themselves and unto others.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Soteks Prophet wrote: Aerethan wrote:There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined  .
It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.
Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.
The penalty for one mortal sin is the same as for two.
Also there's nothing in the bible mentioning the Trinity either..
Except for those bits in the New Testament. You know. The only part that should really matter to Christians. The divinity of the Son and the divine nature of the holy spirit are pretty clearly laid out in the gospels.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote: I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others. 
If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.
Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously? Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.
The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Soteks Prophet wrote: Aerethan wrote:There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined  .
It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.
Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.
The penalty for one mortal sin is the same as for two.
Also there's nothing in the bible mentioning the Trinity either..
Which is my point. If you are going to knowingly sin, why not go all in? It's eternal damnation either way.
I also find the concept of priests as intermediaries between us and God to be a ridiculous concept.
I have a long list of things about the Catholic Church that I disagree with, but most of those aren't relevant to their public image. I disagree because I simply believe otherwise, and I'm stubborn enough that there won't be a compromise.
Sadly most people as stubborn about their faith as I am are also extremists who think they need to shove it down everyone else's throat. I'm fine with other people believing what I do not believe.
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously?
Sure. I've got one, too, and from a better school.
Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.
The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.
I don't subscribe to any kind of Catholicism. I'm an atheist.
But I also actually paid attention during my history classes, and beyond that and know that there's a difference between individuals within an institution using that institution to accumulate wealth and gain social control, and the institution being designed explicitly for that.
So, again. Anyone who ever educated you needs a solid beating.
21940
Post by: nels1031
I don't think you need a history degree to know that any society/institution is built around judgement.
Your workplace judges you, your particular social circles judge you, your family judges you, etc. There are social norms and mores in every level of society. Knocking the Catholic Church like its totally unique in that its teachings expects a certain standard and then proscribes penalties or admonitions when that standard is not met or disregarded is disingenuous.
Next time you are driving, drive ridiculously below the speed limit, or excessively above it. Don't where a seat belt. Turn your dubstep up to ludicrous levels. Start texting to you BFF. If no one has notified authorities about you after a time, then drive by a law enforcement officer whose entire existence is to find folks for someone higher up in the law enforcement system to judge.
Then when you are out of court, go to a Church. Confess your dangerous traffic sins to the priest. Now which one of the two institutions is going to take you away from your family for some time, fine you, keep a detailed record of your transgressions, publicly admonish you, make you do community service?
And in regards to accumulating wealth, everything has to in order to carry out its agenda in society. There is nothing intrinsically evil in accumulating wealth, but in its how its spent. Again, the Catholic Church institution is not unique in that regard. Arguing that it is, is again disingenuous.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously?
Sure. I've got one, too, and from a better school.
I seriously doubt the latter element of your claim.
Seaward wrote:Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.
The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.
I don't subscribe to any kind of Catholicism. I'm an atheist.
But I also actually paid attention during my history classes, and beyond that and know that there's a difference between individuals within an institution using that institution to accumulate wealth and gain social control, and the institution being designed explicitly for that.
"Individuals within an institution" is only an excuse when said institution doesn't have a solitary man at the top who is said to speak for a divine power. The entire institution is designed to create the circumstances of whatever he says, goes. Such is the nature of every grift wherein a conman claims to speak for the divine. You inability to recognize that honestly does make me sad.
Even if, once upon a time (doubtful still) the Catholic Church wasn't geared towards social control and wealth accumulation, your silly "a few bad eggs" idea altered the structure of the institution such that the machinations of those bad eggs is now the status quo, and has been for over a thousand years.
NELS1031 wrote:I don't think you need a history degree to know that any society/institution is built around judgement.
Your workplace judges you, your particular social circles judge you, your family judges you, etc. There are social norms and mores in every level of society. Knocking the Catholic Church like its totally unique in that its teachings expects a certain standard and then proscribes penalties or admonitions when that standard is not met or disregarded is disingenuous.
Next time you are driving, drive ridiculously below the speed limit, or excessively above it. Don't where a seat belt. Turn your dubstep up to ludicrous levels. Start texting to you BFF. If no one has notified authorities about you after a time, then drive by a law enforcement officer whose entire existence is to find folks for someone higher up in the law enforcement system to judge.
And in regards to accumulating wealth, everything has to in order to carry out its agenda in society. There is nothing intrinsically evil in accumulating wealth, but in its how its spent. Again, the Catholic Church institution is not unique in that regard. Arguing that it is, is again disingenuous.
It's been a while since I've seen a shotgun loaded with so much bs.
1) Nobody said the Catholic Church is unique; so please stop projecting that.
2) Not being unique in its dickishness does not make that dickishness okay by any stretch.
3) The government doesn't claim to speak for a divine power, and thus I am able to participate in the legislative process, thereby creating a reasonable basis for my tacit participation and acceptance of its institutionalized judicial processes.
4) Nobody ever said that the accumulation of wealth was intrinsically evil, so if you want to participate in this discussion, you should try to keep up.
5) Since you brought it up, the accumulation of wealth from an organization that claims to be charitable is pretty disingenuous, particularly when paired with the fact that it uses its standing as an instution to claim it speaks for the divine in order to coerce that wealth out of people.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Also, how many institutions at the end of the day have a tax exempt status?
33125
Post by: Seaward
Doubt away. Jefferson and I share an alma mater.
"Individuals within an institution" is only an excuse when said institution doesn't have a solitary man at the top who is said to speak for a divine power. The entire institution is designed to create the circumstances of whatever he says, goes. Such is the nature of every grift wherein a conman claims to speak for the divine. You inability to recognize that honestly does make me sad.
Even if, once upon a time (doubtful still) the Catholic Church wasn't geared towards social control and wealth accumulation, your silly "a few bad eggs" idea altered the structure of the institution such that the machinations of those bad eggs is now the status quo, and has been for over a thousand years.
I'm not sure why you need to change your argument quite this much, but I'll play along. I'll take it you've vacated your, "the Catholic church exists only to judge," nonsense, and have now moved on to "the Catholic church exists only to gain social control and accumulate wealth?" I need to know which moving target to hit here.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote:
Doubt away. Jefferson and I share an alma mater.
Hate to tell you this, but zero is the exact number of feths I give about where Jefferson went to school. Also, please compare #30 to #184, since your hubris demanded that you travel down this absolutely pointless and silly road.
Seaward wrote:"Individuals within an institution" is only an excuse when said institution doesn't have a solitary man at the top who is said to speak for a divine power. The entire institution is designed to create the circumstances of whatever he says, goes. Such is the nature of every grift wherein a conman claims to speak for the divine. You inability to recognize that honestly does make me sad.
Even if, once upon a time (doubtful still) the Catholic Church wasn't geared towards social control and wealth accumulation, your silly "a few bad eggs" idea altered the structure of the institution such that the machinations of those bad eggs is now the status quo, and has been for over a thousand years.
I'm not sure why you need to change your argument quite this much, but I'll play along. I'll take it you've vacated your, "the Catholic church exists only to judge," nonsense, and have now moved on to "the Catholic church exists only to gain social control and accumulate wealth?" I need to know which moving target to hit here.
Not at all. The judgement is the tool from which the social control exists and the wealth is accumulated. However, not explaining the statement at length in my initial post was my failing; however I already explained it far more clearly in subsequent posts, and you already replied to them. The fact that you're left with no retort of any value at this point does not mean the last few posts never happened.
32828
Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim?
Soteks Prophet wrote: Aerethan wrote:There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined  .
It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.
Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.
The penalty for one mortal sin is the same as for two.
Also there's nothing in the bible mentioning the Trinity either..
...What are you talking about? The concept of the Trinity comes up all the time in the New Testament.
~Tim?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I think he means that the principle of the Trinity is not explicitly stated. It was constructed based on scripture, but the scriptures do not contain the words 'Holy Trinity.'
73381
Post by: Spartak
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:cadbren wrote:The small rules are what keep people close to the church. You lower expectations and people feel they don't have to try as hard. I've seen that in sporting/martial arts where clubs that have an easy going atmosphere end up with attendence issues and committment issues as the easy going approach encourages people to slack off in their efforts.
Everytime a mainstream church like the Catholics or Anglicans bring in a more open, more liberal interpretation of the religion they bleed members. Evangelical churches are booming though, muslim mosques are full for the same reason.
Water down your faith and you water down your membership, remove your moral boundaries and your membership drops off.
The churches have been criticized for being behind the times for decades and they attempt to liberalise to address this. Problem is is that most of those being critical never had any intention of belonging to any church, let along the one being criticized.
So the church liberalises, gains no new members, alienates those who believe in the traditional church.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This pope is also on a hiding to nowhere. European catholicism is dropping off, dying off. In the future the majority of catholics will be latin American and African, both populations which are very traditional in their interpretation of morality.
Where do the people that leave the church usually go?
Duh, Hell
lol i kidd i kidd
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
LordofHats wrote:I think he means that the principle of the Trinity is not explicitly stated. It was constructed based on scripture, but the scriptures do not contain the words 'Holy Trinity.'
So are they three things or one?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Rainbow Dash wrote: LordofHats wrote:I think he means that the principle of the Trinity is not explicitly stated. It was constructed based on scripture, but the scriptures do not contain the words 'Holy Trinity.'
So are they three things or one?
That is a question for it's own thread, likely on a different forum.
The most basic comparison would that of a person's mind and their body. The mind doesn't exist without the body, but the body doesn't function without the mind(do a degree if people want to nit pick).
3 aspects of the same being. Not too dissimilar from the three traditional states of matter: gas, liquid, solid. Granted that plasma is the 4th state, but I've never seen plasma water.
5470
Post by: sebster
Pretty much all of the ones that exist for a reason other than to make money.
Seriously, tax exemption for a religious organisation is as contraversial as tax exemption for the local little league.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Rainbow Dash wrote: LordofHats wrote:I think he means that the principle of the Trinity is not explicitly stated. It was constructed based on scripture, but the scriptures do not contain the words 'Holy Trinity.'
So are they three things or one?
Both. Its a religion thing. Don't think about to much. You'll give yourself a headache  Trust me I know XD
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:Seriously, tax exemption for a religious organisation is as contraversial as tax exemption for the local little league.
So where exactly are the little leagues that are making obscene amounts of money and then using it to do things like protect priests who rape children, blatantly break the laws about tax-exempt organizations participating in politics, or just buy lots of expensive palaces/works of art/etc for their highest officials to enjoy? There are religious organizations that deserve their tax exemption, but there are plenty of them that need to lose it. And we can start with the Catholic Church.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Peregrine wrote: sebster wrote:Seriously, tax exemption for a religious organisation is as contraversial as tax exemption for the local little league.
So where exactly are the little leagues that are making obscene amounts of money and then using it to do things like protect priests who rape children, blatantly break the laws about tax-exempt organizations participating in politics, or just buy lots of expensive palaces/works of art/etc for their highest officials to enjoy? There are religious organizations that deserve their tax exemption, but there are plenty of them that need to lose it. And we can start with the Catholic Church.
1. The CC has paid out millions to victims of the sex abuse scandal. Enough to bankrupt diocese.
2. Having an opinion on politics isn't breaking the law.
3. What works of art/palaces has it purchased in the last century for the sole purpose of its highest officials to enjoy? Its selling property pretty much everywhere. Automatically Appended Next Post: azazel the cat wrote:
It's been a while since I've seen a shotgun loaded with so much bs.
1) Nobody said the Catholic Church is unique; so please stop projecting that.
2) Not being unique in its dickishness does not make that dickishness okay by any stretch.
3) The government doesn't claim to speak for a divine power, and thus I am able to participate in the legislative process, thereby creating a reasonable basis for my tacit participation and acceptance of its institutionalized judicial processes.
4) Nobody ever said that the accumulation of wealth was intrinsically evil, so if you want to participate in this discussion, you should try to keep up.
5) Since you brought it up, the accumulation of wealth from an organization that claims to be charitable is pretty disingenuous, particularly when paired with the fact that it uses its standing as an instution to claim it speaks for the divine in order to coerce that wealth out of people.
1. Not projecting anything, just pointing out that the ire with which you have for the Catholic Church can be placed on any institution that regulates its members.
2. Sure.
3. But you have no choice but to participate, Catholicism is voluntary. Whether it speaks for a divine power is irrelevant.
4. You were the one that described the church in a negative manner in that it is all about social control and accumulation of wealth.
5. When that wealth is used to build schools, hospitals etc, there is nothing wrong with it.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
NELS1031 wrote:1. The CC has paid out millions to victims of the sex abuse scandal. Enough to bankrupt diocese.
Meanwhile evading claims elsewhere, and shuffling money around to prevent it from being seized when they've lost cases. And that doesn't change the fact that the church used their money to hide the rapists in the first place. Until they got caught and faced widespread outrage over their behavior they had no interest in doing the right thing. They should be treated like any other criminal organization: seize all of their assets, and throw everyone responsible in prison. And their supposed "remorse" at getting caught should be treated no differently than any other criminal who suddenly gains a conscience when their sentence is about to be decided.
2. Having an opinion on politics isn't breaking the law.
No, but endorsing or funding political candidates is against election laws in the US (and probably elsewhere as well), and funding political ads is probably crossing that line as well. The only reason churches are able to do that is that the federal government is completely spineless on this issue even when churches openly say "we're breaking this law, I dare you to do something about it".
Also, nobody is saying that churches can't have political opinions or participate in politics. The issue here is churches doing those things while simultaneously claiming tax-exempt status that requires an organization to stay out of politics. Churches are welcome to exercise their rights to free speech, just as long as they give up their special privileges and speak as ordinary citizens.
3. What works of art/palaces has it purchased in the last century for the sole purpose of its highest officials to enjoy? Its selling property pretty much everywhere.
And until it has sold everything down to the level of an actual non-profit organization (basic office buildings, etc) it is operating as a for-profit business and should not have tax-exempt status.
(Note that IMO the same applies to "charities" that pay obscene salaries to their upper management instead of spending that money on legitimate charity work.)
21940
Post by: nels1031
1. So the sins of 4% of an organization should be enough to shut down the rest? You equate the Catholic Church with criminal organizations because a few within it committed crimes?
2. Who did the Catholic Church endorse or fund in politics?
3. So a non-profit organization should display no art, no grand structures, no celebration of their culture and history?
As to your comment in parenthese, charities still have to be well run to function, so you have to pay well to attract quality, otherwise turnaround or incompetence will impede whatever the mission is. I know it sometimes looks or even is hypocritical, yes, but it has to compete with the regular job market and retain decent employees.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
So where exactly are the little leagues that are making obscene amounts of money and then using it to do things like protect priests who rape children...
Are you not concerned with coaches that rape children?
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:Hate to tell you this, but zero is the exact number of feths I give about where Jefferson went to school. Also, please compare #30 to #184, since your hubris demanded that you travel down this absolutely pointless and silly road.
Cute, but unfortunately we're obliged to conclude that any institution that teaches the Catholic church exists solely to judge is going to be considerably inferior to one that doesn't, no matter what the Brits might think.
Though actually, I do agree with you; arguing about who has the best history degree is like arguing who has the best one-legged dog.
Not at all. The judgement is the tool from which the social control exists and the wealth is accumulated. However, not explaining the statement at length in my initial post was my failing; however I already explained it far more clearly in subsequent posts, and you already replied to them. The fact that you're left with no retort of any value at this point does not mean the last few posts never happened.
No, now you're simply changing your argument. Initially it was, "the Catholic church exists only to judge." Now it is, "the Catholic church exists only to exert social control and gain wealth, and judgment is the means by which they do it." Those two statements do not become synonymous no matter how much you want them to.
Nor are either one of them correct, unless you're asserting that the entirety of the organization's leadership through hundreds upon hundreds of years has decided to completely abandon any real belief in the Catholic faith. Given some of the arguments you've come up with in the past, I'm fully capable of believing that you believe that, but you'd have an incredibly hard time proving it, because it's simply not the case.
The argument you want to be making is that gaining social control and wealth have come about as a result of the manner in which the church does what it exists to do - spread and lead the Catholic faith. Said social control and wealth have waxed and waned, of course, but their acquisition has never been the primary purpose of the institution.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
The only reason churches are able to do that is that the federal government is completely spineless on this issue even when churches openly say "we're breaking this law, I dare you to do something about it".
It is almost like you have a grudge against churches.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dogma wrote:Are you not concerned with coaches that rape children?
I think this may be the most dishonest post I've seen in a while. Of course I'm concerned with coaches that rape children, and the absurd glorification of sports that lets them get away with it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
dogma wrote:It is almost like you have a grudge against churches.
Yeah, because the only reason anyone could be in favor of enforcing laws that exist for very good reason is some kind of petty grudge...
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
LordofHats wrote: Rainbow Dash wrote: LordofHats wrote:I think he means that the principle of the Trinity is not explicitly stated. It was constructed based on scripture, but the scriptures do not contain the words 'Holy Trinity.'
So are they three things or one?
Both. Its a religion thing. Don't think about to much. You'll give yourself a headache  Trust me I know XD
The Missionaries told me they were 3 different things, as I have said before if I had to be a Christian it would be a Mormon, they are the cookiest ones... well their religion is, the people are nice... and send people to your door
63000
Post by: Peregrine
NELS1031 wrote:1. So the sins of 4% of an organization should be enough to shut down the rest? You equate the Catholic Church with criminal organizations because a few within it committed crimes?
Yes, because that 4% represents the leadership of the organization, and it's pretty clear that the problem of shielding rapists was widespread in that leadership. It's just like how if a corporation's management decide to commit crimes we don't refuse to shut it down because the poor janitor would lose their job.
2. Who did the Catholic Church endorse or fund in politics?
I didn't say the Catholic Church specifically. The statement you're responding to was about was about tax exemption for churches in general, and there are indisputably churches that violate election laws by endorsing candidates.
Also, let's not pretend that the Catholic Church doesn't try to get involved in politics. They might not be stupid enough to openly violate the laws, but that's because the existing laws are way too limited and don't properly accomplish the goal of having tax-exempt organizations stay out of politics.
3. So a non-profit organization should display no art, no grand structures, no celebration of their culture and history?
That depends. Are we talking about a non-profit organization dedicated to museum work, or a "non-profit" organization that is supposedly dedicated to charity and spiritual matters?
As to your comment in parenthese, charities still have to be well run to function, so you have to pay well to attract quality, otherwise turnaround or incompetence will impede whatever the mission is. I know it sometimes looks or even is hypocritical, yes, but it has to compete with the regular job market and retain decent employees.
Yes, charities need to pay reasonable salaries if they want to succeed. That has nothing to do with the problem of certain charities spending only very small amounts of money on legitimate charity work while spending vast amounts of money on making their management richer.
23
Post by: djones520
Peregrine wrote: NELS1031 wrote:1. So the sins of 4% of an organization should be enough to shut down the rest? You equate the Catholic Church with criminal organizations because a few within it committed crimes?
Yes, because that 4% represents the leadership of the organization, and it's pretty clear that the problem of shielding rapists was widespread in that leadership. It's just like how if a corporation's management decide to commit crimes we don't refuse to shut it down because the poor janitor would lose their job.
Well in that case lets just throw our whole government under the bus then.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:Yes, because that 4% represents the leadership of the organization, and it's pretty clear that the problem of shielding rapists was widespread in that leadership. It's just like how if a corporation's management decide to commit crimes we don't refuse to shut it down because the poor janitor would lose their job.
When's the last time we did that? If individuals are guilty of a crime, we charge them, but we don't shut corporations down for breaking the law. We fine them, normally.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
djones520 wrote:Well in that case lets just throw our whole government under the bus then.
You realize that "but someone else is bad too!" is a concession of defeat, right? Are you really intending to admit that you can't defend the church leadership?
Seaward wrote:When's the last time we did that? If individuals are guilty of a crime, we charge them, but we don't shut corporations down for breaking the law. We fine them, normally.
Well, same end result. We might not explicitly shut down a corporation but we don't refrain from doing things like fining them, throwing the CEO in jail, etc, just because it might be bad for business or even destroy the company.
23
Post by: djones520
Peregrine wrote: djones520 wrote:Well in that case lets just throw our whole government under the bus then.
You realize that "but someone else is bad too!" is a concession of defeat, right? Are you really intending to admit that you can't defend the church leadership?
That's hardly what I'm saying. I'm just saying we need to be fair here. If the whole Catholic Church is a criminal organization because of the actions of a few, then our whole government is a criminal organization as well, and any other organization that has shady members a part of it.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
djones520 wrote:That's hardly what I'm saying. I'm just saying we need to be fair here. If the whole Catholic Church is a criminal organization because of the actions of a few, then our whole government is a criminal organization as well, and any other organization that has shady members a part of it.
Do you have any examples of the same kind of widespread crimes and coverups happening in those other organizations? Remember that the problem with the Catholic Church isn't that some priests raped children, that's a crime by individuals that should be punished as an individual crime. The organizational guilt is that when those crimes happened the Church decided that protecting their public image was more important than protecting the victims or punishing the guilty, and blocked any investigation while moving the rapists off to new positions where they could rape new victims (who of course had no warning). Obviously we'll never know the full extent of the coverup, but it's pretty clear that we're talking about a widespread problem with the organization as a whole, not the actions of a few individuals who can be neatly removed from the organization and punished.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:Well, same end result. We might not explicitly shut down a corporation but we don't refrain from doing things like fining them, throwing the CEO in jail, etc, just because it might be bad for business or even destroy the company.
That's true, but I don't think we refrain from doing that with churches, either, do we? If a priest molests a kid, we're not going to not arrest him just because he's a priest.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Peregrine wrote:
Do you have any examples of the same kind of widespread crimes and coverups happening in those other organizations? Remember that the problem with the Catholic Church isn't that some priests raped children, that's a crime by individuals that should be punished as an individual crime. The organizational guilt is that when those crimes happened the Church decided that protecting their public image was more important than protecting the victims or punishing the guilty, and blocked any investigation while moving the rapists off to new positions where they could rape new victims (who of course had no warning). Obviously we'll never know the full extent of the coverup, but it's pretty clear that we're talking about a widespread problem with the organization as a whole, not the actions of a few individuals who can be neatly removed from the organization and punished.
And companies cover up bad working conditions of migrant farmers, drug makers bury negative studies, and cops have the blue wall. Organizations cover up bad things their members do. Only in some fantasy land is the Catholic Church the only organization in the world that hides the bad stuff people do under their roof.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Seaward wrote:That's true, but I don't think we refrain from doing that with churches, either, do we? If a priest molests a kid, we're not going to not arrest him just because he's a priest.
But that's exactly the point I was responding to: that we should punish those crimes because doing so would harm the church as a whole, and that's just not fair to all the members who weren't involved.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Peregrine wrote:Yes, because that 4% represents the leadership of the organization, and it's pretty clear that the problem of shielding rapists was widespread in that leadership. It's just like how if a corporation's management decide to commit crimes we don't refuse to shut it down because the poor janitor would lose their job.
Not every leader in the organization was involved though, and I believe only 1 Bishop has been convicted in secular law. Thats enough to bring the whole thing down?
Peregrine wrote:
I didn't say the Catholic Church specifically. The statement you're responding to was about was about tax exemption for churches in general, and there are indisputably churches that violate election laws by endorsing candidates.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, and you mentioned involvement in political meddling as being one part of why the Catholic Church should have its charitable tax status revoked.
Peregrine wrote:Also, let's not pretend that the Catholic Church doesn't try to get involved in politics. They might not be stupid enough to openly violate the laws, but that's because the existing laws are way too limited and don't properly accomplish the goal of having tax-exempt organizations stay out of politics.
If they are not violating laws, why are you saying they should have their tax exempt status revoked for violating laws? They should be punished for how you want the laws to be?
Peregrine wrote:
That depends. Are we talking about a non-profit organization dedicated to museum work, or a "non-profit" organization that is supposedly dedicated to charity and spiritual matters?
Art is an integral part of Catholicism. Only museums can have statues, paintings and architectural wonders?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
LordofHats wrote:And companies cover up bad working conditions of migrant farmers, drug makers bury negative studies, and cops have the blue wall. Organizations cover up bad things their members do. Only in some fantasy land is the Catholic Church the only organization in the world that hides the bad stuff people do under their roof.
Ok, yes, if you generalize it to more than covering up rapists and giving them new children to rape, other organizations cover up bad things their members do. I guess it's a debatable point, but I'd argue that the church's actions are far, far worse since the crimes involved are universally agreed to be so thoroughly repulsive. Suppressing a study to protect your profits is obviously bad, but I can't even imagine the lack of empathy or morality that would allow someone to do what the church leadership did.
Also, let's not forget that "you're bad too!" isn't a valid argument. Automatically Appended Next Post: NELS1031 wrote:Not every leader in the organization was involved though, and I believe only 1 Bishop has been convicted in secular law. Thats enough to bring the whole thing down?
Of course very few people have been convicted, that's what happens when you have an organization as big and powerful as the Catholic Church doing their best to hide all of the evidence. It's not at all a surprise that it would be very hard to meet the required burden of proof in a criminal case at this point.
And yes, bring the whole thing down. There is strong evidence that the abuse and coverup were widespread in church leadership, and enough of that organizational structure is guilty that trying to single out the few people responsible isn't possible. Burn it down and salt the earth as a lesson to any organization that might consider doing the same thing.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, and you mentioned involvement in political meddling as being one part of why the Catholic Church should have its charitable tax status revoked.
Sigh. Read the comment I was replying to again. It clearly referred to churches and tax exemption in general, not any specific church.
If they are not violating laws, why are you saying they should have their tax exempt status revoked for violating laws? They should be punished for how you want the laws to be?
Sigh.
The churches that are blatantly violating laws are not the Catholic Church.
The laws on tax exemption and politics are too limited and should be much stricter. New laws should be passed that enforce a stricter barrier between supposed charitable organizations and political activism, and the Catholic Church should have its tax-exempt status revoked under those new laws if it continues to do what it does now.
Art is an integral part of Catholicism. Only museums can have statues, paintings and architectural wonders?
Yeah, let's pretend that the Church's wealth is all an integral part of its religious beliefs and not an attempt to provide a life of luxury to its top officials...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Peregrine wrote:Suppressing a study to protect your profits is obviously bad, but I can't even imagine the lack of empathy or morality that would allow someone to do what the church leadership did.
The 'we're under attack from all sides' crying the victim mentality at work me thinks. The fear that any negative press in these 'modern anti-Christian' times will ruin the Church. So they try to hide it, and of course had I been in the room I'd have said "have none of you ever watched a movie? This never works!" But I wasn't there
Also, let's not forget that "you're bad too!" isn't a valid argument.
It's not valid as a justification for the act itself, but if someone is singling out one group for their crimes while ignoring the others, then its perfectly valid to say so. No one here however is saying that 'other people do bad things too so we should ignore what the Church did' they're saying 'other people do bad things too so why are we singling out the Church for this treatment.' Punishing those directly involved in the crime is exactly what would happen to anyone else.
So why then for the Church should we take the extra step of revoking they're tax status? Especially when child molestation has little relevance to taxes. Corruption and misusing funds is its own crime and people get punished for that stuff all the time. The organization itself is rarely a target unless its sole purpose is corruption but you'd have a hard time convincing anyone the Church exists solely to cover up child molestation.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Peregrine wrote: NELS1031 wrote:Not every leader in the organization was involved though, and I believe only 1 Bishop has been convicted in secular law. Thats enough to bring the whole thing down?
Of course very few people have been convicted, that's what happens when you have an organization as big and powerful as the Catholic Church doing their best to hide all of the evidence. It's not at all a surprise that it would be very hard to meet the required burden of proof in a criminal case at this point.
Find an account of law enforcement complaining about obstruction of justice from Church leadership.
Peregrine wrote:
And yes, bring the whole thing down. There is strong evidence that the abuse and coverup were widespread in church leadership, and enough of that organizational structure is guilty that trying to single out the few people responsible isn't possible. Burn it down and salt the earth as a lesson to any organization that might consider doing the same thing.
In what world does it work that way? Enough of the leadership was guilty? What nebulous amount is "enough"?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, and you mentioned involvement in political meddling as being one part of why the Catholic Church should have its charitable tax status revoked.
Peregrine wrote:Sigh. Read the comment I was replying to again. It clearly referred to churches and tax exemption in general, not any specific church.
Sigh. The churches that are blatantly violating laws are not the Catholic Church.
The laws on tax exemption and politics are too limited and should be much stricter. New laws should be passed that enforce a stricter barrier between supposed charitable organizations and political activism, and the Catholic Church should have its tax-exempt status revoked under those new laws if it continues to do what it does now.
You can sigh all you want, but you are the one that listed the Catholic Church as the prime offender of what you yourself listed.
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, let's pretend that the Church's wealth is all an integral part of its religious beliefs and not an attempt to provide a life of luxury to its top officials...
And if you want pretend that they live lives of luxury, sure.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:So where exactly are the little leagues that are making obscene amounts of money and then using it to do things like protect priests who rape children, blatantly break the laws about tax-exempt organizations participating in politics, or just buy lots of expensive palaces/works of art/etc for their highest officials to enjoy? There are religious organizations that deserve their tax exemption, but there are plenty of them that need to lose it. And we can start with the Catholic Church.
No, not for profit status doesn't depend on whether you like the organisation and what it does. It depends on the purpose of the thing and how it makes its money. When you raise funds from members, either through subscriptions or donations or whatever, and then spends those funds on stuff for the members or charitable works, then taxing that organisation makes no damn sense because it isn't making actual profit.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
I think this may be the most dishonest post I've seen in a while. Of course I'm concerned with coaches that rape children, and the absurd glorification of sports that lets them get away with it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Then why did you mention Little League in a dismissive manner?
I mean yeah, Little League has nowhere near the annual operating budget of the Catholic Church, but there are plenty of instances in which chartered organizations have used their influence to cover up sexual abuse.
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, because the only reason anyone could be in favor of enforcing laws that exist for very good reason is some kind of petty grudge...
Oh, it certainly isn't the only reason but, in your case, it is the most likely reason.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dogma wrote:Then why did you mention Little League in a dismissive manner?
I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else claiming that taxing churches should be about as controversial as taxing the local little league.
I mean yeah, Little League has nowhere near the annual operating budget of the Catholic Church, but there are plenty of instances in which chartered organizations have used their influence to cover up sexual abuse.
And those should be punished as well. For example, Penn State should have received a permanent ban from football as a lesson to anyone thinking of trying a similar coverup to protect their winning record, not just a slight one-year inconvenience.
Oh, it certainly isn't the only reason but, in your case, it is the most likely reason.
So now you're resorting to accusing me of arguing in bad faith? I'm glad we can have such a constructive discussion...
5470
Post by: sebster
Seaward wrote:Cute, but unfortunately we're obliged to conclude that any institution that teaches the Catholic church exists solely to judge is going to be considerably inferior to one that doesn't, no matter what the Brits might think.
People may or may not care what the British think, but everyone in universities cares about the academic rankings of universities put out by Shanghai Jiao Tong, which is all the Time article is repeating. Every university will have listed somewhere in its core performance indicators that it wants to reach a certain place on that list, and moving up that list will bring in lots more research dollars. It's a big fething deal.
Though actually, I do agree with you; arguing about who has the best history degree is like arguing who has the best one-legged dog.
 Good line, and I think everyone can hopefully agree that e-penis measuring by university ranking is stupid, but history is one of the places where it really does matter. Do commerce or IT and you're set for a job no matter what uni you went to, but do history and you better make sure its from one of the best universities in the world, because that's the only way you're getting a job out of it.
Not that the list compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong is the means of measuring specific courses anyway - you wouldn't go to MIT for humanities and expect everyone to treat you as if you went to the fourth best humanities school in the world.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:No, not for profit status doesn't depend on whether you like the organisation and what it does. It depends on the purpose of the thing and how it makes its money. When you raise funds from members, either through subscriptions or donations or whatever, and then spends those funds on stuff for the members or charitable works, then taxing that organisation makes no damn sense because it isn't making actual profit.
But that's not how we define tax exemption (or at least this kind of tax exemption). For example, a political party raises funds from its members and then spends those funds on stuff for its members, but we very clearly do not grant them the same tax exemption that we grant a church.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:And those should be punished as well. For example, Penn State should have received a permanent ban from football as a lesson to anyone thinking of trying a similar coverup to protect their winning record, not just a slight one-year inconvenience.
Do you really believe that, though? Such an action would have a massive negative effect on thousands of people who did absolutely nothing wrong.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:Yes, because that 4% represents the leadership of the organization, and it's pretty clear that the problem of shielding rapists was widespread in that leadership. It's just like how if a corporation's management decide to commit crimes we don't refuse to shut it down because the poor janitor would lose their job.
Society as a whole, nor government, decided to start the Catholic Church, and they really have no place in deciding to shut it down. If people want to stop being Catholic then there will no longer be a Catholic Church, but if people still want to be Catholic, well then there's going to continue being a Catholic Church.
Now, I agree with you that where laws were broken the full force of the law should be brought against the paedophiles and those who covered up their crimes, and I think that understanding has finally worked its way through the church and society at large*. But whether (or more realistically how) the church comes through this is basically up to the church and its members, not the rest of us.
*Previously it seemed there was an explicit understanding within the church that they governed themselves, and an unstated assumption in the public at large that the Church might not have immunity, but somehow could expect some kind of special treatment.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
NELS1031 wrote:Find an account of law enforcement complaining about obstruction of justice from Church leadership.
Wait, are you seriously disputing that church officials blocked investigation into rapes committed by other church officials?
In what world does it work that way? Enough of the leadership was guilty? What nebulous amount is "enough"?
It works that way in a world where even if you throw everyone who has been clearly proven guilty in prison you are almost guaranteeing that the organizational structure that committed the crimes remains intact. Punishing a scapegoat or two doesn't force any meaningful changes, if you want to stop future offenses you need to punish the organization as a whole.
You can sigh all you want, but you are the one that listed the Catholic Church as the prime offender of what you yourself listed.
Only if you make up a strawman and claim I said it.
And if you want pretend that they live lives of luxury, sure.
Seriously? Are you going to deny that the pope and other high-ranking church officials live a life of luxury? Remember how it was a newsworthy event when the current pope made his first speech wearing only a really expensive outfit (far beyond what 99.99999% of the world will ever be able to afford) and not something obscenely expensive? Automatically Appended Next Post: Seaward wrote:Do you really believe that, though? Such an action would have a massive negative effect on thousands of people who did absolutely nothing wrong.
Yes I believe that. In the end football is just a game, even if we've somehow managed to lose sight of that fact. Thousands of people might have to find a new team to cheer for, but that's a small price to pay for preventing other schools from letting their coaches rape children because it might hurt their chances of winning if they told the police about it.
sebster wrote:Society as a whole, nor government, decided to start the Catholic Church, and they really have no place in deciding to shut it down. If people want to stop being Catholic then there will no longer be a Catholic Church, but if people still want to be Catholic, well then there's going to continue being a Catholic Church.
Sure. The many people who believe in the Catholic religion are free to start a new church and continue to have those beliefs. But they can do so without the wealth and privileges earned by the criminal organization currently operating under that name.
Now, I agree with you that where laws were broken the full force of the law should be brought against the paedophiles and those who covered up their crimes, and I think that understanding has finally worked its way through the church and society at large*. But whether (or more realistically how) the church comes through this is basically up to the church and its members, not the rest of us.
The problem is that untangling who was directly responsible is impossible at this point. The damage of the coverup has been done, and the chances of convicting the people responsible are pretty much nonexistent. Meanwhile we know that the coverup was a policy of the church as a whole, not a few isolated individuals. And that's a collective guilt that can't be dealt with by throwing a scapegoat or two in prison.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else claiming that taxing churches should be about as controversial as taxing the local little league.
You're correct, I apologize.
Peregrine wrote:
So now you're resorting to accusing me of arguing in bad faith? I'm glad we can have such a constructive discussion...
When you stop being reflexively hostile to all things associated with religion, I would be glad to have a constructive discussion.
Peregrine wrote:
Yes I believe that. In the end football is just a game, even if we've somehow managed to lose sight of that fact. Thousands of people might have to find a new team to cheer for, but that's a small price to pay for preventing other schools from letting their coaches rape children because it might hurt their chances of winning if they told the police about it.
I believe Seaward was referring to the loss of funding that would follow from the elimination of the Penn State football team.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dogma wrote:I believe Seaward was referring to the loss of funding that would follow from the elimination of the Penn State football team.
Which is a subject requiring extreme skepticism. The college sports industry does a good job of hiding the exact numbers, but there's a pretty good case that there's no net benefit to the schools. The football teams clearly make lots of money, but most, if not all, of that money gets invested back into football instead of helping any academic programs.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:But that's not how we define tax exemption (or at least this kind of tax exemption). For example, a political party raises funds from its members and then spends those funds on stuff for its members, but we very clearly do not grant them the same tax exemption that we grant a church.
It's a different section that applies to different organisations, but the effect is the same.
The tax code is full of all kinds of arbitrary sectional codes that basically end up doing the same thing, with much of the same reasoning behind them. Because trying to write laws for unknown real world situations is hard, especially when there's lots of people reading that law as literally as possible to try and scam their way around them. And then when you add the problem that accountants are a bunch of weird little pedants then you end up with even more pointless bits of redundant law. Or maybe I just really hate the structure of tax law, and American tax law in particular, and happen to think the odd moment where it's actually kind of elegant is something we shouldn't give up because some people committed crimes that have nothing to do with tax law.
60944
Post by: Super Ready
On the subject of Catholic spending and tax-exemption. I don't believe that religions should necessarily be tax-exempt, unless otherwise proven to be charitable organisations *as well*. That is - they should be held to the same standards of accountability as organisations that exist as charities alone (and they probably are, I don't actually know, that's just my stance on it).
After doing a little research, with all those silly hats and fancy Dorothy shoes kicking about I was expecting to find evidence of gross misspending - but I was pleasantly surprised by a few things. I'll leave these here, with two things borne in mind - one, the dates of these showing that it's not just a recent trend, but two, to counter-act that - no doubt the frilly hats and shoes still count as expenses and are taken out before calculating profit:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-24204/
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/10/local/me-54570
http://www.economist.com/node/21560536
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:Sure. The many people who believe in the Catholic religion are free to start a new church and continue to have those beliefs. But they can do so without the wealth and privileges earned by the criminal organization currently operating under that name.
Individuals harmed can sue, and if between them all they win enough money so as to leave the church bankrupt well then that's one thing, but you don't just get to say 'you don't get to be an organisation anymore' and start taking their stuff.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:Individuals harmed can sue, and if between them all they win enough money so as to leave the church bankrupt well then that's one thing, but you don't just get to say 'you don't get to be an organisation anymore' and start taking their stuff.
Really? Because in the US it's clearly established that you can arrest and charge the money with various crimes, seize all of it, and force the former owner to justify getting it back*. The only reason not to do so is that our spineless politicians will never take any meaningful action against a church.
*Especially if the former owner happens to be guilty of traveling through a small town without being white, or someone we've labeled a 'terrorist'.
23
Post by: djones520
Peregrine wrote: sebster wrote:Individuals harmed can sue, and if between them all they win enough money so as to leave the church bankrupt well then that's one thing, but you don't just get to say 'you don't get to be an organisation anymore' and start taking their stuff.
Really? Because in the US it's clearly established that you can arrest and charge the money with various crimes, seize all of it, and force the former owner to justify getting it back*. The only reason not to do so is that our spineless politicians will never take any meaningful action against a church.
*Especially if the former owner happens to be guilty of traveling through a small town without being white, or someone we've labeled a 'terrorist'.
Your just full of hyperbole tonight aren't you?
221
Post by: Frazzled
azazel the cat wrote:Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote: I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others. 
If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.
Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously? Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.
The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.
Wow thats one of the most bigoted AND WRONG statements you've made in quite awhile. Substitute some other group for Catholic Church and you would be rightly derided as the hater you are. That is bad and you should feel bad.
181
Post by: gorgon
Frazzled wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote: I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others. 
If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.
Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously? Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.
The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.
Wow thats one of the most bigoted AND WRONG statements you've made in quite awhile. Substitute some other group for Catholic Church and you would be rightly derided as the hater you are. That is bad and you should feel bad.
Cut him some slack for the choice unintentional humor.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
gorgon wrote: Frazzled wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote: I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others. 
If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.
Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously? Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.
The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.
Wow thats one of the most bigoted AND WRONG statements you've made in quite awhile. Substitute some other group for Catholic Church and you would be rightly derided as the hater you are. That is bad and you should feel bad.
Cut him some slack for the choice unintentional humor.
Especially if you read the underlined part with a California Valley Girl voice
221
Post by: Frazzled
Oh no, now I can't get that accent out of my head...
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
You're, like, welcome
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
TOTES cray cray! #YOLO #SWAG
221
Post by: Frazzled
Like gag me with a spoon you know like totally like come on!
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Oh my god guys, like stop it! I mean totally cut it out.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're good.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Hate to tell you this, but zero is the exact number of feths I give about where Jefferson went to school. Also, please compare #30 to #184, since your hubris demanded that you travel down this absolutely pointless and silly road.
Though actually, I do agree with you; arguing about who has the best history degree is like arguing who has the best one-legged dog.
Let the record show that:
1) Seaward and I agree on something, possibly for the first time ever on Dakka.
2) I can piss slightly farther?
Seaward wrote:No, now you're simply changing your argument. Initially it was, "the Catholic church exists only to judge." Now it is, "the Catholic church exists only to exert social control and gain wealth, and judgment is the means by which they do it." Those two statements do not become synonymous no matter how much you want them to.
As I already stated and addressed, my error was being lazy in my preposition.
Seaward wrote:Nor are either one of them correct, unless you're asserting that the entirety of the organization's leadership through hundreds upon hundreds of years has decided to completely abandon any real belief in the Catholic faith. Given some of the arguments you've come up with in the past, I'm fully capable of believing that you believe that
Pretty close.
However, "entirety" is obviously not accurate, because even amongst the leadership, there are people who legitimately have been drinking the Kool-Aid and honestly have faith that the smoke and lies are real. And that's where I don't think you've gone far enough into my mistrust and loathing of the institution of the Catholic Church (or any religious organization or person who claims to speak for the divine): your statement on the abandonment of the faith is positioned as though there was something "true" about the organization to begin with; whereas I posit that it was only ever a means of manipulating the naïve, and excusing atrocious behaviour when it suited whoever was pulling the strings at the time. Sure, sometimes something good came as a by-product of it, but that in no way excuses all the terrible things.
Billy Graham, Marchall Applewhite or John the Baptist, they're all basically the same to me; the difference is only a matter of scale.
That being said, if you want to continue this, let's do it via PM, because I think I'm already skirting the edge of impropriety on this topic, and I calculate that if we continue this discussion publicly, then this thread will get locked in a hurry. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Wow thats one of the most bigoted AND WRONG statements you've made in quite awhile. Substitute some other group for Catholic Church and you would be rightly derided as the hater you are. That is bad and you should feel bad.
Feel free to substitute any group who claims to speak for the divine.
Also, in order to call me a bigot, I would have to be prejudiced.
And in order to be prejudiced, my dislike would have to be unfair.
Since my dislike is rooted in the instution's claims to speak for the divine, you must first prove that they actually do in order to call my dislike "unfair".
So good luck with that.
(perhaps the true futility of your task for the purpose of defending your statement comes from the fact that if you could actually prove it, then I would adopt the belief in a heartbeat, which thereby means I cannot be obstinately attached to my existing beliefs)
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Especially if you read the underlined part with a California Valley Girl voice 
Well played, sir.
5470
Post by: sebster
Super Ready wrote:On the subject of Catholic spending and tax-exemption. I don't believe that religions should necessarily be tax-exempt, unless otherwise proven to be charitable organisations *as well*. That is - they should be held to the same standards of accountability as organisations that exist as charities alone (and they probably are, I don't actually know, that's just my stance on it). Consider that there are 100 guys, they work and they pay taxes, and they all love art, but while they're quite wealthy, individually they're nowhere near wealthy enough to buy great art by themselves. So they get together, and sign an agreement that each year they'll each contribute $10,000 to a pool, and then buy the nicest painting their $1,000,000 can afford. They're a group, and the painting is just for their own private viewing, so they certainly aren't a charity. So by your logic above the group should pay tax on the $1,000,000 the group generates. Now consider a single guy, who also loves art, but also happens to be very, very rich. He is rich enough to spent $1,000,000 every year on a painting he loves. No-one would suggest he ought to pay tax on that money, over and above what he's already paid. Because he's just a single guy, spending his post tax dollars, same as everyone else. So why should that change when 100 guys get together to buy art as a group? One guy buys a painting, or 100 guys as a private group buy a painting, the tax treatment should be the same. The answer is that groups assembled for a mutual purpose, funded entirely from member's dues, should not be a taxed organisation. And now consider the Catholic Church, where there isn't even a fixed membership fee, but gives people the freedom to pay as much or as little as they please. Whether they spend that money on good works, or impressive cathedrals and paintings doesn't matter. What matters is that it's an organisation driven by member donations, spending that money per the group's overall objective. Taxing the church's takings would not make sense. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:Really? Because in the US it's clearly established that you can arrest and charge the money with various crimes, seize all of it, and force the former owner to justify getting it back*. Proceeds from crime, yeah. But St Paul's wasn't built with unpaid child labour...
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:Dreadclaw69 wrote:Especially if you read the underlined part with a California Valley Girl voice 
Well played, sir. 
It was low hanging fruit and I couldn't resist Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:Which is a subject requiring extreme skepticism. The college sports industry does a good job of hiding the exact numbers, but there's a pretty good case that there's no net benefit to the schools. The football teams clearly make lots of money, but most, if not all, of that money gets invested back into football instead of helping any academic programs.
A lot of it goes to other sports that don't attract the same funding also Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Really? Because in the US it's clearly established that you can arrest and charge the money with various crimes, seize all of it, and force the former owner to justify getting it back*.
That is not unique to the United States, especially when it comes to proceeds from crime
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
The college sports industry does a good job of hiding the exact numbers, but there's a pretty good case that there's no net benefit to the schools.
Sure, if you assume that schools are only in the business of academic education.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
dogma wrote:
Sure, if you assume that schools are only in the business of academic education.
Assuming they're in the business of academic education at all.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dogma wrote:Sure, if you assume that schools are only in the business of academic education.
Yeah, shockingly I do assume that schools are there for academic purposes, not to run minor league football teams.
But please, feel free to tell me what school function would be harmed so badly by shutting down the football team that we have to be careful how we punish the football team for letting an "important" coach rape children.
sebster wrote:And now consider the Catholic Church, where there isn't even a fixed membership fee, but gives people the freedom to pay as much or as little as they please. Whether they spend that money on good works, or impressive cathedrals and paintings doesn't matter. What matters is that it's an organisation driven by member donations, spending that money per the group's overall objective. Taxing the church's takings would not make sense.
But that's only looking at income taxes. Churches are also exempt from other taxes. For example, churches don't pay property taxes on their buildings, while other property is subject to property taxes whether it's owned by a single person or a group of people formed to purchase that property.
Proceeds from crime, yeah. But St Paul's wasn't built with unpaid child labour...
Fortunately in the US you don't actually need to prove any guilt to seize property. Money does not have the same rights as people do, so when you arrest the money the former owner has the burden of proving that the money was not the result of any criminal activities. For example, if the local police department catches you driving with too much cash they can arrest your money on suspicion of being involved in illegal drug sales and spend it on buying themselves some shiny new guns. I'm simply advocating that we apply the same policy to the Catholic Church.
(No this is not actually a serious proposal, even though the seizure laws really are that horrifyingly wrong.)
Dreadclaw69 wrote:That is not unique to the United States, especially when it comes to proceeds from crime
Note that this is happening before the owner of the property is convicted of any crime, or even charged. All the police have to do is say that you look "suspicious" and take your money/car/etc. Which is very convenient in this case, we can just declare our suspicion that the church is involved in selling drugs and seize everything they own.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:But that's only looking at income taxes. Churches are also exempt from other taxes. For example, churches don't pay property taxes on their buildings, while other property is subject to property taxes whether it's owned by a single person or a group of people formed to purchase that property.
And when it comes to land taxes (and favourable income taxes for employees and all the rest) I agree with you. But then I'd extend that same principle to people working at charities and all other kinds of not-for-profits as well.
But then, if we're at the point where I just get to say how the law should work, then I'm getting rid of land taxes entirely, and payroll tax, all transaction taxes, and pretty much everything else, leaving income tax, a single broadbased sales tax, and maybe a handful of excises on particular items with significant externalities.
Fortunately in the US you don't actually need to prove any guilt to seize property. Money does not have the same rights as people do, so when you arrest the money the former owner has the burden of proving that the money was not the result of any criminal activities. For example, if the local police department catches you driving with too much cash they can arrest your money on suspicion of being involved in illegal drug sales and spend it on buying themselves some shiny new guns. I'm simply advocating that we apply the same policy to the Catholic Church.
But you can only sieze assets that it can be reasonably claimed were acquired through those criminal activities. ie you can sieze the porsche of the drug dealer who's legitimate income is a part time McDonald's job, because there's no way his legal income could have paid for that car. But you can't start taking everything a person owns because he committed a crime, and so you can't taking church assets when those assets were acquired through processes that had nothing to do with paedophilia or child labour.
(No this is not actually a serious proposal, even though the seizure laws really are that horrifyingly wrong.)
Yeah, the seizure laws are awful, but their awfulness doesn't really extend in any sensible way to the church.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
But you can only sieze assets that it can be reasonably claimed were acquired through those criminal activities. ie you can sieze the porsche of the drug dealer who's legitimate income is a part time McDonald's job, because there's no way his legal income could have paid for that car. But you can't start taking everything a person owns because he committed a crime, and so you can't taking church assets when those assets were acquired through processes that had nothing to do with paedophilia or child labour.
See, you're completely missing how it works here. You don't need to prove that someone committed a crime to seize their assets, as long as they're non-white and/or too poor to afford a lawyer. Nor do you need to prove that the assets were paid for through criminal activities. For example, if the police arrest your adult son (who happens to be living with you) for smoking pot they can also arrest and seize your house, even though it was purchased legitimately before that son was even born.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, shockingly I do assume that schools are there for academic purposes, not to run minor league football teams.
If someone prefaces the word "education" with the word "academic" they probably aren't using them in the synonymous sense. Rather, they are probably using the word "academic" in the sense of "impractical". The point being that schools concern themselves with education that extends beyond the impractical.
Peregrine wrote:
But please, feel free to tell me what school function would be harmed so badly by shutting down the football team that we have to be careful how we punish the football team for letting an "important" coach rape children.
Aside from the support of a football team? Not many.
Also, why, aside from the Penn State matter, are you focusing on American football? There are plenty of cases in which collegiate athletic departments have covered up sexual abuse by coaches and other employees.
True enough.
American institutions of higher education are in the business of granting degrees and generating profit for their teachers and faculty.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dogma wrote:If someone prefaces the word "education" with the word "academic" they probably aren't using them in the synonymous sense. Rather, they are probably using the word "academic" in the sense of "impractical". The point being that schools concern themselves with education that extends beyond the impractical.
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What does practical vs. "academic" education have to do with whether or not college football programs contribute anything to their schools?
Aside from the support of a football team? Not many.
Great, so we agree that nothing of any value will be lost if the football team is shut down.
Also, why, aside from the Penn State matter, are you focusing on American football? There are plenty of cases in which collegiate athletic departments have covered up sexual abuse by coaches and other employees.
Because football is the biggest money sport in the US and has the biggest problems with excessive influence, and saying "football" is easier than saying "football or whatever other sport happened to be involved in some other unspecified scandal". Scandals in other sports are just as bad and if the department is covering up similar crimes then those sports should be permanently shut down as well.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:Great, so we agree that nothing of any value will be lost if the football team is shut down.
I don't agree with that, because I don't buy the argument that zero football money makes it into the rest of the school, but even if that is the case, institutional punishment for individual actions strikes me as a ridiculous concept.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:You don't need to prove that someone committed a crime to seize their assets, as long as they're non-white and/or too poor to afford a lawyer. Nor do you need to prove that the assets were paid for through criminal activities. For example, if the police arrest your adult son (who happens to be living with you) for smoking pot they can also arrest and seize your house, even though it was purchased legitimately before that son was even born.
They can seize the house, but only if it was used in a manner which renders it pertinent to a criminal investigation.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Seaward wrote:I don't agree with that, because I don't buy the argument that zero football money makes it into the rest of the school, but even if that is the case, institutional punishment for individual actions strikes me as a ridiculous concept.
Well, since the real numbers aren't available to anyone outside of the university administrations we'll just have to agree to disagree on the question of whether football is funding the rest of the school or just itself.
As for institutional punishment the problem is that we're talking about more than just an individual here. When the institution itself is involved in covering up a crime there needs to be more than just the removal of the individuals responsible. If nothing else the permanent banning of Penn State's football team would have been great for deterring other schools from even considering the same kind of coverup.
And to clarify I'm talking about the NCAA issuing a permanent ban, not some absurd idea of the government saying "you're not allowed to play football anymore". The NCAA has a policy of punishing the institution for individual offenses, and even imposed an institutional punishment on Penn State. My only disagreement with them is that the punishment should have been much harsher instead of just losing a token bowl game.
dogma wrote:They can seize the house, but only if it was used in a manner which renders it pertinent to a criminal investigation.
That might be the case in theory, but in practice the only requirement for seizure seems to be the police wanting the money/property.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What does practical vs. "academic" education have to do with whether or not college football programs contribute anything to their schools?
If the educational mission of a given school extends beyond the academic, then they clearly must provide programs which educate their students in other ways. Maybe one of those ways is teaching them that people enjoy watching American football, volleyball, basketball, baseball, and the like. Maybe another is that playing sports is fun.
Peregrine wrote:
Great, so we agree that nothing of any value will be lost if the football team is shut down.
No, that isn't what I said, nor is it what I implied. NCAA football does not benefit a school so much that "we" should be careful how a team is punished in the event that a member of its staff rapes a child. But "we" should recognize that people, other than the guilty, can be harmed in the course of punishing an organization.
Peregrine wrote:
Because football is the biggest money sport in the US and has the biggest problems with excessive influence, and saying "football" is easier than saying "football or whatever other sport happened to be involved in some other unspecified scandal". Scandals in other sports are just as bad and if the department is covering up similar crimes then those sports should be permanently shut down as well.
You could also just say "collegiate athletics", it's only 9 more letters.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Anyway, this has gone pretty far off-topic. The reason I mentioned college sports at all was to address the claim that I'm unfairly singling out the Catholic Church for criticism and punishment. I think it is safely established now that I'm in favor of harsh punishments for other organizations that commit similar crimes.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:See, you're completely missing how it works here. You don't need to prove that someone committed a crime to seize their assets, as long as they're non-white and/or too poor to afford a lawyer. Nor do you need to prove that the assets were paid for through criminal activities. For example, if the police arrest your adult son (who happens to be living with you) for smoking pot they can also arrest and seize your house, even though it was purchased legitimately before that son was even born.
I've read a fair few pieces on abuses of those laws in the US (it was a pretty hot topic over here when we brought in our similar laws), but I've never read anything that makes out the situation is as extreme as you claim there. There is most definitely a problem with excessive claims on assets, which are hard to fight because of the terrible burden of proof laws typically in place, but I've never read about straight up grabbing of anything and everything that was near the person when the crime was committed.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:I've read a fair few pieces on abuses of those laws in the US (it was a pretty hot topic over here when we brought in our similar laws), but I've never read anything that makes out the situation is as extreme as you claim there. There is most definitely a problem with excessive claims on assets, which are hard to fight because of the terrible burden of proof laws typically in place, but I've never read about straight up grabbing of anything and everything that was near the person when the crime was committed.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=1 should give you some pretty nice examples. It may not be literally "anything and everything" but the only difference between theft and what those police departments are doing is that we pretend that one of them is legal.
And, like the sports thing, I'm done with this tangent. The original comment about "declare it all to be drug money and seize the churches" was just a joke about how awful the seizure laws are here, so it's not really worth debating anymore.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=1 should give you some pretty nice examples. It may not be literally "anything and everything" but the only difference between theft and what those police departments are doing is that we pretend that one of them is legal.
Yeah, that fits with my understanding of the law, and is pretty much what I said - disturbingly low burden of proof for seizure, but you can't just go grabbing any assets a person or organisation has after they commit a crime.
And, like the sports thing, I'm done with this tangent. The original comment about "declare it all to be drug money and seize the churches" was just a joke about how awful the seizure laws are here, so it's not really worth debating anymore.
Fair enough, I think we were talking past each other for the most part.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Peregrine wrote:Note that this is happening before the owner of the property is convicted of any crime, or even charged. All the police have to do is say that you look "suspicious" and take your money/car/etc. Which is very convenient in this case, we can just declare our suspicion that the church is involved in selling drugs and seize everything they own.
I'm surprised that the ACLU aren't all over this
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
sebster wrote:Proceeds from crime, yeah. But St Paul's wasn't built with unpaid child labour...
Not sure about the Christopher Wren design, but I'd hazard a guess that the original St Paul's actually was build with unpaid child labour.
Seaward wrote: Peregrine wrote:Great, so we agree that nothing of any value will be lost if the football team is shut down.
I don't agree with that, because I don't buy the argument that zero football money makes it into the rest of the school, but even if that is the case, institutional punishment for individual actions strikes me as a ridiculous concept.
Twice in one thread we agree on something. That's... definitely unique.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Twice in a single thread?
....whelp, time to go inna woods and wait for the world to end.
|
|