I’m still waiting for an example, Blue.
Um… “The Movement For The Restoration”?
Link?
Reading this over I was thinking of a real similarity between the Catholic treatment of moneys and that of Krishnas or unnamed “give us all your money” religeons.
As I understand it one reason priests are not allowed to marry is to ensure that the church retains ownership of any properties a priest may have been entitled to as there would normally be no one to inheirit. And while many of the airport begging churches do require that members give up ownership of material wealth, they also support themselves from donations of strangers. I think if one views the number of people in service to the Catholic church who have relinquished all material wealth to the number of members of the Rajneesh who had done the same then holy mother church would have to come out on top in terms of willfully impoverished members, remembering that a priest and a nun is just as much a member of the church as a layperson is.
But again, this brings up the subjective nature of the question and the ambiguous concept of what a cult is. “Cult” is a word like “soft” is, they both get used as an absolute which neither will be.
You don’t really mean Anything do you? Because that’d encompass things like persuasive papers, wouldn’t it? And advertising? There has to be a body of believers for there to be a cult.
No offence, JS Princeton, but your impressions of Catholicism are very different from my experience.
I think you may have a different understanding of the word “secret” from me. Any non-Catholic who takes the remotest interest in Catholicism – and many who don’t – has heard of papal infallibility and the immaculate conception. These doctrines, and others, are widely discussed and debated in Catholic, ecumenical, non-Catholic and anti-Catholic circles. I don’t know at what stage in a course of instruction in Catholicism these issues would be addressed – I image the immaculate conception comes up fairly early – but any systematic course is going to deal with some items first and others later. It can be taken for granted that those attending the course have already heard of them. I don’t think that makes them “secret” or “gradually revealed”.
Well, they’ve never recommended it to me.
This is b*lls. There is a large numbers of saints. Relatively few of them are distinguished by having given all their property to the Church. Their lives to Christ, yes. Their property to the Church, not so often.
This is also b*lls. I’m a Catholic. I’m married to a non-Catholic. There was no difficulty. My children have non-Catholic godparents. There was no problem with that either. I “fraternize” extensively with non-Catholics in matters of religion. Again, no problem.
Well, Catholicism is a matter of shared belief, and if you don’t share the belief then, no, you’re not a Catholic. There is (ample) room for dispute about what is the essential core of Catholic belief, and therefore room for dispute about who is and who is not a Catholic. Such disputes are not edifying. But they do not make Catholicism a cult, unless all associations based on a shared belief are cults.
(PS: You’re right, you don’t know about the filioque. Some rites use it, others do not. All are Catholic.)
And your point is? The same can be said for most cults. The “secretive” nature of their beliefs is often easily revealed if you know what you’re talking about.
Of course intelligent people already know about the doctrines associated with their chosen religion. This is generally true of people who join other so-called “cults”. My point is not that Catholicism is horrible, my point is that the other cults are similar in type to the older, established religions.
Perhaps you should read your catechism.
The point being that you live in a more open Catholic diocese than most. The official rule is that in order to marry a non-Catholic, you must get a special dispensation from your bishop. Depending on who your bishop is that may or may not be a problem. Of course there are different strokes for different folks. There is, however, unified doctrine that says one thing. Whether your particular parish does something else is not the issue. All the larger cults have subgroups that don’t neccessarily follow exactly the rules set out by mamma prime.
I’m not going to get into a debate with someone who hasn’t bothered to figure out what, exactly it is that I’m illustrating. Do you care to provide a definition for your “cult”? I challenge you to do so. I have spoken to plenty of people who belong to groups you would term “cults” that say exactly the same thing. Your argumentative comments just prove to show what I’m trying to illustrate, that it’s exceedingly difficult to label anyone… that’s ANYONE… a cult without offending their memebers. You’re offended by the blatant generalizations I make and the slant I put on my comments. So are most cults when being described by so-called “cult watch” groups.
Except for those that are excommunicated. The Roman Church threw just as much a fit during the Great Schism over keeping said doctrine as the Easterners did over the condemnations of it. Read some history and some doctrine and get back to me. Yeah, it was mostly a political gesture, but the dogma was handed down nonetheless.
As far as I’m concerned, your blasting of my comments is the best illustration I could have asked for as to why it’s problematic to bring up such things. Thanks!
I think the kind of secrecy associated with groups that get characterised as cults is the idea of special knowledge available only to initiates – you have to make a commitment to the group before they will disclose certain doctrines to you. They will not discuss them at all with non-members. They don’t publish them, and they try to keep them secret. They may even deny their existence. I think that’s an important feature which distinguishes them from more mainstream denominations, who generally seek to publish all their doctrines widely and are happy – indeed, keen - to discuss them with anybody.
Here’s a link to the catechism:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
Here’s a link to a handy search engine for the catechism.
http://www.ziplink.net/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/kerygma/a.pl
Perhaps you can point us to the section you have in mind?
I don’t think I live in a more open diocese than most. My bishop is a noted conservative, as was his predecessor. I did have to get a dispensation, but it was very straightforward and I got it by return of post, together with a letter wishing me happiness on my marriage. Not very cultic, really. The experience of acquaintances in a similar situation was the same.
Actually, our positions may be closer than appear at first. I don’t use the term “cult” very much, precisely because I find it a fairly nebulous concept that is often used by people to characterise a group that they have already decided they dislike and fear. Where it is used with any kind of precision, I understand it to refer to a group
(a) which has “secret knowledge” of the kind I already mentioned, which they will not disclose to, or discuss with, outsiders or (in some cases) even with the outer circle of their own adherents, and
(b) which seeks to impose a fairly rigorous separation (not just in matters of religion, but socially) between its members and the rest of the world, teaching its members that becoming close to non-members is dangerous and/or wrong.
My concern, to be honest, was that in order to characterise the Catholic Church as a cult within sugaree’s definition, you were saying things about the Catholic Church that were not just “blatant generalisations”; they were, basically, untrue. In the Catholic Church there are no “secrets that are gradually revealed as one gets sucked in” or “beliefs . . . only revealed to the already initiated”. Doctrine and teaching are entirely public, and accessible to anyone who cares about them, whether Catholic, non-Catholic or positively anti-Catholic. “Fraternising” outside the Catholic Church is not “frowned upon”, in matters of religion or otherwise. And so forth. I wasn’t really comfortable allowing such things to go uncorrected.
I think I probably agree with you that it’s possible to adopt a defensible definition of “cult” which would include the Catholic church (although sugaree’s definition isn’t it), and that discussions about “cults”, unless everyone involved is agreed on what the term means, are at best useless.
You’re welcome!
This is a bit of a sideshow, but the Catholic Church didn’t excommunicate anyone over the filioque, but for other reasons. There were at the time, and still are, rites in communion with Rome which do not use it, so its non-use could hardly have formed the basis for a credible excommunication. The Orthodox Patriarch may have excommunicated Catholics on this issue, since Orthodox Christians never use it.
UDS, again you illustrate my point that there is a problem in definition for the loaded term, “cult”. I’m glad you feel compelled to defend your religion and that you do not use the term when in describing other religious groups. Most people, in cults or not, will happily expound hours on end to those willing to listen why their group doesn’t qualify for the ignominy of cult-status. They will happily explain why any definition you give for the cult doesn’t apply to them. I’m inclined to say, it’s really both ways… it applies and doesn’t apply, so we should eschew classifying groups under the term.
This is an interesting point about secrecy, but I don’t think it makes for a decent demarcation. Mystery initiations and secret knowledge are generally frowned upon today by groups that maintain a non-mystical side to their religious experience. If your group has a mystical side, usually there remains some sort of “mystery” that can only be acheived after a time of initiation. To give a Catholic example for this, the contemplative traditions within the Catholic Church are very fond of a certain type of esotericism that has been blasted by anti-Catholic bigots as being a sort of “mystery cult” or “secret knowledge”. It’s hogwash, if you ask me, but I know that the point is made. Similarly, most of the “secret knowledge” accusations laid against so-called cults is simlarly biased and without base. This is why it is problematic.
You submit that mystery-initiations is a demarcation point for all cults. I have only come across two popularly defined groups so far that truly have such secretive practices that are not disclosed willingly (Scientologists and Free Masons), and it’s debatable as to whether these groups are cults or not. No matter, there are other popularly defined cults that are not secretive in their doctrine or practices in the least, just like Catholicism strictly isn’t. The criteria you set up, then, isn’t exactly robust.
Here’s a link on Catholic tithes, sorry, I was remembering the point from the Old Baltimore Catechism, which I realize is now out-of-date. My apologies.
There are religions out there that do not require such things. I believe many of them would look on the practice as rather cultic no matter how benign it actually is.
You provide two possible cult-criteria. We already went over the secrecy stuff. I hope you’ll agree that it’s really a question of degree. You draw the dividing line at official secrets, I think others may wish to see it placed elsewhere so as to include their least-favorite religions as cults.
Your second criteria…
…is also a matter of degree. What defines social separation? Are you saying that the Amish are cultish? What about cloistered monastic orders? Certainly many Christian (including Catholic) Churches would tell you to be careful when becoming close to “non-members” (more often they would say, “non-believers”) because it may lead to temptation, danger, sin, etc. Just trying to get your criteria straight, you see. It’s not necessarily easy to see how you would make your distinction.
I can understand your offense at the “untruths” that I presented. But you have to admit that each of them, while intentionally slanted, use the actual practices of Catholicism. Nowhere did I state anything that isn’t specifically Catholic in some twisted way, and while you might not like the descriptions sugaree offerred to be applied to Catholics, I am simply saying that there are arguments that can be made that such descriptions indeed can be applied, however insulting, misleading, and trite they may be. The anti-cult movements have basically used the same grandstanding techniques when in criticizing the new religions they don’t like.
On the contrary, one of the official reasons for the 16 July, 1054 listed in the document of anathema and excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert to the schismatic Michael Cerularius was the removal of filioque from the creed, as it was done without doctrinal consent from Rome.
This whole argument reminds me of a time in my life when I was contemplating conversion to a Christian faith (well, there was this girl you see…). Anyhow my grandmother, who is a Unitarian, met my step-Grandfather who is a member of one of those fainting screaming in tongues faith healing sects. His first words to her were that her faith was a cult.
Hmm, he’s probably right but then as someone who had been to services with both of them I recall that the speaking in tongues folks reminded me a lot more of the Thuggees from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom while the Unitarians were particularly WASPish in their demeanor (you know, quitet hands in lap kind of folks).
In the end you/we are all members of a cult when viewed by the meber of another cult. But Catholics especially (WEG). If you believe in the story of the Apostle Paul then think of the Roman perspective:***
“Did you hear? There was some Judean hanging out near the shrine to the UnNamed diety claiming that it did have a name and was the only true diety. What a gods damned nutter!” “Yeah I heard about that jerk! He recruited Philustus’s son last week with that crazy talk. The last thing we need is another wacko cult in Athens. Our kids are just too impressionable, they are losing repsect for the true faith in the Pantheon. But I really worry about the elderly.” “What do you mean?” “Well you know old Kameckus?” “Yeah, she just had her IVIII birthday.” “By Zeus thats getting up there!” “Anyhow she just gave some of her fortune to this `Paul’ guy. These cultists always go after the elderly because they are lonely and crave the companionship. And get this, this Paul says that the underworld is a bad place to go!” “No!” “Yes! He told my neighbor that the netire underworld is a lake of fire and that the only good place to go is in the sky or something, I forget.” “That sounds stupid. How does it stay up there? Does Atlas hold it up?” “These people don’t believe in Atlas.” “Morons, what keeps the sky from falling if there is no Atlas?” “I dunno. Look I gotta Mercury my ass to work, the slaves won’t beat themselves. See you at temple?” “Yeah, I’ll see you at temple!”***
Dianetics and the book Stranger in a Strange Land, both by SciFi writers have both spawned religeons. The Church of All worlds is a diety-free religeon based on the social engineering conceplts gleaned from Heineins writings (which are capable ofbeing viewed as logical in some context and may make this exempt from my definition of cult status under the logic clause), but from what I know of Dianetics and the use of and belief in that electric box they hook you up to I’d say it qualifies and it started out as a piece of paper that was persuasive to some. Mein Kamph was persuasive enough to some who read it. I have to believe that persuasive papers fall under the existing term “cult of personality”. Have to review it on a case by case basis, as there may or may not be the required belief in the invisible un-proveable diety or higher power or faith in the illogical.
Advertising is almost certainly a cult. “Where’s the beef!” “You quiero Taco Bell!” I serve my master advertising!
Please join me in Great Debates.
Thank you, sugaree. This has turned into a debate. The original question cannot be answered until cult is defined, so I’ll just close this thread.
DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator