Which correct points do you believe I have ignored?
ZZZZZ. boring and not playing. Do you deny that the Catholic Church has had a plunge in numbers of devout followers from 1950 until now in western countries?
No.
But the Catholic Church is a universal church. (Admittedly, that term applies only to the current planet at this time… but not just to “western countries.”)
Yes the RCC has had a plunge in membership in western educated countries and now its strongholds are African countries where education levels are low. That says everything I need to say.
What does that mean?
It means I will soon join a KofC council on Ceti Alpha VI.
Or it means that the church is not limited to “western countries.”
You pick.
Latin American countries deserve some mention here, and in fact, I would argue that there is at least some under-representation in polling as to American Catholics now simply because of the large numbers of Hispanics that are unreachable by traditional survey methods.
But your current thesis is true: in most western countries, more people are leaving the Catholic Church than are joining it (either by birth or conversion). In third world countries, including both Latin America and Africa, the reverse is true.
Of course, this only became your current thesis after your previous central thesis – that the Church as a whole was losing membership – was challenged.
Which proposition helps you with your overall argument that the RCC is fading away? Are we only counting residents of western countries as full humans for this discussion for some reason?
No I never said that, check my posts. Its a fact that the more educated a country is the less devout members of the RCC they have, and this is true for the western world, the hispanic world and Africa.
Latest from the Royal Commission is that they have been given the extensive stash of documents from the Church’s insurance company which details over 63 offenders (In Australia). The Church of course is fighting to stop these files being released publicly, a disgusting and cowardly act. Genuine repentance and dealing with the issue would be to come clean, publish all the documents, pay whatever compensation is found to apply and then move on. Why won’t the Church do that?
If I were to make a list of people to whom I would turn to seek guidance on genuine repentance, do you know how far down that list your name would appear?
Your opinion of me is of less importance to me than a gnats gonads. Answer the question why is the church fighting to keep these files secret ?
Updating this thread:
Well that certainly puts his shaky performance in a new light.
That no one can stomach the obvious answer (that the church would rather protect its more powerful criminals than its less powerful parishioners when given a choice) to this question is why the RCC’s membership in countries w/ more educated populations is declining. Those who understand that Christ advocated for empathizing w/ those in need above all can no longer be under the leadership of men who refuse to do so and instead make every attempt to consolidate their power.
Well Pell, not just accused now, but charged with multiple historical sexual offenses and multiple claimants?
BTW, that’s criminal charges Bricker, just to clarify for you. Not adjudicated by the Royal Commission, but by a court of law.
Looking forward to your moral input…
He must be guilty. He was charged.
Of course, I don’t know what the charges are, or what the specific evidence to support the charges is, or what court has done any actual adjudication, but he’s Catholic, so really, why bother with any unnecessary detail. If the bailiff has a sidearm, we can handle sentencing right now.
Oh FFS Bricker. Point to where I said or even implied that please?
My point was that over the history of this thread you have focused on canon law, civic law and weaseled every which way to absolve both Pell and the RCC of any wrongdoing because THE CHURCH YANNOW.
Only the courts will determine Pells culpability and criminality now. And I thank god for that.
Yes. But it’s really not relevant for you, is it?
If Pell is not convicted, I suspect you won’t pop back in here with apologies for having misjudged the man.
I judged the man for not returning in person to attend the Royal Commission in Clergy Sexual Abuse. I believed that not appearing in person was in fact committing a disservice to the victims of clergy sexual abuse. I continue with that belief.
I am also awaiting the Royal Commission report to advise whether Pell was telling the truth about his knowledge of abuse within his diocese/s. Only the report will judge the man on that.
Would you care to point out where in this thread I have ‘judged’ the man for any other ‘sins’?
Thanks for playing Bricker.
[QUOTE=kambuckta;20312278… to advise whether Pell was telling the truth about his knowledge of abuse within his diocese/s. [/QUOTE]
Odds are he was lying about his knowledge of abuse within his own pants.