Don’t label me Anti-Catholic or, Anti-Catholics either. I’m angry at the administrative inertia of the Roman Catholic Church, not at lay members.
I’m anti-pedophilia. Not anti-catholic. Clear?
Ummm who, in this thread, has suggested in any way that you are “anti Catholic”?
happyheathen has (on several occasions) self identified himself as such (well, I think referring to the RCC as the most evil organization of all time qualifies as “anti Catholic” anyway…)
I’m wondering why you feel the need to pre-emptively deny a viewpoint that no one in this thread has accused you of…
Attempt no. 3 to post this:
FTR:
My position is that the RCC is the single greatest SOURCE of evil in the history of guilty man.
I do not believe any person or organization is INTRINSICALLY evil.
Tom~ -
See Doreen’s post above re. the 16 v. 18 age at which a person becomes fair game by RCC rules. Sorry if the term ‘age of consent’ is not the proper one for the RCC rules, but it’s the only one I know.
It has nothing to do with an “age of consent”.Consent doesn’t matter. A priest violates canon law simply by engaging in sexual activity. There’s one section that applies to a priest being sexually involved in general, and another that applies, to among other things, sexual activity with someone under sixteen.Just like some states have different criminal penalties depending on the age of the victim. And that section would apply even if the civil age of consent in the jurisdiction were fourteen.There is no “age of consent” in the RCC, unless you’re talking about the minimum age for marriage.
Doreen
Whatever it is, it was recently raised to 18 (at least for the USA)
So slavery, facism, national socialism, apartheid, ethnic genocide and the internet are just also rans? They must be some baaaadd mofo’s!
“Hush yo’ mouth!”
Just talkin’ about the Roman Catholic Church!
astro -
your talent for irony is amazing!
you may wish to review the list of folks up for cannonization - Fascists (2), at least one Nazi collabroator, and good ol’ Fr. Serra - he who enslave the local natives.
Let’s see, how about oh, maybe John XXIII?
Or what about Monseignor Hugh O’Flaherty? Ever heard of him?
or maybe Pius XII?
And - Is it it still a sin to derive pleasure from sex? Even with your (Church-endorsed) spouse? Even if you are trying to make a baby?
And - What exactly happened to the “Children’s Crusade”? Were thay enslaved before or after they boarded ship?
Pius XII may not have done enought to oppose Hitler. Of course, he did more than any other religious or political leader in Europe at the time, but let’s ignore reality if it means we can have a good bash.
It has never been a sin to derive pleasure from sex–even when no baby was expected. That’s just silly (or stupid, depending on how educated one wants to claim to be).
The crusades were no bright spot in Christian history, but the Children’s Crusade was not a church-organized activity. It was actually opposed by church leaders, with Pope Innocent III telling those who wandered into Rome to give it up and go home. (He actually “dispensed” them of any vows they may have taken toward a crusade in order to persuade them to go home.)
Sometimes you come up with legitimate objections, hh, but you have struck out on this round. (Try reading some history that was written by historians rather than polemicists.)
Of course, he did more than any other religious or political leader in Europe at the time, *to oppose Hitler’s treatment of the Jews, *
So, if we don’t quibble over just WHAT he did, the fact that SOMETHING > NOTHING is grounds for Sainthood?
I haven’t read it, but does Hitler’s Pope make any arguments you cannot, in good faith, refute?
Is there a list of those scheduled for cannonization anywhere on the WEB?
And, Tom~, don’t these cannonizations cause you just a LITTLE discomfort?
If you have not read Hitler’s Pope, why would you want to try to use it as an argument? I have not read it, either, but I have read enough reviews to know that it’s author, Cornwell, has lied about his access to the Vatican files (exaggerating the length of time he had access–fewer than three weeks vs his claims of “months and months”, claiming that he was “the first” to find information that was demonstrably published years earlier, and implying that the files he read continued throughout Pius XII’s reign when the files (according to the documents Cornwell signed in the public registry of the archives) ended 16 years prior to Pacelli’s elevation to the papacy). From those imaginary “secret archives,” Cornwell seems to have fashioned a portrait of Pius XII that deliberately changes every ambiguous event into a negative and some genuinely positive events into negative ones. Given that the author is a liar with an agenda, I am not impressed that he has found human failings in a person long known to have flaws. His political observations seem to be of the Malachi Martin variety, taking small doses of fact, adding some misinterpretations, and extrapolating large amounts of hype. (This book review by Kevin Madigan, for example, does a decent job of pointing out Pius XII’s serious flaws, while noting that Cornwell basically missed the boat by finding flaws that did not exist.)
As to JP II’s apparent desire to double the number of canonized saints, regardless of local objections to the persons so canonized: I have never been a fan of JP II (having referred to him as Pius Ninth II on several occasions) and see no reason to suddenly try to defend him, now. I suspect that the canonization of saints has little impact on the faith or lives of Catholics any more–another point on which JP II and I disagree, I’m sure.
The church survived Paul IV and the Borgias; I suspect it will survive JP II.
Technology has solved what the bishops couldn’t.
I bring you… RoboPriests!
Keep yer Joseph Ratzinger jokes to yerself. 
RoboPriest?
When do we get RoboNuns?
You need a robot to whack your knuckles with a ruler and yell “That’s a sin!” ?
and Tom~ -
I have no doubt that the Church will survive JP2 - but, will the Church be recognizable 100 years from now?
The feudal structure is obsolete in the European/North American world - WWI pretty much established that.
Combined with what appears to be a direct, inverse relationship between education and orthodox belief, will something - either Doctrine or membership, have to fail?
Or, another way - will the predictions that the Church will become less “white” and more “brown/black” come true, and if so, what effects would such a change have on structure and/or Doctrine?
Or - how many people you know believe that “Vicar of Christ” is a literally correct title?
Having made this very prediction somewhere around here in the last two weeks, I would guess that European hegemony will fail soon–perhaps within my lifetime.
I have no idea how that will change the church. (It could, conceivably, make it more reactionary in terms of women’s roles, for example.) It seems rather pointless to speculate with no information.
OK, no speculation on the nature of a post-European Church.
How about the literal accuracy of “Vicar of Christ” amongst persons of your acquaintaince?
Nah. It’s just a title. I generally think of him as the Sexton of Christ, myself. Most Catholics I know would accept him as vicar=agent; no one with whom I associate would accept him as vicar=stand-in-the-place-of.
The idea that most Catholics stand in some sort of awe of–bordering on adulation of and tinged with a need for absolute obedience to–the pope is mostly a legend perpetrated by nutcases such as Ian Paisely or Jimmy Swaggart. Note that birth control pills sell quite well in heavily Catholic neighborhoods.
Well, your “agent” v. “incarnation” interpretation would have gotten y’all roasted a while back (and I suspect the present Curia would not appreciate your thoughts).
Your comments regarding Paisley/Swaggert agree with mine - I have no use for ignorant, blind hatred.
My point is that the level of orthodoxy among Catholics seems to be decreasing, especially amongst the educated - and, as more children become “cafeteria”, “lasped”, or “ex” Catholics, the Church will NOT survive in a form acceptable to the anti-Vat. II troglodytes currently running things.
and, if JP2 has appointed 106 of 122 Papal Electors, the waters get real muddy re. immediate future - hoping that the next election will turn into a free-for-all might be the best a non-rabid Catholic can hope for.