What's up with the Catholics?

Great Debates
1

What’s up with the Catholics?

Background: I’m an American living in Latin America. Folks here are religious about their religion, but for the life of me I can’t find anyone with an informed opinion. I can’t get a decent argument going, therefore I’ve had to resort to this message board. Someone out there put up your dukes!

First of all, this isn’t Catholic bashing. I’m equally against all religions. It’s just that in being big, powerful, rich, and global the Catholic Church is an easy target. I’m looking for the thin edge of the wedge here; once I’ve toppled the Vatican I’ll move on to Judaism, Islam, Protestantism, and eventually…Utah.

Anyway, I’ve tried to provoke various social groups with my anti-religious arguments (Catholic version) by pointing out the Catholic church’s advocacy of the importation of African slaves to Latin America, the church’s passive position to Nazi genocide, Spanish Inquisition nastiness in Spain and Latin America, and, of course, numerous bloody wars throughout the centuries. All pretty brutish behavior for a organization who’s CEO supposedly talks to god on a daily baisis.

Unfortunately I’ve found it tough to find any Catholics who actually know anything about Catholicism or Catholic history. But although it hasn’t happened yet, eventually someone will come back with some snappy comebacks. I want to be prepared. Somebody out there step up to the plate.

By the way…I’m not sure this post belongs here. I hope I don’t get kicked to the BBQ pit.

2

The people that commited all those acts you mentioned also belonged to another group; the human race. Why are you limiting your attack to Catholics?

Now if it were only Catholics doing these things, you might have a point.

As it is, you don’t.

If you are looking for a fiery debate, I suggest walking into one of your local Latin American bars and proposing some of these ideas. When you get your ass-kicked for doing so, will you also blame that on the Pope?

3

Maybe they’re just too polite to hassle the local gringo? :wink:

4

I’m not. It’s just that I happen to be living in a Catholic country. If I was living in Israel I likely would have labeled the thread “what’s up with the Jews?” I tried (unsuccessfully, I suppose) to make this point in the original message.

I understand that these acts were committed by human beings; in this respect we agree. My point was not that the actors themselves were human, but that they were acting under the direct guidance of an organization which is considered by some to be infallible and divine.

As a rule of thumb. I try to stick to forums in which I’m not going to suffer physical harm. My hypothetical ass-kicking would be due to my own bad judgement, I suppose; and the ass kickers would be acting on their own free will and not based on the pope’s guidance.

5

CSmith - argue as much as you want about the infallibility of the Catholic Church (or any other organization). It’s a legitimate argument.

However, saying that an organization is fallible says nothing of it’s legitimacy, or of the beliefs of its followers. In other words, you can prove that the church has made a few mistakes, but you can’t disprove God.

6

You keep saying it isn’t against Catholics, but the main point you seem to be making is that the against the inflibility of the pope. Most of the other Religions that I can think of has had an divinly inspired leader(at least for 1500 years or so). The rest have mostly followed people who they thought were more educated in the situation, but certainly not infallible. So if you are saying Papal infallibilty has problems, then I agree with you which is one of the main reasons I don’t anticipate becoming Catholic. But if you are attacking religion in general, then you have to say your points before they can be debated.

7

Exactly the same could be said about WWII Japanese soldiers, who were following their divine and infallible emperor.

Or Nazis

or the followers of David Koresh, most nations, Jim Jones, etc. etc.

The OP seems to indicate that athority sometimes inspires fanaticism, and is sometimes abused. My response to this is:

"Duh!!"

The title of this thread is “What’s up with the Catholics?”
I’m not sure why you think this phenomenom is unique to Catholics, or even that they are an especially representative example of it.

8

As a sort-of-Catholic, I think part of the problem you’re facing is the fact that your questions are sort of irrelevant to Catholicism. Yes, the Church has acted badly in the past. What relevance does that have to a faithful Christian in 2000? Mr. Brazilian Catholic can’t really do anything about it now.

Going to someone else’s country and trying to strike up an argument over the horrors of their religion is also rude and insulting, to be honest. If I were to visit the United States and try to get people to engage me in a discussion on a variety of anti-American topics, criticizing them for their membership in a state that has slaughtered Indians, enslaved millions of blacks and killed foreigners for profit, I would fully expect that most Americans would either ignore me and feign disinterest, or suggest I get the hell out of the country if I dislike it so much. Why should your questions be greeted with anything else? How would you feel is visitors to your home were to provoke you with talk of how horrible your country/faith/ethnic group is?

If you want to argue over points of ecclesiastical merit or historical debates, that’s one thing, but if you’re out to “provoke” various groups, I don’t see any smart person engaging in a discussion with you.

9

I have recently found one unexpected thing to be “up with Catholics” in my family.

I was raised in an RC household, but am currently the somewhat tolerated atheist heathen UU. You know the story, my mom baptized my kids in the kitchen sink. My sisters all maintain their catholicism, and historically I have been sort of surprised at the strength of their adherence to the entire doctrine, hook, line and sinker. Yet, in the last 2 months, I have heard all 3 of them refer to themselves as “cafeteria catholics.” As a nonbeliever, I would have considered that to be an insult. The one thing I had to begrudgingly respect about RCs is, you had to buy the whole bill of goods to be part of the team.

Hmmm. What is the deal with Catholics?

10

I agree that what you said is true, one can’t necessarily pass judgement for a group based on past member’s actions.

However, in light of Christianity in general, I offer this to the SDMB: the Middle Ages. At no other time in history has the Church had more power (to my knowledge, I’m always ready to accept an update) and technology was at a standstill. Mortality rates stayed high if they didn’t climb since the time of the Romans (again, correct me if I’m wrong). America, on the other hand, has stayed in the same power and corrected its ways. The church was merely revolted against. I find that to be a noteworthy comment.

I would also like to note that religion rests itself on faith…that is, it concedes that reason is not on its side. With a thought process like that, its no wonder we find a question like the OP.

11

Oh, no. Not again.

:stuck_out_tongue: Don’t Panic…

12

I believe that the RC doctrine on infallibity of the pope is:

It only extends to statements made ‘ex cathedra’ (Latin for from the throne, I think). Such statements would include matters of doctrine and also certain instructions (such as the RC prohibition of artificial birth control).

The RC doesn’t say the Pope is infallible in matters of politics, for example.

13

Yes, I’m looking for an argument.
Oh, I’m sorry, this is abuse.
Going up to people looking to start a fight will only cause you to get into a fight. At worst, they’ll beat the crap out of you. At best, they’ll ignore you. Somewhere in the middle you’ll find people so dumb, they make the people interviewed on Jay Leno’s street walking segments seem like Mensa candidates. How rational of an argument do you think you’ll get out of them?

Fundies are no better. They’ll argue with you all day but it won’t come close to being rational. The closest you’ll come to the debate you’re looking for would probably come from priests and ministers. My guess is, judging by your overall tone, they’ll tire of you very quickly.

Every organization has bad elements to it. I can’t refuse to take part in all of them because a few bad things happened in the past. I’m not catholic, I’m jewish. Never would I dream of yelling at a catholic’s involvement in the Holocaust any more than I would expect someone to yell at me, an American, about slavery. It happened. I regret it. However, I’m not responsible for it, I will not accept the blame for it, and I certainly will not stop being an American because of it.

You want to debate, this is the place. Give us your arguments and we’ll go at it. You want to enflame? Here’s a bic. Go light yourself on fire.

14

I would point out that

  1. That’s a gross oversimplification. Technology was NOT at a standstill, even if we agree some areas of advancement had slowed down.

The notion that the Middle Ages were a time of complete intellectual backwardness is simplified history based on biased stuff written during the Enlightenment to distinguish how smart they were. It’s hogwash. Most basic agriculture was invented during the Middle Ages. Modern methods of milling flour were invented during the Middle Ages. More military developments (okay, they’re nasty developments, but development all the same) were invented during the Middle Ages than I could ever remember. The Western concept of the rule of law - arguably the most important social development in our civilization’s history - was invented during the Middle Ages. Much of Western architecture was first developed during the Middle Ages. Realistic art was first invented during the Middle Ages. I’m sure I could rattle off dozens more if I looked it up.

  1. Even in areas slowed down progress-wise, there’s a heck of a lot more to it than the nasty ol’ Church, and

  2. It is simply not true that forward progress is the natural order of things except for the Middle Ages. Lots of societies have regressed overall or in select areas, without the help of the Pope.

I’m not looking to defend religion or faith; my point was simply that the nature of the OP’s “questions” was aggressive and insulting and would go a long way towards explaining the tepid response he’s gotten so far.

15

DNFTT.

16

Csmith, I think you should have presented the OP more like this:

"I’m not completely comfortable with the Catholic Church. Specifically, the position it has taken (and “it” can take a position, because it is an institution), on many issues through out history.

"I’m disappointed in the indifference to the Holocaust, I’m upset with the Inquisition, and numerous other events in which the Catholic Church had direct influence on some reprehensible acts.

"Fellow SBMBers, can’t you see how an outsider looking in could be put off by the big, rich, powerful Catholic Church?

“Shouldn’t a religious institution be held to the highest standard? For, if not, what is the point in following God, or the teachings of his son, the savior Jesus Christ? I know that ultimately people are fallible, but it seems that when grouped together as the Catholic Church, people have been at times more grossly fallible than as individuals, and genocide and indifference to crimes against humanity have tainted the Catholic Church.”

And those who respond should not be surprised that someone could see the Catholic Church in such a negative light.

The point is legitimate. And Catholics, you do have the daunting challenge of defending the Church. You can’t excuse it away by saying it’s an institutuion of people, therefore anything goes. The Pope is infallible. This is a big chunk of the foundation upon which your church sits. The history of the Church is a temultuous one to defend.

Your Catholicism is woven into your life. Your salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven is based on the life you lead on this earth, so I’d expect better treatment of the concerns that people have with the Catholic Church. The Church is being held to a high standard, and the perception is that it might have lowered the boom on humanity more than a few times, and acted under a lower standard. This is quite a conundrum.

Help the curious rectify their discomfort with the Catholic Church.

17

Just a furtherment (a new word) on this:

There have been two (2) ex cathedra statements made by any pope, ever. Those were on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

Also, an ex cathedra statement can be made by a bishop so long as he’s got the approval of the Pope (and I think all the bishops as well, though my memory is a bit foggy).

But as far as I know there hasn’t been anything specified as ex cathedra said by Pope JPII or any other pope regarding birth control.

18

Just because the Pope and the Catholic Church are not perfect does not mean we shouldn’t criticize their problems.

I think the OP clearly says that all religions have problems and is not picking on the Catholics because they are the worst. The OPer wants to talk Cathoplicism because the most likely religion of a person he might argue with IRL is Catholicism right now. The OPer wants to hear the Catholic arguments in particular to ready him/herself for that possible RL debate.

It would probably be useful to start with some defenses of religion in general. Since I am an Atheist, I will refrain from taking that side of the debate.

On my side, and I think the side of the OP, I think that the history of an institution is a legitimate criticism. I think that criticism of the US because of the historic treatment of blacks and native americans is legitimate and the only, if somewhat lame, defense is that there has been a definitive trend toward changing the government, and the culture, so that those problems can not recur. Has the Catholic Church made any significant changes toward preventing the problems they have had in the past?

I recently read a speech given by a cardinal who was touted as a likely candidate as the next pope. In his speech, he claimed that the antichrist was alive and walking the earth now in the guise of a philantropist who encouraged poeple to support ‘feelgood’ causes like environmentalism and equal rights and thereby distracting them from worshop of God. Where is this antichrist so I can join his cause? I would rather serve to protect our earth and our fellow people than worship a God that insists on worship when there is important and urgent work to be done.

I don’t worship the president. I don’t even trust the president much. I just see that I like the lifestyle and freedom here in America better than anywhere else that I know about, so I stay and I try to make changes to the things I don’t like. I vote, I debate, etc… I don’t see hoards of Catholics lobbying their bishop to change the Church’s rules on contraception. They do, OTOH, lobby the American government to change the rules on abortion.

If you don’t approve of the historical actions of the Church, and very little has been done to prevent repetition of similar events, then why stay with the church? Belief? Faith? Ok, as long as you admit it’s not rational.

19

http://www.votenader.org

20

Okay, JMULLANEY, you bug the crap out of me more often than not, but that was funny. :slight_smile: