Thank you. It’s been too long, obviously.
Julie
As I understand things, rhinostylee’s points are that Jesus would disown or disavow the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) because the RCC hasn’t strictly followed His teachings, as evidenced by (1) The RCC’s current American priest-child sex scandal and the coverup of same; and (2) the RCC’s gradual accumulation of immense material property, some of which is in land and some of which is in gold chalices and priestly vestments.
I don’t pretend to know what Jesus thinks about such things, but I’ll take a stab at it. My own hunch is that He’d prefer that the victims of sin forgive the priests who harmed them (just as Pope John Paul II forgave the assasin who shot him) and that the priests who harmed children and the church hierarchy that covered for them make amends. I don’t think that He’d think that “amends” equates to millions of dollars though.
As set forth in the gospel according to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, forgiveness is given not because a person deserves it, but because they need it. (Season 2, “I only have eyes for you”).
I think He would want the children who were harmed to reconcile with their parents, since such parents, along with the priests, are at fault for not protecting their kids from predatory priests a hell of a lot sooner. I think He would’ve wanted those who were harmed to not have been silent for so long but to have taken their complaints to civil authorities long ago, and I think He would prevail upon such people to understand that the monetary value of their claims has been substantially reduced because of the great amount of time that has elapsed. I think Jesus agrees that there needs to be a statute of limitations on such things as far as earthly justice goes.
I think He will smite those who are merely pretending to have been harmed by a priest, and He will smite any priest who did such a thing, or who covered such things up, or who did not seek forgiveness from Him and from the injured party.
I personally don’t think that Jesus would want to bankrupt the RCC in order to pay claims or to feed the poor, as He understands that the RCC needs buildings to hold mass in so people can worship Him. He still expects the poor to be fed though.
I think He prefers that Notre Dame win the BYU football game this November 15th at South Bend. 
So, the lack of “democracy” in the church isn’t really the issue in this case. For punishment to happen, people have to go public.
(That isn’t to say I blame anyone for choosing not to go public. The victim’s life and wellbeing are paramount, not some notion of justice outsiders might place on him or her.)
Julie
I know exactly the point you’re making, Munch, but I have to do a nitpicky disagreement: On the day on which we celebrate the anniversary of Christ’s Passion, it is considered (a) appropriate for all attendees who so desire to make a communion from the Reserve Sacrament (extra portions being consecrated on Palm Sunday or Maundy Thursday for the purpose), and (b) inappropriate to conduct the Prayer of Consecration (AKA Canon of the Mass) with its suggestion of its being a sacrifice. But from earliest times the Solemn Liturgy of the Preconsecrated has been celebrated in both Western and Eastern Churches, and the RCC term for it is the Mass of the Preconsecrated. So while you’re right in principle, you’re wrong in terminology.
Count me on the side that says Jesus (at least the Jesus that the gospels present) would be dismayed to see that his teachings have somehow been warped to allow for institutionalization and hierarchy within a massive, organized religion.
IMHO, Christianity was about exposing the lies of the priests- they had been told for too long that divinity was something out of their reach, that it took a priest and religious artifacts and a ceremony to make a connection, and that the keys to God were in someone else’s hands. Jesus said that God was interested in a personal relationship with every single person on the earth, and that they needed listen only to their hearts and to their God when they spoke with him. He said that everyone fell short of God’s glory, and it was pointless for them to judge one another, or to concern themselves with the spiritual status of others.
That an institution like the Catholic church came out of this is bizarre to my mind. You have to confess to a priest to have sins absolved? There is a hierarchy of people who speak to God, each level holier than the last until you get to one MAN who speaks on behalf of God? God is glorified by massive structures of marble and gold that serve mainly to enthrone the aforementioned self-appointed conduits to God? Jesus would never have approved.
LC
I am no Christian, but if I recall correctly, didn’t Jesus supposedly say something about wanting Truth? All the things discussed so far in this thread have nothing to do with whether Catholic doctrine is true or false, rather this thread has been an ongoing discussion of the organization’s possible character flaws.
The Catholic mass I saw, and their ceremonies, and all the decorations, these trappings that have come under attack, create by far the most aesthetically pleasing Christian service I have been to. The beauty may attract people to the religion. Surely Jesus would endorse Beauty?
If human reason comes from God, then he would not want you abusing it with logical fallacies and worthless ad hominem attacks. If the beauty of the world comes from God, then he would not want you to treat it as needless and unimportant. So I don’t see how any of these topics so far discussed are particularly relevant to any purported reasons why Jesus would be displeased with the Church.
The first point is a misunderstanding of what is actually taught (and misses an important psychological element of the Sacrament).
The second point is simply wrong at every “level.”
Maybe they do to you, but they do not to me. Also, I highly doubt that numbers mean all that much to someone whose life is devestated by being raped by a Catholic priest. Although molestation and rape are horrific in any instance, to me it is especially disgusting when it comes from a priest. A priest is supposed to be holier than other people due to the commitment and vows they make to God. When a priest is a predator, it is hurtful on so many more levels. Not only does the victim have to deal with the crime itself, but he/she also has to deal with the pain that comes from the fact that now their whole religious view has been corrupted. Their liason to God is the one that raped them. Many people in a time of crisis turn to God and the church; it is the time that they need Him the most. But when you are raped by a priest, that effectively ends that source of comfort. How could it not. Priests should be held to a higher standard. Due to the coverups afforded so often by so many dioscese, they are actually held to a lesser standard. They have a huge worldwide institution that has a lot of money trying to cover up their crimes to protect the holy reputation of the church.
The fact that I use “anctedotes” in my arguments has to do with the nature of the beast. I was told these things in confidence, and cannot give you any specifics as it would compromise the trust between my close friend that turned to me to help deal with this sad situation. The fact that I won’t give you dates, names, and addresses of all of the parties involved may weaken my argument as far as you are concerned, but between respecting his privacy and winning your argument, it is obvious which is the priority.
I concede that many people have not shared similar experiences of abuse as I have in the Church, and that many see so much good in it that they will blindly defend an institution that I have a hard time even respecting. I guess unless you have seen the damage firsthand, you may not understand how someone like myself could speak against it so adamantly. Keep in mind, I was raised Catholic. In full confidence I believe that God is on my side and that Jesus does not prefer his people to worship within the Catholic Church. To me it is crystal clear, while I am sure that to many of you the opposite is equally crystal clear. I don’t believe that Jesus holds Catholicism against those that are truly humble and holy people that worship within the Church. I think that he is so laid back that overall as long as you are a decent and honest person that tries to do good and improve yourself and celebrates all of the blessings he has given you, he is pleased. Which is part of the reason why I think that the Catholic Church missed it’s mark, because many of the rules and laws are irrelevant, and those that aren’t are common sense, which does not require an organized religion to foster.
tomndeb,
It doesn’t really matter the reasons and arguments I give, because you will defend Catholicism no matter what I say. The reason I say this is because I can’t understand how anyone can so willingly rationalize all of the atrocitities that the Catholic Church is guilty of. Even if I did give you the specific details of everything I know, it would not make a difference.
Likewise, you will never convince me of the righteousness of the Catholic Church. The scandals hit far too close to home, and no matter how many reasons you give that the Church is still holy and true, every time I encounter a priest, my first instinct will be that this person very well may be a child molesting predator.
I’m going to need a little more than that. I clicked on the link and came across all of the same religious nonsense that I cannot tolerate. No religion needs to be that complicated.
So, if you really want to make your point, sift through this load of rhetoric for me and pull the quotes that I need to know, but make sure to cite them so that I can ind them easily and take the proper meaning from their context. I do not respect your religion enough to read all of those pages within your link and devote all the time it would take to figuring out how it applies to this thread.
While I agree with the second paragraph Poly, I cannot agree with the first.
rhinostylee has spoken the truth as he/she has experienced it and I see the same passion in it as the Lord’s rebuke at the Temple.
I have attended a Catholic church several times in my life. My dad’s family are Catholic and my neighbors and friends were too. The reservations about that church that Lucki Chaarms and rhinostylee mentioned are ones that I personally share, but never were they clearer than after I was born again. I observed with “different eyes” as one might say.
One of the memories I’ll always have of my Grandfather’s funeral mass at the cathedral in St. Louis, was during the service I became aware of all the statues placed prominently here and there and hearing the words Thou shalt not worship any graven images… so loudly that I wanted to leave the church right then and there.
I also don’t agree with the Catholic church’s refusal of communion to non-Catholics. I applaud the Episcopal church’s openness to giving communion, as I’m sure our Lord would also. He would refuse no one. (And sadly, all Christian churches should practice this but do not… [not just communion ])
God is with you, rhinostylee. Be in Peace.
I’m not about to defend Catholicism in a general way. Hate it to your heart’s content. However, you opened up a Great Debate and have posted to it as an IMHO or a Pit rant.
Specifically, you went off on a tangent from “Would Jesus approve of the RCC?” to a claim that Catholics were supporting the abuse. Because you are pissed off, you are insisting that everyone else respond to the situation exactly as you have responded and you are willing to ignore a number of facts in your tirade. I do not fault you for your anger. I disagree that your sweeping generalizations on this issue rationally support your conclusions.
Many of us have responded to the reports of abuse with direct encounters with the clergy and episcopacy to ensure that the reforms proposed in the late 1980 (that Law and several of his cronies ignored) are instituted and rigorously applied. It may make you feel better if we all quit, but since I know bishops who actually did institute the reforms and I know that actions have been taken to attempt healing, I see no reason for your anger to force me out of the church.
Numbers do not matter for any individual case. There is no comfort in knowing that you or your child were “only” one of some small percentage. However, numbers do matter in the issue of the response by other people. You ducked my question: should we order all churches to disband (a popular notion with some, of course), and should we then dismember the teaching, medical, and counselling professions because they also have abusers in their ranks–abusers who have often, not always, been protected? Rather than leaving the RCc, I am working to ensure that children are protected within it. I have no condemnation of your actions, but if you condemn my actions by picking and choosing which facts to consider, I will respond.
Isn’t Great Debates where all religious discussions end up regardless where their originally placed? Mods?
sorry… should have finished with * must adhere to Great Debate style?*
I’ve always wondered about that.
rhinostylee, I spoke in haste and with some anger. I accept the reprimand implicit in what Edlyn said. I do have some strong disagreements with what you had to say on the other issues than pedophile priests, and will discuss them in peace if you’re interested.
With regard to tomndebb, the Catholic Church guides but does not control Tom~'s conscience, as I’ve had ample reason to see here. He can and will criticize her when he sees her as falling in error – but he defends her as the church which he believes to have been handed down from the Apostles.
That’s fine. I only posted in response to the statement that it might not have been on-line.
Er… you asked for a cite. You were given one that contradicts your point. How can anyone possibly pare down the entire citation when it’s offered to prove that statues are not part of the ritual? I said the entire Roman Rite was a matter of documented fact; it’s now been documented. If you persist in claiming you are correct, then it falls to you to show how you are correct, by identifying the portion(s) of the Rite that use statuary somehow.
It’s as though I claimed it was illegal to eat ice cream on Sunday. If you dispute that, you might offer the code of laws of my particular state. I cannot refuse it by saying it’s too complicated and I don’t respect the law… the gravamen of my original claim was that there was a law. It’s up to the person making the claim to offer the proof.
- Rick
There’s a difference between having statues as decoration and worshipping them. Catholics do not worship statues. Yes, some people kiss a statue, etc., but it is not required. It’s a personal choice. Some people probably do it because seeing a 3-dimensional representation makes things seem more “real” to them. But no one ever says God is in that statue, and that statue only.
[McGonagal]Yes, we are quite well aware of our failings and those of our predecessors, Mr. Weasley.[/McGonagal]
The Catholic churhc has always been built on its weakest members. This is why it has endured, and why it will endure, and why it will slowly grow stronger over the centuries.
Great nations and Empires are often forged on the anvil of a great leader or a powerful man. America was not. It was made out of the choices of ordinary men and women, with solid leadership. And as a result, it has made some terrible mistakes, yet thrived and improved and grown stronger.
I don’t usually post in religious GDs, but here goes…
2 points:
- Religious sculptures do not violate the First Commandment, as long as they are not worshipped. The Catholic Church recognizes that images of Christ and the saints, including statues, are useful in guiding the faithful to the figures who are represented.
The best analogy I have heard for this is the act of looking at the photograph of someone you love. You don’t (or at least you shouldn’t) consider the photograph to be the person represented in the photograph. But you can use the photograph as a means to remembering and thinking about that person. Sometimes you may even kiss the image as a symbolic way of kissing the person in the photograph.
To some degree, the issue of religious imagery rests with the individual worshipper. The images aren’t required for the Catholic Mass, as many posters have pointed out. If you don’t like images of the crucifixion, you’re still a good Christian. But if you find them powerfully evocative of Christ’s sacrifice for mankind, you’re also still a good Christian. I personally like the aesthetics of the Catholic Mass, so I feel a bit out of place in a church that lacks representations of Christ and the saints. That’s just me, however.
- To receive Communion in a Catholic Church, the communicant must believe in transubstantiation, as well as be in a state of grace (having confessed any mortal sins). The transubstantiation issue is key to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Most Protestant churches do not believe in the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ (after consecration, the bread and wine are no longer really there).
You may disagree with the doctrine of transubstantiation, but if you do, then it seems to me that you should respect the Catholic point of view by abstaining from communion in a Catholic church.
I should point out that it’s virtually impossible for a Catholic priest to refuse to give you communion unless you have a very high profile in your community as either a non-Catholic or as a Catholic. If you get in line, you’ll almost certainly receive communion. However, my point is that you cannot do so in good conscience unless you really believe in transubstantiation.
Skopo and easy e, I think you missed the point that the statues were in the Santuary, the place of ritual worship. Until it was brought to my attention, I never really gave it a second thought. The revelation, however, caused me to reconsider not just the statues in the Santuary there in the Catholic cathedral, but Christ upon the cross found behind many altars in many churches, or in homes, etc. Do we kneel to pray in front of them? While we pray, do we look up towards it? Sometimes?
I appreciate that you provided a link giving the reason why such practice was justified within the Catholic church. I now understand where it came from. However, a council of men does not persuade me from what was shown to me. I trust in His guidance above all others.
To correct what you thought was stated by me, I have never claimed that statues were required for a Catholic mass.
Skopo, concerning communion, of course I believe in transubstantiation. Did He not say This is my body… This is my blood… Do this in remembrance of me.?
Did our Lord require the confession of sin of the Apostles prior to giving them the first communion?
I abstained from taking communion with my Catholic friend when I attended church with her because she said it would be a sin for her to knowingly letting me do so when I was not Catholic myself. It was a very big deal to her and I did not want to cause her such anxiety. She thought for sure she could be sent to hell for it. Perhaps the Catholic church changed their stance on this over the years.
Whether or not a priest or minister knows of my status does not matter and should not matter. However, out of respect, I don’t slide by under their radar either. Communion can be practiced at home.