Any fellow Catholics here?
Pedos belong on 4chan's /b/, not this one.
Not Catholic but I like your image, OP.
I don't even know if I'm a believer anymore but I love cute Catholic girls
It's Saint Martha (as in a Catholic saint) from Fate/GO, I was trying to make a joke
Yep! Cradle or convert? Convert here. Weird to see this come up.
Technically I'm a cradle too, but nobody cared and I'm just a recent trad convert :)
I rediscovered my faith after being bombarded with sedevacantism and Fulton Sheen spam on another forum/board (non-chan)
They're a weird bunch, but boy, can they shitpost.
I'm by no means a strong believer, but the life philosophy is compatible with what I practice.
the strange thing is it wasn't even a political/religious board. It was a random academic forum and the spammer would just post these random threads even with 0 replies and keep going like a actual preacher of SSPX.
It's weird but it beats the kids on 4chan who post "deos volt xxxd" and whose knowledge of Catholicism is limited to ck2 memes.
Born and raised Catholic here. I’m not exactly practising but it’s still an important part of my life, despite my liberal views. I’d like to marry a Catholic guy, if I ever do.
I'm trad too, have you been to a latin mass before? They are awesome. im visiting my hometown and im getting tired of ordinary form masses already.
Not Catholic, but you guys have the best churches.
this so much. i can almost forgive y'all for the whole holy crusades/nazi gold/pedophilia stuff because the art and architecture you guys paid for is SO GOOD
You act as if all that stuff affected you personally + the art wasn't just paid by but also made by Catholics.
I do believe, but don't go to church that often. My family however is rather religious (in a good sense, not in a weird american way, with shit like purity rings etc.).
I went to a convent school and my younger brother is even studying to become a priest.
Catholics are very powerful.
Have any of you ever been to /christian/? I think they have a predominantly Christian user-base.https://8ch.net/christian/index.html
i am confused as to what you mean by that
The Jesuits founded the first universities on Earth.
They are very powerful.
Worldwide institution. Massive churches. Incredible bureaucracy. Centralized from the old capital of the Roman Empire. They've been around for like 2,000 years.
Are they memeing? Wasn't 8chan full of pedos?
lol yeah, i think it is unfortunately now that you mention it
…but there are of course also decent people there as well
Ave Regina Pacis -…
I used to be there for a while but it was just too useless, like reddits /r/Catholicism sadly. It's nice for news, but the daily discussions are always the same.
I recently was in Rome <3
Catholic born n raised here. I don't really practice the religion or go to church anymore but I do believe in God and appreciate the Catholic ~aesthetic~. Specifically meaning the beautiful architecture of some churches and statues.
Also I loved the Met Gala theme/looks this year which was based off "the Catholic Imagination". Everything about it was so beautiful
Also ngl, like >>19504
I also love some cute Catholic girls, pic somewhat related.
Wasn't she one of the women who witnessed jesus' crucifixion? Interesting choice from Fate….not sure what her powers/weapon would be.
Why would you become a saint just from watching Jesus getting crucified?
Close, no cigar. Martha was Mary Magdalene's sister. Mary is probably the one you were thinking of.
It was relatively easy to become a saint pre-congregation. Martha was a personal friend of Jesus according to the Bible, involved in the story of Lazarus and apparently also involved in evangelizing in France.
>>20085>It was relatively easy to become a saint pre-congregation
Damn boomers had everything easier back in their day. Thanks for clearing the confusion.
>>20010>recently in Rome.
Wow that must have been fun.
Nothing wrong with the way you talk gurlll.
Nothing wrong with the way you talk sug.
>For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
>17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof, but hee that doeth the will of God, abideth for ever.
¶ Now it came to passe, as they went, that he entred into a certaine village: and a certaine woman named Martha, received him into her house.
39 And shee had a sister called Mary, which also sate at Jesus feet, and heard his word:
40 But Martha was cumbred about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, doest thou not care that my sister hath left mee to serve alone? Bid her therefore that she helpe me.
41 And Jesus answered, and saide unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art carefull, and troubled about many things:
42 But one thing is needefull, and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not bee taken away from her.
She beat up a giant turtle, that's why she's a Servant in Fate. According to the story she prayed enough for it to shrink
Why would any woman want to be a catholic? I live in a country where the catholic church destroyed the lives of women and children for years, treated women like whores, seperated children from their mothers and sold them abroad, killed any they couldn't sell, controlled women's sexuality by banning contraception and divorce, sexually abused children and to top it all off, the priests and nuns were protected by the church. Why tf would anyone want to associate with that???
you're inferring a lot from that post. but yeah, i do consider catholicism's historical influence to have affected me (and everyone in the western hemisphere) because it literally used to shape the politics of every european country, so i don't think that's all that dismissable.
also the >the art wasn't just paid by but also made by catholics
there wasn't really an option to be anything other than catholic until 1517, and even then if you chose to convert to protestantism, you were going to get run out of town on a rail. if i were one of those artists, i would have been like 'sure i'm catholic give me the job', too. michelangelo was gay as sin but did that stop him from doing a stellar job on La Pieta or the Sistine Chapel? >>20013
it's called a contraction and/or southern vernacular you walnut don't be pissy
What country do you live in anon?
Idk how to answer your questions because I have no geographical context, but continual crimes against humanity cannot be committed by real Catholics who hope not to go to Hell. They are Mortal sins which put you in danger of hell, and sever you from God's grace.
God, for example, will presumably punish a priest far worse in the afterlife than a layman for the same crimes, specifically because the priest trained for 8 years to behave in an especially Christlike way and act in person of Christ(In Persona Christi).
So yeah, if a man can rape a child and feel no remorse then he is acting contrary to his role and does not care for the afterlife punishment or he would not behave that way, same goes for other mortal sins like kidnapping etc.
The sexuality question is a bit more complicated, but in a nutshell freedom =/= ability to sleep w/ whoever, i think there is great emotional freedom in not being a slave to my desires and waiting for the right man, whom i eventually married. I am a convert, and before my conversion i was no more happy by being sexually "free", in fact i think it invites a presupposition that others can be used solely for pleasure.
Fertility awareness is approved by the church, and i can live without sex for a week out of every month. Birth control makes sex and on-demand thing. Awareness is really not difficult, and was OK'd back in the 1890s iirc.
What i think is worse is having sex with men who you dont even cherish and would never in a million years want to marry. My best friend is stuck in such a cycle and wonders "where all the good men are".
Lots of unpopular opinions, i know, but I hope that somewhat answers your question.
Sounds like Onision talking , tbh.
Reminder that the Catholic Church shields rapists and pedophiles from lawful consequences because they are priestshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Just search for 'nuns metoo' and be prepared to cry over it.
Ever single religion has bad representatives. That the catholic one is getting theirs outed doesn't mean the other religions are "better".
Well as a convert, you're painfully ignorant of the religion. Google "abuses of the Catholic church" or "sexual abuse in the Catholic church". Look up the sexual abuse suffered by Catholics in Italy, Ireland, The UK, Brazil, Mexico, The Philippines, Canada, The USA…anywhere the Catholic church exists. I'm not saying that any religion is perfect but supporting an organisation that protects rapists by transferring them to new churches and tells the victims
of sexual assault that they're going to Hell is wrong. Have you heard of the many Catholic schools where children were beaten and raped? What about Catholic missionaries sexually assaulting poor African people?
I appreciate what >>20395
have posted but it's not even limited to sexual abuse. Have you heard of the Magdalene Laundries where unmarried women were forced to work for free (ofc the church kept the money) until they gave birth, the nuns stripped their newborns away from them (telling them not to "touch" or "bond" with them because they're not "their" child) and then sold them to wealthy Americans the next day? Mass, unmarked graves for infant children because they didn't "deserve" a proper burial because they weren't baptised yet? Dead children being thrown into sewage tanks? How about women being forced to marry their rapists? Can you imagine living in a society where you don't have access to condoms or the oral contraceptive so you have to rely on people risking jail time by smuggling them over the boarder? Imagine a priest convincing you to stay with your abusive husband because divorce is the sin, not abuse.
I'm afraid your second paragraph genuinely sounds like something you'd encounter among every single fundamentalist strain of religion on Earth. Pakistan came to mind as I was reading it.
"The Church is bad" as an argument is fair and well, and you can reason for it. What do you expect us to do because of that, though?
I'll try to make it easier actually - what do you think people should do to fulfill the same needs religion does that does not carry such heavy moral baggage?
>>20403>sounds like something you'd encounter among every single fundamentalist strain of religion on Earth
>What do you expect us to do because of that, though?
You can read the Bible without pumping money into the Catholic church (by donating to Catholic charities, paying to visit Catholic churches etc). That's still possible. I'm still not a fan of Christianity but at least a book has never sexually assaulted a child and you can read it critically and decide what it means for yourself, without a priest of nun trying to convince you of what they think it means.
>what do you think people should do to fulfill the same needs religion does that does not carry such heavy moral baggage?
I suppose it depends on what "needs" you're talking about. You could get a sense of community from a painting class. You can still feel spiritual by praying or reading the Bible which still contains all of the morals and answers to questions about death/purpose in life Catholicism teaches. I know plenty of people who are agnostic and still get the satisfaction from believing there is something up there guiding/protecting them without actually following a particular sect.
But at the end of the day, I can't tell you what you "should" do. That's your choice. It's just after being exposed to everything the Catholic church teaches and all the abuses they have committed, I feel it's impossible for me as a woman to support what they've done by still being a vocal member of that sect or supporting them financially. Which is why I struggle to imagine why any other woman would, unless they were unaware of the abuses associated with the church. Like I said though, no religion is perfect and I don't follow another sect that's equally as bad, I just avoid all organised religion.
I'm not "painfully unaware", I know all about it. I just don't lump an entire religion with a handful of rapists and their slimy protectors. The rates of molestation are consistent with the rest of the population, which in itself is terrible because they are supposed to be better.
Times are changing for the better, and hopefully will continue to.
You probably saw on the news that ALL of Chile's bishops sent in resignations after Francis said something dunderheaded, in essence that he did not believe a particular person capable of assault.
It is reprehensible, yes, but its also important to remember that people who shield priests from consequences are breaking the rules too, as priests who commit crimes are supposed to be defrocked/laicized/prosecuted and almost a thousand have been since 2004, which is almost certainly not nearly enough.
Jesus said himself that
"But who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."(Matt 18:6).
I am still Catholic because it is not God's fault that people act like shitheads, it's peoples fault. They should shape up or peace out, no exceptions.
Yes!! I don't check here super frequently though, only once every few weeks.>>19504
Jesus and anime nuns give me life.>>19837
Both, was a cradle Catholic, had an atheist phase for ten years and then came back a few years ago when I realized how much happier having God in my life made me. I explored different protestant denominations for a while but it was the Church's intellectual tradition in Saints Augustin and Aquinas and the writings of the female doctors of the Church that brought me back. >>19991
That board was one of the things that helped me rediscover my faith but I don't post there very often. >>20385
Nothing that corrupt and evil men do will separate me from the Church established by Jesus Christ. Abuse in the Catholic Church is not due to the Faith itself, but with the very flawed humans who administer the institution.
Corruption has been a part of the Church throughout its 2000 year history. It started when the apostle Judas (handpicked by Jesus) betrayed Our Lord, and St. Peter himself denied Jesus the night before his crucifixion. St. Peter also had to be rebuked by St. Paul as recounted in Acts.
The corruption that has been present in the highest (and lowest) levels of the Church from time to time over its 20 centuries is one of the greatest proofs of its divine institution. Any lesser institution would have collapsed a long, long time ago. Many others have collapsed and disappeared throughout history. But true to His word, Jesus has been with His Church all along, and the Holy Spirit has led the Church into all Truth from its inception through many trials, including the horrid displays of fallibility by some of its leaders (including Popes) and its laymembers.
If your argument against the Catholic Church is its sinners, the counter to that is its many amazing Saints.
Ultimately, though, I don't believe or disbelieve in the Catholic Church because of good people or bad people, but because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was incarnate of the virgin Mary, was crucified, buried, and rose again on the third day, and that He desires the salvation of the whole world.
Core concept of Catholicism
>no human being is perfect; every human sins
Main argument against Catholicism from outsiders
>not every Catholic is perfect; some of them sin!
the main argument against catholicism from outsiders is that the institution protects pedophiles and rapists, not that 'some of them sin'. Everyone sins. But I can't believe that it's right to protect criminals because an institution deems them 'holy men' when their actions indicate that they're anything but.
i just don't understand why you'd want to defend and support an institution like this, when you could just practice your faith on your own, or with another church that has a less violent and corrupt historical record. i have nothing against the christian faith, but you cannot tell me that a relatively few number of catholic saints (10,000 over 2000 years sounds like a lot until you consider that there are 7,600,000,000 people in the world rn) make up for the suffering and deaths that the church they represent inflicted on millions.
They're not holy men though, other corrupt individuals may be protecting them but that doesn't reflect on the quality of their souls. It's Catholic doctrine that their acts are wicked.
I am Catholic because I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ himself to raise up the faithful in the right way of living and believing in God, and that just practicing spirituality on your own or with a schismatic protestant sect founded by fallible men won't give you the full picture of the truth that God wants to give to humanity.
>"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Meanwhile greek orthodoxy has never been implicated in scandals, has not changed or adjust its dogma to fit the current narrative, has not bent the knee to islam and has living ascetics. Living, breathing holy men that are unphased by worldly publicity games, riches and decadence.
Greek orthodoxy didn't resort to mistranslating the scripture, see the The filioque-clause.
Catholicism did, and they are still dogmatically insistent they are correct even though they are demonstrably not.
At least you are not protestants.
>>20564>the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ himself
i thought that dude was Jewish
Jesus completed the Jewish religion by serving as the Messiah (Christ) whom the prophets had long foretold. People of all races can be followers of Christ without being ethnically Jewish. Hence, they are called Christian which means "follower of Christ."
>"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"
Over time some Christians broke away from the Church that Jesus founded, and so a name was needed to distinguish this Church from the ones that broke off from it. It was decided to call the Church Jesus founded the "universal" (Greek, kataholos = "according to the whole") Church, and thus the name Catholic was applied to it.>>20565
I am just going to leave this here: https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAdenomination/comments/6mf231/roman_catholic_vs_eastern_orthodox/?st=JII420N3&sh=a838d9de
When it comes to changing dogma to suit the times, just look at what the Orthodox did to their own churches during the 700's when they fell for the Iconoclastic heresy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm
I find it ironic that you're bringing up stuff from 1300 years ago to justify why orthodoxy is bad but if someone brings up the pedo scandals, holy crusades, or the multiple insane and incestuous popes you would probably be like 'that was so long ago! just a few bad apples!'
I brought it up because this is an example of where they were dogmatically wrong in a matter of faith and teaching heresy, which the Catholic Church has never done. There are good and bad individuals in all faiths, that has nothing to do with whether their religion teaches the truth or not.
Are you serious?
You are bringing up iconoclasm?
That happened before the East–West Schism of 1054. There was no Catholic church until then.
The only form of christianity at the time of the iconoclasm was greek(byzantine) christianity.
To clarify, germanic christianity was considered largely heretical at the time.
How have the times changed, huh.
the catholic church has never taught heresy because they were the ones who decided what was and was not heretical. however they did engage in practices that would, nowadays, be considered heretical i.e. the sale of indulgences. because buying your way into heaven regardless of your actions on earth is 100% what jesus would have wanted amirite
A bit of ‘Whataboutism’ but there are more confirmed pedophiles in the NYC school system still getting full pay or benefits than all priests convicted worldwide yet I don’t see rapist teacher jokes, billion dollar lawsuits against schools or teachers unions, nor calls to outlaw schools.
Most people refuse to believe it even after the Times wrote about it over a decade ago.
The Church is more than a BILLION people; of course some are corrupt and evil.
Catholic Church builds and runs tens of thousands of free food banks, charity hospitals, and free clinics all over the world to care for the poor and staffs them with nurses & doctors, many of whom are priests & nuns, trained in the thousands of Catholic universities around the globe?>yawn
They don’t hand out condoms?>Gasp!
A priest committed a crime and it was hushed up?>oh, the Church is evil! Boo!
Yeah. I know
>>20614>there are more confirmed pedophiles in NYC school systems still getting full pay or benefits than all priests convicted worldwide
i tried to look this up but the search terms you provided were too vague. can you provide a source for this allegation?
You are a historical illiterate. Please go back to watching Adam Ruins Everything.
>Every abusive priest is front page news
>The fact Orthodox Jews can basically abuse their children with impunity is virtually never tackled by any mainstream media
really make u tink
I think everyone knows that orthodox/talmudist jews are extremely paleolithic and morally bankrupt.
Just found out about this and wanted to share, you can watch perpetual eucharistic adoration livestreaming on youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqW1lENuph0&feature=youtu.be
Because you don't think those things happened or because you think those things 'weren't so bad'?
They didn't happen in the way you think they did. It's Christopher Columbus all over again, the tactic of telling so many lies that it becomes a form of chaff to distract your opponent with.
Anyone who invokes the crusades as something uniquely terrible and evil is historically illiterate. I bet you couldn't off the top of your head give me even a rough chronology of the previous four centuries in the Near East and North Africa prior to First Crusade.
>>20834>something uniquely and terribly evil
uniquely? no. but you can't argue that something like the Massacre at Béziers wasn't terrible and yeah, i would even go so far as to say evil.
excusing it with, 'oh but there were also other
bad things happening before then' doesn't make it better. if you actually think that the crusades are worth defending then tell me why, instead of a 'well what about this completely unrelated example of other people who were also bad??' or 'write me a research paper on the previous four centuries of the area's history and then i'll believe you when you say that slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians is bad'. >jesus would have been fine with this
It's true there's a lot of misconceptions about the crusades but don't just insult people without teaching them, that's not right and just makes people embittered.
The First Crusade began as a plea for help from the Byzantines to the pope. Islam had been conquering and subjugating Christians for nearly 600 years and were now setting their sights on Constantinople. The pope then called the different kings and lords of Europe to offer their armies to defend the Byzantines and reclaim Jerusalem for Christians.
However, the Crusades after the first had reached a point where many Crusaders were fighting for sinister reasons. Like in one Crusade, the Crusaders were supposed to be defending Constantinople from an attack, but ending up sacking the city themselves. There were many indefensible atrocities committed during the crusades, but the intention was to reclaim Christian lands and defend those who were being oppressed.
Some Catholics still like to point to the idealized arcetype of the heroic crusaders and many Islamic groups like to portray it as the evil crusaders invading their land, but the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The thing with the crusades annoys me so much. In school our teachers constantly used 'what we did to them', as a reason of why we need to take in refugees etc.
I only learned the truth because I study history in uni.
Even in the 17th century the Ottoman Empire still tried to take in Europe (and nearly succeeded). Same with Russia, just much more recent even. Just imagening what my life would have been like under Islam makes me feel sick.
So why are Christians always considered the evil ones and basically 'in debt' because of what we did centuries ago, but everybody like to forget that Muslims tried to spread their believe for a much longer period of time and just as aggressively…
Daily reminder the anglo and french are the reason that the Turks maintain control over Western Asia Minor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878)#Intervention_by_the_Great_Powers
Russia won 8 of the 11 Russo-Turkish Wars.
Godfrey of Bouillon was a legitimately Godly man in every way. Didn't fight for wealth or power, wasn't interested in grandiose titles etc. Not even Catholic by the way.
>>20851>So why are Christians always considered the evil ones and basically 'in debt' because of what we did centuries ago, but everybody like to forget that Muslims tried to spread their believe for a much longer period of time and just as aggressively…
Nobody ever won a court case by being like, 'so what if my client committed a murder? it was like, years ago. besides, haven't you ever heard of Albert Fish? makes my defendant look like a totally decent person in comparison.'
I went to Wikipedia and>He refused the title of King, however, as he believed that the true King of Jerusalem was Christ, preferring the title of Advocate (i.e., protector or defender) of the Holy Sepulchre (Latin: Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri).
Sounds like a good military leader, but I'm confused by the>not even Catholic btw
part. Protestantism didn't exist until the 16th century. If he believed in Jesus but wasn't Catholic, what was he?
>>20866>Nobody ever won a court case by being like, 'so what if my client committed a murder? it was like, years agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
I meant I'm not a Catholic, islam-chan.
I think the issue here is that the Crusades are presented either explicitly, or implicitly (i.e. by focusing on them to the exclusion of other events, or by giving them disproportionate negative attention) as something unique. The term sui generis
comes to mind.
It's interesting because it highlights a kind of leftist doublethink where they'll criticize say, the attention that is given to the classical western canon as eurocentrism, but are ardent eurocentrists when it comes to covering historical events that they see as inhumane/brutal/wicked.
>caring about what peoples in the middle ages did
Why? Literally why? Everyone was awful and if they weren't they were a farmer. If you go even further back the foundational civilisations of the Western World, Ancient Greece and Rome did countless abhorrant things, but no one with a brain is still cares.
This is just shitposting from /pol/fags, like almost every politics or religion thread on this board. You constantly see them acting disingenuous by being all "gee willikers I heard some awful things about such and such…" then half an hour later someone's turned up to spam hour long YouTube videos and misleading info graphics. And outright lies of course, where would they be without their outright lies? Case in point…>>20851>The thing with the crusades annoys me so much. In school our teachers constantly used 'what we did to them', as a reason of why we need to take in refugees etc.
Why would you do this? Go on the internet and play make believe. There's a stink that follows /pol/fags like yourself around and you're actually dumb enough to think you can hide it, but you never do.
Some of us come from countries where we're connected to our history still and have a sense of collective shared identity, almost like a big family - men or women. I'm from one such part of Europe (though I live and work in another). I don't want to offend you by saying this, but I feel like people in America and the Anglosphere in general are so individualistic, even if they lean left, that they can't really grasp the concept of what it means to belong to a group as I described above. That's why we argue about this stuff, get annoyed about historical events, get angry when foreigners insult us etc. It's because we really do feel like we belong to a group. So no, it's not just /pol/ or "men". I'm pretty liberal by my own country's standards but in the Anglosphere I'm considered extremely right wing. That's just how things are. Different ethnic groups, different ways of looking at the world, different sense of connection with history.
you might want to read that section titled, 'Heinous Crimes', anon…
An SJW talking about others "stinking", topkek. Just fuck off.
Same section will tell you that if long enough a time has passed, judges will just dismiss the case.
Honestly, it wasn't a real argument, just being mean to someone who decided that furthering the Christian cultural guilt trip is a good idea.
>>20875> I'm pretty liberal by my own country's standards but in the Anglosphere I'm considered extremely right wing.
Oh really? The same deeply right wing country that tries to guilt trip you about the Crusades? What a confused nation it must be. And what country is this anyway? Given the Crusades were primarily Western European past time, at least within the time frame of the four initial Crusades to the Holy Land, I can't help but feel your talking nonsense.>>20877
You've been rumbled, hit the road, Jack. No one's buying today.
>>20879>Oh really? The same deeply right wing country that tries to guilt trip you about the Crusades?
That anon wasn't me…
>And what country is this anyway?
I live in the UK but I'm originally from the Balkans.
You seem angry.
>>20874>caring about what peoples in the middle ages did>Why? Literally why?
To address this for a minute, because those people are the reason you exist today. They define a big part of who you are, both in terms of you as an individual with your own genes, as well as those of your countrymen, your wider culture, right down to why borders are the way they are, and in many cases, why you're an independent state in the first place. If you don't have any attachment to your people's history, you end up like an individualistic person, cut off from everything. That's how Koreaboos and Weebs are born
>>20871>by focusing on them to the exclusion of other events, or by giving them disproportionate negative attention
the reason why they're being focused on is because this thread is about Catholicism. And it's not like people haven't also given examples of other problems they have with the Catholic Church ITT before the subject of the Crusades/historical shitposting free-for-all came up.
I mean, if you want to have a thread about the most horrible things that people or nations have done to one another throughout history, you can go ahead and make that thread (preferably in /x/ or something because that shit gets dark fast), and the subject matter will definitely vary.
>>20884>the reason why they're being focused on is because this thread is about Catholicism.
I wasn't referring to this thread when I said they're focused on to the exclusion of other things. I'm talking more generally. This is traditionally justified because it's seen as more relevant to us as westerners, same reason we don't know anything about the Arab Slave Trade really. My point was that it's a kind of selective eurocentrism. If it's seen as negative, or a historical "crime", then we have blanket eurocentrism. But if we're discussing historical achievement, or just any sort of cultural pride, then suddenly eurocentrism becomes taboo. I gave a very clear example here in the controversies surrounding the teaching of the western canon, as well as the western canon itself.
it kind of sounds like you're getting off-topic a bit tbh.
You might want to head over to the 'Non-Asian cultures and countries' thread, because it sounds like lots of people there are from Europe and they take pride in their heritage/country. In my experience, cultural pride only becomes taboo when you get people who are like 'muh superior aryan masterrace', or don't actually have any experience with said culture (like people in America who have never been to the country of their descent bragging about their irish heritage or something)
Perhaps I sounded too broad, I'm not saying "don't think about history". What I am saying is pointless to make moral judgements about the distant past because it's full of 13 year old brides and people getting tortured to death for any dumb reason.
>>20888>like people in America who have never been to the country of their descent bragging about their irish heritage or something
Kinda like claiming Mo Farah is "just as English as anyone else" eh? LOL.
>>20889>What I am saying is pointless to make moral judgements about the distant past because it's full of 13 year old brides and people getting tortured to death for any dumb reason.
Average age of marriage for virtually all of European history was 18-22. Church records of marital certificates clearly show this. Younger marriages were common among the nobility (even then still mostly late teens), but not the peasantry. It seems like you have Europe confused with Arabia.
Britain sold its nation out for thirty pieces of silver. They're not wrong saying Mo is as British as anyone. The tragedy is in being British not meaning a damn thing anymore.
Well he is. We don't actually have a racial test for British citizenship, much like the Romans, the only other civilisation who could even lay a glove on the Great Bong Empire for excellence.>>20894
I can smell the Anglo on you from all the way over here.
Seriously, why are Anglos such annoying know-it-all liberals? Wherever you go, they're the equivalent of the AKSHULLY meme IRL.
Was so satisfying watching Canada get BTFO'd by Saudi Arabia recently. "We don't have a friend in the whole world", the Canadian Ambassador said. The eternal Anglo may have done tremendous damage to other European peoples, but liberal internationalism he helped create is as good as dead.
>>20896>Well he is.
An identity based on a travel document is no identity at all. Or at least, it's not a meaningful one.
Because no one else can speak English properly and it annoys us.
Also here we see a "woman" critising Canada for calling for solidarity with Samar Badawi's family, how interesting.>>20902
And how would you know? You seem to detest entirely the United Kingdom, you probably loathe whatever nation is unfortunate enough to house you presently and wish it were far more in line with your own brand of poisonous politics. However, only Emperors had the ability to make those kinds of decisions and they're all gone. Now we have democracy and what the people say, goes, kind of. Regardless the consensous doesn't find you to be correct. Nor me, by the way, but I accept that, unlike yourself.
The classic "if someone disagrees with me, they are a LARPer" strategy. Most colorful, old bean.
If Canada was serious about challenging Saudi, they'd go after their enablers, the US. This is as much of a publicity stunt as Sweden's so-called feminist government.
That's nice but an identity based on a travel document is not meaningful not does it inspire loyalty or cohesion. Try again.
KSA can do as it pleases within its own borders. You Anglos have no power there. You can't even keep your own streets safe (lol daily acid attacks and stabbings). How does it feel to be increasingly impotent in the world? Remember when Assad was a "dead man walking" five years ago? Anglo failure seems to be a trend as of late.
Even Ex-Yu cities are safer than Shitain these days lmao.
It's all irrelevant. The proportion of people in Saudi who hold views westerners would consider liberal are a tiny and irrelevant minority. The real power brokers are the various regional princes who, together with their clerics, can bring hundreds of thousands of people out onto the streets. Westerners are just delusional, same as with the moderate rebels in Libya and Syria.>>20908
Reminder Shitain airlifted and shipped the Manchester bomber to safety and gave his Islamist parents British passports. Which according to Anglo anon means they're just as British as Francis Drake lol.
This will sound fringe, but it feels to me that the West knew perfectly well what it was doing. The powers that be, that is.
The "moderate rebels" part was just Iraqi WMDs 2: Electric Boogaloo.
You might want to make another thread for the Gott strafe England stuff, we're derailing this one quite fiercely.
The criticism not being forceful enough doesn't invalidate it, what an dumb thing to say.>>20906
Nor do genes.>>20908
Well actually the UK could have a lot of pull with the Saudis but the current govern…
…whatever, this is like arguing with toddlers. "Anglo" isn't a politic entity, nor do knife crime statistics factor into a debate about medieval history or modnern day foreign policy. As ever /pol/fags reduce any and all conversations into a game of meme-insult Top Trumps in which there is no winner or point.
And Francis Drake wasn't the least bit British he was English, czechmate Atheists.
There were actions undertaken, and in this we agree and are friends.
What are the effects of these actions?
Go ahead, tell me what tangible benefits any of the parties involved have gained.
I would argue that Badawi is now worse off due to the loss of any domestic credibility she might have had that being "outed" as a foreign backed entity would cause. Not to mention that her family is now the center of an international dispute.
Now compare with actions that require more political will but achieve tangible results, in a perfect world making the US stop supporting the KSA regime. The world is not perfect, but the US telling KSA to stop would actually mean something
. Furthermore, even with the current US government it would not have been an impossible affair, to preempt whatever you might be wishing to post now.
Ah you're one of those people who think the Tories are ultra nationalist fascists or something. From a foreigner, they really aren't.
The majority of meaningful group identities, ancient and modern, are based around kinship bonds. So yes they do.
As for Canada. Saudi is never going to become a liberal democracy. Ever. The world is moving away from liberalism, try to expand your mind beyond western Europe.
Shaming the Saudis internationally at a time when they are trying to be seen to be changing their barbaric and backwards country could have a very big effect. Ignoring their behaviour is akin to condoning their misdeeds and subsequent misdirection.
Lol you are so delusional. You think non western people care about these sorts of disputes at all? You think the Chinese or the Indians are with you or something? The Saudis aren't feeling ashamed because the vast vast majority of the population are Islamists of some kind. Again. Liberals are a small irrelevant portion of the population.
Are you invoking the paradox of tolerance against another paradox of tolerance? That's clever, but still requires the possibilities to be expanded to include "do nothing" instead of the "shame the KSA openly" vs. "apply diplomatic pressure to a more powerful ally" system we've got going for ourselves.
Honestly if the news came out that Canada did attempt to use a fulcrum before resorting to its current course of action I would have no issue with them, however I feel my words are being twisted by your stance.
Historical materialism needs to die. The world isn't heading towards some liberal terminus with gay rights and trans for all.
You can't read nor are you remotely smart.
"Internationally" you gormless sack of shit. You think the Kingdom's recent PR campaign is for the benefit of the Saudi population? The Saudi government knows full well that popular opinion outside of the Kingdom is turning against it, and it doesn't want that, which is why it made such a big deal out of allowing women to drive. However, if you point out it's still locking up womens rights activists and other non-violent dissenters you can force it's hand, potentially. Or at least adear to a sound set of principles that can allow you navigate the world with some self-respect.>>20916>think the Tories are ultra nationalist fascists or something
No one thinks that. I'm just aware, like many people are aware, that they'll do business, the same as many other governments, with any Tom, Dick or Harry with enough petro-monies.
That's true, I often wonder about how many people are in heaven now who beat their wives and did other terrible things that were culturally normal in the past. I was just saying the Crusades weren't all just evil Christians killing peaceful non-Christians because that seems to be a common misconception a lot of anti-Catholics have. A lot of awful things did happen during the crusades but the big picture is more nuanced and the crusades started because of defensive reasons. (And I don't like /pol/.)
Can we go back to talking about Catholicism? This is so off topic now…
What do you guys prefer, Ordinary Form or Tridentine Mass?
The oldest choir in the world is catholic too.
Is evangelism a big part of catholicism? I don't think I've ever seen people recruiting for catholics.
Also, have you guys ever been to a healing mass? My friend in elementary school was a Catholic and I always ended up going to church and events by hanging out, and went to a healing mass. I don't remember much, but the priest, or whatever he was, saying stuff with his hands over my head then i got SUPER light headed. Idk if he hit me and gave me a concussion, or if it was the holy ghost.
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
They weren't just killing non-Christians, they killed their own priests because it was more convenient than trying to figure out who was and wasn't a Christian.
Letters from the Crusades describe the victors as being ankle-deep in the blood of their enemies. The problem I have with this is that maybe–maybe
–you can say this is justified by the politics of the time. But you can't say that it's justified by the religious morality that they professed to at the time. The Bible has gone through countless translations but I don't think I've ever heard one where it's okay to slaughter countless people who have done you no wrong for the sake of reclaiming your holy territory.
also inb4 'but you just don't understand christianity'
i was raised catholic and i still think it's a crock of shit.
"“All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me."
it's almost like one of the ten commandments is 'thou shalt not kill'. Where's the exception to the rule? Self-defense from le muslims? It's okay to kill if you really, really want to own Jerusalem? I don't think that's what was intended.
I can't help but to think their priests are all pedos.
there's a strong predilection because in the past, if you had any kind of unnatural urges and you went to a priest like, 'forgive me father i have sinned i had lustful thoughts about another man/a child' then the priest's rote answer was 'you're called to celibacy! join the priesthood or become a monk and never think about sex ever again.'
now that homosexuality is a lot more accepted by society though, guys are listening to those priests less and less. pedophiles, on the other hand…it probably still seems like a decent option from their POV.
tbh i wouldn't mind becoming a cloistered nun, but i always thought the franciscan monks were cooler and it annoys me that women can't be part of their boy's-only-club.
>>21225>if you had any kind of unnatural urges and you went to a priest like, 'forgive me father i have sinned i had lustful thoughts about another man/a child' then the priest's rote answer was 'you're called to celibacy! join the priesthood or become a monk and never think about sex ever again
Hmmm, that would actually explain a lot.
It wasn't just a territorial battle though. The indigenous Christian people and pilgrims in the occupied territories were being slaughtered and persecuted. Like for example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday. That's a far cry from doing "no harm."
The Bible and Christian beliefs do not teach that all violence is evil or sinful. The Old Testament is replete with examples of legitimate warfare sanctioned by God. (See: Ex. 15; 32:25 – 28; 1 Sam. 15:3 and 2 Macc. 15:27-28) God often allowed and even commanded the use of violence for a holy purpose.
St. Augustine of Hippo in his work City of God consolidated Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions into a Christian understanding of legitimate warfare, or "just-war doctrine." Augustine taught that violence could be undertaken for legitimate reasons, including past or present aggression, defense of innocents from violence, proclamation by a legitimate authority, and restoration of order and property. The impetus for the first Crusade meets all of these criteria.
you realize that the just war doctrine is on the verge of being overturned by your current infallible pope?
Source? There was a conference at the Vatican in 2016 of people asking the Pope to overturn just war doctrine but nothing has come of it.
That link redirects me to the front page of vatican.va.
huh, weird. wonder why they coded it that way.
well, you can just google Message of his Holiness Pope Francis for the Celebration of the 51st World Day of Peace. It's pretty clear what his views are.
This speech is a plea for the secular governments of the world to craft legislation that would make legal immigration easier, I don't see the connection to overturning just war doctrine. If anything the duty to protect the lives of innocents fleeing from persecution is in keeping with Augustine and Aquinas' ideas of just warfare.
sorry, 50th, not 51st
>Violence is not the cure for our broken world. Countering violence with violence leads at best to forced migrations and enormous suffering, because vast amounts of resources are diverted to military ends and away from the everyday needs of young people, families experiencing hardship, the elderly, the infirm and the great majority of people in our world. At worst, it can lead to the death, physical and spiritual, of many people, if not of all.
Just caught up with the Pennsylvania story that broke this week. Reading those news articles made me feel sick. Catholicism may be 'reformed' now but the damage it's done is irreversible.
It's really awful. All day long you talk to people and hear "why are you part of the church that covers up so much evil" and you turn around numbers and statistics and then yet another filthy old fuckbag turns up.
We should - and it almost looks like the public expects us to - line them all up. But you can bet your ass that in 100 years the non-believers would then go "Muh unjust persecution, muh merciless punishment". Can't do it right for them.
Still, if our priests ever did something to our kids, I would probably go berserk on them right on the spot.
>>21437>But you can bet your ass that in 100 years the non-believers would then–
really don't think that rapist pedophiles are ever going to be accepted as sympathetic or that their 'persecution' is ever going to be deemed 'unjust' but okay.
>For others, it was too little, too late. Frances Samber, whose brother Michael was abused by a priest in Pittsburgh and committed suicide in 2010, said, “It’s good that the public sees this, but where is the justice? What do you do about it? Why aren’t these people in prison?”
the most ebin thing about your religion is that gatholigs are obligated to believe that this man is held in eternal torment because he offed himself due to the emotional damage of being raped as a child by one of your priests
(Paragraph 2, and 2283)>>21925
Look what the general public thinks about the crusades that were literally fighting back murderous invading hordes.
Grew up Catholic. Baptized Catholic. Atheist now. Don't hate religion, just don't believe in it. Catholicism is still part of my life, though. I've been following the church drama closely.
i think that the part that most people take issue with re: crusades is the death toll and also the killing of civilians. like the people who lived in those cities they ransacked weren't interested in invading europe, they were just trying to get on with their lives and not get murdered.
but also it's not our responsibility to try to absolve the church (or pass judgement on them) from what happened hundreds of years ago, nobody can do anything about that now. what's important is that the people who are committing crimes here and now are held accountable instead of given safe haven due to their elevated status as 'holy men'.
Tbh, "the church" as in most of their members who happen to be laity are all up in arms now. There's just so much they can do, sadly, because corrupt people will stream into positions of power everywhere, but some brave bishops also spoke out already and the mainstream media also picked up on it.
Tbh, I am one of those thinking the church went to shit after the 69's (Vaticanum 2), and that the kiddy fiddlers and gay orgy networks are result of modernism and "the spirit of change", and such it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that Mr. Modernsmile Pope is part of the mess.
It should be purged, the traditional orders are in the rise anyway.
BTW, our lefty media now portrait everything as "Far right Catholics try to topple the liberal pope", lel
Just saw the story that broke today
No wonder nuns feature in so many horror movies
But sure, it was Vatican 2 when things started to go downhillhttps://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs
Pretty sure that shtity behaviour by those in power is nothing new.
You're so utterly blinkered by your love of some mythical, uncorrupted church that you have to lie to yourself wholesale. It's really dishonest.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45340295https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home>>22075
I'm really not sure what the point of posting this graph without comment or context was, but I get the sense what you're trying to do is make the claim that because allegations of abuse from the last 25 years are less in number, the abuse is no longer taking place. I hope you're not that silly anon, because "silly" is the polite way of saying it.
Did you actually even read the article?
I went all the way through it and it had me in tears before I was halfway done. Not just because of the abuse that those children suffered, because there was no justice for them. Because the church literally paid them off not to testify. If you can sit through that and still be like 'yeah these people and their institution that the are representativs of are worth defending', then I have zero respect for you.
>>22078>The bad thing about the church is not single occurrences, but the systematic network behind!
Yeah but the systematic network only began in the 60's.>Oh yes?!?! Well, look at that terrible pre-60s single case!!!
Orphanages were pretty horrible generally. We recently had a discovery in our city that children from the orphanage were sold to pedophile networks and then marked as dead. And that was also around the 60s. "Everyone just did it that way back then". Still I don't demand my city to pay repetitions or else I consider myself not citizen of the city anymore.
>>22078>If you can sit through that and still be like 'yeah these people and their institution that the are representativs of are worth defending', then I have zero respect for you.
These people committed horrific crimes but I think the Church is worth defending. There are likewise teachers who have committed horrific abuses but they don't represent the education system working as intended. The school system is so large that abuse stories are not uncommon, but that's not what the institution is for. There are many horrific cases of teachers abusing the most vulnerable special needs students who cannot defend themselves, but they do not represent the many excellent teachers who educate, inspire, and uplift their students.
you really didn't read the article, then. it wasn't a 'single' case, there were multiple reports of this type of abuse occurring at other places around the same time. + the victims didn't 'demand' that the church pay reparations, the church is the one who came forward with the offer to pay them off if they agreed not to testify.
i get that, my parents worked in the education system for years, but i think the difference is that the teachers don't get the same protection that the members of the church do. if anything, they're under even a higher level of scrutiny.
i remember being told a story about a male teacher that my mom worked with, who would read to the kids while having one of the students sit in his lap. they were all under 5th grade, and it was always one of the little girls who supposedly wanted to sit in his lap. it made the other teachers so uncomfortable that (after repeatedly being warned by the principal to restrain from physical affection) he was eventually let go. no student ever reported being molested by him, there were no complaints, but the people around him were worried enough that it ended up affecting his career.
On the other hand, you have nuns and priests who–despite multiple people coming forth and providing corroborating stories of horrific abuse–are protected because 'nuns and priests are godly people and we couldn't possibly imagine that they would do anything as evil as that.'
>>22095>i think the difference is that the teachers don't get the same protection that the members of the church do.
That's true, teachers are under much more public scrutiny, especially in modern times as there is an increased push both internally and from the public for more transparency. However, I don't think that abusive priests and nuns are protected by their superiors because they are perceived to be holy as much as it is for misguided political and public image reasons. There have similarly also been a lot of sex abuse cover-ups in the military with cases being settled by secretive internal tribunals rather than by the public courts. That is changing though with more awareness and justice being demanded for the victims. I am hopeful that the Church will also become more transparent about how they handle abuse cases and laicize abusers and submit them to the public courts. I do think things are getting better, 848 priests were defrocked under Pope Benedict* and if you want to work in a Catholic school you now have to undergo child abuse prevention and recognition training every year. There is a lot of public ire demanding justice over the recent sex abuse cases coming to light, and with more scrutiny I think things will continue to improve.
Screen Shot 2018-0…
I was referring to the deposition of Father Foster.>'these women were wonderful and they did so much to take care of these children'>There in the files was Father Foster, the priest who delivered that spontaneous lecture on the moral purity of the St. Joseph’s nuns. For all his eagerness to educate the lawyers, Foster had neglected to disclose one crucial fact: He had recently been sent to the St. Luke Institute in Maryland, where many priests accused of sexual abuse spent time. In a report, the institute said Foster had “severe sexual issues” and decades of behavior “unbecoming to a priest.” By the time of the deposition, St. Luke had advised that Foster should have no unsupervised contact with minors. Bishop Angell, who testified that it was “unthinkable” in his day that a priest might assault a child, was the one who oversaw Foster’s case.
That's awful. But the fact that the bishop said it was "unthinkable" that a priest could assault a child when he oversaw sex abuse cases himself at an institution designed to retain retain abusers to me seems indicative that their statements were to try to protect their public image rather than out of a sincere belief that the clergy can do no wrong. Or maybe they were just so deluded it was a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.
It's the public that believes that the clergy can do no wrong. That's why so many parents left their children at that orphanage, when they could no longer care for them, where they hoped that their children would be in safe hands. It's the representatives of the institution, such as that priest or bishop, who know
that these people are capable and willing of doing horrible things and choose to relocate them or defend them in court instead of allowing them to be prosecuted by the law of the land.
Maybe that's the Christian way, I don't know.
I think back then there was a lot more public trust in the clergy because people were ignorant that these abuses were even happening. Kind of like with babysitters, in the past people felt more comfortable leaving their kids with other people because they assumed they could trust them, but now that we there have been many highly publicized stories of abusive babysitters people are a lot more cautious leaving their kids even with family members. I feel more cautious too after a nurse coworker who worked in the ICU told me she'll never let anyone watch her kids after having to measure the vaginal circumference of a five year old girl raped by her uncle.
Public trust in the clergy from the laity is at an all-time low now, or at least it seems that way to me. A priest I like on youtube talked in a recent video here about how his parishioners were asking him if he was even angry about the recent abuse cases, because they didn't just assume that he was.
This is not what is supposed to be happening in the Church. It's tragic and the victims should receive justice.
>Jesus called a little child to stand among them. "Truly I tell you," He said, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.
>But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
I think the most heart-breaking part of it nowadays is that trust most people once had in the church is shattered. heck, it's not just confined to the church–it's everyone. I can't watch videos like the one you linked without thinking to myself, 'yes, but what if he's just
pretending to be a decent person? what if his outrage is all just acting?
and the precedent indicates that we have no way of knowing.
all of these abusers were thought to be upstanding members of their community. their victims didn't come forth until decades later, or if they tried to come forth at the time, they were ignored and/or punished. the neighbors of serial killers say that they seemed like 'nice, quiet young men'. stories like the one you were told by the ICU nurse seem to indicate that we can't even trust members of our own families.
i can see how putting your faith in god would be reassuring, because books like the bible tell you that everything will turn out alright in the end and that the wicked will receive their punishment in the afterlife. and i think that the new testament is actually, as guides to morality go, a good resource to turn to. it's putting my faith in humanity, and the authority of our self-created religious organizations, that i have trouble with.
>>22118>I think the most heart-breaking part of it nowadays is that trust most people once had in the church is shattered.
It wouldn't be the first time.
>>22118> I think the most heart-breaking part of it nowadays is that trust most people once had in the church is shattered.
I think the most heart breaking part of it all is the horribly abuse that some victims had to suffer, and the punishment inflicted on them afterwards if they tried to seek help from the wrong person, and how this continues into the current day even if some clots of corruption were cleared up. I don't see the loss of trust in the church to be heartbreaking on the same level at all.
maybe heart-breaking is the wrong word, but it is sad
. not everyone is going to experience abuse directly at the hands of a church representative but as a society, everybody feels its effects when stories like this come out. and when they do, the defense that the church-going crowd comes up with a lot of the times is, 'yes, but not all priests are like this…'
but it doesn't matter, the general public is basically prepared to expect the worst by now. i honestly have no idea how anons like >>22108
haven't had their optimism hopelessly crushed.
It's fine to feel that it's heart breaking, the thing that didn't sit well with me was saying it was the most
heart breaking. Even if you swap in the word 'sad' in your original post it would still make it the "the most sad part" which is a weird thing to say.
I know it's something everyone feels and there is some sadness in that, but the idea that affecting the image of the church is more
sad or more
heart breaking than the abuse perpetrated is frustrating. It's an uncomfortable feeling to acknowledge that someone or some institution you trusted did something horrible but it's never worse than what the victims went though and thinking that way contributes to the cycle of abuse where people with power in some form can get away with it.
i don't know if you read the article, but…some of the victims still had faith in the church. there was a woman who got on the stand in defense of her experience at that orphanage, and that's what triggered a flashback to the abuse she went through. she didn't remember it until that moment. i can't imagine what that had to have been like.
to be fair, the brain is more durable than we think it is. if something is traumatic enough, we can sometimes find ways to forget about it. it's not heart-breaking that it affected the church, it's heart-breaking because it affects the people who believed that nothing that bad could have been allowed to happen. and then they get proven wrong, and their world-view is irreparably harmed.
the abuse may have happened only once to a specific individual, or it may have happened so long ago that they forgot about it, but yes, i do think that the psychological ramifications on the victims are more important than the actual physical act of abuse that they suffered through. that abuse may have only occurred for a few years during their childhood, but it will haunt them for the rest of their life.
It's hard to say whether low-grade psychological trauma on a global scale trumps high-grade trauma on an individual level, though.
turns into atheists and whatnot bashing Christians…
Hey, you had 1500 years of absolute cultural dominence. Get over yourself already.
The issue with the Catholic Church is not only that some of the clergy wilfully rape and abuse children, it's that, from the highest level, it went out of its way to cover up and conceal the crimes, and made little to no attempt to prevent the offenders from committing more and more crimes, nor did it offer any justice or support to the victims. No phony "jeez, guys, this video is so hard for me" hack vlogger is changing that.
If you have to tie yourself in knots and ignore great misdeeds to justify your belief system, then perhaps the problem is within rather than without.
catholicism as belief system doesn't include abusing children tho, there's nothing to justify about that
>>22118>it's putting my faith in humanity, and the authority of our self-created religious organizations, that i have trouble with.
That's one of the reasons why the priest acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) when he administers the Sacraments like the Eucharist and reconciliation is much more comforting to me than putting my trust in a preacher from a Christian denomination that doesn't administer/believe in the Sacraments. If it comes out that my favorite priest from my local church is an abuser, I'd be devastated but I'd also still know that every time he told me "your sins are forgiven" in confession he was acting in the person of Jesus, and every time he said "this is my body" during the Mass he was making Jesus present in the Eucharist. If I were a member of a protestant church where the preacher turned out to be a rapist, to me it seems like there is absolutely no consolation there. Also in regards to self-created religious institutions, as a Catholic I believe that our Church wasn't founded by corruptible mortal humans seeking God, but by Jesus Himself seeking out us. >>22182
Every thread like this is an an opportunity to be a witness and hear other people's experiences.
>>22266>If it comes out that my favorite priest from my local church is an abuser, I'd be devastated but I'd also still know that every time he told me "your sins are forgiven" in confession he was acting in the person of Jesus, and every time he said "this is my body" during the Mass he was making Jesus present in the Eucharist. If I were a member of a protestant church where the preacher turned out to be a rapist, to me it seems like there is absolutely no consolation there
if you think that the presence of jesus exists in the spirit of a child rapist then you sound delusional. that is unholy as it gets.
Look, I think that miner is entitled to her beliefs, just as you're entitled to your own.
There's no need to call people names.
we can split hairs over whether or not calling someone's beliefs delusional is a personal attack but seriously, if someone thinks that a Catholic
priest who rapes children can still act in the 'person of Jesus', but a Protestant
priest who does the same can't…just wow. Neither of those people can or deserve to act in the name of Christ, and saying that a priest could after committing atrocities that should have them pitched into the deepest level of hell is sheer bias.
of course protestant pastor can't act in persona Christi because they son't believe in sacraments, please read up what acting in persona Christi means
Where do you draw the line, though? There is not a single human on Earth who never does anything less than perfect. Every priest fails his vocation on some level. So what makes a priest a priest?
I know that many people these days consider truths to be dependent on all people involved in the interactions. On the other hand, we have truths that are just part of the world, no matter how much the relativism would strive to abandon them (like a heavily abusing mother still being the mother of her child despite everyone saying "she's not a mother"). We believe there is a defined sequence of events that makes someone a priest irrevocably. Of course the church has every power to forbid him to act in every sort of pastorhood ever again, but it doesn't change the fact that he is
a priest and therefore is capable of celebrating mass etc.
If it's of any importance to you, a sinning priest objectively signs himself up for worse depths of hell than commoners pretty much by definition, because he still HAS TO celebrate mass daily, and also consume the sacrifice, whereas people generally are advised to not go up for communion if they have some unresolved sins left with them. (1 Cor 11,23-26)
Concerning Protestants, you must consider that he'll basically is something you have to choose yourself. You can choose it on plenty of reasonings, that doesn't necessarily equate the reasonings although the consequence seems the same. You can say "I don't want to be in harmony with the grand scheme of things because I place my list above the well-being of others" or you can say "I don't want to be part of it because I don't want to bother with researching what might be needed." Of course one is humanely worse than the other.
>>22302>because he still HAS TO celebrate mass daily, and also consume the sacrifice, whereas people generally are advised to not go up for communion if they have some unresolved sins left with them. (1 Cor 11,23-26)
couldn't he just quit? resign in disgrace? oh wait
but then he would be a layperson and he wouldn't be able to rape children without facing the consequences.
i'm not talking about >There is not a single human on Earth who never does anything less than perfect. Every priest fails his vocation on some level
i'm talking about the example given in >>22266
where they are literally saying that they would be okay with a Catholic priest that rapes children (they use the word 'abuse' when referring to catholic priests but rape when they're referring to protestants which is ??? i can only assume they mean the same thing). That is not 'less than perfect'. That's not a mistake. Nobody kills without intent, nobody rapes without intent. harming a child to satiate your sexual needs is wrong. that is not failing your vocation, that is actively acting against the calling from God that you profess to have devoted your life to.
what makes a priest a priest? vows. if they break those vows, imo, they shouldn't be wearing the robes or delivering mass.>>22301
This just sounds like bullshit the Catholic Church thought up in order to justify their infallibility. Is a priest who rapes children a representative of Christ just because he's been ordained as such?
Concerning Protestants, you must consider that he'll basically is something you have to choose yourself. You can choose it on plenty of reasonings, that doesn't necessarily equate the reasonings although the consequence seems the same. You can say "I don't want to be in harmony with the grand scheme of things because I place my list above the well-being of others" or you can say "I don't want to be part of it because I don't want to bother with researching what might be needed." Of course one is humanely worse than the other.
i don't understand what this means.
choosing protestantism doesn't meant that you want to go against the 'harmony with the grand scheme of things', or, 'i place my list above the well-being of others', or 'i dont' want to bother with researching what might be needed'
if anything it's catholics who listen to the church without doing their own research. protestants actively encourage the members of their congregation to read the bible, draw their own conclusions, and come to their pastors with their questions. catholics just seem to be like, 'listen to what i tell you and if you have something to say about it, you're wrong.'
Well the Catholic Church has two millennia worth of libraries filled with works of people who did just that. Protestants act like "but what if you don't need to confess your sins :^)" is such a clever questions they and they alone came up with when ~reading the bible by themselves~, but you can be sure that every single question a Protestants can come across when ~reading the bible~ has been already answered in the first few centuries A.D. and since elaborated on with the finest philosophical methods. I don't know what you guys find so appealing about having everyone invent the wheel anew. You can question the church, the CCC is a great point to start doing so, and infact you should because that's the only way it can provide you with answers and explanations MATTERING TO YOU and linking you to the primary important works of two thousand years of theology where a doctor of philosophy spent years writing a while book about your exact "novel" thought.>>22303>Is a priest who rapes children a representative of Christ just because he's been ordained as such?
Yes, like a mother who abuses her child still is their mother because she birthed them. The fact that they're a crappy mother/representative of Christ is additional information coming from the general sinfulness of people.
Oh, and re:intent. When we're talking about sin, we ALWAYS are talking of intent. Incapability or accident mean you are not actively commiting to sin what's the whole issue. But still, every human sometimes actively chooses the wrong decision with full intent. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
And what makes a priest priest is not vows, but the sacrament of ordination. The vows are a legal framework of his daily works. Does it make you less American if you break the American law? No. You have to submit to the law because you are American, but that does not mean that it is the following-of-law that makes you American.
Just because someone is a representative of the Church does not mean they are a representative of God's will. The fact that the Church tells you so does not mean it is true.
Actually it does the opposite:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm#1550
That Catholic Strawmanship really is pathetic concerning that the church has its whole system of belief online available at your fingertips, so it doesn't take more than ten seconds to fact-check (… or disprove) your assumptions. Failing to do so doesn't necessarily compliment your opinion.
>>22303>children (they use the word 'abuse' when referring to catholic priests but rape when they're referring to protestants which is ??? i can only assume they mean the same thing).
I meant the same thing. Rape is abuse.
>if they break those vows, imo, they shouldn't be wearing the robes or delivering mass.
I agree, they need to be defrocked ASAP. Perhaps there was a miscommunication but I was talking about how you as a parishioner deal with the emotional fallout of learning that your priest has already done these things. I'm not saying it's fine for such a person to continue to be in a position where they could hurt more people with no repercussions.
Hey… wait a minute…
GOD DOESN'T EVEN REAL!
Gosh darn, you're right! Why has nobody considered this in all of mankind's history?