Comments (96)

Times change and so do people. Traditionally a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did we come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Yet over the millennia there has been an inexorable trend: The deeper we probe these questions and the more we learn about the world we live the less reason there is to believe in God.

Start with the origin of life. Today no honest and informed person can maintain that the universe came into being a few thousand years ago and assumed its current form in six days and the absurdity that day and night existed before the sun was created.

The current pope and the ones before always had this attitude. Do what I say, not as I do. Back in the 1950s and before 85% of roman catholics attended mass every sunday. Today about 25-30% of catholics attend once a month. What more proof do you want. The catholic church as we know it is on its way out within a couple generations. Priests have left and are leaving in great numbers. When the stewards (priests) of your organization disagree, something is definitely wrong. Currently over 50% of roman catholic priests in the USA want celibacy rules changed. The pope says no. Times will be changing!

This is a prime example of faulty logic and poor journalism.

"Unlike all other Christians, only Catholics have to embrace the ambiguities of the papacy over two millennia. Wouldn’t it be easier to declare the papacy outmoded and just move on to a more democratic form of leadership? How can Catholics say they side with the poor when the pope lives surrounded with so much gold and splendor? And how can a pope claim infallibility when the Vatican has to spend so much time “clarifying” offensive remarks?"

Democracy? Really? This is nothing short of a NeoCon ideology for installing Western culture across the globe. However, the Pope is elected, by the College of Cardinals. Just because there is a direct democracy doesn't mean it is outmoded. What about America? Representative democracy? The UK? Constitutional Monarchy? Outmoded is a ridiculous way to approach an institution dedicated to preserving Tradition.

Why is the Pope surrounded by gold? Read the designs for the Temple in the Book of Exodus. That is what Cathedrals are designed after. Cathedrals are associated with Bishops, of whom the Pope is the primate. Doesn't care about the poor? He did meet with the abuse victims, and so forth. You make absurd claims.

And how can a pope claim infallibility when the Vatican has to spend so much time “clarifying” offensive remarks?" Ridiculous, again. Infallibility is not about being politically correct; it is about a continuation of Church Tradition in regards to teaching doctrine and dogma.

Mr. Stevens—Arroyo, you are bigot. Why don't you do some research before you write. I am surprised Newsweek/Washington Post allows you to talk at all.

The most important purpose of His Holiness's visit is to give his blessings to Mcain. Mcain will carry on from where Bush ends.

The guy who made the comment about the Virgin Mary
is a satin worshipper.....Please remove this comment...it is really dispicable!!!

Dan Figman,
you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Judaism does not make it easy to convert, they definitely don't proselytize, but it is an option for a non-Jew to become Jewish. Like many people, you are confusing the cultural aspects of Judaism with the actual faith. There are indeed converts to Judaism, just as there are those who call themselves "secular Jews," people who identify as Jews by culture and ethnicity but are not involved in the religion.

It's a huge political issue in Israel, by the way, who should or should not be considered a Jew. In the Soviet Union, if your parents or even a single grandparent were Jewish, you were considered legally a member of the Jewish nationality, i.e. not Russian. Also an issue of politics, since everybody in the Soviet Union was also legally an atheist, even those who practiced their religion in secret.

Oh dear, now I've forgotten what I really wanted to say about the pope.

Paraclete, Comforter (L. Consolator; Greek parakletos), The Greek word occurs only in St. John (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7), has been variously translated "advocate", "intercessor", "teacher, "helper", "comforter".

TO LDS MARK:

You wrote, "God does have a plan but it unfolded many years ago. It is called "Family".

what is unfolding before our eyes now is our own doing."

You could say that it has always been our own doing since we have free will.

Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and comfort us, He did not say that He would send the Holy Spirit to turn us into a puppet on a string.

God choses who He choses for very specific "jobs" some times but it is up to us to say YES.

When Gabriel came to Mary, she asked questions and then she said YES.

Part of God's Plan is for us to be an active participant in His Plan for the Salvation of All Humanity.

You also wrote, "God is not making the things of today happen. But, he is watching us to see what chosces we make. those choices define our character.".

God is not like a big clockmaker in the sky in the way of some of Deist thinking in that He made everything and then has nothing to do with it.

No, God became one of us, in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Man Who is God-Incarnate.

Jesus was just as human as you and I and when He became a human and He kept the Pure Essence of God which is LOVE.

Jesus also extended an invitation to us when He said, "Come follow Me", did He not?

Then you wrote, "by the way, NOTHING in the bible supports the Nicean (sp) Creed of the "trinity.".

Actually, there is plenty in the bible that speaks of the Trinity even if the word "Trinity" never appears.

The baptism of Jesus.

When He says to, "Baptise them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".

When He says, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into All Truth".

In Genesis when it says, "Let Us make man in Our Image and Likeness [LOVE], male and female let Us make them".

When Jesus said to Philip, "How long have you been with Me, if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father".

In John when it says, "God so loved us that He became One of us".

These are just a few off the top of my head, I would say that there are probably more, many more.

God cares for His Creation, which all of us are a part of and we are called to care for each other.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

To Barbara L.

You said: "And watch out. We might start getting into the conversion business."

When you say "We" you mean Jews. Not that it is impossible to convert to Judaism: this is an ethnic thing, a particular race thing: you are either born to it or not. Even circumcision is unable to change one person's ethnicity. Unlike Christianity, the true religion where ethnicity is not a must.

Thomas Baum:

God does have a plan but it unfolded many years ago. It is called "Family".

what is unfolding before our eyes now is our own doing. God is not making the things of today happen. But, he is watching us to see what chosces we make. those choices define our character.

by the way, NOTHING in the bible supports the Nicean (sp) Creed of the "trinity."

mark

(sp) sorry, i don't know how to spell it.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,

Your brainwashing in Catholicism is running against historic and rational reality.

The historic and rational reality: (once again for those that have not seen)

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Leon Jester,

"The reality of Belfast is closer than I thought."

Yes, perhaps, but less clear than most Americans think. The Troubles in Northern Ireland were never ABOUT religion. Religion was the dividing line, but not the cause of the division, and certainly not the cause of fear and hatred.

When Protestants in the North complained and had the vote taken away from Catholics (again) they hadn't a real fear about Catholics overwhelming and slaughtering them all. The Republic is 90%+ Catholic and since the partition there has been not one pogrom or riot against Protestants there. In fact, Protestants continued in the south quite nicely.

The division in Northern Ireland was caused by economics. One group, who happened to be the Protestants, were empowered by education, law, and tradition over and against the other, who happened to be Catholics.

With the (almost entirely Catholic) Republic of Ireland prospering so much, and the Northern economy stagnant, it is amazing how quickly previous faction Northern leaders have switched from calling for blood to running for positions in unity governments and supporting all-island initiatives and infrastructure.

In America, there is something along the same vein. The conflict over religion vs. non-religion is really the conflict over more-or-less traditional morals against rewritten rules intended to take their place. This becomes patent when we see how few court cases against public displays of Christianity are filed by observant members of other religions. Almost all are filed by non-observant members of Christianity (or non-observant members of Judaism). Again, religion isn't the cause, but only the distinguishing feature, of our own culture wars.

Kenneth, you wrote that it is arrogant to believe:

"1. YOU have a special place in the universe
2. The creator of the universe watches YOU every moment
3. God sent his son as a human sacrifice to die for YOU! ... (what a vile, disgusting idea)
4. YOU have telepathy and are able to transmit your thoughts to God.
5. YOU can go to heaven and be immortal."

Perhaps, unless those propositions are true. Then to admit them, awkwardly aware of one's own innate unworthiness, is very, very humble.

You make a caricature of the Christian faith. Regarding your propositions, each in turn:

1. The purely material hasn't any life-principle (what we call a soul). The vegetable has a life-principle that is productive but insensate. The animal has a life-principle that is sensate and mobile, but irrational. The purely spiritual has a life-principle but is immaterial. We human beings, on the other hand, are material but are also not only productive, sensate, and mobile, but also rational - that is, by its nature capable of abstracting concepts from experiences. This DOES give us a unique place in the natural world.

2. The Creator of the Universe transcends His creation as do all creatures. An author transcends her book and a clockmaker his clock. They do not need to watch every aspect of their creation at every moment to know what is going on with it. It came from their minds and they know it because they know themselves, and how they design things. The Creator of the Universe, from whom the Universe came, transcends and in-fills His creation effortlessly, by His nature, knowing it because it comes from Himself. He doesn't need to "watch" it, as with a hundred billion security cameras. Such terminology is a bit silly, and useful only with children.

3. "God sent his son as a human sacrifice to die for YOU!" God sent his son to make a willing self-sacrifice. If this idea is vile and disgusting, as you say, then so is the self-sacrifice of the firefighters who died on September 11. It is vile and disgusting that their dispatchers sent them to respond to the burning buildings, knowing that some would die? Is it vile and disgusting that those brave souls forgot themselves, so concerned were they for the wellbeing of their neighbors? Maybe you have never known such love, but it does exist, friend. It does exist.

4. "YOU have telepathy and are able to transmit your thoughts to God." This objection ties in with #2, above. We needn't "transmit" anything. God, from whose mind we come, knows our minds because they (and the rest of our being as well) are after His likeness in some way or another. He almost permeates Creation, you might say, and knows us better than we know ourselves because we almost continuously delude ourselves about all manner of things - most especially, about ourselves!

5. Our souls/minds, being immaterial, aren't subject to the decay of the material creation. Closely interrelated with our body, most especially our brain, our mind can become clouded and darkened - but it is not blotted out because it is not entirely contingent on our brains. There is all manner of testimony to this fact from people recovered from comas and even supposed "brain-death". Whither go a soul when the body perish, Kenneth? Call it what you will, but it is not a grave.

"Its mind-boggling that billions of people can believe this nonsense without one shred of evidence."

It is heart-rending that a few million people don't take the testimony of billions of people more seriously. It speaks of anger and arrogance, which often go hand-in-hand anyway.

It's astounding to read how quickly comments on a column on the papacy have descended to a bunch of kids calling each other names.

The reality of Belfast is closer than I thought.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Har, Har and in ten years all the religions and the related blogs will cease to exist as religions crumble under the weight of their flaws and errors.

Ooops! Sorry. Wrong thread.

I was looking for the Muslim intra-faith Sunni-Shiite dispute thread. Not this Christian intra-faith Catholic-Protestant dispute thread I've blundered in.

Excuse me. Carry on.

FRANK sez:
"People need to respect other peoles beliefs. If we respected other peoples faiths we probably would not be at war with one another."

What utter nonsense.

Am I to respect your belief if your belief is that your automobile is run by gnomes living under its hood? Am I to respect your belief if your belief is that breaking a mirror will bring 7 years of bad luck? Am I to respect your belief if your belief is that blacks are inferior to whites? Am I to respect your belief if your belief is that children who sass back to their parents should be stoned to death?

Of course not.

There is no dignity nor humanity in feigning respect for that which demands no respect. Into this category fall religion and other superstitious beliefs.

In America, I respect your right to believe whatever you want, no matter how absurd that belief happens to be. So, believe your horoscope, believe what the palm reader tells you, believe that someone came back from the dead, but there is nothing that says I must respect your belief as having a shred of truth about it.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Jesus is not going to pay the billion dollars owed so far to settle the pedophilia cases. We the "Catholic pew people" are paying and probably will continue to pay for the next 100 years.

It is obvious from the Catholic parishes that I attend that we are not getting the brightest and the best priests based on the significantly poor sermons. And no faith in God will change that.

The old European white guys will continue to rule the papacy forever because the old white guys keep appointing more old European white guys as cardinals. What will happen though in 40-50 years is a complete collapse of Catholicism from its flawed foundations.

Celibate priests? Apparently not, based on the cases of pedophilia, homosexuality and the large number of priests with gals in South America.

And letting married Episcopal priests enter the Catholic priesthood vitiates any celibacy rules and must make many a good celibate priest very upset.

With respect to not answering the historical Jesus movement, here is a synopsis of said movement and its conclusions:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

With respect to the "Holy Eucharist":
(from the class notes for a graduate theology class at a major Catholic university)

"Communion is not Christ's physical Body and Blood since Christ exists as a spirit therefore has no physical form.

Transubstantiation is still a Catholic doctrine, but it never meant a literal transforming of bread and wine into the physical body and blood of
Jesus. "Substance" in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing
and was not reducible to material appearance.

Transubstantiation is a way of
expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW present in the consecratedbread and wine in a special way. Some theologians believe that"transignificantion" would be a better term today than transubstantiation."

Amed, Amed, Amed, Amed,

"Pink slip" the mullahs you said? OK, you have seen the light!!! May God aka Allah bless and keep you safe from your local clerics, imams and mullahs.

I only have one question. Why, when I put on the news do I watch fifteen minutes of Popemobile reports?

I could be wrong, but I thought we were at war, in an election year, etc.

Isn't there enough of American Idol type TV?

Robert B:

What have you "rescued" Jews from? Any chance you'll get out of our faces?

Hunter --

Thank you for your detailed explanation of the quote from Matthew, but if you'll forgive me for saying so, it seems awfully convoluted to me. After all, most evangelicals seem to say that the Bible ought to be interpreted as simply as possible and yet they need to go through considerable linguistic acrobatics to interpret that particular bit of Scripture in that way...

Frank --

Well, anti-theists love to bash the papacy because it's an easy target with a long history. Apparently, many of them were raised as Catholics, which is a sad irony. Plus, anti-Catholicism has a long history in the U.S. for many reasons. Sadly, most Catholic bashers tend to only study the negative aspects of Church history (inquisitions, crusades, the Galileo affair) without paying much attention to the positive aspects (rescuing Western civilization from the Germanic barbarians, the scholastic theologians' embrace of human reason, etc.) The media's fundamental misunderstanding of key elements of Catholic doctrine doesn't help, either...

Frank writes:

"Why do people think it is okay to bash Catholics but when you talk about a Jew you are an anti semite?"

Well, Frank, I'm not the spokesperson for the Jewish people, but I speak for myself when I ask, how come christians are so obsessed with us?

Why are children all over America taunted with "the Jews killed Christ"? Why if any issue concerning Jews comes up on this blog or any other it is filled with hate-filled stereotypes about us? Why in this country, do gangs of christians pick on little kids? Why were there riots, not covered by the media, after Mel Gibson's movie was released, which, incidentally, was first released in Dubai? Why, wherever Christianity goes, does anti-Jewish racism go with it?

Someone used the example of Korea, in which there are no Jews.

Why do Christians have Passion Plays in which people dress up like Jews, and yell "Kill him! Kill him!"

How does Poland manage to remain antisemitic when there are fewer than 5,000 Jews there, most of them elderly?

Why do Spaniards carry placards of grotesque figures (representing us) during there "religious ceremomies)? Haitians?

I could go on and on and on.

We have never thought or spoken as we are now, so far, as I know, in history. Yet I am hearing more and more of this.

The Christians have taught us well, Frank. We've had two thousand years to learn from the religion of love.

Well, some of us are beginning to get it.

But not everyone posting anti-Catholic sentiments is Jewish. Some are Protestants. To me a christian is a christian. Protestants I know, even atheists of Protestant descent, always look to blame the catholics. I don't make such distinctions.

I've been victimized by both, and let me not forget the orthodox.

Stop hating. Leave us alone, and you might do better.

And watch out. We might start getting into the conversion business.

Why do people think it is okay to bash Catholics but when you talk about a Jew you are an anti semite? People need to respect other peoles beliefs. If we respected other peoples faiths we probably would not be at war with one another.
Peace.

Having to convert to Catholocism to marry a Catholic?! Come now..I've been married (in a Catholic church no less) to a Methodist. No, he has not converted (we've been married 23+ years). Get the facts straight BEFORE responding as you are only showing your true inability to understand, comprehend, and seperate the lies from reality.

Why can't the Catholics just go on a cruise with the old guy?

Rent a big ship, sail away. There are enough cartoons on the internet, TV, nespapers, even movies. I don't need to see old men in pink dresses in the times every day with matching beanies and helmets, replacing actual news.

Sail away. REally. And soon.

To Robert B:
As for Matthew 16:18+19 Immediately after Peter's great confession of Christ as the Son of God, Jesus Spoke the words of this text "Thou art Peter" and Jesus used the same Greek word that is used 161 times in the New Testament for Simon Peter- "Petros." In fact, the word "Petros" is never used for any purpose in the New Testament than to designate Peter. The Name means "pebble" or "rolling stone." But then after Jesus called Peter by his name Petros. He said "Upon this rock I will build my church." At this time Christ used the word "Petra" for "rock." The word Petra denotes a huge. unmoving boulder. This word is never used to designate Peter. Instead it is used repeatedly to describe Jesus Himself, as in 1st Corinthians 10:4. In other words the Church was not built upon the unstable Peter(Petros), who had to rebuked by Christ as Satan's agent in verse 23, but upon Christ(Petra), the rock of Salvation. Peter's Confession of Jesus as the Son of God constituted a firm rock of truth also, but the shifting character of the unconverted Peter was not designated by Jesus as the church's foundation. Please notice that, after Peter's confession."Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus assured Peter, "You're right, and this was revealed to your from above. And I'm telling you, Peter, that on this foundation(or rock) I will found my church." It was that confessed truth of Christ's divinity which has been the Gibraltar base for the church through the ages.

Jack writes:

"Never saw such grabby people. Take your old guy out to dinner, and leave the rest of us alone."

Not going to happen, my friend. Personally, I think the Catholics should rent out Macy's and give a fashion show. Ratzinger and his colleagues can wear their dresses and hats, swing their censors, and play music. Maybe, have a Catholic buffet.

Shoppers might be inconvenienced for a day, but they'd have a day of peace, and spare the rest of us.

Seems like this is getting an awful lot of publicity, an awful lot. Vulgar, really.

Mr. Arroyo,

Ratzinger should be mocked, as should all superstition.

People who derive "truth" from the absence of any evidence (like yourself and Ratzinger) should be scorned. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it any more "true".

Most religious people portray themselves as being modest and having humility, but it shows extreme arrogance to think that:

1. YOU have a special place in the universe
2. The creator of the universe watches YOU every moment
3. God sent his son as a human sacrifice to die for YOU! ... (what a vile, disgusting idea)
4. YOU have telepathy and are able to transmit your thoughts to God.
5. YOU can go to heaven and be immortal.

Its mind-boggling that billions of people can believe this nonsense without one shred of evidence.

The Pope personifies this arrogance that all religious people have...

Ahmed from Bahrain: And imams?

Time to give this thing a rest. Every newspaper, television, you name it. I know the Catholics own the media, but this is a secular culture. Never saw such grabby people. Take your old guy out to dinner, and leave the rest of us alone.

Enough, two weeks already.

Grabby, publicity hungry. And the rest of us have to watch an old bugger in a dress, see his picture everywhere.

You think your God's people? Well go to heaven with him. And print let the other chosen read it in the Celestial Times.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and I also don't think of it as a religion and I also don't think of Judaism as a religion either.

Sometimes it seems that plenty of different people of varying degrees of belief and unbelief get caught up in the RULES.

Some say to follow Jesus we need to follow the ten commmandments well actually it is both more and less than that.

You could say less in that Jesus boiled the 10 down to 2 as in Love God and Love neighbor or you could even say that He boiled it down to one word, LOVE, which happens to be THE LAW because God happens to be a Being of Love.

You could say more in that Jesus said not only our actions but our very thoughts about our actions whether we do something or not.

Jesus is God-Incarnate and God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love.

We sure do like to put God in a box but that does not work, we are all individual people and how God decides to work in someone's life is up to God.

Of course, God cannot force Himself on us because He gave us free will and will not go against that in this life.

One of the interesting things that Jesus said was, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life no one comes to the Father except thru Me."

Notice that He said the Father and since God is a Trinity, there could be many, many ways to Jesus.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition and it is unfolding before our very eyes.

Take care, be ready, see you [humanity] in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

How did we get from the rebel Jesus. A sandaled iterate prophet to a guilded red slippered jet setter living in a palace and surrounded by lords in red dresses? Yikes

The recent Washington Post / ABC News poll that found almost 60% of U.S. Catholics felt the Catholic church was out of touch with their current values and moral principles only goes to prove that 60% of U.S. Catholics are out of touch with the timeless teachings of Christ as they are upheld by the church!

The recent Washington Post / ABC News poll that found almost 60% of U.S. Catholics felt the Catholic church was out of touch with their current values and moral principles only goes to prove that 60% of U.S. Catholics are out of touch with the timeless teachings of Christ as they are upheld by the church!

Abolish papacy. Its all about pomp and ceremony and very little about spiritual Jesus. Whilst I am at it, also include all rabbinical orders and the mullahs. Thy all seem to want to cling to power and control the masses. Very little has to do with God if any at all.

Their weapon of choice: Is fear of God to keeping 'the system' going.

Worth repeating:

The Crises (pl) in the contemporary Catholic Church:

1. The inappropriate conduct of many priests, the emotional stress on the victims and the resultant billion dollars in lawsuits.

2. The lack of talent in the priesthood.

3. The lack of Vatican response to the historic Jesus movement.

4. The Church's continuing cling to original sin and the resulting subsets of crazy ideas like limbo.

5. The denial of priesthood to women.

6. The restriction of priesthood to single men (unless you are former Episcopalian priests).

7. And the continued chain of Vatican "leadership" by old European white men.

To Andrew O'Donnell:

You mentioned what is perhaps the most important feature of today's Catholic Church: its unwillingness to listen.

Let me elaborate, and please correct me if I am wrong.

The world has changed so much, and so quickly, that the Catholic Church has struggled to keep pace. John Paul II was a master communicator who took advantage of modern mass media. But the Church's fundamental message remained unchanged, largely as a result of political tensions inside the Vatican, where John Paul II decided to listen to conservatives such as Ratzinger and Escriba de Balaguer, instead of reformers.

So, the Church keeps the head in the sand. The Church keeps banning women from entering the priesthood. And the Church keeps banning priests from getting married. Then, you have thousands of priests who are sexually deprived and commit sexual abuse against children. And then the Church runs to hide and protect those priests.

The Church doesn't understand birth control either. How can you tell married couples to happily accept as many children as God sends, or not to have sex altogether? That's just nuts.

John Paul II spoke forcefully in favor of greater equality, more justice, and the rights of the poor around the world. But his Church turned its back to grassroots priests who had been working tirelessly to help people improve their lives.

I am a former Catholic myself, and a proud atheist now. However, I still respect and share Jesus's message of love, dignity, and respect. This world would be a lot better had the Church focused its energy in spreading those teachings, instead of making people feel guilty if they wear condoms.

Actually, Mari, you are wrong and Wikipedia is correct. Since the explicit explanation and statement regarding papal infallibility in 1870, the doctrine of papal infallibility (that is, its exercise) has only been used. However, prior to 1870, there were other occasions of papal infallibility. Moreover, infallibility is far more often exercised by the bishops speaking as one than by the Pope himself. Remember: The Pope is really just the bishop of Rome and is, thus, first (or last, depending on how you look at it) among equals. Thus, in the early church, when disagreements broke out among the bishops as to church teaching, the bishop of Rome provided the final determination. It is that role of the Roman bishop that led to the explicit explanation of papal infallibility in 1870. As you said, please educate yourself on this before you speak up. BTW, my FIL is a Catholic theologian and past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and, yes, we have discussed papal infallibility.

Finally, Mari, it actually does come down to when the Pope chooses to use infallibility. It's not as if God puts a halo above his head when God wants the Pope's words to be infallible. And, no, every time the Pope talks about church doctrine or dogma, he is not speaking infallibly, though he may be teaching things that are already infallible. Remember, infallibility is far more often used by the bishops as a group rather than the Pope as an individual.

Mark in Irvine, you're assuming that some of those topics were never part of ex cathedra teaching PRIOR to 1870. Also, even if something has not been defined as infallible does not mean that it is likely to change or even wrong.

I was 22 when I joined the Catholic Church. I am 75 now. In the years before I joined the Catholic Church I attended many other Churches. In all of them I continued to hear ranting and raving against the Pope. Since joining, I have NEVER heard a priest speak against the other sects that are out there.
Yet, even today after reading the remarks about the Pope coming to the USA, I still read the hatred and denial of the Pope. I will agree the Pope is infallible only when speakiing for God. Other than that he is as fallible as I am. Thank God he does NOT SEE FIT to speak thru the Pope too often. By the sparcity of his comments, the Pope speaks well of God and the Church.

There are times when it is needful to speak out and times when we should keep our mouths shut. This is one of those times when we should be quiet anad let well enough alone.

I have never had a problem with the Catholic Church that I couldn't resolve by the simple understanding that if God so wills it so be it.

Would that all of you could practice the same restraint.

Comment to Grace,

Grace, I do not think you were ever a true Catholic, and I am sorry you have to be exposed to a cult because that is what you were exposed to. The Catholic Church show as to love one another, and give us the free will make our choices. What you are talking about is not the Catholic Church. I have been a Catholic my entire life, and as of today, I still have the free will to make my choices. I do not think I will go to hell because that is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches loves and Peace; if you cannot find that love and peace within you how do think you will find in the Churh? How are you and I to jugde the leaders ofthe Church? Would that mean that I feel greater than God and I have all the wisdon that the pope does not have?

So, if "Since the 1870 solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I, this power has been used only once: in 1950 when Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics", then all that stuff about contraception, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, abortion, masturbation and so on (why does it always have to be about sex?) is not "ex cathedra" and hence not the infallible teaching of the church on doctrine.

The Second Vatican Council opened the way for the Church to revitalize its mission of helping Catholics find salvation by doing good for their communities and neighbors. John Paul II turned the Church away from this positive turn to a downward spiral of obsession with sexual orthodoxy (chastity, homophobia, opposition to birth control, etc.). The message of the Gospels, the actual words and parables of forgiveness and understanding spoken by Jesus, have been set aside for this neoconservative agenda. Discrimination against practicing heterosexuals has resulted in hiring a population of priests who knew how to hide their sexual urges, with predictable results that the Church must now expensively apologize for. By contrast, Episcopalians have managed to avoid these problems and move into the 21st century, so the problem is not inherent to Christianity per se; these doctrinal differences are not central to the message of Jesus, but do interfere with how that message is distributed in the wider society at large.

No one expects John Ratzinger to turn the Church back to the message of the Gospels. American Catholics will continue to listen to their own consciences and the words of Jesus more than to confused dictates coming out of Rome from time to time. The Church will evolve over time; that was the intent of Jesus's instruction to Peter. The faithful are patient. The next great leap of Catholic spirituality will be an admission of humanity, humility, and fallibility on the part of its leadership; that will unlock the potential that is now thwarted.

Treasure mountain,

your comments on the infallibility of the pope may have meant to be funny or sarcastic, but really only show your ignorance on the matter.

I'm sure you are not alone, or this issue would capture much less discussions.

In fact, papal infallibility is a very rarely invoked, hight regulated procedure, which relies not only on the pope, but involves extensive deliberations by other church bodies that have to come to a consensus.
Additionally, the process is only concerned with church and faith-related issues, e.g. no pope ever declared he was infallible when arguing Galileo was wrong about his (heretic) heliocentric views etc. etc.

Papal pronouncements are only held to be infallible when decreed "ex cathedra", (from the pulpit), which is the format used to indicate such a circumstance.

Notably, this has been used about half a dozen times in the 2000 years of church history, so these arguments are very much ado about little. The only one I can remember off the top is the belief that Mary was the mother of Jesus... if you catch my drift.

to treasure mountain:

good news for your piece of mind: a forced conversion is not a conversion. no one in the church can compel a true conversion since that involves the movements within an individual's soul. only the holy spirit that can initiate this process and carry it through to fruition. i ask the holy spirit now to show this to you as you read these words. Peace!

Robert B. said: "my father certainly wasn't forced to convert. Indeed, he has been a deacon and an elder at his church"

I am not talking about those people who willingly convert. That is perfectly their choice. I am talking about those who convert in order to marry a catholic, in order to gain job promotion (during the Ngo Dinh Diem regime in VN).

"but, at least in this country, there's no gun being held to people's heads. Perhaps it's different in Vietnam."

Oh yes, the vietnamese catholic church is very much different. It's one of its kind.
A vietnamese scholar had written a book, the title is something like: catholicism and the french colonization of Viet Nam. The author used sources from the France National Archives and found out that the catholic priests back then even said: the french army without the help of the catholic church is like a crab without its claws. The vietnamese people routinely go to confession and divulge national or military secrets to catholic priests, who in turn report to the french colonial army, who consequently smash all vietnamese uprising against the french colonial force. I guess the vietnamese don't know about Paul Revere, but only wants to emulate Judah. Those who were caught, were executed as traitors. The Vatican later wanted to name those folks as martyrs, but the current vietnamese government protested: they may be your martyrs, but they are the traitors to our country.
Not only in the olden days, the modern vietnamese catholics even have a famous saying: we rather loose the country than loose God or the catholic church.
Let me not start.

To Andrew O'Donnell:

Fr Andrew,

Whatever your particular agenda was, I'm sorry it didnt come together as you had liked. I wonder if your opinions were on matters that saved souls though? If you lost faith in the church, doesnt that imply that you actually lost faith in the Holy Spirit who was given to us by Jesus before the Ascension?

I pray for priests like you for a set of reasons that is odd to write and today for many, probably stranger to read. I believe you are attacked by the devil more directly than the laity. Most people, catholics included have compartmentalized or boxed off this enormous concept in our faith. I think priests like you have too. It leaves us with an incomplete faith when we do this and we misunderstand our situation and key challenges. I take my guidance here from the lives of the saints who consistently abandon themselves to God and declare that every good emenates only from God through His Grace. They have an intense love of other souls...I think in large part because they understand better the stakes of this life.

I'll never understand why battling the Catholic Church appears to some as such a noble pursuit. Every catholic knows by self examination that none of us are perfect. And if I want you to change but I cant even change myself, why would I conclude that I should abandon you...especially if I think you have abandoned me? Turn to God, then, and let Him work. If you can't do that as a Catholic, I'm not so sure how it could be more possible as a non-Catholic.

If you're trying to change people, why not take the tack of the Saints who have largely done so by their example which is an effect of their deep desire to live as Jesus taught...and made possible by God's abundant grace which is free for the asking.

-J

Just a word of support for O'Donnell.

He sounds more sad than bitter.

I understand that his message is upsetting to many invested in the Church. It seems he himself took many years to recognize that his faith was incompatable with his Church.

Vatican II provoked a backlash, as change usually does. The cultural changes of the 60s-80s upset many traditions, traditions that had become taken for eternal verities. So the Church went into a more defensive, less open mode.

Ratzinger comes out of that movement. As Benedict, his ruling on the Tridentine mass is seen as a continuation of the trend.

Another way of looking at it suggests a willingness to take a distance from rituals, to acknowledge that there is more than one way to be a Catholic.

No one can deny Benedict's orthodoxy - so maybe like Nixon's opening to China, he may be the one who is able, as pope/pastor rather than doctrinal judge, to open the church to more diversity, to hearing other voices. That would be a miracle.

"Ironically, I think those who are not Catholic worry more about the contradictions of the papacy than Catholics."

I find it odd that you find it ironic.

Just as atheists and studied skeptics worry more about contradictions in the Bible than do Xians, so, too, people from every Xian sect see the OBVIOUS flaws in every other Xian sect.

It's the log in their own eye that they're blind to, something even Jesus warned about.

;)

To Hunter -

Sir, I would recommend reading your history before attacking Catholicism. If you believe that the bible is the only authority, you should be aware that it was the Catholic Church that assembled the Canon Law of books (i.e. the Bible). Please do not attack us with Christ's Words and Works which His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church assembled!!!

Mari said: "God simply speaks through the pope on certain matters and that is why he is infallible. When the pope speaks for himself and not for God and not on those limited subjects, he is human just like the rest of us."

Do you mean that sometimes God possesses the pope? Or the pope is possessed by God? Hmm, sounds like the Vatican has those little seance room where the pope can go in there, play a little ouiji board and get God to come down and possess his body. How interesting....

To Treasure Mountain --

"Have you heard of non catholics, who marry catholic, have to convert to catholicism?"

I'm the product of a mixed marriage (mother Catholic, father Dutch Reformed Protestant) and my father certainly wasn't forced to convert. Indeed, he has been a deacon and an elder at his church.

It is true that the Catholic Church does encourage non-Catholics to convert when they marry Catholics, but, at least in this country, there's no gun being held to people's heads. Perhaps it's different in Vietnam.

you see, the roles of catholic beleivers are shrinking because of the reality that sets in when you see the leadership taking the lead into pedophelia.

Vatican II was a big upheaval, but lefd by the Pope way back when.

Molesting children was another of those "forward thinking" programs that evidently backfired - and turned out not to be the leadership's demise.

too bad.

There's always Islam!

Your choice, fanatics: if you MUST beleive in a single, all powerful God, then pick one with the fewest personality disorders, ones where killing