All Comments (93)

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!

concerned, that revisionist history.

Anonymous,

When you get a chance to read Professor Price and Professor Crossan's books, please note they are summarizing 200 years of NT scholarship. Before that the "pew peasants" were not allowed to think for themselves due to the "divine right of emperors/kings/queens/popes". The French and American Revolutions and the creation of literate "pew peasants" changed that ~200 years ago.

Concerned and Ba'al, isn't it amazing how Mr. Crossan gained enlightenment after almost 2000 years of confusion? He must be God-like. Your suggestion of reading is like me asking you to read Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn, taking them as truth! They are in a fog as much as Dr. Price and Mr. Crossan.

Also, those elderly white European men {funny how you didn't mention straight} learned originally from north African men, south eastern European Greeks and Turks, who learned from middle eastern Jews.

Doesn't it make you wonder why people who claim to be believing Christians try to debunk every belief? If that isn't a wolf in sheeps clothing I don't know what is. Thats like an astronomer denying that there is such a thing as stars!

Well, lookey what we have found!

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-mahony20mar20,1,2453877.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true

Mahony accounts of abuse case tape differ
Plaintiffs say he gave the Vatican a graver version of priest's role than he gave the public.
By John Spano, Times Staff Writer
March 20, 2007

At least six months after Cardinal Roger M. Mahony told his superiors at the Vatican that a videotape provided proof of a priest's criminal misconduct with high school boys, the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese told the public that the tape showed no sexual activity between Father Lynn Caffoe and the boys, according to court records....

In a letter to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before Ratzinger became pope in April 2005, Mahony said Caffoe had videotaped "partially naked" boys in a state of sexual arousal. The tape was "objective verification that criminal behavior did occur," Mahony wrote, according to papers filed last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court in a lawsuit by four plaintiffs who allege that Caffoe abused them.

In October 2005, in what Mahony told parishioners was the "fullest possible disclosure" about the scandal, he reported that a videotape had been discovered in 1992 in Caffoe's bedroom, depicting "improper behavior" with high school boys. But the cardinal said the boys were "fully clothed" and there was no sexual activity....

Very Christ-like!

Bill L

After you have read the books of Professor Crossan, then I suggest you take the next step and read the books by Robert M. Price. There you will learn that essentially EVERY story told about Jesus in the Gospels -- including his birth, miracles, death, ressurection, and even the sacrement of the Eucharist was told about or associated with myriads of other mythical or vaguely historical figures in the Hellenic world of that time.

You will learn about the worship of John the Baptist, Mithras, Appolonius of Tyrana, Ossiris, Pythagoras, Dionysis, and many others (including several named Jesus).

Professor Crossan believes there is an interesting historical Jesus that can be teased out of the texts. Dr. Price goes a bit further, and believes that there may or may not have been a historical Jesus, but if there was, whatever we could possibly know about him has faded into an inpenetrable fog.

Bill L,

You noted: "Concerned, by your posts you obviously don't have an idea of what is and what isn't Catholic teaching now or in the past!"

Actually I am quite aware of Catholic teachings now and in the past. I finally got the time to review what I was taught K-12 and what I found was a lot of embellishments by mostly "celibate" elderly European white men. I suggest you read the books by Catholic Professor JD Crossan and also by Father Raymond Brown as a way to escape the guilt box of orthodoxy we have been relegated to for the last 2000 years.

For more enlightment, take a theology course at a large Catholic university e.g. Notre Dame, Catholic U.

Here is a sampling of what you will learn:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
Yes, this story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have risen. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting
Adam [Solomon]).

Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin. Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patters of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. Yes, the old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.

Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the
members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care
for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of Catholicism.)

Receiving the Holy Eucharist blends Christ's spirit with our soul or spirit). Communion is not Christ's physical Body and Blood since Christ
exists as a spirit therefore has no physical form.
Yes. 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 consecrated bread and wine in a special way. Some theologians believe that
"transignificantion" would be a better term today than transubstantiation. [Note: both Episcopalians and Lutherans believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistized bread and wine.]

As I read these posts I notice how most who criticize the Catholic Church cite opposition to doctrines and practices. I hate what the priests who molested the young did and wish that they would get their just punishment! That however no more condemns the Church than do abuses by our politicians condemn America.

James, the vast majority of the boys molested were post pubescent, making that homosexual behaviour. That however has nothing to do with the fact that it was evil behaviour no matter what kind of age!

Concerned, by your posts you obviously don't have an idea of what is and what isn't Catholic teaching now or in the past!

Norrie Hoyt: Point taken. The main sticking point I imagine will be what public financing should be available for each activity.

Amvienna,

I just caught up with your post of two days ago addressed to me. Of course, anyone or any institution has the right to try to use political pressure to accomplish any goal, just as others have the same right to oppose those efforts.

Most of the political activeties of the Catholic Church that I oppose do not involve tax revenues -they are aimed at curtailing rights of individuals, for example: banning contraception and abortion, banning aid in dying which is wanted by a pain-wracked dying individual, criminalizing gay sex acts, etc.

The Church's political activity in these area is based on the Church's theology, which the Church is trying to impose on all citizens, including those who don't accept that theology. That's what I oppose.

To Jihadist and others interested,

The Episcopal Church in the United States now has a female Presiding Bishop: Katherine Jefferts Schori.

You can learn more about her and the Episcopal Church at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/

James,

The Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality is the basis of my comment about B16 banning homosexuals from the priesthood. The coverup horror of priest pedophilia was addressed in my first paragraph. i.e.

"B16 continues to show weak leadership which will probably lead to added discrimination against Catholicism. A strong leader would have banished Cardinal Law and his fellow "silent" cardinals and bishops to the lockup of rehab centers for the remainder of their stay."

Concerned: You Need a Bit More Liberation

the problem in the Catholic Church
was with
Pedophiles,
NOT
Homosexuals.

They are NOT the same.

More men sexually abuse girls than abuse boys.

And again, any social scientist knows that the two phenomena are NOT the same.

Good that you, llike all of us, have some more liberation for your mind to accomplish.

Jihadist,

Hmmm, I do apologize for thinking that all Muslim women were oppressed. Now if we could only get the Taliban to see your guiding light. The Saudi Queen or should that be Queens?

And there are a number of women mayors, governors, CEO's, local/state/federal/ judges, Senators and Representatives in the USA. Not enough in my estimation. There should be a 50 male/50 female representation in religious, political and corporate leadership.

Turkey is a democracy and I believe Pakistan and Indoesia were too when they had women in high places. And I do believe things have changed unfortunately in these latter mentioned countries. Ditto for Bangladesh?

In keeping on topic note my previous message about the weak Pope.

"B16 continues to show weak leadership which will probably lead to added discrimination against Catholicism. A strong leader would have banished Cardinal Law and his fellow "silent" cardinals and bishops to the lockup of rehab centers for the remainder of their stay.

A strong leader would delete Limbo and original sin from Catholic theology and thought.

A strong leader would ban homosexuals from the priesthood.

A strong leader would eliminate the rule of priestly celibacy.

A strong leader would permit women to become priests.

And a strong leader would admit that the Bible has myths and embellishments and tell us what they are. "

Jihadist
Congratulations on your patience with
Concerned's small minded questions.

concerned: check the internet yorself. Why ask others to do your basic research for you.? You have a moral duty to Inform YOURSELF.

The US has no moral high ground in relation to Muslim countries on Women in Leadership
(or much of anything else).

Jihadist, again, I consistently appreciate the intelligence and straightforwardness of your contributions.

Hello Concerned:)

Are you asking so many questions for personal research? You can also look them up in Wikipedia for first look info.

You ask : And Islamic countries have how many women religious/political leaders?? Women mullahs/clerics? Saudi Queens?

Me: Well, there were female Presidents of Turkey and Indonesia. And female prime ministers of Pakistan and Bangladesh. All in Muslim countries.
Even Iran and Iraq have female MPs and ministers too. Don't ask me how that happened, how the mullahs and Muslim clerics let that happened since Islam repressed women so much as you think and said.

As for clerics, there already in Muslim countries, some as members of the ulemas, as ustazahs, and as kadis. None as Muftis as yet. And the wife of the Saudi king is called a Queen.

Do you think Hilary Clinton will have a shot at being the first female President of the US? I saw an episode of Commander in Chief once. But that is fiction, no?

And how many female Senators, congresswomen, governors are there in the US? How many archbishops and bishops. Was there really a female Pope Joan?

Norrie Hoyt: I just noticed this line in your last post: "I do get upset, and speak out against the Catholic church when it tries to use political and governmental power to constrict my life and destroy my freedoms.".

I understand your point, but then again if tax revenue is intended to be spent on activities hat i find abhorrent, do I have the right to apply political pressure to oppose those activities?

My observation is that the answer depends on the activity and the responder. I take exception to that.

I am not Catholic, but yes, there is great hostility towards Catholicism. there are two forms: From those who are opposed to Christianity, but also from the so-called 'religious right'. Ironically, they BOTH exhibit the same traits towards those who are of a different opinion than they.

Those who are opposed to Christianity and religion as a whole, always of course couch their comments in terms of 'scientific' gobbledygook, or constructive criticism. The sex scandal is an example of the latter. the 'religious right' of course is merely exhibiting the traditional hostility of the Protestants towards those who are not Protestant. But then again they exhibit the same attitude towards anyone who does not share THEIR priorities.

Either way, they are both just as biased.

I've been called "anti-Catholic", "intolerant", "prejudiced", and so on in these threads, because I oppose many items on the Catholic hierarchy's political agenda. In particular, I'm against those items that would constrict my and other people's liberties and freedoms.

I don't see that the adjectives above apply to me - I'm acting in self defense against a powerful organization that aims to destroy liberties that are now enjoyed in this country.

My opposition to this political agenda has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs or personal characteristics.

A few years ago I spent three weeks at Duke's Diet and Fitness Center (it worked - I lost some weight and kept it off for three years). There were four priests there at the same as my wife and I. Also present was a legal advisor to the Vatican.

I love to give books to people and I gave a book to each of them. We ate many meals together and had a great time. One 78-year-old priest (since deceased, PBUH) told me a very funny joke about JPII's Polishness (the priest was Italian-American).

So I don't believe I'm prejudiced ab initio against any individual. Jihadist, the sparkling commentator in these threads, wrote that under traditional and historic Islam, the prohibitions against alcohol, pork, homosexual acts, etc. did not apply to non-Muslims, even in majority-Muslim countries.

If that were the situation here in the United States, so that the Catholic proscription of contraception, abortion, gay acts, etc., applied only to Catholics, I'd say those proscriptions were unenlightened, but I wouldn't be personally upset because they wouldn't apply to me.

I do get upset, and speak out against the Catholic church when it tries to use political and governmental power to constrict my life and destroy my freedoms.

Again, that's not intolerance - it's the natural law right of self defense.

Its not so much hatred towards the religion as it is towards its followers.Don't get me wrong, there are tremendous and caring people of each and every faith, yet there are those that seem to have forgotten the message and carry out their own perverted form of Celestial justice.

Most religions have done this, especially the RC. But you can't fault all of em, just the ones that run it, because isn't it like they tell you at work? Its always the boss's fault. Maybe they need to get some new bosses and a new self help book. At least at McDonalds, they have a suggestion box.

Discrimination is everywhere. Just look around. Some cannot be necessarily construde as discrimination, yet some fall way over the line. Exaple of not-so-construde: A woman turns a man down at the bar because he doesn't have a good chin, or face, or muscles, or a fat wallet(yes, these are reasons, I have asked).

Whether it is small or huge, discrimination hurts.

The point is this........get the message right, and maybe everything will be better. The message got scrambled over the years, and just like a game of "telephone", it hasn't come out the way it started.

This Question is 40 Years Old

I must emphatically agree with Norrie:
Who thought up this question?

There are plenty of currently relevent problems and questions: this one had salience 40-100 years ago.

The CHURCH itself as a very Powerful Institution is subject to the same analysis, praise, and criticism as any other big institution.

But this question is like asking:

"Is there discrimination against the United States of America."

The Church and the War

Fred is correct, I think.

In fact the Pope was a force against going to war.

I have made criticisms of the Church but on this one they were a definite force for good.

Thank you for the reply Ralph. With all due respect I do not think that the Catholic Church could have made any meaningful difference in the Bush administration's decision to mislead the public and invade Iraq. They were doing that regardless of the Vatican's position.

Why do I hate Christianity?

1. It has buried the real Jesus in favor of a mythical being who died to save mankind from something, no one can say what.

2. It teaches a sado-masochistic view of man and salvation.

3. It believes in a God who does not exist.

4. It has persecuted any deviation from its ridiculous theology for 1700 years. It came to believe in religious freedom only in 1964.

5. It uses arcane, out of date theological beliefs to interfere with people's lives.

6. It is a living lie, the oldest lie, the continuation of the Roman Empire's tyranny by other means.

Jihadist,

And Islamic countries have how many women religious/political leaders?? Women mullahs/clerics? Saudi Queens?

Whatever denominations, be it Methodists, Catholics, Baptists (regular and southern, and are there northern Baptists?), Quakers, Unitarians, Mormons, Presbyterians, Anglicans and so on and so forth, they are all Christians to us. And they are all led by white men. So, what discrimination except against women and people of colour to lead the churches/religious entities in the US?

And Jewish and Muslim religous entities are led by men too.

Who thought up this laughable question?

Roman Catholics are said to make up 25% of the U.S. population.

Five of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are Catholic.

No group is less likely to be discriminated against than Catholics.

Next time, genius question writers, try Jews, Wiccans, Moslems, and Nonbelievers. Meantime, take a public school course on religion, discrimination, and question writing.

Bobster:

I can assure you that I have no interest in an argument, especially one regarding any defense of the indefensible. Where issues of child molestation are concerned, the burden of sensitivity is upon those who broach the subject. The victims of abuse have already suffered more than anyone can imagine. Frankly, saying “I used the example of "sexual abuse" to make a point” reveals a disturbing lack of sensitivity. As to your twice mentioned reference to the public schools, what evidence do you have that there is any substance to the accusations you’re making about teachers and administrators? You state this as though it were a widely acknowledged fact. I’d appreciate some elaboration and specific cases you know about.

Getting back the central question of anti-Catholicism, elements still persist even today. But from my observations, most anti-Catholicism is just rampant ignorance on the part of people who are intellectually lazy and who frequently base their opinions upon stereotypes popularized by the media. However, in my experience, few people reveal any abiding hatred of the Church; mostly they just don’t know much about it. Sadly this includes many of the Catholics I know personally.

First of all, I am not a "hater" of the Catholic Church, their clergy, monastics, or laity. I was an RC for about five years until about 4 1/2 years ago. I was attracted by the rich ceremonial and the quality music...yes, there are some places where that still happens...this being in San Francisco.

What is apparent to me is that the RC Church is very exhausted and is slipping worldwide in influence and power. If number of men offering themselves for the unenviable position of priest further declines in the U.S., I don't doubt that there will be few churches open in fifty years. The monasteries and convents are almost as bare as Mother Hubbard's cupboard. They are selling off property right and left and the youngest monks and nuns are usually in their late 50s, if that. They have already given away their hospitals, schools, and other institutions to the laity or to non-Catholics.

This is not a good picture, and it will spell the end for most of what Roman Catholicism was in the U.S. even fifty years ago...twenty-five? The Roman Catholic hierarchy is more interested in preserving their hierarchical power and control than in caring for the people that still come to their parishes and institutions. A sad tale, indeed.

The only discrimination that is extant today, by in large, as I see it, is that from people abused in some way by the RC Church: from elementary school teacher-nuns or brothers, from parish priest-predators, or from bishops who supported their priest-predators and financial embezzelers. Not a pretty picture.

I don't think they can have it both ways.

Christianity and Catholisim [they both use the bible and it promotes hate] discriminate, and they expect everyone to give something as they pass the tray? I've been self aware of this kind of hypo