Unfair Discrimination & Fair Criticism

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 hypocrisy since my teens, and it's unfortunate that other's can't see it for what it is. Religion is the root of all hate, especially western religion. Earlier freethinkers new this, so they called for separation of church and state. Let's keep it that way, however we have to do some cleaning house because we have government official destroying our constitution for their religious leaders.

Is it discrimination to be free of discrimination?

FRED what I am saying is that the timing of the scandal was such that it fully occupied the Roman Catholic church's attention at a time when it should have been acting as a counter-weight in the rush to war.

Americans normally have the three branches of government and the two major political parties to balance each other out. But after the hysteria caused by 9/11, all of Washington was overwhelmed with the push to invade Iraq. In that context, the only institutions that the people have left are the media and the church.

Just as the Roman Catholic church in Poland was a factor in peacefully resisting communist rule in that country, the Roman Catholic church (plus others) could have been a factor in preventing the Iraq debacle. However, just when the people needed their religious institutions to slow the hysteria of government, a major pedophilia scandal hobbled the politically most independent of those churches.

If you look at the pedophilia scandal in the Roman Catholic church prior to 9/11, you'll see an ongoing problem reaching back for decades. Then suddenly in early 2002, complaints going back for years and years were brought to the public's attention by the media and government.

Also, if you think a Boston jury would never convict a priest, think again. In the late 1980s, a Boston jury sent a highly respected grandmother to prison based on extremely dubious testimony from three and four year olds (Fell's Acres). A Boston jury was never given the chance to judge a priest on the testimony of a teenager 20 years ago, but in Fell's Acres the people of Boston showed they would convict an atypical defendant on testimony from minors.

Iraq was a huge mistake. So huge that even when the Post's own poll shows that 56 percent want an immediate withdrawal, the newspaper cannot headline it or even recognize it editorially. The people of America want out of Iraq now, but the government must ignore the will of the public. Why? Because it's so bad we can't even leave when democracy requires it.

Candide,

"It is wonderful to see the Roman Church in its death throes. But I will not be satisfied until all of Christianity goes to hell. It is the biggest hoax in human history."

Please understand that this question comes out of genuine curiosity and interest: Why are you so hostile towards religion, particularly Christianity? I would sincerely like to know, especially in the interest of dialogue. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Nicholas

this is the perfect forum for all of you crazed catholic haters - get it all out.

what you hate most is being told the truth! and the is what the catholic church does in policy and on the ground.

you always see the same posters posting the same crap! get a life!!

you spout multi-culturalism only when it suits your needs -- catholic culture and religion are uniquely demonized by you losers.

To everyone who implied that I am attempting to cover up for the catholic church.

No. I was not. First off there is no relation between public schools and the catholic church. I don't even know how that one got misconstrued.

I used the example of "sexual abuse" to make a point. I wish that our society would take similar action against teachers as they did the priests. And against school administrators as well for overlooking it, and or moving teachers around to hide it. Does that make all teachers bad though? Of course not.

In my book "some catholic priest and their hierarchy" committed evil acts. Period. Does that mean that I am going to discriminate against a whole religion for the acts of a few? No. And the same with teachers. Does that explain my position more clearly?

As for "constructive criticism" it is necessary when applied in a constructive manner. But when people including myself use it as a means to attack a "whole group of people,and or religion" that is wrong.

As for the suggestions that I am insensitive to child abuse, I never implied that. It would appear to me that for someone to make that kind of accusation that the person is trying to find an arguement where there is none.

And by the way. I have not set foot in a church in over 40 years. Correction, I visted the Abbey in England and some Gothic cathedrals while in Europe. I don't think that counts for being religious though.

So, the Church has made some mistakes--what group in this country hasn't?

THe Church does do a lot more good than people know about--look at CRS or CCUSA.

There are sterotypes against Catholics, along with generalizations.

Catholicism is a good religion. We believe in love and unity of all people. We do not (or should not) descriminate.

It is wonderful to see the Roman Church in its death throes. But I will not be satisfied until all of Christianity goes to hell. It is the biggest hoax in human history.

B16 continues to show weak leadership which will probably lead to added discrimination against Catholics. 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.

While I agree with your assesment of the war, I have no idea what your point is.
(respectfully)
Ralph, what are you saying?

ML you may be mistaken that the police will respond when parishoners call about priests molesting children. In fact, some cases brought to light in the run-up to the Iraq war were decades old. What interest would the state have in dredging up child molestation cases against the church when our country is pre-emptorally invading another country based on false intelligence?

The Catholic Church's cover up of child molesting priests is abhorrent.

However, there are many other reasons why I criticize the church.

The Pope is human, he has no more a direct line to God than any other human being.

The celibacy of the priesthood is archaic, to say the least.

Their rather strange attraction to the Mother Mary, their numerous Saints, their confession practices where another human being (priest) can absolve you from the sins you committed, are dubious to say the least.

Their insistence birth control (other than abstinence and the counting method) is immoral.

Plus, the secrecy the Vatican portrays is suspect to me.

I'm sure there are many other churches who have their problems (thank God I don't belong to any of them), but the Catholics are a breed of their own. It's about time they come out of the dark ages and revise some of their policies.

Is the Catholic Church Exhausted

When I talk to my many Catholic friends here in Boston about Cardinal Law, the molestation cover up, birth control, papal dogmatism, in general they share my concern.

Question: Does the Catholic *Church* (as opposed to good catholics, ie most catholics)
Do More Harm than Good in the World.

I have long admired the work of the church for social justice, in charity.

But the main effects of the Church and its ossified hierarchy have been profoundly negative in many ways over the last 20 years.

The role of the Church in helping spread AIDS in Africa is the most morally appalling. Not only has the church actively opposed distribution of Condoms by non catholics to non-catholics, the Vatican allegedly spread a rumor a few years ago that condoms had pinholes in them and were therefore useless.

The relationship between the Church Hierarchy and the membership here in Boston is exremely dysfuntional. And this is commohn throughout the world.

Of course one should not discriminate against Catholic members. But the Church deserves sharp criticism for its actions and positions in a modern world where it's traditions are increasingly maladaptive.

Well Bobster since you brought it up.

No, I was not engaing in "constructive criticism". Just pointing out the truth. It may be an uncomfortable truth for you, but truth none the less.

Yes, you are correct that there are child molesters in America's many school systems, both public and private. Child molesters like to be employed where they have access to children. They will always try to have positions in churches, daycare centers, schools, little league, scouts, etc.

Unlike the Catholic Church, the schools do not attempt to protect these child rapists. We know what these teachers look like because of the mugshots from the arrest. They were turned in as they should have been.

The Catholic Church (not every priest or cardinal of course) has knowingly and systematically protected these monsters decade after decade. The Church is fully complicet in the crime. Time after time after time.

This is not my opinion, it is a sad fact.

The only response that is acceptable when one of your employees uses your organization to rape children is to CALL THE POLICE.

There is no gray area.

The Catholic Church, especially in N. America was for decades a major organized crime syndicate, using some of it's employees to prey on it's children.

As a father this is a big deal to me and one that I will not shrug off lest you feel "discriminated" against.

Perhaps it says more about you and your sense of morality that you seem to think that this sick matter is small potatos.

Child Molestation

Research shows that gay men are no more likely than straight men to molest children. Moreover, mental health professionals are virtually unanimous in recognizing that most males who molest boys are not “gay” by any reasonable definition of that term: they have no interest in other adult males and often have successful relationships with adult females. This fact should not be surprising, because a young boy is at least as different qua sexual object from an adult male as an adult female is. In other words, it’s one thing to be attracted to adults of the same sex, it’s quite another to be attracted to children of either sex. Lumping these categories together not along maligns innocent people; it distracts us from the real threats to children. (

Pedophilia and Homosexuality
ARE NOT the Same Thing

Victoria, you know better.

There are more hetero pedo's than gay pedo's.

Vict, your sloppy language perpetuates a stereotype.

Bobster:

*** ”Hate mongering” you suggest??? Are you kidding!! To suggest that the victims of abuse at the hands of the Catholic clergy (abuse that was systematically covered up by the Church hierarchy) are hate mongers is so ludicrous that I hardly know where to begin. And you are fundamentally wrong in your judgment that the victims of abuse “just don't like the church”. More often than not the victims of priestly abuse still love their Church and struggle every day of their lives to come to terms with their conflicting feelings. With all due respect, you are either ignorant of the facts or complicit in the suffering of the victims.

Of course the subject of priestly pedophilia is a damning and extreme indictment of the catholic church and its moral compass.

The same social conditions that bred this phenomenon are no longer extant-

The church knowingly accepted young priests into its folds in the early and mid 20th century that they were aware were homosexuals- and in those numbers were some who were possibly victims of child molestaton themselves- future potential pedophiles.

If they knew then what we know now its likely they would have given counseling to these men- but they didnt.

In (especially irish and italian) catholic families- when a young homosexual as starting out in life-often closeted- the families could bear the social embarassment- or send them off to seminaries-
a priest for a son is a social bonus- also the parents get automatic free pass into heaven.

so there was an influx of young men into the priesthood- which is why young seminarians cannot walk in groups of 2 but must be in groups of 3 or more.

im not saying any of this is right- it is just what happened and how.

it didnt spring up in a vacuum because the catholic church is so corrupt- it happened for a definite sociological reason.

just trying to ally some fears that it isan ongoing problem.
the church is aware of this now and although vocation numbers are way down- they still scrutinize more carefully their conscripts.
And since bias against gays has diminished somewhat- they have other options beside the priesthood.

x irish catholic novitiate
salaams

I really don't want to steer off point, but who is responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa?

You're right, we do know the answer: because the Catholic Church spent decades fighting inquiries into such matters and spent decades protecting chlid rapists. Can this record of obstruction of justice be attributed to public school systems? Not even close.

Listen, I grew up a Catholic. I attended eight years of Catholic school in the Boston area, but let's not pretend that the illegal and immoral acts of Bernard Above the Law aren't odious. I would add, let's not ignore the Church's record on AIDS in Africa, which I mentioned above. I criticize the Church because of its concrete actions, not from lack of knowledge and ignorant stereotyping.

Mr. Crossan,

One still hears bashing of the catholic church disguised as "constructive criticism." Just like we do of Israel. Or any religion for that matter.
Many people use the same old arguements from over 500 years ago when bashing the catholic church. But what it all boils down to in the end is that they just don't like the church for whatever reason, and hide behind so called constructive criticism. Just look at the "sex scandal" with the priest. I don't think anyone can deny that we have teachers in our public schools who are sexually abusing children everyday, yet are teachers or the school system treated like the catholic church and priests? Of course not.
And why not? I think we all know the answer to that question. My point being is that some people will go to any lengths to destroy something that they disagree with. In todays world it can be difficult to discern when a "political and or religious criticism" is really valid, or just more hate mongering.

When asked by a Catholic agency for a contribution to the fight against AIDS I replied that giving money to the Church for AIDS was like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep.

At least they have never asked for money again.

Cardinal Above the Law is, I believe, in Rome. He was given a cushy position out of this country when things began heating up.

Besides the decades of protecting pederastry, one could also add that the Catholic Church has been instrumental in the fight against condom use in Africa and elsewhere, which sure as heck has not helped that whole AIDS crisis thing.

Well ML, tell us what you really think.
Sadly , you are correct although in fairness,I do think that the Church does some good works. But yeah, the child molestations, especially knowing that many of the Cardinals (and lets face it, probably the Pope), knew about it and did nothing are just too much. I have many friends who left never to return. I know that I have not been able to support the Church in good conscience ever since.

In getting back to the actual subject: No, I have never been discriminated against. At least not that I am aware of.

Prof. Crossan,

Why the Catholic Church in the United States is not regarded as a vast criminal organization is just astounding.

You organization knowingly employed child molesters. When their crimes were exposed and complaints made by parents, parishoners, etc. instead of prosecuting these criminals, the Catholic Church transfered them and paid off or attempted to payoff the families. This is completely shameless for ANY organization, but for a church?

Simply Mindboggling.

These priests were then free to ply thier sick trade at the new parish all under the knowing and watchful eye of the Church officials.

How this happened once is a crime and a shame. But that scenario occurred constantly in the US and elsewhere for decades, maybe longer.

This is not my opinion. The Catholic Church sanctioned and assisted child rapists.

Church employees, Catholic Priests f--ked children. Their bosses knew about it and failed to bring them to justice, in fact they actually assisted them. There is no defense.

I certainly do not wish for anyone to be discriminated against. In fact I feel badly for the laymen who are true believers. They were let down terribly to say the least by the very people they have been told they could count on the most.
However, I have no sympathy for the Church.

Quite simply, the Catholic Church has no value as a voice of morality, at least not in America.

Sorry Prof. Crossan, you guys blew it.

BTW John C.: Cardinal Law has a cushy job at the Vatican, no thanks to the last Pope

The Catholic Church, next to the Nazi SS, is the most evil institution in history.

Professor Crossan,

As usual, a "right-on" commentary.

I would include however the Catholic Church's failure to adequately respond to the historic Jesus movement, Limbo, and the priest shortage in the USA.

The Catholic hierarchy pushes draconian social policies on the basis of arcane interpretations of scripture (they are not alone in this) and at the same time covers up sex scandals among their priests and laity (they are not alone in this either). They claim to be infallible, but reasonable people can question their complicity with some really bad governments and people in the last few hundred years.

The Catholic church also operates some of the world's most important educational and philanthropic institutions, and individual Catholic priests and laypeople have been powerful agents for social justice, and have given their lives to save others. On the other hand, Bill Donahue, the self-appointed defender of Catholics, is an anti-Semitic bigot who is every bit as obnoxious as every other insane religious zealot.

Catholics have in the past and continue to occupy high political offices, including the Presidency. That is as it should be. Speaking personally, I have deeply loved a Catholic person (her departure still makes me weep) and I earned my doctorate at a Jesuit university to which I still donate money and have fond memories.

In short, this question is sure to bring out all sorts of bile. I cringe to imagine what some of it will be. Institutions are made of people, but they are not people, and they have their own emergent properties, some good, some bad.

I can't imagine why the Catholic Church would be looked down on?

I mean what is the big deal in empolying child rapists and knowingly and wittingly assisting them and covering up the crime....for decades?

Why would Americans be upset by that? Big institutions do that all the time.

By the way, where is Cardinal Law these days?