I think part of growing older means you have to know lots of stuff. Not just ‘life experience’ type stuff, but all those random facts of information that help you dominate pub quizzes or trivial pursuit (but not the 1984 Genus Edition). To that end, I’ve started reading more non-fiction books.
Yes I did state in a post maybe last year that I would start doing it, and this shows I’m serious. So far, I’ve read a book about the history of salt, the last days of the Incan Empire, and am currently reading about Edward I (who was really Edward IV). I know I should also probably read more books of a spiritually fulfilling nature and it’s on my list of things to do. But it’s soo hard to get in to them. I’ve tried oh how I’ve tried, and I’ve even managed to make it through the 1st chapter on some of them.
Anyway, while reading Edward I (IV) it surprised me how much power and authority, for better or worse, was wielded by the Pope and the Church back in the middle ages. Should the Church have been so heavily involved in the political sphere? I’m guessing no, but they probably couldn’t help themselves back then. That’s the thing with us humans though, give us anything perfect and we’ll always find a way to ruin it.
One of my work colleagues said to me this week that he found Catholicism to be the least trustworthy of all the faiths. I wasn’t able to ask him why he thought so as the conversation then switched to why he thought Anglicans and Catholics were so similar. I don’t happen to think we Catholics are untrustworthy?!? Hypocritical maybe, sometimes inconsistent and non-committal. But untrustworthy is a little harsh I thought.
Your workmate thinks Catholicism to be the least trustworthy because that is what the media want him to think.
He actually thinks that media projected Catholicism is untrustworthy: not the actual Catholicism.
Yep, it’s all the media’s fault
In regards to knowing stuff, here’s something I think people should see. I know it’s off topic, but seriously, I think it’s worth a look, especially for those interested in history.
Kseniya Simonova – Sand Animation (Ukraine’s Got Talent)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=518XP8prwZo
NZC Editor: ROFL!
Sorry, I should clarify that: the SECULAR media
One of my work colleagues said to me this week that he found Catholicism to be the least trustworthy of all the faiths. I wasn’t able to ask him why he thought so as the conversation then switched to why he thought Anglicans and Catholics were so similar. I don’t happen to think we Catholics are untrustworthy?!? Hypocritical maybe, sometimes inconsistent and non-committal. But untrustworthy is a little harsh I thought.
Not clear whether the question is about Catholicism or Catholics. Is it supposed to be the faith that is untrustworthy, or its practitioners?
If it is Catholics he finds untrustworthy, he may have noted in Ronald Knox’s superb book “The Belief of Catholics” a comment that one might well be more concerned about leaving one’s umbrella in the porch of a Catholic Church than of a Methodist Chapel.
Who’s Conan O’Brien?
Is he Kevin O’Brien’s brother, or son?
Maybe your friend was referring to the Catholic ‘church’ as opposed to individual Catholics ?
The CC is an ‘organisation’ of sorts, with people who have a livlihood dependent on it and presumably those dependent upon it often or maybe just occasionally have to swallow individual opinions for the greater good so to speak. Hence the inconsistencies and hypocrisy that inevitably surface.
Does the CC have ‘vision’ statement that reflects both where it came from, where it is and where it wants to go ? I’m not sure whether I fully buy into ‘vision statements’ but clearly they can work for some orgs.
‘In fighting’ between Methodists and the CC doesn’t appear to help either cause from the external observers POV, as indeed does any premise that one faith is better than another when it is generally accepted (if anything, by the average non-believer on the street) that if there is a God, there’s only one. To have so many versions of the ‘truth’ knocking about leaves most/a lot of people bewildered and totally switched off I suspect.
Oops, sorry, probably just paraphrased and expanded on #5.
Bishop Fulton Sheen
“There are not over a hundred people …….. who hate the Catholic Church [or find it untrustworthy]. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.
Ignorance is not a defense?
I suspect (although I have no evidence) that a great proportion of those who ‘hate’ the Church are those who’ve had their lives seriously altered for the worse by their treatment in Catholic schools or institutions or those who have been abused by the small number of bad apples in the Church. I fail to see how anyone can ‘hate’ an inanimate object.
KA
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, puts me in mind of the film ‘Catholic Girls’ I think it was.
Watched it with my Dad afew years ago – family of 15, Co Antrim, 1940s era – he didn’t just say he ‘thought’ it might be true, he actually knew girls from the local school Kilwaughter (whom that happened to, and yes, one subsequently committed suicide after ‘release’). Don’t bother to look for any factual account because it ‘disappeared’ despite being in a Protestant area.
I saw film called ‘Catholic Girls’ once, although I don’t think is was the one you’re talking about
KA
KA – I can give you a massive list, some of which you may agree with eg ‘I hate inanimate chewing gum blobs on the pavement’ I hate ‘fag ends – little tobacco sticks’. I have quite a lot of hate come to think of it – thanks for raising the question. Not just ‘dislike’ but ‘hate’ as in ‘remove from the face of the earth, NOW’ ha ha.
#13 ‘The Catholic Girls’ – doh
Sorry KA, absolutely right, please forgive a ’senior’ moment. It was ‘The Magdaline Sisters’
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318411/
One would like to think this was an isolated case but from disturbingly factual personal accounts of my extended Irish family (and by crikey, theres hundreds of them), it was perfectly normal, albeit completely taboo fodder for raising.
The real shocker for me was that it only ‘ended’ well towards the end of the last century. I’m assuming it has ended too, but I can’t substantiate that.
Hey LT, I thought there was something strange about you
Tell me, in all seriousness, do you think that your Catholic upbringing had a negative effect on you while you were growing up? I have heard from atheists who are ex-Catholics of all sort of problems they’ve had in later life because of the inhibitions they’ve acquired while in the ‘care’ of Catholic institutions.
I’d be interested in your experiences if they’re not too difficult to share.
KA
I found this about a modern film called ‘The Magdalene Sisters’. I thought it might interest the group:
The Magdalene Asylums were Catholic institutions for “fallen women” (women deemed immoral by their parents), who were confined there indefinitely to work as slaves for nuns and be beaten, degraded, mentally and sexually abused.
In the Middle Ages, right? No. The last Magdalene Asylum closed in 1996, in Ireland. (A 2,600-page report on the abuses of Magdalene Asylums was released in May, 2009.)
The descriptions of abuse sound like something out of Gitmo:
Punching, flogging, assault and bodily attacks, hitting with the hand, kicking, ear pulling, hair pulling, head shaving, beating on the soles of the feet, burning, scalding, stabbing, severe beatings with or without clothes, being made to kneel and stand in fixed positions for lengthy periods, made to sleep outside overnight, being forced into cold or excessively hot baths and showers, hosed down with cold water before being beaten, beaten while hanging from hooks on the wall, being set upon by dogs, being restrained in order to be beaten, physical assaults by more than one person, and having objects thrown at them.
Actually, that was from the boys’ asylums, called “Reformatories.” The girls got it much worse. They were routinely raped and sexually molested, often by more than one person at a time, in “dormitories, schools, motor vehicles, bathrooms, staff bedrooms, churches, sacristies, fields, parlors, the residences of clergy, holiday locations and while with godparents and employers.”
More than 30,000 children were confined in these asylums.
The Vatican has given no response.
The Magdalene Sisters (2002, IMDB: 7.9, RT: 90%) is a fictional portrayal of these Magdalene Asylums, as experienced by three girls in the 1960s.
Rose sleeps with a man to whom she is not married. Bernadette flirts with some boys. Margaret is raped. And so, they are considered “fallen,” and sent to a Magdalene Asylum. Once there, they are insulted, mentally abused, humiliated, and beaten by the most arrogant, demeaning, evil nuns you’ve ever seen. The priests take part as well, sexually molesting some of the girls.
One of the few scenes that will make you feel good is when Margaret washes the priest’s clothes with some kind of itchweed, such that an unbearable rash spreads over his whole body during an outdoor ceremony, and he strips naked before the crowd and runs away, scratching himself all over. As he writhes in pain, a somewhat retarded victim of the convent screams at him with the words Margaret once whispered into her ear:
You’re not a man of God! You’re not a man of God! You are not a man of God! You’re not a man of God! You’re not a man of God! You’re not a man of God! You’re not a man of God! You are not a man of God! You’re not a man of God!
The nuns cannot silence her. She yells this 24 times. They are the sweetest 24 lines in the film.
In my dreams, I am courageous enough to yell those 24 lines at George W. Bush after he gives a public prayer, or at Pope Ratzinger after a public address.
The film will make you feel sick and enraged. But you’ll calm down after a while. Meanwhile, the Vatican will continue to protect its priests and nuns who abuse children, because our protests are not loud enough.
After four years of agony, Margaret’s brother shows up and takes her out of the asylum. Margaret exclaims:
Can you believe that it’s that simple? That a brother can just… turn up! Can you believe that?
All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
LOL, thanks for that KA ………………….
Well, has a Catholic upbringing had a bad effect on me ?
Ok, two parents brought up in as ‘controlled’ circumstances as you can imagine, in County Antrim.
I have to say, they COULD NOT get away from it fast enough, moving as they did from Ireland, to Birmingham just as fast as they could.
Retrospectively, my parents did an excellent job of attempting to guide me on right from wrong, based on common sense, but they steadfastly swung away from giving any sort of ‘religious’ indoctrination. They accepted that my primary school had ‘assembly’ where 6-12 year olds were taught certain religious things. Whether that was to teach God, or ‘good’ I don’t know. Thankfully, I do not consider myself brainwashed. I was not brought up to a denomination or a version of the ‘truth’ to believe in by virtue of my parents. They never told me I was a catholic, they let me make my own mind up.
Around the age of 17-18, I went to a youth club, affiliated to the church. A pre-requisite to going was that one had to spend an hour each Friday being indocrinated in the Bible etc. Whether teenage rebelliousness or common sense, I rejected God based on what I heard, but also realised that there might be something ‘we’ cannot explain. I did as I was told, asked God into my life, and he never came in a manner I could understand.
20 years on, I’ve tried much the same, with the same results. What conclusions should I draw ? Back then, I was highly impressionable, now, I am far more cynical. What being away from the Church has NOT made me do is realise a duty to help animals and people. Has that come from the Church ? No, I don’t think so. It has come from an appreciation that compassion and avoiding cruelty appears eminently sensible.
Do I want to follow a man in a funny costume with a version of the truth ? Not really. I’d like to, but at the age of 44, I’ve kinda worked out right and wrong now, I do my best, and if that’s not good enough for God, I don’t really care. Let him come and show me the error of my ways – I’ve asked him to do so often enough.
#18 – Again, disturbingly, that account is astonishingly aligned to the descriptions I have heard from my relatives, BEFORE that film was ever made.
The most disturbing thing of it all was that in spite of what was happening to these girls, they were so deeply ingrained from childhood on certain teachings, that they actually accepted they deserved this treatment.
These kids, adults now, still exist all round Antrim, Donegal, Kildare – all over the place. Damaged. Irreparably damaged.
MB – coming back to the thread, where you mention the overall impression of people on the CC, well one of those impressions comes from the Magdalene Sisters for those who saw it.
Maybe you could address on COB show some of the failings of the CC and why they happen despite a pretty rigid doctrine and rules laid down by God. It won’t be pleasant, but you have the chance to absolve the failings of that which you are about to promote. How you can – well, you need to ask God for some help as there are some stinkers out there to be potentially accused of as a mouthpiece of the CC.
LT
did your parents not indocrinate you in how to use a knife an fork , did they not indocrinate you in not hitting your sibblings did they not indoctrinate you to observe hygiene standards……….
sad experiences for those poor girls but try and keep things in perspective society had little understanding of mental illness and what made us tick…
No excuses for the Church o abusers but to some exnt they were doing their best.
Intersting that you despite your enlightened upbringing you seem to place animals above your fellow man are you sure you havent missed out on something?
So why did you say your parents could not get away from the Church fast enough? What had they experienced that caused this panic response? Did they ever tell you? I’ve heard of people who moved away from parishes to get away from abusive clergy. I suppose it’s a case of losing trust in the Church at the end of the day. Did your parents end up ‘hating’ the Church?
KA
#23
Well, I have seen first hand myself the deep and serious hatred between Catholics and Protestants in N Ireland, which is as alive today as it ever was due to religious schools, and indoctrination by parents ‘not to go anywhere near X kids’. It is the latter which will keep the hatred alive and well for many years to come sadly.
Again, from what I have seen and heard, most people go to mass either from fear or hedging their bets (same thing really). Especially the young ones. So many of them regard the CC as antiquated, particularly with regard to the big question of contraception.
KA – my parents had no particularly bad experience from the church, but sadly, they knew many who did. Unsurprisingly, they wanted no part of it, either for them, or their children.
Re. parental indoctrination DV, you put me in mind of a good example. When I was at (a Catholic leaning) primary school, one particularly nasty old hag demanded that I hold my knife and fork just so. I am ambidextrous and happen to hold knife and fork the other way around from what is ‘normal’ ie fork in RH, knife in LH.
That woman made my life hell each lunchtime, telling me I was wicked etc until it got to the point where I pleaded to stay at home. Thankfully, my Mum went in and systematically annihilated that old witches views about what her son should or should not do. Said teacher was ok most of the time, so why single one little boy out to make his life hell at the age of 5 over a knife and fork ? Indoctrination is different from coaching and allowing kids to form their own conclusions DV.
#22
Hello DV, no, I haven’t missed out on anything. I don’t place animals ‘higher’ than people, I simply would like to see a greater level of respect, compassion and consideration for our companions on this planet.
Based on the distressingly established view that animals are less important than people, I personally believe that the human journey to love and compassion is seriously eroded by us tending to view anything other than ourselves as less important. Many people regard other people as less important than themselves too – which is presumably abhorrent, against the view that Jesus might have – what earthly chance have animals ?
So, enlightened ? Yes, I’d like to think so. I look forward to a day when we afford the rest of the living kingdom the full respect it deserves, and when we all become more enlightened, there’s a chance it will happen. It happened with slavery, its happening with racism ………all previously accepted views.
Vegan, before anyone asks. And yes, it is difficult.
LT,
Here, here. I’ll say it again, the place of animals in this world is, in large part, due to the demeaning position and lack of respect given to them by the various religions. Christianity is probably as bad as they rest (I say probably because I only know Christianity in any depth), with it’s animal sacrifices and so on. Let’s be honest with each other here, it wasn’t just animals that were required sacrifices in bible times. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son says a great deal about the practices of the times. The fact that there are still people sacrificing animals in this world of ours, maltreating them beyond your wildest imaginations is an abhorrence not just to me (and obviously LT), but it must also be to any self-respecting human being.
“No excuses for the Church o abusers but to some exnt they were doing their best.”
DV, That quote says more about you than you might think. Whether you like it or not, and despite what you say, the latter part of your sentence is actually making excuses for the conduct of the kiddy-fiddling clergy and others. Outrageous!
KA
#27 Thank you KA. Your enlightement demonstrates an exceedingly refreshing, forward looking view which so seldom emerges on this blog.
DV – he has a point. A difficult one to side step. The CC in Ireland does seem to attract more than its fair share of clergy who abuse children. That may well be a perception however.
I’m sure someone clever can work out if it is proportional to the rest of the population, higher or lower. Does the church actually attract child abusers one wonders (yes, thread jacking, but in context).
Distressingly, said people seem to be exonerated by the Church and only really face up to the consequences of their actions when ‘the law’ gets involved.
The latter WAS an opinion, not a fact that I know of.
Getting back to the original post – I don’t see how the Catholic Church can be considered the most untrustworthy organisation, or individual Catholics for that matter. How may groups tell you everything about themselves before even joining? Or allow people to attend as many meetings (mass) as you like before joining? Even the local library has a few more rules you learn about after getting your card. But as it has been said before, individuals fall short and make mistakes.
MFSS – nope, you’re quite right. How does one measure ‘untrustworthiness’ after all.
Better to measure the truth of the organisation and its solidity.
Oh dear, what a horrific load of self-appreciating back-patting from the atheist corner; maybe too much for this poster but I’ll try my best to keep it sharp and to the point!
Going back to the original post, we cant really give a single answer as to why people, like MA’s peer, consider the Church untrustworthy, twisted, misogynist, etc, one might point a significant finger at the media, perhaps Hollywood, but equally, as KA rightly points out, by personal emotional ‘wounds’ dealt by individual Catholics; all of which is aggravated by a distinct lack of understanding of the actual Catholic position. Funny really KA, have you ever wondered whether there is a correlation between the psychological wounds of your atheist friends and their rejection of their Catholicism? Perhaps they’re denial is based on a largely emotional (not to sound dismissive) response, only propped up by wonky pseudo-philosophy and the occasional diatribe of Dawkins et al as a secondary measure?
The only real way we can extricate popular myth from legitimate objective arguments is to go straight to the horse’s mouth (so to speak). Just as LT said, we must staunchly ‘measure the truth of the organisation and its solidarity [I assume this means solidarity within faith, reason and common sense]. Ironically, however, neither LT nor KA has shown an even begrudging effort to commit to such a debate.
First off, LT; I am slightly perplexed, perhaps mistakenly, about where you are coming from. You say you were brought up a nominal Catholic by less than enthusiastic Catholic parents, with a poor sampling of Catholic education (which was apparently pervasive at that time). Would it be reasonable, therefore, to presume that at the eve of your entrance into atheism, you were not a Catholic by belief or practice?
I might be so bold to say that I already know that answer; your postings on BF have shown that despite an admirable desire to challenge both atheist and theist belief, you lack often a basic understanding of much Catholic-Christian doctrine. Now, it is not my intention to belittle you, or to stifle any opinion you might express on this blog.
Nevertheless, I would like to make a few observations, many of which I have made before, in regards to my own atheist (and ex-catholic) friends.
You rejected the Catholic Faith, correct? You chose, by an act of will, to snub the religion of your Irish ancestors, many of whom no doubt endured social and economic poverty, and eventual death, in steadfast fidelity; right? My question is, how does one commit to an atheistic belief without actually understanding or confronting that which one rejects in the process? How can you sit on this blog and repeatedly bemoan the fact that God won’t come to you in a flash of omnipotent splendour, while ignoring the more significant possibility that you may not have lived up to ‘your end of the bargain’ in the first place. After all, religion is a two-way street. But in any case, I thought the pursuit of well-reasoned, intellectual consideration was the hallmark of atheism?
Now I haven’t mentioned ancestry so as to provoke some sort of emotional guilt-trip from LT; nor am I trying to argue here for the greater legitimacy of Catholic suffering under persecution in Ireland, or present LT as a blind fool. In saying that, there does seem to be a distinct lack of scholarly activity from the ‘other’ corner, considering how often a phrase such as ‘we should measure the truth of the organisation and its solidarity’ is bandied around.
And I wish both you and KA would stop harping on about the fact that humanity consists of multiple religious systems; get over the fact that mankind is prone to disunity- in our language, culture and political institutions as much as religion- its part of our nature. If you haven’t noticed, no one has yet suggested that you just pick Catholicism because we told you to; go out and debate till your heart’s content. Despite what you might think very few Catholics, past the age of eighteen, practice their faith because that’s what their parents told them to do. We live in a heavily secularised society; you need more than ‘blind delusion’ to sustain any sort of religious belief.
Simply deciding to be an atheist on the basis of ‘there are too many religions to choose from’ is completely illogical. As Pascal’s wager goes, choosing theism is the best beat; from theistic belief one can proceed to establishing which particular religion. I am baffled by the atheistic position and its elitist sentiments; belieivng that 90% of the world’s population, throughout human history, could get it so horrificly wrong. Alright so religious belief is highly plural, but the one common element of them is that they all recognise a divine other.
Also, KA, I think you need to have a greater factual understanding of the Sex-abuse scandals that have wracked the Church these past few decades before bandying around highly-dubious tracts like the one in post #18. No one on this blog would argue in defence of the horrible abuse perpetrated in the convents, schools and seminaries by Catholic priests and religious. Both Pope John Paul II and the present pontiff have repeatedly asked for forgiveness for the crimes committed by those deemed to be ‘men of God’; the most recent that I can think of being in Sydney at World Youth Day last year. Therefore, the continuous dredging up of numerous scandals within the Church can only serve to miss the actual reality of Catholicism. If you’re looking for more precise statistics and more information, I would point you to the homepage of the Catholic League, search for ‘special reports’ and you’ll find a whole bunch of them, all well-referenced and written in the pursuit of genuine truth and reconciliation.
Cheers.
Also, KA your posturing about animal cruelty and its supposed linkage to religion is pathetic.
First, Christians don’t sacrifice animals. Secondly, if you’ve ever bothered to read Genesis you’d recognise as guide to conservationism 101. Third, both Buddhism and Hinduism (the two largest religions that spring to mind) establish animals as central the divine plan; reincarnation being obviously pretty big and the requirements in orthodox Buddhism to practice vegetarianism. Now as Catholics we don’t demean animals; we simply recognise their limitations. Surely from a point of atheistic evolution, our dominance over the animal kingdom is a result of blind nature and thus void of any moral dimension; as you seem to frequently question humanity’s free-will I assume you believe that our actions are biologically predetermined? How can animal cruelty be anything short of the allocation of evolutionary ‘justice’, in which we Homo sapiens pursue our survival without restraint?
I find the torturing of animals to be truly repulsive; the sign of a disturbed individual who should be given psychiatric attendance immediately. This goes for believers as much for non-believers (or are you suggesting that Hitler and his motley crew, or Stalin, Mao or Pot for that matter, treated animals with any degree of ‘respect’ whilst stuffing Jewish corpses into smouldering ovens?). In saying that, the only reason why one can call a theist a hypocrite for setting his cat alight is because we recognise that the theist holds to an objective moral standard; we know when he’s not practicing what he preaches. Can the same go for the atheist? I appreciate that we’re on the same page concerning animal cruelty but from what I understand, you’re morally grounded in this area despite of your atheism rather than because of it!
vertiatas 31 well said
You make a good point that people who criticize the Catholic Church and Her teachings often are actually quite ignorant of what those teachings are.
We see it in the Church today where now 2 generations of Catholics dont know the teachings of the catholic Churh, can’t follow those teachings and soon lose any semblance of faith, Is that surprising?
When is the Church going to realise that the disent of post vatican II has been a failure and the legacy of poor formation is a spiritual vacum that urgently needs filling least the likes of Father Rohr will do it for them.
Not to sound pompous but I was hoping for some sort of reply!
KA 27
my words are poorly chosen but that is no reason to skew my meaning I was not making excuses but the problem was the lack of understanding as to how to deal with these issues. Sexual abuse has no justification but when considering abuse in general there is a wide range of actions involved from being made to feel ‘unhappy’ at one extreme to serious assault/sexual abuse at the other.
I dont justify bad behaviour but keep things is some sort of perspective otherwise you are just Catholic bashing and you lose any credibility you might have at at all
Veritas,
Sorry, would have replied, but I missed the fact that you’d posted and hence have only just come back to this thread. I will need to think about where to start to answer your comments, many of which are, to quote your own words, pathetic. Give me a day or two (I’m really busy at the moment) and I’ll respond.
KA
#31 – Veritas (keep it brief and straight to the point ? Where to start really)
Perhaps their denial is based on having been metaphorically ‘burnt’ by the Church. If you’d been abused by a Priest, would you be 1st in the queue to then sing its praises Veritas ? Of course its emotional.
I have also asked Veritas, on several occasions, what exactly I am supposed to do to uphold my end of the bargain. I have asked God into my life – I am doing so now. What else should I do – please tell me ?
Ready when you are Veritas. TDO on the other hand will quite rightly shut down anything ‘off topic’. You post it, I’ll reply.
The last 7 words are, I respectfully suggest Veritas, exactly what you want to say. A clever trick.
Veritas, I purposefully don’t get into all the obscure, second hand, aged, and dare I say it, pompous, unclear, out-of-date language used by the Church. I really cannot be bothered with the minutae of what Priest A said to Priest B, allegedly, on date X, allegedly, meaning Y, allegedly. ……..and I re-iterate the point once again that the Church presumably wants to teach ’something’. If the Church persists in using language, hearsay and unproven ‘facts’ from 2000 years ago, then it is failing in one of its single, cornestone objectives – communicating a set of ideas, doctrines and principles that ANYONE can understand. To label people as idiots because they do not undertsand is the said ‘back slapping’ and cosy scholarly clique of smug, self satisfied and myopic believers who simply cannot be bothered to make their message clearer.
Finally Veritas, I’m not an athiest, I’m agnostic (as indeed I believe all the athiests really are). There is nothing I would welcome more than a relationship with God, and some guidance. It really is that simple. What you refuse to swallow is that I would like God to have a one-to-one relationship with me – even if it doesn’t last – and say, ‘look sunshine, the Bible, the Pope, the priests et al are doing my bidding. Listen to them’. Then, and only then, will I follow the CC without hesitation. I think I’ve laid out my side of the ‘bargain’ if you can call it such quite clearly.
#33 DV
I think you’ve backed up my assertion above admirably DV. Shall we summarise with the word ‘unaccessible’
What you say does however flys in the opinion, the OPINION of Veritas
And that view is based on what exactly, and promotes confidence in the Churchs ability to get its message across how, exactly ? Unless I’m mistaken, congregations are consistently reducing as a broad trend, and they are also aging. A cursory glance at the TV on a Sunday morning appears to show grey hair more than anything. Try it, before you deny it. I seldom see row, upon row, upon row of happy, smiling families.
LT: Why you are here spending your time on a Catholic blog? You (as far as I know) don’t attend a Catholic Church, Veritas does. Veritas not only goes to Church but hangs out with other young Catholics. Your opinions come from watching TV and from a “cursory glance” at that.
LT, you’re agnostic, you don’t want to belong to a church, you’ve said that you don’t really want to follow a “man in a funny costume with a version of the truth.” You seem to be hoping for God to communicate to you, but you aren’t willing to listen either.
So why are you here griping about Catholicism?
Oh dear, what a horrific load of self-appreciating back-patting from the atheist corner
Pot calling kettle, I’ll say no more on this.
The only real way we can extricate popular myth from legitimate objective arguments is to go straight to the horse’s mouth (so to speak)
Great, so I’m waiting for your god to speak up loud and clear.
And I wish both you and KA would stop harping on about the fact that humanity consists of multiple religious systems; get over the fact that mankind is prone to disunity- in our language, culture and political institutions as much as religion- its part of our nature.
I can’t speak for LT as he is not one of us, but the reason I keep going on about the number of different religions is because it highlights with alarming alacrity the arrogance of your religion in its assertion that yours is the one true faith. I do not go around saying that atheism is the only way, nor do I try and evangelize and proselytize to increase our number. If and when people come to their senses and realise that religion is just a money-making scam then we rejoice, but we leave it up to the individual to make up his or her own mind through a process of rational thought and the examination of the evidence. We don’t need to rely on your rather woolly ‘faith’ to make our arguments work.
I am baffled by the atheistic position and its elitist sentiments; belieivng that 90% of the world’s population, throughout human history, could get it so horrificly wrong.
In the first instance, elitism is quite definitely the domain of the theist. To say that atheists are elitist is sheer nonsense.
Secondly, your argument that I should pay more credence to your beliefs because many other people also believe in an imaginary friend is pathetic.
Forgive me, but I’m going to ignore your remarks about the kiddy-fiddling clergy.
First, Christians don’t sacrifice animals. Secondly, if you’ve ever bothered to read Genesis you’d recognise as guide to conservationism 101.
No, Christians don’t sacrifice animals any more, but that wasn’t my point. My point is that, like so much thinking in our society, current beliefs and attitudes are polluted by religious influences of the past. As for Genesis being conservationism 101, I’ve never come across the conservation practice of flooding the world thereby killing almost all living things. I would go so far as to say that it’s the antithesis of conservation, wouldn’t you?
This goes for believers as much for non-believers (or are you suggesting that Hitler and his motley crew, or Stalin, Mao or Pot for that matter, treated animals with any degree of ‘respect’ whilst stuffing Jewish corpses into smouldering ovens?)
I have no idea how any of the famous figures you quote treated animals, but I’m guessing that you included them because you think they were all atheists. You need to do a little more research about Herr Hitler’s beliefs before you lump him in with the atheists.
In saying that, the only reason why one can call a theist a hypocrite for setting his cat alight is because we recognise that the theist holds to an objective moral standard; we know when he’s not practicing what he preaches. Can the same go for the atheist?
I do hope that you’re not suggesting that I can’t be moral or good without having an invisible magic friend because that’s just pathetic!
KA
#39
Absolutely wrong Muerk. I want a relationship with God if he will have me, and I want him to guide me to the right Church. What is so bad about that ? How on earth do I demonstrate to you guys that I am prepared to listen ? How ? I’ve said again and again I have questions. Serious, fundamental questions about God, but more so on the manifestation of God on earth. I’m asking the questions but the only person who can answer with unshakeable authority isn’t giving the answers. What do I do ?
Muerk, if you want me to go away. I will.
#39
This is what I get from a Catholic. Judgemental ? Wow, I should say so. My opinions come from the TV and even those are cursory ? Thankfully I know know just how shallow I am.
Is this how Catholics welcome people trying to get into their faith ? Errrrrrrrrm …………..
God can never and will _never_ reveal himself to you in an empirical way. He will _always_ leave room for doubt. Why? Because he always has to give you the opportunity to refuse to believe. If he didn’t he would not be giving you free will – he will not force you to believe by showing himself openly.
If you really are interested in finding faith then why not go and speak to a priest? Pick a parish and go to Church. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church or whatever religion or faith you are drawn too. Rather than shrug off the writings of the saints, why not read them and see how God influenced them. You are so sure you aren’t interested, but how can you be sure until you have at least looked at them.
At least read the book of Job, apparently the oldest book in the Bible. Job wants God to play by his rules, but how can we, limited creatures judge God? Here in Job 40 –
1 The LORD said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the LORD :
4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
If you want faith, Catholic or otherwise, you can not wait for God to answer as YOU have determined proper. You have to open yourself to God, not the other way around.
Maybe this joke will help:
A religious man is on top of a roof during a great flood. A man comes by in a boat and says “get in, get in!” The religous man replies, ” no I have faith in God, he will grant me a miracle.”
Later the water is up to his waist and another boat comes by and the guy tells him to get in again. He responds that he has faith in god and god will give him a miracle. With the water at about chest high, another boat comes to rescue him, but he turns down the offer again cause “God will grant him a miracle.”
With the water at chin high, a helicopter throws down a ladder and they tell him to get in, mumbling with the water in his mouth, he again turns down the request for help for the faith of God. He arrives at the gates of heaven with broken faith and says to Peter, I thought God would grand me a miracle and I have been let down.” St. Peter chuckles and responds, “I don’t know what you’re complaining about, we sent you three boats and a helicopter.”
All I’m doing is repeating back what you said.
“Unless I’m mistaken, congregations are consistently reducing as a broad trend, and they are also aging. A cursory glance at the TV on a Sunday morning appears to show grey hair more than anything.”
I never called you shallow, that is your own description.
Muerk – do you think I am shallow. You are obliged to tell the truth. Yes or No will suffice and we can clear this up.
I am not refusing to believe – thats my whole point. I’d love to. Presumably something made you believe Muerk. Well, something can make me believe too, but it won’t necessarily be the same kind or weight of evidence that you required. It has to come from God, one way or another, irrespective of labelling it ‘faith’ or whatever.
BTW Muerk – you cannot give a wrong answer regarding whether you think I’m shallow or not. I will accept whatever you say as your view.
You also have the right to ask me to leave the blog if you think my views are not adding anything relevant. Again, I’ll accept that as I have no wish to upset other people and I know my views can be controversial.
This is not a trap BTW, I will just go and no-one should judge you for speaking your mind.
No, nothing specific. I made a choice to investigate Catholicism. I found certain parts of the faith hard to agree with and I sat back. Then several years later I decided to re-investigate and I joined the RCIA program at my local Church. RCIA is the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, a 9+ month course to learn about Catholicism. At the end of RCIA I decided to be Baptised, but others in our group decided not to join the Church.
I’m not sure if you are specifically interested in being Christian, or Catholic, but the Catholic Enquiry Center is a very good place to start if you are. I never experienced any pressure from them.
http://www.catholicenquiry.org.nz/
They have a 10 booklet set called “What Catholics Believe: An Introduction to the Catholic Faith” which may interest you. It’s free for people wishing to learn more. Or you can chat in email with a priest who is probably _much_ better set to answer your questions than anyone here
There are also books about Catholicism that you can purchase if you wished to do so.
It’s a shame that you aren’t in Greymouth, I think it would be much easier to talk to you about these things in person rather than via a blog where people can interpret people wrong and it can be a more adversarial environment.
LT,
What you’ve got to realise is that all the religious can do is to use their manual as their ‘proof’. I think we’ve already established that it’s a document not to be trusted, yet they continue to believe it. Now I don’t believe these people are stupid, there are clearly some very, very clever people who contribute to this blog, but I continue to be amazed that they believe this stuff.
Try the outsider’s test of faith. If you were to arrive on this planet and look at this (or indeed any) religion without any preconceived ideas, would you believe it?
KA
I don’t want you to go, I just wanted to know why you were here. You seemed to be so anti-Catholicism that it just made me wonder why you wanted to participate in a Catholic blog. But if you aren’t just here to tell us we are wrong, but to really enquire and genuinely engage that that’s great
*Head desk*
Okay, so LT is genuinely trying to seek God, but can be a little hot tempered at times. Why are _you_ here? If we’re all madly wrong why talk to us?
But Mrs Meurk, I’m here to tell you that you’re wrong. Does this mean that I should leave?
KA
Muerk – fair comment, yes I am hot tempered, but I’m soft as really…….
The thing that appears to draw EVERYONE together on this site is the desire to do good, and yet we argue under who’s name we should do it.
Okay, you think I’m wrong – now what? Where do we go from here? I’m not asking you to leave, I’m just utterly at a loss about what keeps you here.
I enjoy the cut and thrust of intellectual discourse. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll open your eyes and apply rational logic and reasoning to your beliefs in the light of what I say; if you do I’ll be very happy for you. If you choose to stay blinkered in your ‘faith’ then I shall be sad, naturally, but at the end of the day that’s got to be your choice (free will
)
KA
Mrs Meurk,
Here’s couple of quotes that I love:
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning” – Voltaire
“Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed – Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved” – Tim Minchin
KA
KA:
Have read Candide? It’s very funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide
“Unless you believe, you will not understand.” St Augustine
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” – St. Thomas Aquinas
“Show me your hands. Do they have scars from giving? Show me your feet. Are they wounded in service? Show me your heart. Have you left a place for divine love?” – Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Oh dear indeed.
LT:
Perhaps their denial is based on having been metaphorically ‘burnt’ by the Church. If you’d been abused by a Priest, would you be 1st in the queue to then sing its praises Veritas ? Of course its emotional.
I think you missed my point. Of course it was emotional trauma, and I would never presume to think that I could comprehend the betrayal and damage felt by the victim. I was simply trying to distinguish between the ‘metaphorical burn’ of abuse by an individual of the Catholic Church and that of authentic Church doctrine; none of which supports or allows for child molestation, and other such crimes.
LT; some clarification please. Are you seeking logical reasons for believing in God, or are you looking for personal reasons for believing in God? Or is it both? As Meurk has previously alluded, you have frequently asked us about having a personal relationship with God; new answer that the answer lies in the Church, in our belief, practice and …..; to which you reply that you don’t want the institutional conception of religion, saying the Mass is propaganda and that you already have an established belief system- ‘I’ve kinda worked out right and wrong now’. From our point of view, it’s very confusing as to what exactly your asking us to present to you.
Also, I don’t think you’re an idiot because you simply don’t understand Catholicism; what I do resent is having my central form of worship (the Mass) reduced to mere ‘indoctrination’ by the opinion of someone who readily admits his ignorance on the subject.
I purposefully don’t get into all the obscure, second hand, aged, and dare I say it, pompous, unclear, out-of-date language used by the Church. I really cannot be bothered with the minutiae of what Priest A said to Priest B, allegedly, on date X, allegedly, meaning Y, allegedly. ……..and I re-iterate the point once again that the Church presumably wants to teach ’something’. If the Church persists in using language, hearsay and unproven ‘facts’ from 2000 years ago
Here again you contradict yourself, adding further confusion to what exactly you are asking for. You don’t want a scholarly debate- I have no problem with that, it’s your prerogative after all. And yet, in the next sentence you refer to that scholarship as ‘unproven’! On what basis?!? Considering you just said you didn’t actually care, this is a tad confusing.
‘What you refuse to swallow is that I would like God to have a one-to-one relationship with me’
I am hesitant to delve into your personal faith in a blog format; better to go see a priest and have a one-on-one, as I can hardly give you any sort of justice. However, genuine religious experience will take time to develop and mature; faith, like any other aspect of human life, doesn’t simply land on our lap, fully formed. It might interest you to know that ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin ‘religare’, meaning ‘relationship’. To this end (a relationship with God), the Church prescribes these three central aspects, critical to a genuine understanding of God; creed, code and cult; words, works, and worship; theology, morality and liturgy. Thus there are three parts to this study of the Catholic religion: (I) what Catholics believe (II) how Catholics live, and (III) how Catholics worship.
But never forget; Faith is not a feeling we get ourselves into. Its much simpler than that. It is simply believing in God and therefore believing in everything he has revealed-no matter how we feel. Feelings are emotional things; influenced by external forces and subsequently unreliable. Yet, Faith often produces feelings; of trust, peace, gratitude, and confidence, for instance. But even in the absence of those feelings, one can still believe and have faith. Does that help? Very brief I know, but for something more ‘in-depth’ check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, supplemented with Peter Kreeft’s ‘Catholic Christianity’
If you need a place to start, begin with establishing the validity of religious theism. Pascal’s wager, which I assume your familiar with, demonstrates that belief in a divine authority is a reasonable decision.
Another proof can be found in man’s instinctive inclination towards religion. Again, we can look towards the profoundly ordered nature of the universe and our minds. The First Cause; the First Mover; the Big Banger; and so on, are also good examples of reasonable faith in a divine intellect. I know all of this is way too brief but I hope your getting a vague picture.
KA;
I can’t speak for LT as he is not one of us, but the reason I keep going on about the number of different religions is because it highlights with alarming alacrity the arrogance of your religion in its assertion that yours is the one true faith.
There is no baseless assertion in Catholicism; we as Catholics believe that through Faith and Reason, the truth claims of Jesus Christ are the most reasonable and thus worthy of our attention. Is it arrogant to say something is true, and therefore the other false? You say; I do not go around saying that atheism is the only way, nor do I try and evangelize and proselytize to increase our number, and yet such a statement is ludicrous, as there is no doubt that by saying atheism is true, theism is wrong, and therefore not ‘a way’. The pursuit of truth is a necessary and pertinent thing; if you believed that you held the answer to happiness here on earth and for all eternity, would you consider yourself arrogant and assertive to suggest it to as many people as you could? No of course not; and this is exactly where we are coming from as Christians; we evangelise for the love of our neighbour- misguided love you would say, but no less well-meaning. So, having cleared that up, could you answer my question; why become an atheist? I’d sooner become a Muslim, Hindu or scientologist, before embracing that bizarre, hopeless choice that constitutes atheism.
If and when people come to their senses and realise that religion is just a money-making scam then we rejoice, but we leave it up to the individual to make up his or her own mind through a process of rational thought and the examination of the evidence.
Oh because that isn’t elitist at all.
We don’t need to rely on your rather woolly ‘faith’ to make our arguments work.
Ah yes, those elusive defences of atheism your always telling us about, but which remain conspicuously absent. Wasn’t it just last month that James the Least posted a thread in which asked directly for evidence in non-belief, to which you replied with nought but silence? You’re especially good at asking questions and creating straw-men of your opposition, but how often have you actually given answers?
In the first instance, elitism is quite definitely the domain of the theist. To say that atheists are elitist is sheer nonsense.
Oh right I had forgotten that I was part of the most convoluted elitist club on the planet, of which only a small prestigious 99% of men and women belong (throughout history). Did you actually think about what you were writing or do you just write impulsively without considering a suitable rebuttal? And by the way, simply saying ‘that’s just pathetic’ does not count as rebuttal.
To be an atheist is to be a snob; to believe that the overwhelming majority of people to ever live are just blind fools who have never had a reasonable thought in their life. After all isn’t religion the opiate of the masses?
No, Christians don’t sacrifice animals any more, but that wasn’t my point. My point is that, like so much thinking in our society, current beliefs and attitudes are polluted by religious influences of the past. As for Genesis being conservationism 101, I’ve never come across the conservation practice of flooding the world thereby killing almost all living things. I would go so far as to say that it’s the antithesis of conservation wouldn’t you?
Actually, cleansing floods, and bushfires for that matter, are essential for the growth and maturity of eco-systems. But that’s really not the point; I was actually referring to God’s command of Adam and Eve to ‘tend the garden [of Eden]’. I know that you do not believe in the relevance of the scriptures, but you can admit that Christians, according to their own belief system, have been mandated by God to conserve our environment- even though many of us fail to do so.
I have no idea how any of the famous figures you quote treated animals, but I’m guessing that you included them because you think they were all atheists.
Considering the standard of quality among that bunch of lovely people, Herr Hitler is the least of you worries.
I do hope that you’re not suggesting that I can’t be moral or good without having an invisible magic friend because that’s just pathetic!
Again you haven’t actually read my post; I explicitly stated that we shared a moral ‘middle-ground’- I recognise that you say you have an absolute moral standard. What I was asking was how one justifies, as an atheist, the existence of any form of absolute morality. As I said, I think you’re morally grounded despite of your atheism rather than because of it.
I enjoy the cut and thrust of intellectual discourse
I’m sorry but comments like ‘What you’ve got to realise is that all the religious can do is to use their manual as their ‘proof’ and ‘elitism is quite definitely the domain of the theist’ don’t reflect, by any stretch of the imagination, a genuine pursuit of intellectual discourse. I have several atheist friends who at least have the intellectual honesty to recognise that my position as a Catholic doesn’t consist of me sticking my head in the sand every time the phrase ‘reasons to believe’ pops up in the conversation.
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning” – Voltaire
Yeah I love Voltaire too, especially the part in which his philosophical writings directly inspired the bloodiest and most chaotic period in French history, during which faith and reason were drowned in an inexplicable torrent of gore and animalistic hate. Thanks KA for pointing out another example of how a society without God is doomed to self-destruction. Fills me with warm fuzzy feelings does old Voltaire.
“Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed – Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved” – Tim Minchin
Although this whole quote indicates a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between the physical scientific world and the spiritual reality of faith, I will note that science itself is based on the presumption of faith. The Scientific Method is based on the belief that the whole universe is ordered and lawful. A part from our limited observations on earth, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that the rest of the universe, infinitely expansive as it is, follows these laws. However, science couldn’t operate without this basic assumption; if there is no faith than nature itself dissolves into chaos. I should also point out that the Catholic Church and her support of scientific progress was instrumental in the development of the this Method; I suggest for a more academic treatment of this subject, one should read Thomas E. Wood’s ‘How the Catholic Church built Civilisation’.
As far quotes go, try this one by Hilaire Belloc;
‘It is amusing and sometimes profitable, to consider or to refute one of the host who are unequipped for dealing with the great theological problems, and who yet fill our time with silly repetitions of errors which have been exposed during hundreds of years. Their adventures in the obvious, their simple pride in discovering as novelties what men have discussed for thirty centuries are the absurdity of our time.’
Cheers.
Veritas 57
well said; “Are you seeking logical reasons for believing in God, or are you looking for personal reasons for believing in God? Or is it both?”
but the hallmark of atheists isnt one of looking for God it is rather looking for excuses to disbelieve in God,
If it was the former they would be indifferent to arguments, because it is the later they jump on any evidence to support their stance and can ignore evidence to the contrary.
This is similar to ’sulivanism and its cousin ‘Rohr-ism’ that simply redefines the argument to suit its agenda.
It you are open to the Truth and have faith then understanding will come(and in my humble experience does)
Nothing in scripture tradtion or the church’s teaching is contradictory and they all support each other, often as not it is our prejudice and bias that leads us to confusion, This was evidenced in KA failure to provide the 12 sciptural proofs of Gods alleged ‘evil’ nature he promised.
Back to MB’s post, it is not the Catholic Church that people dont trust it is their perception of what Catholics believe, or when it challenges what they want to believe, That is why Rohrs populism is attractive as I can under this movement believe or disbelieve anything I want, I imagine atheists are flocking to him!
Pray for Truth to set you free!