I looked over the thread again instead of looking at my BMA swap rates and I'm confused as to what's considered Catholic bashing. Did what I say qualify for that because I criticized the Vatican?

The only other thing I can think of is max saying the whole priest/young boy thing which is a sad thing that American catholics have to deal with and it has brought shame to the church and will take time for the wounds to heal (parts of the expansive estate sold in Boston was moving in the right direction).

I would just like to know that Cream - because I consider what the Cardinal said to be American bashing then.

-Rudey

Let's try to get this back under control.

Sure - I think the Vatican has no right to judge.

-Rudey
--Under control.

Rudey, it was madmax's remark about Saddam being treated better than an altar boy on a camping trip. That's the Catholic bashing remark for me.

As for your remarks, I say that you could ask those questions of all religions and their leaders. The Catholic Church has been there in times of struggle and sorrow to help those less fortunate. The Catholic Church, through its various organizations, feeds, clothes, houses, employs, and educates millions of people worldwide. Over one billion people identify themselves as Roman Catholic. Personally, I don't have a problem with raising questions. I do have a problem with the hostile tone that this thread has taken regarding my faith.

Well I don't understand or see eye to eye on how that criticism is considered bashing but I do understand that you feel bothered by those remarks.

I think that the Church does have a lot to answer for. Yes so do some other religious institutions. Except the difference here is that the Catholic church is much more of a regimented and hierarchical org than any other religious institution (most aren't even in such a hierarchy) and also this thread has simply concentrated on a Cardinal's remarks for the Vatican.

The fact that it's so large, influential, and has such a long history lends itself to the idea that the Church has a lot to answer for. If you could find another religion which is so organized, is this influential, has commited atrocities in its past, and makes a remark about Saddam I guarantee people would post in there and criticize them.

-Rudey

Rudey, I deleted that post for a reason. I wish that you would do the same. I'm not going to post here again.

I wish someone would lock or delete this thread.

Sorry adduncan.....

I was posting based on personal experience dealing with both the students and staff at the residence; other observations were passed along to me by my great uncle (he's a Dominican monk outside of Chicago).

Look maybe it is only the residence here at UofT, but these are issues that I have talked about with the staff and students who were either rushing, had joined, or had brought complaints against the residence to the student council.

I brought it up as an example that the Church is a complicated political animal that has many different and sometimes contradictory views.

For you, anything.

-Rudey
--I have an intern everyone!!! (Like a real one...not like joking around about a girl)

OF COURSE the Vatican is going to weigh in on political debates! Its worldwide influence is so broad and has been in existence for such a long time that world political events impact the Church probably more so than any other distinct religious body. The United States is possibly the only major Western nation that doesn't have a Catholic heritage or was impacted by the Church during its early history--so Americans might have a bigger problem with what the Vatican says than say, Spain or England.

And that's okay. I have nothing against Catholicism or any organized religion's commentary on political events. It's when religious groups try to impact MY PERSONAL politics that things get dirty.

Maybe, some to the over zealous religious zeaolitnesss may be better off reading the History of the Old European Countrys!

Rudey is fundamentally correct! It was not the church as is known today as it was then!

The Roman Catholic Church was as big in the Realm of a Country as the King!

You want to talk that sh*t, lets go!

Henery The VIII, and the foundation of the Church of England! Well for one. Thomas o Beckett for another, how often did there be two popes in catholic History? Notice the small "c"!

Check out the dictionary and see what is says about catholic.;)

A man has the fundimental sex drives, growing up, I thouht the catholic Priest were doing the Nuns, Nope the Alter Boys!:(

Rudey, I go with you on this one!:D


Sadamnit treated like a cow, hell, he should have been treated like the PIG That He Is!:mad:

Tom, any respect, patience, or benefit of the doubt I ever had for you just died.

It's really time for you to stop putting your foot in your mouth and spouting half truths and half thoughts. You really are a bigot.

:(

WOW, A History Major here:confused:

Excuse me would you in your self piousness please explain!:confused:

Bigot? Dah, BS!

Go for it oh ye of Font Of Knowledge!:)

Get off your feet and on your rear!

Really looking forward to your rebutil if you can get past 1968!

you know before then!

actually the Black Shism did happen, and so did most of the stuff he said (minus the altar boy remark)


If anyone woukld read the back ground of the Catholic Church would be shocked.

From having women as priest (we did for a long time)
To preist being married with children (when have about 20 priest now in the US that are)
to the Crusades (have you read about the Children Crusade, where half of West Europe lost its children becuase they thought they could do a better job)
To buying the Heaven"s Ring (can't remeber offical term, but is where a very rich man would pay alott of $$$$$ and get a coin or ring that would gain him automatic entry to heaven once he died. No matter his sins)



But I am Catholic, I believe in God and Jesus. IF I would change my religion becuase of what some sexist pope did 1500 years ago then I would be changing my religion every week.


Christia

OK, hold on right there.

I am a European history major at a school that is top-ranked in history. My advisor is a noted scholar on intellectual and ecclesiastical history, specializing in the fall of the Roman Empire up through the Reformation. Now, he's taught me a thing or two---and what you're saying is not correct.

If anyone wants to listen to me give some lengthy diatribes about Nicolaism, simony, the sale of indulgences, the Great Schism, the Avignon papacy, and the Babylonian captivity, baby, I'm ready. But I don't think anyone wants me to.

Just rest assured that what you wrote is 80% historically inaccurate.

And another note--what happened historically in the Roman Catholic church has little to no relevance for the Roman Catholic church today. The papacy of the late middle ages and Renaissance, was, to put it mildly, insanely corrupt. The church today may have its issues but it's not some evil institution BY ANY MEANS.

soooo..... everyone calm down! :)

Christia (and Tom....)

Last post on the subject.

Everything you posted is the populist "Cliffs Notes" version. (And by the way I was a history minor FWIW.)

You can both egg me on and demand more detail but the fact is the details take up a library full of books and both of you know they don't fit in a sound bite or in a post on GC. That does not mean your quips "win" an argument or are even correct.

As for the Crusades, which is a popular bashing topic, I would recommend Sir Steven Runciman's "A History of the Crusades" (a work in 3 volumes) which is considered the seminal work on the topic. He does not share your conclusion on the Childrens' Crusade. His books are a relatively easy read for a scholarly work. No, I will not reproduce it here for your satisfaction. Check out Amazon.com

The "Heaven's Ring" you refer to would take about 10 pages to explain - and was addressed and resolved in the Council of Trent. You can read it in its entirety (and in English) here: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

Female priests - never. You're thinking of a gnostic splinter group. Not the same thing, even as early as the writing of the Gospel of John.

Married priests - no kidding that used to be the norm. And the problems caused by that situation is what led to the Western church (Latin rite) banning it. In addition, some entered the priesthood or religious life after their spouses died. So of COURSE they had children!
The Eastern Rites however, do allow married clergy with very specific and rigid stipulations. It's not like Protestant ministers being married. (Some Eastern rites reunited with Rome recently.) Also, when Episopalian or other ministers convert to Catholicism, they are ordained under the Eastern rite if they are married. There's much more than 20.

"Black" schism? Can you clarify? There were several "schisms", some major, some relatively minor, and there's more going on today. If you're thinking of the Church of England split, you can set the blame on Henry Tudor the 8th - he wanted to bend the church to fit HIS opinion. T'ain't how it works. You can't blame the Pope for that one.

More than one Pope? Yes, happened too. Disputes among Church leadership happen, like in any org. You want to talk about two ancient Church leaders in a spat, check out Peter and Paul. So what? The same thing happens in every other damn religious organization on the planet. It just doesn't make CNN.

I've read the background of the Catholic church. It's the reason I converted to it in college--because I wouldn't accept the small-minded, revisionist history that is so popular in the media and on message boards like this. The only thing that "shocks" me is Catholic self-hatred and ignorance. It's just plain sad. We don't have to accept what non-Catholics say about us, folks.

Tom--it was nice knowing you while it lasted. :(
Christia--good for you for hanging in there--there's a lot more to read out there than you have found so far and I hope the above references are a good start.

Edited to correct the Hanover University URL