Originally Posted By TomSawyer 1 in 6 people on the planet think that the Eucharist as celebrated in a Catholic church is very significant, jonvn. Here is what is significant, and here is what you don't seem to be getting: Catholics remain in their church despite the problems with the priests because they understand that what they believe and what a few priests do are not connected. What matters is the Eucharist, and nothing that any person in the church hierarchy can do, and no crime that they can commit, can interfere with the miracle that Catholics believe they witness every Sunday at Mass. Catholics also believe that they are part of a 2000 year old tradition, and they aren't going to walk away from that because some priests did sick things. They'll try to change it from within. You've admitted that you don't understand the significance of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. If you don't understand that, you really can't understand the answers to your initial question.
Originally Posted By Mr X That's assuming that each and every catholic "on the books" considers it "very significant". Being one "on the books" who doesn't, I'd have to say there must be more like me. I can't tell you how many "non-practicing catholics" I've run into over the years (including the majority of my extended family...that'd be 60-80 people right there easily). I love how people throw out that "one billion" number as though that's supposed to mean something. TS, I fully agree with you that there's no reason to walk out because "some priests did some sick things". The cover-up is what sickens me, and that goes all the way up to pope razenberger (which shocked me).
Originally Posted By Mr X I, for one, find it hard to believe that Jesus (if he is god) relies on archane rituals and specific jargon of a particular denomination to "find his way" into peoples hearts...but that's just me. WAY too "abra cadabra" for my taste. Who's to say He doesn't manage to find His way into the communion rituals of other Christian churches, regardless of the "and now we wave our magic wand" element? Assuming you've got a congregation that is pure of heart and welcoming Him into their lives, who's to say that isn't exactly what happens? And on the flip side, it's pretty weird to me that Jesus would knowingly come down and allow Himself to be involved in a ritual presided over by an incredibly hypocritical sinner who preys on children and/or helps to cover that up? And yet that's often the argument for a catholic to "stick with the church" no matter what the hierarchy does to tarnish it, rather than simply find another christian religion (which, as Jon mentioned, is essentially the same or EXTREMELY similar in any case).
Originally Posted By Mr X An interesting take on the numbers game... In a New Zealand 2001 census, the "Jedi" religion came in at #2 after Christianity, outpacing both Hinuism and Buddism as a percentage of the population. But I guess that, since there are more Jedi than Buddists and Hindus in New Zealand, we can safely say that they are a more valid faith...because there are more of them.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'll say one thing Tom, I think your argument about the special (unique?) views on the communion ritual by the catholic church is a very valid argument as to why people should stay (and I did present my counter-thoughts above)... BUT, I really don't see how "one billion strong" or "two thousand years old" really has anything to do with ANYTHING, as far as why one should or should not stick with an organization that has been found to be doing terrible things and covering it up.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Legitimate question that isn't intended to take one "side" or the other here (I've stated my position in the other threads): doesn't the Orthodox church believe in transubstantiation (though I think they have a different term for it)?
Originally Posted By jonvn "1 in 6 people on the planet think that the Eucharist as celebrated in a Catholic church is very significant, jonvn. " That's great. Except it's not really true. Where do you get that number from, exactly? I'm quite tired of hearing this false statistic. And aside from that, even if it were true, that means five in six do not. So the overwhelming majority of people, going by your figures, about 85%, do not. "Here is what is significant" No. That is what you consider significant. a few others agree with you. Most people do not. "They understand that what they believe and what a few priests do are not connected" Want to know what I believe? An organization that shields child molesters is not something I want to be part of. I think that's extremely significant. And again, it's not what "a few priests did." What they did pales in comparison to what the organization, going up to the current pope did. It is a corrupt and morally bankrupt set of behaviors that I would not consider for one second to want to associate with. That you do is a moral relativism on your part. "that you don't understand the significance of the Eucharist and transubstantiation" I understand you think it is significant. I also understand that's a small minority opinion. And the fact that every protestant on earth seems to feel that is wrong and there are about 600 million of them or so. Be that as it may, I didn't really think this was an election where we get to count votes. It really does not matter how old your religion is or how many members. There are older religions, and ones with more members (there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world, according to the Council on American-Islamic relations). The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, all believe in transubstantiation as well. What it comes down to is that people believe more in the church than in anything else. That's fine. But it's how Jim Jones got 900 people to kill themselves in Guyana.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip jovnv, You can post 1,000 posts and you will never change anyone's mind. Why? Because unless you are Roman Catholic you are just whistling out your butt. Mr. X is nearly as misguided as you, but as a former Roman Catholic he at least knows what he is talking about. As before, I will let these comments be my last and say goodbye to this thread. No reason for me to cause trouble.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder RT, he can feign being insulted and say he's gotten no answers, but it goes back to what I said before. Given his attitude towards it all, he's incapable of getting it.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>Mr. X is nearly as misguided as you<< lol. Misguided because I speak out against the cover-ups and corruption? Well, I'm sure the vatican would say so, anyway. I honestly am not interested in hearing even more hysterical arguments from the usual suspects. I only chimed in here to reply to Tom (generally a very reasonable guy), and to hear what he had to say on the matter.
Originally Posted By Mr X Who says I'm a former catholic anyway? I haven't been excommunicated, near as I can tell. I prefer "non-practicing", so as to keep my options open. Got plans for a sweet deathbed confession so I can cut to the front of the heavenly line. And I don't know any more about catholic doctrine than Jon does, far as I can see. Dismissing him just because "he isn't a catholic" is silly. But convenient though, ain't it? How many more excuses to dismiss the opinions of those who disagree with you can you come up with anyway? I'm curious.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>he's incapable of getting it<< I've read this so many times now, but it makes no more sense now than 50 insults ago. Incapable of "getting" what? "getting" the fact that the catholic church is superior to all others? "getting" the fact that leaving is inconceivable, no matter what happens in the hierarchy? "getting" the fact that it doesn't matter WHAT the priests and leaders do, because it's not about them? Jon asked a question before (noone answered, big surprise there), what if some priests started gunning down their parishioners, and the leaders of the church hushed it up, moved the priests, and gave them guns. Would you still stay?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer For the record, I'm not Catholic. I don't like their strict theology and I frankly think that the whole idea of transubstantiation has created the extraordinarily complex Catechism in that church. I also think the academic focus on doctrinal matters like transubstantiation and the trinity in the first 500 years of the church made the simplistic answers of Islam very appealing to so many people in Christian lands in the Middle East and North Africa. I also don't like the cover-up by the clergy of the crimes committed by priests, which I think is driven more by the church's desire to control it's image than any social justice that Christ demanded of us. I think the higher ranks of the clergy are just as concerned about their worldly power as Caiaphas was. There are other communions who believe in slightly different types of transubstantiation, but even those communions also are facing abuse charges against their clergy. The Eastern Orthodox church is not immune from such problems. I think there is a sense in the Catholic Church that this is a temporary problem, and that the church is going to get a handle on it. Those who are more progressive Catholics think that eventually priests will be allowed to marry, as they were until fairly recently in the church's history. The problems with molestation stem from the celibacy requirements, in my opinion. You won't attract well-rounded men with mature emotional development if you don't allow men who have successful adult romantic relationships into the clergy. Celibacy isn't a mark of faith, it's a mark of stunted emotional growth. So while many Catholics are not happy about the clerical cover-up, they remain in the church because they know that these problems will pass. This generation of clergy will die. This Pope will die. There will be a change of power, and even though the Catholics are remarkably slow to change course they will do it eventually, as they have done before.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "Jon asked a question before (noone answered, big surprise there), what if some priests started gunning down their parishioners, and the leaders of the church hushed it up, moved the priests, and gave them guns. Would you still stay?" You yourself said that you're not renouncing your Catholic baptism because you're hedging your bets. Even with the clerical cover-up, you aren't just coming out and saying, "I'm a recovering Catholic." Imagine how much harder that would be if you were a truly faithful Catholic.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>The problems with molestation stem from the celibacy requirements, in my opinion. You won't attract well-rounded men with mature emotional development if you don't allow men who have successful adult romantic relationships into the clergy. Celibacy isn't a mark of faith, it's a mark of stunted emotional growth.<< This I agree with. I said as much in another thread, and was scoffed at (by VBDad I think), but you explained it very well. Temporary? Perhaps. Interestingly, they got caught. And that, I think, is the most important factor in putting an end to it. The light of day, as it were. But imagine if they hadn't gotten caught. I wonder just how long the church (it'd leaders, whatever) would have kept letting it go on. How many generations more would have to suffer? I read an interesting letter from one bishop to another (I think they were bishops, or archpriests or whatever), where one commented "father so and so called me, apparently he "slipped" again (quotes are his), we'll need to deal with this quickly. The family has already been given some money, but I don't know if that's enough to keep a lid on things". Paraphrase, but anyway those were pretty much the "facts" of the letter. And how awful is that?? "slip"? Interesting code word for rape, don't you think? Makes it sound all "oops" like..."I slipped and had a piece of cake even though I'm on a diet". Nice.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>You yourself said that you're not renouncing your Catholic baptism because you're hedging your bets.<< I was joking. I completely renounce catholisism, they can excommunicate me for all I care. Hypocrites and rapists are not the sort of leaders I look to for spiritual guidance. I am most definitely a "recovering catholic".
Originally Posted By Mr X Is there a formal proceedure for this, out of curiosity? I would LOVE to sit down with a priest or whoever and offer my reasons (and maybe get them to quit in the process).
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Like I said, the clergy is focused on worldly power. If they were interested in justice, there'd be no question on the direction to go. I think there's another huge problem with a celibate clergy: they don't have kids. When you have kids of your own, you look at child molesters in a whole different light. You might have loathed them before, but once you live with a kid it's not just theory any more. I think if bishops were parents the molesters would have been handed over to the cops without hesitation.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You can post 1,000 posts and you will never change anyone's mind" This is true, but it has nothing to do with being Roman Catholic. It has to do with people just being people. You have people running around believing in ghosts, space aliens, and JFK assassination conspiracies. You have people thinking Elvis is still alive, and you have people who think that the US government was the one that actually bombed the World Trade Center. People believe in irrational, ridiculous things and justify them in all manner of ways that sound good to them. That doesn't make them right, reasonable or respectable. They are just nonsense. All of them. Yet people believe in them. "I honestly am not interested in hearing even more hysterical arguments from the usual suspects." I kind of agree. We're starting to get into the typical pile of gibberish that encumbers all these religious ideas. "We have THIS, so we're RIGHT!" And all that. They might as well argue over the color of the hat god wore on Tuesday. It's a pile of nonsense, and it is an excuse to continue supporting an organization that has systematically molested children and covered it up. That's what it comes down to. This is not a temporary problem. It has been going on for decades and more. You don't solve a problem by blithely ignoring the fact that you are supporting it via attendance, time, materials, and money.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You can post 1,000 posts and you will never change anyone's mind" This is true, but it has nothing to do with being Roman Catholic. It has to do with people just being people. You have people running around believing in ghosts, space aliens, and JFK assassination conspiracies. You have people thinking Elvis is still alive, and you have people who think that the US government was the one that actually bombed the World Trade Center. People believe in irrational, ridiculous things and justify them in all manner of ways that sound good to them. That doesn't make them right, reasonable or respectable. They are just nonsense. All of them. Yet people believe in them. "I honestly am not interested in hearing even more hysterical arguments from the usual suspects." I kind of agree. We're starting to get into the typical pile of gibberish that encumbers all these religious ideas. "We have THIS, so we're RIGHT!" And all that. They might as well argue over the color of the hat god wore on Tuesday. It's a pile of nonsense, and it is an excuse to continue supporting an organization that has systematically molested children and covered it up. That's what it comes down to. This is not a temporary problem. It has been going on for decades and more. You don't solve a problem by blithely ignoring the fact that you are supporting it via attendance, time, materials, and money.
