RicOlie_2

suspiciouscoffee said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Question: do you believe Protestants can go to heaven?

Of course. Unless they commit a mortal sin and die without repentance. Just like Catholics.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I wasn’t talking about murdering and jailing people, and if that’s what you meant by “tyrannically banned,” it wasn’t clear to me. I certainly agree that that was usually immoral.

In reference to murder, that was always immoral if you care about what Jesus Christ supposedly said. He condemned the death penalty clear as day when stopping the adulterous woman from being stoned.

Yeah, bad wording on my part. Murder is always wrong. The death penalty is arguably not always murder, however, though it’s rarely, rarely justifiable nowadays (and usually wasn’t in the past either).

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

-.-

By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.

JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.

Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.

As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT

 
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.

Apologies if I’m coming across as disdainful. That’s the trouble with Internet debating. A lot comes across in your words that you don’t intend to.

No, I’m not disdainful, nor do I think badly of you guys in any way. I simply feel strongly about what I believe and am trying to figure out why you guys believe what you do and why you think it’s justified. I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I’m itching to respond to the points you brought up in your edit, but I also don’t want to antagonize you. However, if you’re willing to debate a bit, let me know.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Scripture existed before the Pope. When someone asks you for proof of the Pope’s authority, what do you do? You show him scripture.

My beliefs aren’t based on historical justification, they are based on faith.

Most of Scripture (the Old Testament) existed before the first pope, but the entire New Testament was written during or after the life of the first pope, St. Peter. Other books of the New Testament were written during or after the reigns of Pope St. Linus, Pope St. Anacletus, and Pope St. Clement I. (As a side note: the Scriptural argument for papal authority doesn’t come entirely from the fact that it’s Scripture. It also comes from the fact that Christ himself said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. Meaning that the institution of the papacy occurred before Jesus’ ascension.)

More importantly, however, the canon of Scripture wasn’t defined until the 300s in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Catholic Church determined which books are in your Bible. So if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, you are basically saying that there is no basis for you having the Bible that you do. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says what books should be in it. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the only source of authority. Your faith is based on the authority of the Bible, which can only be justified if you accept the authority of the Catholic Church at the time the canon of the Bible was established.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:
I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

History does not seem to support the concept that people are capable of correctly judging the truth on their own all the time. I think things that are true should be promulgated, and things that are untrue should be suppressed. Or do you think that Facebook taking strides to eliminate fake news is “tyrannical”? People have a right to the truth, and the Church’s intent was to protect that right.

History supports the concept that people are capable of great stupidity and great brutality, and the Catholic Church has participated in that just as much as everyone else has. When Facebook starts taking strides to eliminate fake news by murdering or jailing people then I will deem that an accurate analogy. Obviously they weren’t protecting anyone’s right to the truth by ensuring that those people didn’t have a right to comprehend the truth unless they learned Latin. I honestly thought, until now, that everyone including the most devout Catholics could agree that the Catholic of the olden days was horrifyingly corrupt and immoral but I guess that’s not the case.

I wasn’t talking about murdering and jailing people, and if that’s what you meant by “tyrannically banned,” it wasn’t clear to me. I certainly agree that that was usually immoral.

You’re really fixated with this whole Latin thing, aren’t you? The fact that Latin was the lingua franca of Europe does not mean that the Catholic Church was deliberately trying to conceal the truth from those who were uneducated. Is that what Newton and Linnaeus and Copernicus did when they all wrote in Latin? What did they have to hide? You’re ignoring the fact that because everything was in Latin, Europe was more unified in the medieval era due to the facility of communication. It was easier to exchange ideas. You could be educated anywhere in Europe in the same language. It was unfortunate that most people weren’t educated, but the societal structures weren’t in place to allow for it. If everything had been in the vernacular, it wouldn’t have made a huge difference because people wouldn’t have had the opportunity to learn to read anyway.

Saying that “the Catholic of the olden days was horrifyngly corrupt and immoral” is making quite the blanket statement. There have been good and bad Catholics of every time and place. Many so-called Catholics nowadays are horrifyingly corrupt and immoral. Many Catholics in the Middle Ages were wonderful, loving people. Not much has changed except the ways in which people are immoral or virtuous.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

5. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

I just quickly read through 1 Timothy (which I’ve read at least four times before), and I don’t see anything like what Possessed said. I’ve also read Acts four or five times and am really not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referencing Peter’s vision, it simply removes dietary restrictions, it doesn’t say that one cannot ever place restrictions on diet. In fact, St. Paul writes that people should avoid meat sacrificed to idols if it is a cause of scandal to others.

“They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” - 1 Timothy 4, and it’s in reference to false teachers. The Catholic church also prohibits marriage for priests and nuns.

So you interpret “prohibit marriage” as meaning “requiring celibacy among certain people”? That’s a bit of a stretch. The passage is almost certainly referring to those in the Church who wanted to ban marriage altogethr because they thought the second coming was going to happen within their lifetime and thus thought marriage was pointless (according to some heresies, marriage was considered immoral).

The same deal with requiring abstinence from certain foods. The Church doesn’t do that. It has historically required abstinence on Fridays, but that’s not the same as outright banning certain foods, and it has nothing to do with us believing that meat is not to be received with thanksgiving and is somehow unclean. Quite the opposite in fact. Meat is something very good, and therefore a sacrifice to give up, which is the whole point. It’s something extra done to commemorate Christ’s Passion, and is a sacrifice precisely because it’s a normal part of people’s diet the rest of the time. Plus the point was that you would give up meat and give the money you saved to the poor.

Thanks for finding the relevant Scripture passages for me though.

6. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
   a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to back this up?

In mass, the Bible was read in Latin for centuries.

And then in his homily, the priest would typically read a translation of the readings to the people before speaking about them. Your point?

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

It was banned for people’s own good. When someone’s salvation is at stake, it’s important that they don’t fall into error and reject the Church. That’s not itself tyranny, although tyrannical people may have enforced it. It was a means of protecting the truth. Ideally, people should just have been catechized better, but that wasn’t always practicable. The Vulgate may unfortunately have been an inaccurate translation, but at least it didn’t contain doctrinal errors.

I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

History does not seem to support the concept that people are capable of correctly judging the truth on their own all the time. I think things that are true should be promulgated, and things that are untrue should be suppressed. Or do you think that Facebook taking strides to eliminate fake news is “tyrannical”? People have a right to the truth, and the Church’s intent was to protect that right.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Warbler said:

Well, I haven’t the sufficient expertise to argue the history with you, so I won’t at this time.

Fair enough. But I’ll leave you with the following quote from a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism. 😉

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

5. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

I just quickly read through 1 Timothy (which I’ve read at least four times before), and I don’t see anything like what Possessed said. I’ve also read Acts four or five times and am really not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referencing Peter’s vision, it simply removes dietary restrictions, it doesn’t say that one cannot ever place restrictions on diet. In fact, St. Paul writes that people should avoid meat sacrificed to idols if it is a cause of scandal to others.

6. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
   a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to back this up?

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

It was banned for people’s own good. When someone’s salvation is at stake, it’s important that they don’t fall into error and reject the Church. That’s not itself tyranny, although tyrannical people may have enforced it. It was a means of protecting the truth. Ideally, people should just have been catechized better, but that wasn’t always practicable. The Vulgate may unfortunately have been an inaccurate translation, but at least it didn’t contain doctrinal errors.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

The Catholic Church existed before Protestantism, so the Catholic interpretation is older.

I still don’t see the reason to make a distinction between saying “we interpret it differently than Protestants” and “Protestants interpret it differently than us”. It is the same thing. Protestants and Catholics interpret the scripture differently.

There’s a subtle semantic difference, but let’s not get caught up over it.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Tyndale’s translation was in fact ideological. Among other things, he sought to undermine the clergy and translated the Greek word ekklesia with “congregation” rather than “church,” essentially undermining the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Basically he was imposing his own ideas on what Scripture was saying, and the Catholic Church did not want him to mislead people. It was wrong to execute him, but in the Church’s view, souls were at stake.

Well I am not expert on the accuracy of Tyndale’s translation. But from what I know, I think it was more than just the Catholic church objecting to bad translation, it was objecting to translating the Bible from Latin into English and other languages. I am pretty sure there was Catholic opposition to the KJV.

That’s not quite accurate. The èarliest Catholic English translation of the Bible (or at least the first major one), the Douay-Rheims, predates the KJV (the New Testament is a few decades older and the Old Testament was published shortly before it). In fact, the Douay-Rheims influenced the KJV, although Anglican England banned the original Douay-Rheims (Bible-banning wasn’t just one sided!). So it’s a myth that the Church was opposed to vernacular translations. The Vulgate, after all, was originally just that: a translation from Hebrew and Greek into the more common language, Latin.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

The Catholic Church existed before Protestantism, so the Catholic interpretation is older.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Tyndale’s translation was in fact ideological. Among other things, he sought to undermine the clergy and translated the Greek word ekklesia with “congregation” rather than “church,” essentially undermining the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Basically he was imposing his own ideas on what Scripture was saying, and the Catholic Church did not want him to mislead people. It was wrong to execute him, but in the Church’s view, souls were at stake.

ChainsawAsh said:

RicOlie_2 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Christ on a cross. . .

Why do some people say “Jesus H. Christ” or “Christ on a crutch”?
What is the “H” supposed to stand for, and why a crutch?

I never understood why people say that.

“Crutch” might be a deliberate mispronunciation of “cross,” but I’m not really sure.

My theory regarding “Jesus H. Christ” is that in Catholic churches (and on other Catholic things) you’ll often see inscriptions like “JHC” or “JHS.” These stand for Jesus’ name (or in more recent times have been interpreted as a short form of “Jesus Hominum Salvator”, which is Latin for “Jesus Saviour of Mankind”), and are a transcription of the first three letters of his name in Greek (hence the variation between C and S). My guess is that some people, seeing that and not knowing what it meant, but knowing it referred to Jesus, interpreted it as his initials.

JEDIT: Hey, Wikipedia backs me up. It says that it’s common in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church as well, which is likely where exposure to the “JHC” abbreviation would have come in.

JEDIT: Oops, that wasn’t a JEDIT…

I grew up Episcopalian and I definitely remember “IHS” in our church. The Wiki article you linked says J used to be a variant of I instead of its own letter, and mentions the S/C transcription difference, but I never saw it with a J or a C myself.

I’ve usually seen it with a J. Whether it’s a C or an S is about 50/50 I think. C might have been more common when the expression “Jesus H. Christ” started being used.

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

From the “Going away? Post so here!” Thread.

Possessed said:

Probably realized a ton of the stuff they do outright contradicted the scripture that already existed so they had to make their own.

You really shouldn’t talk about something of which you really have no knowledge of the history of how it came to be.

Of course that’s not the official reason the catholic Bible was made. Are you suggesting the scriptures that warn against celibacy and strictly forbid calling a man heavenly father and warn against restricting diet for certain times didn’t count or what? There’s also the matter of the Bible quite clearly saying each individual congregation should be it’s own governing body and not answer to another higher church or church figure other than God himself. That had to go, amirite? (And yes, I am. Catholics don’t read the Bible very much for the most part in my experience. Once upon a time they were actually discouraged from reading it. I wonder why…)

Oh boy, there are so many things wrong with this.

1. The Catholic Church is firmly grounded in the Bible. It’s not our only source of authority and we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us), but almost everything about Catholicism has at least something to do with Scripture.
2. The Catholic Church assembled the Bible. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage established the canon, although some local churches still included additional books, and it was more firmly defined at the Council of Trent when it was challenged by Luther and other reformers during the Protestant Reformation.
3. Any Scriptures that warn against celibacy are in the Old Testament, as far as I am aware, and therefore have been superseded because of the new understanding of priesthood, etc. "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12). “Eunuchs for the…kingdom” has long been understood to refer to celibacy, and Jesus doesn’t condemn it. Not to mention that he was celibate…
   St. Paul writes:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. (1 Corinthians 7:1-7)

Here, he clearly recommends marriage to avoid sexual immorality. He concludes, however, by saying that this is a concession and that he wishes that all were like him, which is to say, celibate (which can be interpreted as him saying that marriage is a necessary evil, but it’s more likely that the statement about different gifts is an acknowledgement that not all are called to celibacy, and that perhaps his view that the second coming was imminent meant that he saw no need for the procreative aspect of marriage).
4. The passage about not calling people “father” also says not to call them “teacher” or “master,” and in context, can be easily understood as a call to recognize that all authority comes from God. Not to mention that if Jesus meant it literally, St. Paul is guilty of breaking this rule: “For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15).
5. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.
6. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
a. Most people couldn’t read.
b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.
c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.
d. There was a reaction against the Protestant idea of personal interpretation over Church authority and Tradition that led to Catholics shunning biblical scholarship and people not being encouraged to read the Bible on their own. This was simply to avoid people with little education misinterpreting Scripture and falling into heresy.
e. Catholics are steeped in Scripture through their participation in the Mass. Typically, when the Mass was in Latin, the priest would translate the gospel and other reading into the vernacular. If you ever read anything written by almost any saint, whether or not they were clergy, they constantly reference Scripture, even if they couldn’t read it for themselves because of an ignorance of Latin (St. Teresa of Avila comes to mind).
f. Why didn’t the Church commission vernacular translations before the Renaissance? Because most people who could read knew Latin anyway.

As a Catholic, I have been immersed in Scripture from the time I was born, whether at Mass (which, again, is highly Scriptural), or learning my catechism, or memorizing Scripture, or reading Bible stories (or the writings of the saints). It boggles my mind that people think Catholicism is anti-Biblical.

RicOlie_2 said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Christ on a cross. . .

Why do some people say “Jesus H. Christ” or “Christ on a crutch”?
What is the “H” supposed to stand for, and why a crutch?

I never understood why people say that.

“Crutch” might be a deliberate mispronunciation of “cross,” but I’m not really sure.

My theory regarding “Jesus H. Christ” is that in Catholic churches (and on other Catholic things) you’ll often see inscriptions like “JHC” or “JHS.” These stand for Jesus’ name (or in more recent times have been interpreted as a short form of “Jesus Hominum Salvator”, which is Latin for “Jesus Saviour of Mankind”), and are a transcription of the first three letters of his name in Greek (hence the variation between C and S). My guess is that some people, seeing that and not knowing what it meant, but knowing it referred to Jesus, interpreted it as his initials.

JEDIT: Hey, Wikipedia backs me up. It says that it’s common in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church as well, which is likely where exposure to the “JHC” abbreviation would have come in.

JEDIT: Oops, that wasn’t a JEDIT…

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Christ on a cross. . .

Why do some people say “Jesus H. Christ” or “Christ on a crutch”?
What is the “H” supposed to stand for, and why a crutch?

I never understood why people say that.

“Crutch” might be a deliberate mispronunciation of “cross,” but I’m not really sure.

My theory regarding “Jesus H. Christ” is that in Catholic churches (and on other Catholic things) you’ll often see inscriptions like “JHC” or “JHS.” These stand for Jesus’ name (or in more recent times have been interpreted as a short form of “Jesus Hominum Salvator”, which is Latin for “Jesus Saviour of Mankind”), and are a transcription of the first three letters of his name in Greek (hence the variation between C and S). My guess is that some people, seeing that and not knowing what it meant, but knowing it referred to Jesus, interpreted it as his initials.

I think it’s not so much that the Church is horrible at self-reflection as the fact that Church teaching emphasizes personal guilt over institutional guilt. I don’t think the problem comes down to anything intrinsic to the Church, rather it is the result of individual sin, whether of sex abusers or of bishops who covered it up.

And it also depends on what you mean by “the Church.” Nearly every saint I’ve read writes in some way about how horrible their own sins are and how much evil there is in the Church.

Yup. Sin in general is disgusting, but pedophilic abuse of children is pretty close to the top of the list. The fact that so many priests have exploited the trust people have for them is simply horrific, as most priests would agree. Fortunately for its credibility, the Church has never claimed to not be full of hypocrites and sinners, because being Christian doesn’t seem to affect the way some people behave.

DominicCobb said:

If I remember correctly, the estimate was 6% of priests.

I did a bit more research on it, and it looks like different numbers come from different countries. In Australia, it’s a disgusting 7%. In the US, it’s about 4%. In most countries, though, it’s significantly lower, as far as I can tell, so 1% might not be that far off globally. I can’t find any global statistics to back that up though. By way of anecdotal evidence, however, I think there have been only a handful of cases across western Canada, meaning that significantly less than 1% of priests here are guilty of abuse (in Eastern Canada, the problem is far more severe, unfortunately).

I found this article interesting: http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625 (the Washington Post also supports that claim).

There are about 500,000 priests in the world, so it’s closer to 5,000. That’s 5,000 too many, but it’s hardly symptomatic of a general crisis in the Church. The fact that these priests have been able to abuse so many children and adolescents is perhaps indicative of the trust which most Catholics rightfully have for priests, that allows the 1% the opportunity to abuse minors.

It’s also worth noting that the problem is a societal problem, not an ecclesiastical one. In 2014, for example, there were 781 teachers school staff accused of sexual abuse (see here)—in the US alone. According to one study, 10% of students experience some form of sexual abuse from school staff (see here). Perhaps the problem with the Church’s past handling of the situation stems from the fact that it preaches mercy, and this is sometimes applied to sex offenders to the detriment of justice.

Here’s a good article on the subject: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/

JEDIT: Ugh, I keep forgetting what thread I’m in. I’m just too keen on getting into debates…

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

It is a pic of Sinead O Connor when she tore apart the pic of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live.

Ah. It makes me sad more than anything, that people would think that way about such a holy pope and about the Church. I wasn’t familiar with that particular incident on SNL, so I looked it up and watched part of an interview with Sinéad. What a deluded human being. It’s terrible that she had to suffer abuse as a child, though. It sounds like that was the main source of her attitude towards the Church.

It makes me sad more than anything that that man is viewed a “such a holy pope.” His complicity in the mass child rape and the Church’s cover-up of the mass child rape makes him an accessory at the absolute best, and likely far, far worse. I’d call his defenders the deluded human beings. Before anyone claims I’m being mean or “bigoted” for the use of the word deluded, I’d like to point out that I, since I hold the same position as Sinéad, was called deluded first. This isn’t the thread for such statements so I won’t state how I really feel about John Paul II, but since I’m kind of being implicated in this exchange I felt the need to explain my side. Interestingly, the reason I have this picture is because I was asked to change my old avatar since it made it look like I was a banned user, and for reasons I don’t quite remember anymore I wanted an anti-establishment, fight-the-power image as my avatar so I chose Sinéad.

I don’t want to completely derail this thread, so I’ll keep my responses relatively brief:

I suspect JP II either naïvely gave guilty priests the benefit of the doubt or was simply ignorant of the extent of their wrongdoings. “Mass child rape” is certainly not a fitting expression for atrocities committed by 1% of priests, but I certainly agree that the pope should have done more. I don’t think he was perfect by any means.

By referring to Sinéad as deluded, I was referring primarily to her claim that child abuse is at the root of all the world’s problems, and her belief that she is Catholic despite rejecting the Catholic Church outright. I get the impression that you’re intelligent enough not to espouse those positions.

I’ve missed you guys, LOL.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

It is a pic of Sinead O Connor when she tore apart the pic of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live.

Ah. It makes me sad more than anything, that people would think that way about such a holy pope and about the Church. I wasn’t familiar with that particular incident on SNL, so I looked it up and watched part of an interview with Sinéad. What a deluded human being. It’s terrible that she had to suffer abuse as a child, though. It sounds like that was the main source of her attitude towards the Church.

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

Good to see you all too! Life’s been treating me pretty well. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying year one of ten of seminary (speaking of which, I’m probably better able to answer questions about my faith than I have been before). I’ve also got yet another sibling on the way (brother number five). Oh, and I finally got to leave Canada for the first time a couple months ago. So there’s not a whole lot I can reasonably complain about.

Well, I’ll take quality over a shorter wait-time any day of the week.