Sign In

RicOlie_2

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
6-Jun-2013
Last activity
7-Dec-2018
Posts
5892
Web Site
N/A

Post History

Post
#1242092
Topic
Religion
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I am quite prepared to commit to celibacy, and would very much not want to marry and be a priest (waaay too much work, and the stress of having to devote oneself to both a family and a parish would be unbelievable).

The Pastor of my church seems to manage ok with both a family and the church to take care of.

Being a Protestant pastor is a job. Being a priest is a vocation. A (decent) priest doesn’t have set working hours. He should be free to go to the hospital in an emergency in the middle of the night. He should be free to run ministries in the evenings with his parishioners and do house visits. He says Mass at least once a day and is always available to hear confessions. He devotes himself entirely to his parishioners. There is simply no comparison between the job description of a Protestant pastor and a Catholic priest.

Post
#1241467
Topic
Religion
Time

I should also ask for some (scientific) evidence that there is a relation to celibacy and child abuse. There are many sex abusers that are married or have some other access to sexual pleasure besides their criminal behaviour, and there are many, many people who have been happily celibate throughout history. I’d be willing to accept that forced celibacy might be an issue, but it’s frankly ridiculous to say that celibacy is “forced” on Catholic priests. No one’s making them become priests…

Post
#1241466
Topic
Religion
Time

Possessed said:

I still don’t even understand it, the Bible doesn’t call for it being necessary so why torture yourself when God doesn’t require or expect you to. Clearly it does more harm than good. In fact I don’t even see what the benefit would be.

I must admit, the word “torture” made me snicker a little. I certainly don’t feel tortured! Nor do I get the impression that any of the priests I know feel that way.

But see my response to MFM. And if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. As someone who is (willingly and gladly) preparing for lifelong celibacy, I couldn’t disagree more with you, and have plenty to say on the benefits of celibacy (and trust me, I haven’t been brainwashed, LOL).

Post
#1241464
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

It involves a minority of Catholics, but a majority of the Church’s most powerful officials are complicit at least.

Citation? I highly doubt that’s the case. I’m not sure how much you know about the way the Church works, but bishops are pretty autonomous, so the way they deal with issues is pretty localized.

It’s official policy to handle them internally rather than approaching the police, and by “handle” I mean relocate the offender to a new, unsuspecting parish. In the United States, and most civilized countries, abetting a felon is also a crime. I’m arguing for the religious institutions to be dismantled because of their crimes. If it turned out that JCPenney’s was doing this, then there’d be no debate over shutting down the corporation and arresting those responsible.

Where is this official policy? The reports that are coming out address incidents that have happened over the last 70-or-so years. Things have changed quite a bit in the last two or three decades. In most of Canada, I believe it has been official policy since the '80s to report things to the police.

As for repression vs. integration or whatever, that just sounds like Newspeak to me.

Well it’s not. We get professional psychologists to come in and talk to us about this stuff. It’s science. And I can personally attest, and can attest for many other seminarians and priests, that we are not even remotely repressed. I am quite prepared to commit to celibacy, and would very much not want to marry and be a priest (waaay too much work, and the stress of having to devote oneself to both a family and a parish would be unbelievable). There is an incredible freedom that comes from proper sexual integration and self-mastery, and it is possible to do.

Post
#1240865
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

All four of those causes seem like reason enough to me to shut down the Catholic Church. They also don’t account for the systematic cover ups.

Your #5 point confuses me. Them unhealthily repressing their urges is in accordance with the Catholic religion. How is that not, at least in part, the fault of the Church?

That’s ridiculous, because (a) most of these problems aren’t nearly as present or relevant anymore, and (b) they don’t represent flaws in the religion, they represent flaws in policy. Reform is needed, not the dismantling of a religion. Furthermore, although a significant minority was involved, it was only a minority.

Unhealthily repressing urges is not part of the Catholic religion. We are told over and over again in the seminary that repressing our sexuality is extremely unhealthy, and living a celibate life requires integrating our sexuality* into our lives in a psychologically healthy manner. It might sound like repression, but it is far from it.

  • Sexuality is much broader than sexual drive, so we also aren’t being told in the least to give in to sexual urges.
Post
#1240806
Topic
Religion
Time

I think there are a few things to consider:

  1. Looking at the Church globally, there are comparable rates of abuse in many cases in other institutions, and just in general. Huge numbers of people have been sexually abused (in the States, statistics suggest one in every five girls and one in twenty boys, and 28% of youth by the age of 17: see link).

  2. In certain regions, the rate of abuse in the Church seems higher than average. There were groups of priests who would systematically abuse children, and bishops were sometimes part of these groups. So there is/was definitely a real and extraordinary problem in some areas of the world.

  3. There was often an attitude in the Catholic Church that such sins were the result of a one-time temptation and that once the perpetrator of the crime had reconciled with God and the Church, promising to reform himself, there was no reason to disbelieve him, and he could continue his ministry.

  4. It used to be a lot easier than it is now to get through seminary and become a priest. Rigorous screening and psychological examinations were not required of seminarians.

  5. Gay Catholic men would often become priests rather than reject their faith or marry a woman they were not attracted to. Seminary formation did not include lessons on the dangers of sexual repression, so many gay men made it into the priesthood with little ability to master their sexual urges. Priests were well respected, and thus many straight men also became priests for the wrong reasons, and were not always able to control their sexual instinct after a while. This accounts in large part for the 50% of abuse cases in which the victims had reached or finished puberty. The abusers were men who broke down under pressure after a while and gave into temptation, since they unhealthily repressed their sexual desires.

  6. In the other 50% of cases in which the victims were pre-pubescent, the explanation that most readily comes to mind is that pedophiles would naturally have been attracted to the priesthood. After all, who would have been among the most trusted members of any community before the sex scandals? The parish priest. Becoming a priest gave ready and frequent access to children, and put one in a position of authority over them, making it unlikely for one to get caught.

Thus, the abuse scandals in the Church seem to me to be the result of (a) poor seminary formation, (b) poor screening of potential priests, © misguided mercy and forgiveness, and (d) already evil men entering the priesthood with the intent of abusing the accompanying privileges.

Post
#1239985
Topic
Religion
Time

“The Church hierarchy” is a bit of a generalization. There are plenty of places in the world (such as where I live) where calling the police is and has been the official policy for some time. It’s currently also the policy to immediately remove a priest from ministry if he’s been accused of abuse. So it isn’t as if the entire hierarchy of the Church has decided to pretend everything’s OK and brush sexual abuse under the rug. The reality is that in some regions, corruption is very widespread and pervasive, and in others, it’s almost nonexistent. No one’s praising the non-corrupt members of the hierarchy in the media, however, because they’re expected to not be corrupt and evil. Every priest and cleric I know is deeply wounded by and angry at the sexual abuse that is rife in the Church.

Post
#1239718
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

“Oh, that’s just typical of any institution. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along… Please?”

In seriousness, I think there’s a solid argument for the Catholic Church being federally dismantled. I think it can be considered a crime ring at this point.

The Catholic Church is primarily made up of lay people, not priests. And I have a lot of hope in the quality of modern seminaries (the 60s to 90s produced countless unbelievably terrible priests). You’re right though, the Church has a serious problem. If any of those priests can’t be prosecuted civilly for some reason, a bread and water fast and solitary confinement in a monastery somewhere should be imposed on them for the rest of their lives. That’s more like how the Church used to deal with them.

Post
#1233964
Topic
The Historical Discussion Thread: All Discussion Pertaining to History is Welcome (Formerly Also: "Historical Events Corresponding to the Current Date; Posted Throughout 2014")
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I was thinking the other day about how this year is the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.

Dang, would have never thought of that.

Amazing how time flies though. 😉

Did any of your children fight in the war, Frink?

Post
#1220869
Topic
Religion
Time

Right, but I doubt the Vatican not doing enough has to do with popes not caring. It’s more likely that John Paul II was unaware of the scale of abuse or was in denial about it due to shock or belief that it was overexaggerated. I’m not saying the Church couldn’t have handled it better, but I don’t think it’s so black and white either. There are many other pressing concerns the Vatican has, so it left local bishops to deal with sexual offenders. The failure to deal with the problem lay more with those bishops far more than it did with the Vatican.

Post
#1220678
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:
There are bad apples, and a handful that merit a far harsher term, but what do you expect from human beings? There are also many saints and inspiring examples among their ranks.

I actually have pretty high expectations of human beings, even though I know I shouldn’t. That’s why I get so angry at them all the time. I don’t like the “bad apples” argument. When there’s a problem that is wide-spread in an organization, I consider every member of the organization that stands by and does nothing to be complicit. Just like all American cops that play the middle ground and don’t condemn wholeheartedly every single instance of police brutality are complicit in the problem.

Every Catholic I’ve ever talked to about this vehemently condemns sexual abuse. There is mandatory training for volunteers in my diocese for dealing with situations of possible sex abuse. I don’t see a whole lot of problems in this area where I live. The problem isn’t as widespread as many make it out to be. There are areas in the world where it’s a horrific problem and many others where it really isn’t an issue.

Post
#1220570
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

Let me be clear here: I have no personal disdain for Catholicism. I just don’t belong to it. To me, again, they are brothers and sisters in Christ. So nevermind the differences.

But I will say this… When I went to Eureka Springs, Arkansas with my wife and her family, and we visited The Thorncrown Chapel there, it was pretty. The building and surrounding nature was nice. But when I visited St. Elizabeth Catholic Church, it was amazing. I could… feel something in the church there. Something tangible. It was like the Spirit was there, in that place, despite it being empty. I didn’t want to leave. I genuinely felt in that moment like I could have sat in that pew all day and just been in His presence. My family wanted to do other things that afternoon, and it made me sad to leave. It made me think about Aslan in the Narnia novel Prince Caspian where he tells Lucy she should have gone to him even despite her siblings’ protestations of not seeing him anywhere.

It was only days later when I mentioned my experience that my family admitted feeling similarly. My wife says the next time we go back, we will go there and just be for a while.

Thank you for sharing that. I do think I’m perhaps overemphasizing our differences when I should be focusing on similarities. But then there wouldn’t be much of a debate, would there? ;P

I feel strongly about the need for unity in matters of doctrine, but I can also appreciate your own desire for unity in a different way. I think the two need to be balanced, but I respect your thoughts on the matter.

Post
#1220569
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I simply love a good debate and mainly out of curiosity am trying to understand why you don’t find the Catholic position convincing.

Because I value believer’s baptism by immersion; I don’t care much for liturgical recitation (because at some point the words become rote rather than genuine); I believe in the priesthood of the believer (1 Peter 2:9); and I’m happy with the autonomy accorded to my local church.

I won’t address all your points unless you want me to, because I’m short on time, but there are a couple points I wanted to make:

While I think what you say about liturgical prayer is often the case, I find I enter into liturgical prayers more and more when I make the effort to do so and they become more meaningful to me the more familiar I become with them and the realities of my faith that they reference. I do agree that personal prayer is extremely important, however, and has not been emphasized enough in the Church.

I appreciate your cordial responses. If only I came across that way all the time…

You may be interested to know that Catholics also believe in the priesthood of the believer (usually called the “Baptismal priesthood” as distinct from the better known “ministerial priesthood”):

http://www.catholiclane.com/the-baptismal-priesthood/

Among other things.

I also really see no value in having a Pope. I can talk to God as easily as he can. He is a teacher, and as a teacher he is held to a higher standard (James 3), but my local church doesn’t need to answer to a denominational administrative body.

Catholics don’t believe that we need the Pope to talk to God for us. Everyone can and should do that. We believe that he is Christ’s representative on earth, it’s true, but he is not somehow a “superhuman,” and his authority is not absolute. Its purpose it to preserve the unity of the Church and to provide guidance to all its members.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXvvNjYN50

That’s a beautiful video, and I wish his words applied to more Catholic parishes. It is very true of the Church as a whole, however. People of all kinds are united in the Body of Christ through baptism and it’s a wonderful thing.

 
JEDIT: Apparently, Baptists’ practice of believer’s baptism and Communion/The Lord’s Supper, are referred to as “ordinances” instead of “sacraments”. That is, we do so in obedience to Christ’s command and in following His example. I have personally been taught that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. If Catholics hold to sacrements as “an outward sign of an inward grace” (according to the wiki entry on Sacrements), I’m not sure how that is different. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable about it.

I think, though I could be wrong, that the Baptist belief is more along the lines of “baptism is an expression of a change that has occurred within oneself,” whereas in Catholicism, it’s more like "baptism is an outward sign (water and the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”) accompanied by an inward change (remission of original sin, incorporation into the Body of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit).

It’s also noteworthy that the Church teaches that the graces of baptism and the other sacraments are not necessarily received by the recipient of the sacrament. A proper disposition is required for this, and thus an infant who is baptized must be raised in the faith and accept it as their own in order to fully receive the graces of the sacrament.

Post
#1220565
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

No concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? What about the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.? Jesus’ existence is just as well attested as many other historical figures of the time.

Not really. The gospels were written much later than he was supposed to have lived. Definitely long enough later that there’s no reason to believe they are quoting him verbatim. And there’s definitely no historical documentation that would point towards those documents being credible. I’m not sure what historical figures you’re talking about so I can’t attest to that.

I’m referring to most historical figures who weren’t kings or something similar. I can’t think of a lot of good examples because there simply aren’t many non-Biblical people from the first century or so who are well known. But Pontius Pilate is only known, aside from one partial inscription, from the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 75-95), and Philo (died c. 50). This isn’t much different from Jesus, who is attested in the Epistles of Paul (c. 50-60), the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 93), and Tacitus (c. 115). There is a fringe theory that Jesus did not exist, but it seems to stem more from an implicit desire to disprove Christianity than from genuinely wanting to reconstruct history.

The “fringe” theory that he didn’t exist is largely just a theory that he didn’t exist in the form that the Bible describes him as. This could be said about pretty much all of the Old Testament Kings too.

No, that’s the mainstream theory. The fringe theory that he didn’t actually exist is what I thought you were referring to and is known as the “Christ Myth Theory.” The Old Testament histories fall into the genre of ancient history, so I don’t have much of a problem accepting that they are probably not factually inerrant.

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma of Juan Diego

There are images that look like certain things appearing in everything. I just googled around a found examples of chicken nuggets shaped like Abe Lincoln. What about the “face on Mars”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

Doesn’t anyone believe in coincidence anymore? If we’re taking all of these as literal divine interventions just because they look like something or because someone claimed it happened, then you have to accept all other similar claims made by other religious people or even nonreligious people or you’d be intellectually dishonest. My brother claims to have seen a ghost in our childhood apartment. Was that apartment haunted? What makes him less credible than eye-witnesses to other such apparitions?

Images looking like certain things certainly doesn’t apply to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Tilma of Juan Diego, unless you’re referring to details in the eyes, etc. As for the Shroud of Turin, this certainly doesn’t hold true (see here for a detailed forensic examination of the shroud). The carbon dating to the 14th century is more convincing. I had thought that had been explained away, but I guess the argument that thousands of people fingering the shroud contaminated it may not hold water after all.

I suspect most so-called visions and apparitions are fake (which is why the Church doesn’t typically approve them), but I am willing to accept that some ghost sightings could potentially have a supernatural nature. I also think it’s possible to imagine things or to hallucinate.

Then why believe these specific miracles. It sounds like an implicit desire to prove Christianity.

For the same reason I believe anything else. Because of the evidence for their authenticity.

the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano…

How could you possibly say that a priest 1300 years ago claiming to have found flesh in his eucharist is a scientifically inexplicable miracle? I guess if we had any reason to believe that it actually happened, it’d be a scientifically inexplicable miracle. But there are people every day that claim to have meetings with aliens, or Elvis. Do you believe them? I have a theory about the miracle of Lanciano: the guy lied. Or at best was totally mistaken.

It was scientifically analyzed by Dr. Odoardo Linoli and found to have not decayed despite not containing preservatives or being in a hermeneutically sealed container, and, like in other Eucharistic miracles, the blood type is AB, among other things. Now, the text of the study is unfortunately not freely available, so I can’t personally attest to its validity. But I certainly can’t dismiss it off-hand.

I can dismiss it off-hand because I know that bread and wine can’t turn into flesh and blood. That’s just how reality is.

Of course it can’t on its own. But if an all-powerful God exists, he can do whatever the heck he wants with matter. You’re looking at it with the assumption that a personal God does not exist, whereas I am looking at it as possible evidence for the existence of such a God (and specifically the Christian God).

The universe has no explicable origin without God. Matter doesn’t just spontaneously generate itself. Not to mention the unliklihood of life simply coming to be through a chemical reaction of some kind. The fact that you believe these things occurred is itself an example of faith without concrete evidence.

Where’d God come from? Why doesn’t he need an origin, but the universe does? And I don’t “believe” in anything. That’s something you’ve attributed to me. I don’t know how the universe came into being. Haven’t claimed to, don’t plan on it. Not to mention, even if I granted that a god was a necessity, that grants no credibility to any particular religion.

God doesn’t need an origin because he is being itself, and is immaterial. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I made a presumption which I thought was fair, but clearly wasn’t.

Why does he not need an origin? The Bible, at least in the old testament (and even in the new now that I think about it, given Christ’s humanity), describes him as pretty material and tangible.

Because he is the source of all existence; he is being itself. He is not simply “a (really powerful) being.” He is Being, and doesn’t make sense for Being to have an origin beyond itself.

In the Old Testament, he wasn’t described as material and tangible, but rather attributed anthropomorphic characteristics at times and apparently described as appearing under more substantial forms sometimes. In the New Testament, it’s quite clear that he isn’t material and tangible, but that he took on a human nature.

Church corruption was no greater than any other organization in history. It should have been far less, of course. However, if you were to look only at those Catholics who have actually tried to live out their faith, I suspect you will see very little corruption.

I have higher expectations for God’s representatives on earth and there are plenty of irreligious people that have been just as great as Catholics that have tried to live out their faith. And it’s definitely not true that it’s no more corrupt than any other organization in history. What, is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union as corrupt? What about SETI? Or the Free Masons? How are you gauging the level of corruption?

Are any of these plentiful irreligious people as great as the saints?

I’d argue yes. Even if they were more flawed, I’d say that the accomplishments of people like Eleanor Roosevelt, Churchill, Earl Warren, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, John Adams, Carl Sagan––just a few people that randomly came to my head––and many others have far greater accomplishments and inspired or helped a lot more people than saints like Mother Theresa. I know some of those examples had to claim affiliation with religion in order to survive politically during their respective times, but they weren’t particularly devout and none were Catholic. I’m sure you won’t consider them as great as the saints, but I don’t consider spreading Catholicism or the word of God to be a virtue, so I have much greater respect for people who helped, advocated for, or educated others (which is why I included Sagan) for irreligious reasons. Also, people can do great services without engaging in hands-on charity. Earl Warren protected the rights of tens of millions of Americans as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which directly helped a lot more people than even the most charitable saints.

Fair enough. We’re arguing from completely different points of view, so clearly we will never agree on this.

I suppose I wasn’t very clear when talking about corruption, so my claim isn’t very meaningful. When I think of corruption, I’m thinking in more religious terms, where it can refer to any sort of immorality.

I don’t care much about morality unless there’s hypocrisy involved. Like caring about the sanctity of life and then opposing condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. I would actually be less frustrated by an institution opposing AIDS prevention if it didn’t claim to value the sanctity of life.

In fact, what I should have said is “individual Catholics are no more likely to be living immoral lives than anyone else, and in fact those who actually attempt to live out their faith are far less likely to be doing so,” or “corruption in the Catholic Church is not disproportionate to the amount of wealth and prestige it has enjoyed.”

The wealth and prestige is a big part of why I consider it to be a fraudulent organization, frankly. I don’t recall Jesus Christ or any of his followers living in anything other than poverty. There’s a sound biblical argument to be made that Christ was opposed to the accumulation of wealth at all, if we’re taking the gospels for what they are.

I agree that the wealth and prestige of many Church officials (and aristocratic laymen) throughout history is scandalous. I don’t see that as evidence that the Catholic Church is fraudulent, however, but rather as an indication of the unwillingness of many of its members to truly embrace its teachings. Most Catholics are just as much in need of conversion as anyone else. As far as Jesus’ teaching goes, I agree that he encouraged literal (voluntary) poverty. He would have, and I believe will, condemn many popes and bishops just as strongly as he condemned the pharisees. The Church realized early on, however, that private property was a necessary evil, although a Christian should still live simply and not extravagently.

What is important, and this seems clear from Jesus’ teachings as well, is a spirit of poverty (“Blessed are the poor in spirit…”), i.e. a detachment from material things and by implication, a willingness to generously share what one has. In the story of the rich young man, at least one of the gospels reports that “[Jesus] loved him” when the young man recounted his faithfulness to the commandments. Jesus then counselled him that if he wanted to be perfect, then he should go and sell all that he had and give it to the poor. This implies that a certain degree of poverty is necessary for perfection and sanctity, but that one can follow the commandments well and still have material wealth. If my family gave up all our possessions and gave to those poorer than us, we would soon be living on the street. It simply isn’t practicable for everyone to live in poverty.

The truth of the matter is that there is no other comparable institution on earth. You mention the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, but that was never a potential means of power as becoming a clergyman in the Catholic Church once was. The same applies to Freemasonry. SETI does not have any bearing on one’s personal life. Any number of other organizations have either been relatively short-lived, do not require any moral commitments from their members, do not offer opportunities for power and wealth (this comes with size and prestige).

You didn’t make that distinction, but even still, most governments or governmental institutions in the western world aren’t as morally corrupt as the Catholic Church has been. It’s interaction with the Nazi Party, the child sex abuse coverups, and moral hypocrisy on abortion and birth control are just a few examples of issues that, while awful on their own, I find to be much more egregious coming from such a pious institution.

I certainly don’t see that. Governments are corrupt even on provincial and state levels (it’s a matter of course, in Canada, at least, for government workers to be paid to do things like going golfing, and of course there are many more serious examples to be found). Support for euthanasia, abortion, and complete disregard for the sacredness of human sexuality are just a few of the examples that are indicative of a general moral bankruptcy in the governments of the Western World. You mention that the Church is somehow hypocritical in condemning these things. How so?

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to regarding the Nazis. Why did Nazis target Catholic priests if the Church was complaisant towards the regime? I suggest you read at least the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on the subject to get a more balanced view of the Church’s response to Nazism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

Pope Pius XII is credited with doing more than any other world leader to save Jews, and in fact the chief rabbi in Rome, Israel Zolli, converted to Catholicism after the war at least partly because of his efforts and that of other Church leaders.

Sex abuse coverups are often due to corruption, though sometimes they are simply due to cowardice or misplaced “mercy.” It is unfortunate that the problem was as severe as it was in certain countries, but it is a minority of clergy who are culpable. Most Catholic clergymen that I’ve met are wonderful people. There are bad apples, and a handful that merit a far harsher term, but what do you expect from human beings? There are also many saints and inspiring examples among their ranks.