quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, the Anglican Church does look tempting from time to time. Almost. Not quite the same thing. It is probably more likely that the American (and Canadian and some of Western Europe) would split.
I agree that schism is a more likely than mass conversion. I also agree that the churches aren't the same thing, but they are incredibly similar to the extent that the Pope has allowed this mass conversion.
I was also more thinking about you, specifically.
What specific things cause you to be attached to the Catholic church rather rather than the Anglican church and why do you think you would not be allowed to carry those over (if you do indeed think that)?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. Figuring out what one believes is true is not the same as buying a car.
Those people are only part of the Church.
You have already made that argument. I told you why I disagreed. Move on.
What are you talking about? If you cited what I actually wrote, that would be a lot fairer.
Are you disavowing this argument:
quote:"I get to choose. When there is no compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence to the contrary - and there can be none either way for the existence of God as I define God - I get to choose. Yay! I choose good stuff.
Not so yay for the people who choose less good stuff. I don't understand those people. Nor do I understand the people who don't know that they choose. Of course we do."
I don't see where figuring out what is true fits into that equation. We fallible humans have no methods at all for finding absolutely certain truths. We have good tools of finding false claims, but you have said in no uncertain terms that those tools are inappropriate for religious use. You yourself posted an article about the Papacy being wrong about something for 300 years. What reason do you have to think that you will be better at it than God's vicar on earth?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I don't have a link to it, but if your email is available, I will send you a pdf of the forward to Garry Wills's book that explains it perfectly for me.
ETA: You, too, swbarnes, if you are interested.
ETA Again: This might be interesting. I don't agree with him about all of it and I wasn't raised Catholic, but lots of it is true for me. Breaking bread, Sacrament and sacrament, telling the stories, communion.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't agree with him about all of it and I wasn't raised Catholic, but lots of it is true for me. Breaking bread, Sacrament and sacrament, telling the stories, communion.
Sure, but the guy admits that if he'd been born to Protestant parents, he'd probably be doing the same thing in a Protestant church.
I respect the honesty of that assesment, but it undermines the whole point of his argument. Since his real answer to "Why I'm a Catholic" is "because I was born to it", the rest is all fluff, after-the-fact justification and rationalization.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, I thought you might appreciate this – I came across a quote today from a book by two Catholic theologians suggesting that the image “body of Christ” might not be helpful anymore, since it has become associated in the Christian West with the idea of a “body politic” and the organization of a monarchical state. Better, they suggest, to think of the church as “the pilgrim people of God.”
It was by Karl Rahner and some guy named Ratzinger, maybe you’ve heard of him?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Far be it from me to contradict anyone named Ratzinger, but "pilgrim people of God' misses the point. At least for me. Less "monarchial-ness would be good, though. I can see the "body/head" issue being problematic - if we start thinking of anyone but Christ as the head. "Pilgrim people" may all be going the same way, but they are not one. It allows for some getting there without the others.
When was it written? Before Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed to head the Inquisition?
And I am attached to "Body of Christ". Did I ever tell you my "mass on MLK day after my first peace protest story"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I think the system of priests in the Catholic Church needs to fundamentally change is because this is proof that it is fundamentally broken. It is a deep, embedded pattern of corruption that reaches churchwide and affects all levels. I'm not talking about the rapes - although that's horrible on its own - but about the continual and unapologetic cover ups. As an organization, the professional clergy have betrayed their trust and their mission and are placing self preservation above their responsibilities. It is fundamentally corrupt, and that system needs to be dismantled.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ETA Again: This might be interesting. I don't agree with him about all of it and I wasn't raised Catholic, but lots of it is true for me. Breaking bread, Sacrament and sacrament, telling the stories, communion.
This is a very starge use of the word "true", even allowing for the nonsense of "true for me", for which usage a rational state would impose therapy. In what sense is breaking bread or telling stories "true"? (I take it you do not mean that you believe in the factual truth of the stories.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual, Eddie, you appear to think I have something to prove to you. I don't. Nor does kmbboots, however much that might distress you.
quote:You may not have noticed but the Vatican has changed or at least is in the process of changing the policy on this. Change, due to pressure from good priests and from the laity.
This basically sums it up. This is probably - I'm just taking a wild guess here, as she's said it like a dozen times now - one of the reasons kmbboots considers herself a Catholic. And, y'know, however baffling I personally think some of the conclusions she comes to are, and I really do, she can tell you herself, she's at least as well informed as you are about Catholic theology and society.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The reason I think the system of priests in the Catholic Church needs to fundamentally change is because this is proof that it is fundamentally broken. It is a deep, embedded pattern of corruption that reaches churchwide and affects all levels. I'm not talking about the rapes - although that's horrible on its own - but about the continual and unapologetic cover ups. As an organization, the professional clergy have betrayed their trust and their mission and are placing self preservation above their responsibilities. It is fundamentally corrupt, and that system needs to be dismantled.
The LDS church has had their share of lawsuits alleging the same sort of behavior and cover ups. So I'm not sure the cause can be blamed on professional clergy.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, I don't have a link to it, but if your email is available, I will send you a pdf of the forward to Garry Wills's book that explains it perfectly for me.
Emailed (does this forum use PMs? I could have sworn it did but I can't find it)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: The LDS church has had their share of lawsuits alleging the same sort of behavior and cover ups.
When you say "their share", do you really mean a proportional share in relation to its size, or do you just mean "some"?
--
Also, Katie didn't seem to be blaming it on having professional clergy at all, but to the existing organization.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Also, Katie didn't seem to be blaming it on having professional clergy at all, but to the existing organization.
I disagree. Katie has -- several times in this thread alone -- claimed that a large part of the problem comes from having professional clergy at the local level.
To me, this sounds like, "Your church would have fewer problems if it were more like mine." *shrug*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Also, Katie didn't seem to be blaming it on having professional clergy at all, but to the existing organization.
I disagree. Katie has -- several times in this thread alone -- claimed that a large part of the problem comes from having professional clergy at the local level.
To me, this sounds like, "Your church would have fewer problems if it were more like mine." *shrug*
It was sounding that way, yes. Politely, but yes. LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exactly. And then if one can agree that 'no, at that point you've gone too far and you can't claim to be a Catholic' then that means that there exists somewhere along that continuum a point at which you cannot claim to be a Catholic.
Certainly. And you're saying that kmbboots has crossed that point...evidence for which you point out that claiming Muhammed is the true prophet of God is not a Catholic thing to say.
Hardly compelling, Samprimary.
HAVE i actually said that kmbboots has crossed that point?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forget the religious boosterism. Earlier I wondered what could possibly be the motivation for the continued culture of cover up. I have decided that the motivation for it doesn't matter - what matters is whether it is inherent, endemic, and intolerable. From the evidence, it seems that it is. Time to do something about it.
My point is that the professional priests system there is fundamentally corrupt, in that it favors the reputation and lives of the priests over the parishioners. This corruption goes up and down all levels. If the professional priests system can't fulfill their fundamental responsibilities, then they don't get that responsibility.
Once power is used to protect the powerholders instead for its intended purpose - succor and sustain the parishoners - then that power is invalid. Part of the problem is this idea that once a priest, always a priest, and nothing can take that away - no matter how much one abuses the trust placed in him, he will always be super special and more deserving of the care of the church that the people he was entrusted to care for.
That's a messed up system, underpinned fundamentally by this idea of creating super-special people that are above the law and more deserving of concern.
Kate, you say that the Pope isn't the church, and that the priests are not the church. Since it is that system that is abusing the church, you can do away with it and the church will remain.
----
If that's too extreme, how about this: infractions by priests are handled by lay boards. Chruch courts are made up of the laity and are able to defrock priests, remove men from office, and cancel the priesthood of those who have done egregious offense that prove them unworthy to hold it. Priests in general must have a license from the lay boards that is up for renewal every five years or so. Where to report priest misbehavior? Not the people who have a vested interest in protecting the status quo and their jobs, but instead to a system of lay boards, who have the power to remove priests from office.
Think of them as the justice system of the church - not making doctrine, and not carrying out the day-to-day operations, but a desperately needed check against corruption.
posted
A priest doesn't always have to be a priest. There are methods to make them not. The problem is those methods aren't used.
While my religions does lay members as leaders and I can understand the reasons, I think that sometimes it is a very harsh and demanding situation. We expect our church leaders to work full time jobs and then come home and do an additional extremely emotional demanding part time job. We are all about family and then we demand local leaders to nearly abandon theirs for several years. We also expect untrained individuals to act as counselors, esp marriage, but in many cases they are the first contact in cases of abuse and other issues. Without training, it is very easy to do a lot more damage than good in some situations.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:A priest doesn't always have to be a priest. There are methods to make them not. The problem is those methods aren't used.
Exactly. Things could be better. However, they are not - they are fundamentally, deeply, endemically, and at all levels broken. The current system, whatever its Platonic ideal may be capable of, is broken in its implementation. If something should work and doesn't, then it doesn't work. If what it is supposed to do truly matters, then get another system.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the priesthood is important. Ordination is a Sacrament and that is important. Sacraments aren't "undone". However, you are absolutely right when you write that, "Once power is used to protect the powerholders instead for its intended purpose - succor and sustain the parishioners - then that power is invalid. Part of the problem is this idea that once a priest, always a priest, and nothing can take that away - no matter how much one abuses the trust placed in him, he will always be super special and more deserving of the care of the church that the people he was entrusted to care for."
The idea that priests are more deserving of care than their parishioners is a big part of the problem. And I would (obviously) have no problem with the Pope being merely the bishop of Rome. That was the case in the early Church.
You will be pleased to know that one of the reforms brought about by the exposure of this crisis is the insistence that laity be involved in investigation of priest misconduct.
ETA: As a reminder, only about 4-6% of priests are offenders. The huge majority are good men who have devoted their lives to their faith.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... I will send you a pdf of the forward to Garry Wills's book that explains it perfectly for me.
For the record, after reading the forward I found a cleaner version at Google Books. The forward appears to be a part of the free preview here http://twurl.nl/68orn3
quote:ETA: As a reminder, only about 4-6% of priests are offenders. The huge majority are good men who have devoted their lives to their faith.
Child abuse is terrible, and, unfortunately, very hard to prevent when someone hasn't acted yet. You can definitely put in precautions (two adults whenever there is a child without a present, like the Boy Scouts do), and those are essential. It is not, however, the child abuse that makes me think the system is broken. As was pointed out elsewhere, that happens, horrifyingly, all over the place.
It is the response. It isn't the original offenses, but the cover ups. The years of cover ups. The deep, willfully blind cover ups that allowed the offense to keep happening, over and over. It is the cover ups that show the system is corrupt. 4-6% of priests sounds like a LOT, but it may or may not be the same as the general population of adults. But the pervasive culture of silence and protection for the offenders - that is the avoidable horror here.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks! I was just coming here to post it. Was it helpful?
It was helpful in understanding your POV. I still have objections though. I'm just not terribly motivated to pursue Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
At least I hope that the two articles have demonstrated that my viewpoint regarding the Pope and his role in Catholicism is a fairly common Catholic viewpoint.
posted
Yes, but this is hardly news from a Canadian POV. Quebec Catholics have been even more visible in their objection to papal authority in the examples of Prime Ministers Trudeau, Chretien, and Martin.
What I was curious was about the reasoning that you couldn't simply become an Anglican and carry over those elements of ritual that you find compelling from Catholicism (as the inverse of the Pope allowing Anglicans to carry over Anglican rituals).
The line of argument outlined in the forward is that if you assume that the Catholic church is the "true" church, then it is a sin to convert (since it is a form of saying that the church is wrong), a sin to leave the community of Catholics, and that merger with other churches like the Anglican church must be done on a church-level and not on an individual level.
The reason I don't want to pursue, is that this line of reasoning has almost no overlap with arguments based on how effective or how moral the system of the church is. Effectively, the priests, bishops, and pope could be the meanest and most criminal people on Earth, but the Catholic church would still be the "true" church and those arguments would still apply.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not explicitly, no.
Right, which is good, since that's not in my intent. I'm picking at the the inclusive self-analysis logic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I was just saying that using a ridiculous outlier example isn't very compelling, that's all. There's plenty of meat on the bone without going crazy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What I was curious was about the reasoning that you couldn't simply become an Anglican and carry over those elements of ritual that you find compelling from Catholicism (as the inverse of the Pope allowing Anglicans to carry over Anglican rituals).
Kate already responded to the "consumer commodity" aspect of this line of reasoning, but I also feel compelled to point out that you're suggesting to an American that she join a church headed by the Queen of England. It just struck me as kind of funny. I mean, they kind of had this Revolution thing to get away from the monarchy, you know?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Documents reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 1990, members of a church tribunal found that the Rev. Michael Teta in Arizona had molested children and deemed his behaviour — including allegations he abused two boys in a confessional — almost “satanic.”
The tribunal referred his case to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would become pope in 2005. But it took 12 years from the time Ratzinger assumed control of the case in a signed letter until Teta was formally removed from ministry, a step only the Vatican can take.
As abuse cases with the pontiff’s fingerprints mushroom, Teta’s case and that of another Arizona priest cast further doubt on the church’s insistence that the future pope played no role in shielding pedophiles.
posted
No, when I posted it the article was about the comparison to Jewish oppression, but the AP has updated the story and used the same link. grumble grumble...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're more likely to be molested by a little league coach than a priest.
Muslim's are less than one percent of the US population. There were approximately 90 domestic Islamic terror arrests last year, in the United States. Christians are 80% of the population. The nine crazy christian militia members get more coverage than the 90 domestic Jihadists.
Think about the percentages within the group, not what the media hold's up as examples to defame the group.
posted
I do wonder, though, Javert...would you be so quick to remember that truth if a Catholic priest were arrested for child molestation?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do wonder, though, Javert...would you be so quick to remember that truth if a Catholic priest were arrested for child molestation?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I mean, they kind of had this Revolution thing to get away from the monarchy, you know?
