What is the Catholic Church and can it be trusted?

[Old_alum]

On the other board, a thread was locked as inappropriate for that forum.
It was entitled: Does Newark Archdiocese Take SHU Money?

At the end of that thread were three posts that precipitate a discussion which I hope is appropriate for this board: Life Off the Ship:
What is the Catholic Church and can it be trusted?

I shall respond in a new post after I copy the last relevant posts here:

Old Alum


Quote






Old_alum[/B]

Post #1658

Re: Does Newark Archdiocese Take SHU Money?



This thread is an embarrassment for all Seton Hall students and alums.



Most of the posts seem to present opinions as facts. Many go off topic with irrelevant ad hominem attacks --- on both posters and the Church. And much of the logic is specious.



Most posters in this thread seem to be ignorant of their alma mater.



Did any of you take logic at SHU? I know it was a required course in 1967, so Jim should have --- albeit with no sure evidence thereof.



IMHO no good Catholic should ever slander the Church as the result of some criminal priests and/or foolish bishops.



To be a Catholic one must believe that the "Church" represents Christ on earth and that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in matters of Faith and morals, but in matters of Faith and morals only.







There had been many pedophiles inside the Catholic clergy --- as I expect there were and are among the Catholic laymen and among the entire population. These are all criminals who should be punished to the full extent of the criminal laws now --- and as I trust they shall be under God's law hereafter.



But please remember that statistically--- as a percent of the respective populations ---there have been fewer substantiated child molestations inside the Church than inside almost any other religious organization and/or school /scouting system. As we all know, we ALL are sinners, but some have more grievous sins than others.



One should not condemn the US Presidency as an institution just because of the horrible breaches of faith and duty by the Nixons and Clintons who have held the office.



One should not abandon democracy because of the poor choices that the populace has occasionally made to our detriment.





A beauty of these forums is that anyone may post his opinion.



A drawback of these forums is that no one need use sound logic or accurate facts when expressing such opinions.







400SOAVE's OP asked if SHU gives money to the diocese.



In the 4th response in the thread Hallfan1 answered the question categorically: ''The answer is no re money to the AB.''



However, each of the first three responses made off-topic remarks disparaging the Archbishop, highlighting the past pedophile scandal, and/or claiming that ''out of state'' appointments couldn't care less about SHU --- talk about a non sequitur!



The next three responses asked questions or gave opinions as opinions.



Then in the 8th response Catholicman also answered the question directly: ''The Archdiocese gets absolutely nothing from SHU.''

Catholicman then vented a sore point with the unfortunate choice of words ''anyone with half a brain'', when he probably meant ''anyone who has any experience in a large organization of any kind''. That was his bad, which he later admitted.



Shockingly this thread then endured a series of incorrect "facts" {(e.g. Seton Hall is the ''only school in the country that is run by an Archdiocese''; ''SHU does send money to Newark''; the ''State of New Jersey gets a portion of the tuition (paid) to Rutgers''; ''What's the Jesuits' biggest source of income? Tuition!''} as well as specious reasoning {e.g. ''The Catholic church has earned our distrust''} which goes from the particular to the universal.



One poster in this thread went from certain knowledge that Seton Hall does give money to the Archdiocese, to specious logic that it ''must'' give some, to an inapplicable and inaccurate analogue of Jesuit schools, to his own open doubt, to an explanation that the Diocese controls SHU and made it what it is today! Mind-numbing!







Hypothetically, if you were to own some land with some buildings on it and you were to decide to allow some school to operate thereon, should any student of that school have a right to obviate your ownership rights? If you wanted to charge rent, should you be allowed?





The crux of the OP ---- clearly stated later --- is this: ''When I donate money to institution X, I want to know that the money is not going to institution Y.''



That is a legitimate desire and easily clarified with a question to those collecting such donations as to the ways in which the school may use it.



But no one outside any institution has the "right" to know every single funds flow inside said institution. That is just not a fact of life in corporate America.



I know everyone wants SHU basketball to succeed. They want any donations they make to be well spent. They also want a team of all Americans and a coach destined for the hall of fame, but the latter is not realistic.



IMHO it would be helpful if every poster avoided ad hominem attacks, irrelevant garbage-dumping, and specious reasoning……but then this would not be a basketball forum, I guess.



This post was edited on 7/27 8:32 PM by Old_alum



7/27 8:26 PM | IP: Logged





SnakeTom[/B]

ADMIN

Post #15190


Re: Does Newark Archdiocese Take SHU Money?

This thread has gone way off topic.



The original question was does the Archdiocese take money from Seton Hall out of the tuition paid or donations made. The answer is NO it doesn't. If anything it contributes to the costs of running the University. The question was asked and answered.



From that point on there were questions about whether the Archdicese is beneficial or harmfull to the operation of the school plus alot of name calling etc. All off topic and really not the appropriate place for this discussion as this is a SPORTS MESSAGE BOARD.



Tom K



7/27 10:08 PM | IP: Logged



jim34238[/B]

Post #2971


Re: Does Newark Archdiocese Take SHU Money?



Old _Alum



" I think therefore I am" - thanks for the ad hominem!



Also; talk about a lack of logic: "To be a Catholic one must believe that the "Church" represents Christ on earth and that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in matters of Faith and MORALS, but in matters of Faith and MORALS only."





Inquisitions, Magdalene Laundrys, pedophiles, protecting pedophiles, Money laundering, etc. Where is the Holy Spirits' protection from these moral deviations?





This post was edited on 7/28 12:52 AM by jim34238



7/28 12:31 AM | IP: Logged



Hallfan1[/B]

Post #668



Re: Does Newark Archdiocese Take SHU Money?



Jim#'s posts are offensive an uninformed. Here are but a few of the Church's contributions to society: first universities, first hospitals, some of the finest scientists ever, grade school education,etc. The Church was the first significant organization to officially hold women as equals to men (ie, not the Greeks, Romans or Jews).



It is self evident to me that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit as she is the longest surviving institution in human history.As regards members who have violated the Church's teachings, Jesus predicted this and you may recall a former member named Judas who was not a paragon. Jesus also stated that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church.



He clearly has no historical perspective. No doubt that there have been many failings of members of the Church beginning with Judas but these failings are dwarfed by the immeasurable contributions by the Church. The pedophile scandal was terrible but the rate of abuse by public school teachers is higher; 99% of Priests are fine men.



This is a basketball board and this is my last post on the topic.

7/28 2:27 AM | IP: Logged



jim34238[/B]

Post #2972



Re: Does Newark Archdiocese Take SHU Money?



HALLFAN1, This post was highjacked by Catholicman who devieated from the original question and brought animus against the church and personal attacks against myself and others, into the discussion.



To respond to your post, the church has NEVER decalred women as equals and NEVER will until there is the first female priest.



In addition, public school teachers have not dedicated their lives to celibacy and God as Pedophile Priests had...and then you had the cover up, which in my opinion was worse than the original crimes which were perpetrated by men who, I believe , were sick. The bishops and others who covered up for them, were not.

7/28 8:48 AM | IP: Logged



SnakeTom[/B]

ADMIN

Post #15192

Ignore Re: Does Newark Archdiocese Take SHU Money? Reply



Enough already. I'm locking the thread.



TK

7/28 9:37 AM | IP: Logged

Unquote

Does Newark Archdiocese Take SHU Money?

 

[Old_alum]

[/B]

On 7/28 at 12:31 AM jim34238 in his Post #2971 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

" I think therefore I am" - thanks for the ad hominem! [/B]



Unquote:[/B]

[/B]



Jim, I am pleased that you remember some Cartesian epistemology from SHU, but I am confused as to how this relates to your ''thanks for the ad hominem!''[/B] line. Are you implying that I attacked your person in my post? I am sorry you feel that way because I tried diligently to limit my criticism to statements, not posters. If you can show me where I attacked you personally I shall indeed apologize and seek ADMIN permission to delete it. [/B]





[/B]

On 7/28 at 12:31 AM jim34238 in his Post #2971 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

Also; talk about a lack of logic: "To be a Catholic one must believe that the "Church" represents Christ on earth and that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in matters of Faith and MORALS, but in matters of Faith and MORALS only."[/B]

[/B]

Inquisitions, Magdalene Laundrys, pedophiles, protecting pedophiles, Money laundering, etc. Where is the Holy Spirits' protection from these moral deviations?[/B]

[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Jim,



This is an important point that I would like you to consider.



Logic is a discipline for dealing with questions that are not empirical, i.e. are not a question of factual reality. Logic has specific rules of both consistency and causality. A classic form of logical deduction is the Aristotelian syllogism:

If: John is a bachelor.

If: all bachelors are unmarried.

Then: John is unmarried.

There is also logical induction:

If: I have met 10,000 men.

If: Each man I have met had two eyes.

Then, I might infer that: Every man must have two eyes.



While that is logical, unfortunately it is also factually false. Empirical evidence has shown there are men with no, one or---I believe?three eyes.



So a statement does not have to be empirically true to be logical. But it does have to follow the rules of logic.



Now, to your point about Faith and morals. I guess I failed to make my statement clear. The Catholic Church holds that it is infallible in ex Cathedra[/I] teachings[/I] on Faith and morals, not in any other statements --- or in any actions at all, especially ''deviations'', by its constituents. The Church is populated by humans. Humans ''deviate'' or make errors (some are sins under Catholic teachings; some are crimes under governmental codes).



What I am arguing is that the Catholic Church is not identical to any one or subgroup of its clerical or lay members. Such members are parts of the Church but are not sufficient to constitute the Church per se[/I]. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and, to its members, it is protected in its teachings[/I] on Faith and morals[/I] by the Holy Spirit. There is no divine guarantee that its members will act[/I] in line with its teachings[/I].



That said, I believe every member of the Catholic Church has sinned and is, therefore, not perfect. I have learned that some members of the Catholic Church --- indeed some clergy ---have committed crimes. This is tragic and, in fact, damnable. It is also criminal. None of that is an indictment of the Church, itself.



Your list of deviations:

Inquisitions[/B] ? the Spanish Inquisition was a human deviation, and, I believe, a sin. That said, the Inquisition was never ''taught'' by the Catholic Church nor authorized by the Catholic Church (other than conceptually). Popularly, what most refer to as ''The[/I] Inquisition'' is more appropriately named the ''Spanish Inquisition'' and was conceived, designed, and executed by the civil government of Spain after the Moors were expelled from the Iberian Peninsula. The Spanish government did utilize Catholic priests in this program --- mostly Jesuits --- but it was never sanctioned by the Catholic Church per se and, in fact, its methods were for the most part sternly disapproved by the Church.

[/B]

Magdalene Laundrys (sic)[/B]: deplorable human abuse of an admirable concept. The concept was to give refuge and work to ''fallen women'' as laundresses in convents but in some instances the practice devolved into veritable prisons with significant corporeal punishment and psychological abuse. This devolution resulted from humans acting in ways that were definitely against all Catholic teachings of Faith and morals. This is an indictment of humans (see Stanford University 'Prison Experiment"). This is also an indictment of the managers --- clerical and lay ---- of these Irish and English (but not American) institutions who failed to audit conditions and to eliminate these abuses. IMHO it is not an indictment of the Catholic Church per se[/I].



Pedophiles[/B]: All physical abuse of children is deplorable and criminal, as the Catholic Church has always taught. It was Catholic individuals (clerics) who committed these crimes (and sins) not the Church per se[/I]. As stated earlier, all statistical evidence indicates that the incidence rate has been lower among Catholic clergy than among any other religious, educational or scouting groups. The pedophilia among clergy was not an indictment of the Church per se[/I] but of some of its members.



protecting pedophiles[/B]: crimes of passion, like pedophilia, are horrible but the crimes of secretly relocating these sick criminals to unsuspecting parishes is in my mind less forgivable because there was no passion to delude reason. Still, these were crimes of individual Catholics (clergy) and not an indictment of the Church per se[/I].



Money laundering[/B]: this is a so called ''white collar'' crime which, thank God, did not seem to physically or psychologically abuse any individuals, but it was nonetheless both selfish (a sin) and criminal. Again, it was perpetrated by individuals who happened to be Catholics, not by the Church per se[/I].



I am not letting any Catholic off the hook for these or any other crimes. They are all deplorable and should be punished to the full extent of the law. That said, everyone must use his/her conscious brain and not just viscerally associate these criminals as constituting the Catholic Church per se[/I].



When evaluating any group of individuals one must use statistics to evaluate normative[/I][/B] behavior, much as probabilities must be used in quantum physics.



I think you will find it to be almost universal, that those people, institutions and countries which have been Catholic have generally demonstrated norms of behavior more consistently aligned with the goals of liberty, peace and charity.



I shall discuss this in more detail in the next post.

 

[Old_alum]

[/B]

On 7/28 at 8:48 AM jim34238 in his Post #2972 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

HALLFAN1, This post was highjacked by Catholicman who devieated from the original question and brought animus against the church and personal attacks against myself and others, into the discussion.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Jim,



Catholicman was the eighth responder in 400SOAve's thread on SHU & the Archdiocese .



As I highlighted earlier, the first three responses (including one of your own) deviated or, to use your term ''highjacked'' (sic) the thread with statements that I like many others read as evidencing animus toward the Church.







[/B]

On 7/28 at 8:48 AM jim34238 in his Post #2972 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

To respond to your post, the church has NEVER decalred women as equals and NEVER will until there is the first female priest.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Jim,



For 2000 years the Catholic Church has repeatedly and consistently ''declared'' and defended the equality of women.



The Priesthood was/is not defined by the Church but by God. Therefore, the Catholic Church can[/I][/B]not either ordain or prohibit the ordination of women. The Catholic Church always strives to and I believe always has protected the God-given principles taught by Jesus and found in the Bible, with no variance whatsoever.



The popes have repeatedly explained that the Magisterium teaches that for one to be a ''Priest'' one must also be a ''father''. Even the Supreme Court cannot redefine ''father'' so that includes women.



I can give you scores if not hundreds of examples in which the Catholic Church has prized women to be equal to or above men.





[/B]

On 7/28 at 8:48 AM jim34238 in his Post #2972 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

In addition, public school teachers have not dedicated their lives to celibacy and God as Pedophile Priests had...and then you had the cover up, which in my opinion was worse than the original crimes which were perpetrated by men who, I believe , were sick. The bishops and others who covered up for them, were not.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



I agree! This is similar to what I said in my previous post. That said, as I am sure you will remember from your Seton Hall logic class, the rules of logic do not permit one to extrapolate from the particular to the universal. For example:

John is a criminal.

John is a Priest.

Therefore all Priests are Criminals.



…is a fallacy.

 

[Old_alum]

Let us discuss the normative values of groups:



Based on the rules of logic, one may not extrapolate from the particular to the universal.

This is a fallacy:

John is a priest.

John is a criminal.

Therefore, all priests are criminals.



That said, the rules of logic sanction induction and would not call this a fallacy:

I have met 10,000 priests.

All the priests I met have been criminals.

Therefore, I infer that all priests are criminals.

On its own, that is logical. Empirically, it is false.



Almost all of the priests and bishops I have met or read about have been goodly, law-abiding, charitable men.



If one is to evaluate any group of individuals one must look at the normative behavior of such a group relative to the normative behavior of similar groups, in order to make a comparative value judgment.



So let's do so from our collective impressions, and only resort to statistics if someone insists.



The Catholic Church was the first known organization to provide schooling for poor children.

The Catholic Church was the first known organization to provide schooling for girls as well as boys.

The Catholic Church was the first known organization to provide hospitals.

The Catholic Church was the first known organization to condemn slavery.

The Catholic Church was the first known organization to teach forgiving all one's neighbors.

The Catholic Church was the first known organization to teach forgiveness of sins.

The Catholic Church was the first recorded organization to provide food and shelter to all without charge.



It was a Christian country which established the first political democracy.

It was a Christian country which first outlawed slavery.

It was a Christian country which established the first universal suffrage for women.

It was a Christian country which established the first universal suffrage for blacks.



Every year the Catholic Church makes the largest charitable donations of any non-governmental agency.

The Catholic hospitals outnumber all non-governmental hospital systems in the world.



Until the Catholic Church taught differently the world's rules were set by ''might makes right''; a condition still persisting in most non-Christian countries.



Ghandi said that his non-violent protests would have been useless against a foreign empire that professed anything but Christianity.



Even today Sharia law maintains practices most Christians (and thus most Westerners) would consider abominations, such as subordination of women, and cutting off the hands of thieves.



Which historically-non-Christian country has, as a whole, laws which you would prefer to those of any historically-Christian country?



Before the Catholic Church, practices such as physical abuse of women and children, pedophilia, slavery, prostitution, rape and --- in too many cases --- genocide were tolerated, accepted or even condoned for the powerful.



Statistically the Catholic clergy has a lower incidence of what Jim calls ''moral deviations'' than any religion, school system, or scouting organization.



Thus, on the norm (as in statistically normative) I think it is fair to say that the Catholic Church has been far and away the best and most praiseworthy example of a social institution in the history of the world---bar none.

 

[Old_alum]

It is not logical to equate the ''Catholic Church'' with any small or large ''subgroup'' of its members.

The Catholic Church as an entity has been more laudatory in canon than any other.

The Catholic Church AND its members have normatively behaved in ways which are more laudatory in practice than any other group.

Therefore, the Catholic Church is the most admirable and trustworthy group in the history of the world.

 

[jim34238]

Nice dissertation old alum. Obviously you have spent much time and effort on the study of the Church. I, on the other hand, have not had the time nor the inclination to do so. Therefore I have a simple view. One that many Lay people would logically have upon discovery of the following:.

I believe I am a Christian and a Catholic as I follow MOST of its tenants. I also believe the Catholic Church has done many wonderful things. You will get no argument from me there. The problem I have with the Church is that, like you, they use the good they do to cover the evil that they do. "Forgive us because we do many wonderful things." Corporations, i.e.: BP can do that but the Church has to be held to a higher standard…a MUCH higher standard.

The ad hominem was where you questioned my knowledge of logic:

"Did any of you take logic at SHU? I know it was a required course in 1967, so Jim should have --- albeit with no sure evidence thereof."


I too overlooked the problems of the Church until they became overwhelming. I also believe most priests are "good guys', but there are too many "bad guys" especially at the top:


In addition to the issues I brought up in the prior thread:


(Inquisitions, Magdalene Laundries, pedophiles, protecting pedophiles, Money laundering, etc. Where is the Holy Spirits' protection from these moral deviations?)


There are also the following issues that cast a dark cloud over the Church:








. Most of the early Pope’s were criminals. Especially Alexander VI. This went on for centuries. Even some modern popes had issues like Pope Benedict XVI who resigned a post no one resigns from.


The denial of abortion in certain extreme cases is 21st century illogical and is a reason the Church is losing parishioners.


. The opposition to birth control is actually stupid to anyone other than the Church and its die hard devotees. Banning birth control is simply an attempt to propagate the faith. There is no other logical reason for it and IT HARMS THE POOR AND UNDERPRIVIEDGED the most. Talk about logic or a lack thereof. There is no other reason for birth control other than to make up for those leaving the church. Got to keep the cash flow coming. Got to keep most Bishops and the Vatican living like Barons.


The vast majority of intelligent Catholics practice it anyway. Will they all go to hell????


Birth control is actually reducing the number of practicing Catholics as many, especially the young, are staying away from the Church because of it. They feel the Church is still in the 16th century.


. The Church’s opposition to the death penalty is also without logic. How does an evil man who kidnaps, rapes and then BURIES ALIVE a 12 year old girl deserve to live. It also costs us a fortune to keep these individuals incarcerated and alive.


. The Church has killed off more innocent people than Hitler or Stalin (the Crusades, Inquisitions, Invasion of Central & South America. They all add up). Horrible and over long stretches of time, not just isolated instances.





Sorry I am not as knowledgeable as you, but if anyone takes what I have posted above and spreadsheets it over the centuries, they will see an endemic problem with those within the Church. The only logical answer for this is that the Church itself provides a facile vehicle for these evil men to make bad choices and commit criminal and horrible actions. These cases are not isolated as they exist in every era of the Church.

The evil within the Church is like an amoeba. Always changing form and shape, but always there.







This post was edited on 7/28 11:33 PM by jim34238

This post was edited on 7/28 11:44 PM by jim34238

 

[dr bill]

Hallfan1. Beg to differ with you about Jews and equality for women. We beat all other religions in women equality when Moses gave the Ten commandments to the 650,000 Hebrews, men and women, that gathered at Mount Sinai. God made his covenant with the Hebrews, men and women. So under the Torah, women have the same rights as men in the eyes of God. Unfortunately, the male element has had a way of projecting a different understanding of the Torah and they have deviated from time to time. Nonetheless, Jewish women have asserted themselves quite effectively to maintain their God give equality in our modern culture. Ask any Jewish woman, even the most orthodox, if they feel treated unequally by the religion and see what they say.

 

[SHPIRATE]

Originally posted by Old_alum:


Before the Catholic Church, practices such as physical abuse of women and children, pedophilia, slavery, prostitution, rape and --- in too many cases --- genocide were tolerated, accepted or even condoned for the powerful.



Statistically the Catholic clergy has a lower incidence of what Jim calls ''moral deviations'' than any religion, school system, or scouting organization.



Thus, on the norm (as in statistically normative) I think it is fair to say that the Catholic Church has been far and away the best and most praiseworthy example of a social institution in the history of the world---bar none.

I am not a theologian nor do I want to be. However to say the church is absolved for bad deeds because of the good ones does not fly. The Church must be held to a higher moral standard. It has to speak out about that which is wrong not just passively ignore it. You talk about the Church opposing genocide, but where was Pope Pius Xll excercise of that moral mandate when he remained silent about the genocide and murderous actions of the Nazi's before and during WW2. How do you rationalize that away. Was it not his duty to speak out about the obvious crimes being committed against humanity. Likewise isn't the mandate of the church to speak out rather than to protect the pedafile priests. To say our record is better than that of society as a whole is just not good enough. The Church is expected to have a higher morality bar.

 

[catholicman]

The truth about Pope Pius XII:


Upon the death of Pius XII in 1958, he was praised by world leaders for his wartime leadership, with the Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir saying: "When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace.

 

[jim34238]

catholicman, they always say nice things about you after you are dead....even if they are not true...Its called politics and manners.

 

[jim34238]

Dr Bill, I know you beat the Catholics. You have women as Rabbi's. What does God say about that? Are they struck down for not being "Fatheers"?

 

[SHPIRATE]

There were many priests that did couragious things to oppose the nazi's but if you read the history of the times you would know that Pius Xll was mostly silent and did not excercise that moral authority he was bestowed with. It was a time for leadership and courage that was not used. As to the eulogies at his death of course many good things are often said about the departed that are not deserved. Golda Meir's comments were most likely just statements made to build better bridges with the Vatican.

 

[dr bill]

Jim34238.......God said nothing about the gender of rabbis. The Torah doesn't even mention the notion of rabbis. A rabbi is only a teacher, there is no hierarchy in Judasim. The advent of rabbis occurred following the destruction of the second temple and the diaspora whereby Jewish scholars saw the need to keep the Jews connected to the Torah through study. Women may be rabbis only in the liberal-reformed and recently conservative movements. Orthodoxy does not have women rabbis, yet orthodox women are not offended. My take on this is because their were no women priests in the Holy Temple, and there were no female prophets in ancient times, orthodox Judaism must follow that tradition. The Catholic religion was born out of these orthodox principles. I do not see the fact the Catholicism has no female priests as being an issue of non-equality. I see it as a matter of preserving orthodoxy and tradition.

 

[dr bill]

Originally posted by SHPIRATE:
There were many priests that did couragious things to oppose the nazi's but if you read the history of the times you would know that Pius Xll was mostly silent and did not excercise that moral authority he was bestowed with. It was a time for leadership and courage that was not used. As to the eulogies at his death of course many good things are often said about the departed that are not deserved. Golda Meir's comments were most likely just statements made to build better bridges with the Vatican.

You are correct SHIPIRATE. We as humans are far from perfect. And as humans we sin.But let's rejoice that through the years Catholics and Jews have developed a better understanding on our need for each other to spread morality and ethics in this tumultuous world. Pope John was the leader who opened up the channel for a healthy relationship between our two great religions and between the Vatican and Israel. We are all blessed that a man of his intellect and heart was given to the world.

 

[catholicman]

The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New York (Feb. 28, 1964), "Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests."[/I] (Ibid.) Yet Pius was not totally silent either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled, The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256). He admits that everyone, including himself, could have done more. If we condemn Pius, then justice would demand condemning everyone else. He concludes by quoting from the Talmud that "whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world."[/I] With this he claims that Pius XII deserves a memorial forest of 860,000 trees in the Judean hills (pp. 268-9). It should be noted that six million Jews and three million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust.

 

[catholicman]

The modern tendency to slander Pope Pius XII with the lie that he didn't do enough to help save the Jews or that he was complicit with the Nazi's in their attempt to exterminate the Jews could serve as a case study.

Critical historical research shows that no one did more than Pope Pius XII to save the Jews during WWII. This was a well accepted fact until the following occurred:

"The slanderous attacks against Pius XII and the Catholic Church's handling of the Jewish Holocaust started in Germany in 1963 with Rolf Hochhuth's play, Der Stellvertreter, (The Deputy) , which dealt with Pius XII and the Holocaust. Rolf was a Protestant who in his youth was a member of the Nazi Youth Organization and his father a member of the Nazi repressive apparatus.
At the time, many of the Jewish leaders who worked closely with the Pope in the rescue of the Jews were still alive and tried to correct the record, but to not avail. Jewish historian and senior Israeli diplomat, Pinchas Lapide, who was one of the foremost scholars in the matter, made a spirited defense of Pius' record. Historian Jeno Levai, the only foreign Jew invited as an expert at the Eichman trial in Jerusalem, did speak in a courtroom in defense of Pius XII and repudiated Hochhuth's judgment unreservedly.
The anti-Catholic bigotry became a full speed runaway train. Even more vicious films followed in 1973 to date. We saw recently a complete distortion of historical facts by a televised , "60 Minutes" ,program on Pius XII and the Holocaust." (Alex Murphy)

 

[jcalz88]

you should all check out what the pope said this week, i hope he can really bring the church around to the modern era.

 

[catholicman]

Amazingly, since the fall of communism, KGB documents were discovered that showed that the Soviet regime actually commissioned Hochhuth to write that play precisely to slander the pope. Even though, by then, Pope Pius XII was no longer pope, the Soviets felt threatened by the anti-communist, anti-totalitarian stance of the papacy and of the centralized strength of the office of the pope.

 

[catholicman]

Jcalz, I loved the pope's message at World Youth Day in Brazil.

 

[jim34238]

Jcalz88: that is my hope, That this Pope cleans up the church and also brings it into the 21st century. Perception becomes reality and the perception of the Church, by the majority, is not good.

 

[catholicman]

SHPirate, Here is an article you really need to read:

This post was edited on 7/29 11:18 AM by catholicman

THE GOOD SAMARITAN:JEWISH PRAISE FOR POPE PIUS XII

 

[catholicman]

Jim, The bad perception by so many is mostly the fruit of so much distortion. There is a titanic battle of world views that is being fought. The Church is losing the battle to a great degree because the other side doesn't play fair and constantly slanders and distorts. It takes much reflection, discernment, and objectivity in study to come to the truth in such an environment.

 

[jim34238]

catholicman. The Catholic Church holds itself to a higher standard and therefore becomes a big target. Unfortunately, a lot of the critics are not false. The Church's stance on birth control, for example, holds it up for ridicule when most Catholics practice it and many priests condone it in confession. It is a ridiculous stance to maintain and the Church looks foolish, thereby bringing on other attacks as the sharks smell blood.

 

[catholicman]

The Church's teaching on human life, including its teaching against contraception is quite beautiful and perfectly logical. But it is difficult for many to understand, influenced as we are in modern times by Cartesian dualism and other misuderstandings of the human person, and specifically the body.

Some time ago, when I was younger, I really set out to try to understand the Church's teaching on contraception. It was a rewarding experience through which I gained much. The Church is so right on this but it is very difficult for people to find their way to the truth. Only by the power of the Holy Spirit could the Church have maintained its proper teaching and not have bent to the massive amount of pressure placed on her to buckle...


This post was edited on 7/29 12:24 PM by catholicman

 

[SHPIRATE]

There is a lot of controversy about the role of Pius Xll. You can find many writings in both directions. Here is what we do know. His predecessor Pius Xl spoke out frequently about the horrors of nazism. Pius Xll did not follow suit. Some even suggest that pro nazi influence in the Vatican led to his election. You say that if he had spoken out things would have been worse yet for the victims. How much worse could they be. They were already being tortured and killed. Don't you think that the word of the person with such great moral authority could have caused those Catholics who were nazi supporters to have second thoughts about what they were doing and maybe even inspired resistance..

 

[jim34238]

The church's stance on contraception does not make sense to me nor to millions of other catholics who practice it. The only dopes who do not practice contraception are the ones who are too poor to have more children. Explain to me why so many priests, during confession go "wink wink" on this subject. Our stance makes us so 15th century.

 

[Old_alum]

Thanks for responding, Jim. I hope we can dialogue and clear some things up.



First, did you intentionally ignore everything I wrote or did you not feel that my efforts did not merit any specific response?



As I read the new statements you made (below), they seem to be a simple reassertion of your unique form of logic with some expansion of your examples. I took considerable time to respond your original list, one by one. You called my efforts a ''dissertation''. Before we get into specifics it might be more productive to reach a mutual agreement on which laws of logic we should follow. What do you think?



I suspect you will have no interest in that, so pessimistically I shall address your new specifics now. (But can we please try to agree on criteria before we argue further from different logic systems?)







On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

I believe I am a Christian and a Catholic ... [/B]



Unquote:[/B]



I am pleased that you are a Christian, but I am curious. In your opinion, who gets to set the rules for any club's membership?







On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

…as I follow MOST of its tenants. [/B]



Unquote:[/B]



I am pleased that you follow most of the Church's tenets[/I]. I hope God grades on a curve







On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

I also believe the Catholic Church has done many wonderful things. You will get no argument from me there. The problem I have with the Church is that, like you, they use the good they do to cover the evil that they do. "Forgive us because we do many wonderful things." Corporations, i.e.: BP can do that but the Church has to be held to a higher standard…a MUCH higher standard.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



I wonder if you would please provide a single link to show where the Church said "Forgive us because we do many wonderful things." [/B]I have seen the two clauses separately but never conjoined this way.



How do you define ''cover'' when you write ''cover the evil''? Do you mean it like ''cover up''? It is my understanding that there had been a cover-up by heartless individuals but once any ''incident'' surfaces I have never heard those in line of authority say anything but, in essence: ''this was wrong. The individual will be dealt with justly. And we are sorry for any and all hurt.''



That ''higher standard'' is what the Church is all about! Unfortunately its members are not all perfect. Being a Christian has a very difficult job description: ''Love God with your whole heart, your whole soul and your whole mind. Love others as you love yourself.''



Is it your opinion that all clergy should be perfect? Or should the Church's screening of seminarians be perfect? (I wish that it were --- although that would almost certainly exacerbate the priest shortage we have!) Can you list one or two ways to assure better screening of seminarians to see into their hearts?





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

[/B]

The ad hominem was where you questioned my knowledge of logic:[/B]

[/B]

"Did any of you take logic at SHU? I know it was a required course in 1967, so Jim should have --- albeit with no sure evidence thereof."[/B]

[/B]



Unquote:[/B]

I see no where in my post in which I challenged your knowledge, Jim. Can you show me where? I did say that I saw nothing in your post[/I] which evidenced a mastery of the rules of logic[/I]. Jim, I laid out some simplistic rules of logic (e.g. going from the particular to the universal) with which your posts were not in congruence. I also am confused when in sequential posts you go from stating certain knowledge, to stating an argument (albeit fallacious), to stating a question, to stating what seems to be support for the contrarian position. Is this a new kind of rhetoric? Or am I missing something?





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

[/B]

I too overlooked the problems of the Church until they became overwhelming. I also believe most priests are "good guys', but there are too many "bad guys" especially at the top:[/B]

[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Please define ''overwhelming''. I think we agree that on a personal basis a single instance is overwhelming, but on an institutional basis, what is the ''norm'' for ''overwhelming''?



Please define ''too many'' --- as in ''bad guys''. Exactly how many priests have even been accused[/I] of your ''indiscretions'' let alone convicted of them?





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

. Most of the early Pope's were criminals. Especially Alexander VI. This went on for centuries. Even some modern popes had issues like Pope Benedict XVI who resigned a post no one resigns from.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



''Most'' as in more than half Here is a list of all 265 popes:



Here is the list of 265 --- please enumerate which 133 were ''criminals''? Which jurisdictions criminal code did they violate?



1. St. Peter (32-67); 2. St. Linus (67-76); 3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88); 4. St. Clement I (88-97); 5. St. Evaristus (97-105); 6. St. Alexander I (105-115); 7. St. Sixtus I (115-125); 8. St. Telesphorus (125-136); 9. St. Hyginus (136-140); 10. St. Pius I (140-155); 11. St. Anicetus (155-166); 12. St. Soter (166-175); 13. St. Eleutherius (175-189); 14. St. Victor I (189-199); 15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217); 16. St. Callistus I (217-22); 17. St. Urban I (222-30); 18. St. Pontain (230-35); 19. St. Anterus (235-36); 20. St. Fabian (236-50); 21. St. Cornelius (251-53); 22. St. Lucius I (253-54); 23. St. Stephen I (254-257); 24. St. Sixtus II (257-258); 25. St. Dionysius (260-268); 26. St. Felix I (269-274); 27. St. Eutychian (275-283); 28. St. Caius (283-296); 29. St. Marcellinus (296-304); 30. St. Marcellus I (308-309); 31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310); 32. St. Miltiades (311-14); 33. St. Sylvester I (314-35); 34. St. Marcus (336); 35. St. Julius I (337-52); 36. Liberius (352-66); 37. St. Damasus I (366-83); 38. St. Siricius (384-99); 39. St. Anastasius I (399-401); 40. St. Innocent I (401-17); 41. St. Zosimus (417-18); 42. St. Boniface I (418-22); 43. St. Celestine I (422-32); 44. St. Sixtus III (432-40); 45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61); 46. St. Hilarius (461-68); 47. St. Simplicius (468-83); 48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92); 49. St. Gelasius I (492-96); 50. Anastasius II (496-98); 51. St. Symmachus (498-514); 52. St. Hormisdas (514-23); 53. St. John I (523-26); 54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30); 55. Boniface II (530-32); 56. John II (533-35); 57. St. Agapetus I (535-36); 58. St. Silverius (536-37); 59. Vigilius (537-55); 60. Pelagius I (556-61); 61. John III (561-74); 62. Benedict I (575-79); 63. Pelagius II (579-90); 64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604); 65. Sabinian (604-606); 66. Boniface III (607); 67. St. Boniface IV (608-15); 68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18); 69. Boniface V (619-25); 70. Honorius I (625-38); 71. Severinus (640); 72. John IV (640-42); 73. Theodore I (642-49); 74. St. Martin I (649-55); 75. St. Eugene I (655-57); 76. St. Vitalian (657-72); 77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76); 78. Donus (676-78); 79. St. Agatho (678-81); 80. St. Leo II (682-83); 81. St. Benedict II (684-85); 82. John V (685-86); 83. Conon (686-87); 84. St. Sergius I (687-701); 85. John VI (701-05); 86. John VII (705-07); 87. Sisinnius (708); 88. Constantine (708-15); 89. St. Gregory II (715-31); 90. St. Gregory III (731-41); 91. St. Zachary (741-52); Stephen II (752)?Stephen II was elected but died before he was consecrated pope, so he is not found on the Vatican's official list or included in the count.; 92. Stephen III (752-57); 93. St. Paul I (757-67); 94. Stephen IV (767-72); 95. Adrian I (772-95); 96. St. Leo III (795-816); 97. Stephen V (816-17); 98. St. Paschal I (817-24); 99. Eugene II (824-27); 100. Valentine (827); 101. Gregory IV (827-44); 102. Sergius II (844-47); 103. St. Leo IV (847-55); 104. Benedict III (855-58); 105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67); 106. Adrian II (867-72); 107. John VIII (872-82); 108. Marinus I (882-84); 109. St. Adrian III (884-85); 110. Stephen VI (885-91); 111. Formosus (891-96); 112. Boniface VI (896); 113. Stephen VII (896-97); 114. Romanus (897); 115. Theodore II (897); 116. John IX (898-900); 117. Benedict IV (900-03); 118. Leo V (903); 119. Sergius III (904-11); 120. Anastasius III (911-13); 121. Lando (913-14); 122. John X (914-28); 123. Leo VI (928); 124. Stephen VIII (929-31); 125. John XI (931-35); 126. Leo VII (936-39); 127. Stephen IX (939-42); 128. Marinus II (942-46); 129. Agapetus II (946-55); 130. John XII (955-63); 131. Leo VIII (963-64); 132. Benedict V (964); 133. John XIII (965-72); 134. Benedict VI (973-74); 135. Benedict VII (974-83); 136. John XIV (983-84); 137. John XV (985-96); 138. Gregory V (996-99); 139. Sylvester II (999-1003); 140. John XVII (1003); 141. John XVIII (1003-09); 142. Sergius IV (1009-12); 143. Benedict VIII (1012-24); 144. John XIX (1024-32); 145. Benedict IX (1032-45); 146. Sylvester III (1045); 147. Benedict IX (1045); 148. Gregory VI (1045-46); 149. Clement II (1046-47); 150. Benedict IX (1047-48); 151. Damasus II (1048); 152. St. Leo IX (1049-54); 153. Victor II (1055-57); 154. Stephen X (1057-58); 155. Nicholas II (1058-61); 156. Alexander II (1061-73); 157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85); 158. Blessed Victor III (1086-87); 159. Blessed Urban II (1088-99); 160. Paschal II (1099-1118); 161. Gelasius II (1118-19); 162. Saint Callistus II (1119-24); 163. Honorius II (1124-30); 164. Innocent II (1130-43); 165. Celestine II (1143-44); 166. Lucius II (1144-45); 167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53); 168. Anastasius IV (1153-54); 169. Adrian IV (1154-59); 170. Alexander III (1159-81); 171. Lucius III (1181-85); 172. Urban III (1185-87); 173. Gregory VIII (1187); 174. Clement III (1187-91); 175. Celestine III (1191-98); 176. Innocent III (1198-1216); 177. Honorius III (1216-27); 178. Gregory IX (1227-41); 179. Celestine IV (1241); 180. Innocent IV (1243-54); 181. Alexander IV (1254-61); 182. Urban IV (1261-64); 183. Clement IV (1265-68); 184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76); 185. Blessed Innocent V (1276); 186. Adrian V (1276); 187. John XXI (1276-77); 188. Nicholas III (1277-80); 189. Martin IV (1281-85); 190. Honorius IV (1285-87); 191. Nicholas IV (1288-92); 192. St. Celestine V (1294); 193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303); 194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04); 195. Clement V (1305-14); 196. John XXII (1316-34); 197. Benedict XII (1334-42); 198. Clement VI (1342-52); 199. Innocent VI (1352-62); 200. Blessed Urban V (1362-70); 201. Gregory XI (1370-78); 202. Urban VI (1378-89); 203. Boniface IX (1389-1404); 204. Innocent VII (1404-06); 205. Gregory XII (1406-15); 206. Martin V (1417-31); 207. Eugene IV (1431-47); 208. Nicholas V (1447-55); 209. Callistus III (1455-58); 210. Pius II (1458-64); 211. Paul II (1464-71); 212. Sixtus IV (1471-84); 213. Innocent VIII (1484-92); 214. Alexander VI (1492-1503); 215. Pius III (1503); 216. Julius II (1503-13); 217. Leo X (1513-21); 218. Adrian VI (1522-23); 219. Clement VII (1523-34); 220. Paul III (1534-49); 221. Julius III (1550-55); 222. Marcellus II (1555); 223. Paul IV (1555-59); 224. Pius IV (1559-65); 225. St. Pius V (1566-72); 226. Gregory XIII (1572-85); 227. Sixtus V (1585-90); 228. Urban VII (1590); 229. Gregory XIV (1590-91); 230. Innocent IX (1591); 231. Clement VIII (1592-1605); 232. Leo XI (1605); 233. Paul V (1605-21); 234. Gregory XV (1621-23); 235. Urban VIII (1623-44); 236. Innocent X (1644-55); 237. Alexander VII (1655-67); 238. Clement IX (1667-69); 239. Clement X (1670-76); 240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89); 241. Alexander VIII (1689-91); 242. Innocent XII (1691-1700); 243. Clement XI (1700-21); 244. Innocent XIII (1721-24); 245. Benedict XIII (1724-30); 246. Clement XII (1730-40); 247. Benedict XIV (1740-58); 248. Clement XIII (1758-69); 249. Clement XIV (1769-74); 250. Pius VI (1775-99); 251. Pius VII (1800-23); 252. Leo XII (1823-29); 253. Pius VIII (1829-30); 254. Gregory XVI (1831-46); 255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78); 256. Leo XIII (1878-1903); 257. St. Pius X (1903-14); 258. Benedict XV (1914-22); 259. Pius XI (1922-39); 260. Pius XII (1939-58); 261. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63); 262. Paul VI (1963-78); 263. John Paul I (1978); 264. John Paul II (1978-2005); 265. Benedict XVI (2005?) ;



Please list and source the ''issues'' which you say forced Pope Benedict to resign. The Church has always authorized a Pope to resign, although none before chose to. Does your unique logic say that if anyone resigns from something then he must have done something evil??



I think our disagreements might start more with rhetoric than even with logic.



You see when in a discussion when someone states a ''fact'' (e.g. SHU is taxed by the Archdiocese) should he not first substantiate it as accurate? Or is this your new rhetoric? When someone says ''most'' is it acceptable if he means 0.2%? When someone says ''criminal'' is it acceptable if he really means ''not very nice guys''?



Be all that as it may, I have already said that the only assurance of perfection that God gives the Catholic Church is for its teachings on Faith and morals (you know, on things like abortion). Matthew 16:18?19







[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

[/B]

The denial of abortion in certain extreme cases is 21st century illogical and is a reason the Church is losing parishioners.[/B]

[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Jim, have we yet to agree on what is logical and what is illogical? Now, do you accept the bible? Or only most of it? If not all of it, how can you justify any of it?

Let's start from this premise:

"For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" (Matt. 16:26).



With that premise, is it logical to try to save one's immortal soul? If losing one's soul is not justified by gaining ''the whole world'', then why would it be justified by having one person fewer in the world? What are your extreme cases? What are the alternatives to abortion?



That said, is it the Church's objective to maximize the number of parishioners who contribute a weekly envelope? Is that right? If this is not the Church's stated objective, then why would attracting more parishioners justify killing another human?





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

. The opposition to birth control is actually stupid to anyone other than the Church and its die hard devotees. Banning birth control is simply an attempt to propagate the faith. There is no other logical reason for it and IT HARMS THE POOR AND UNDERPRIVIEDGED the most. Talk about logic or a lack thereof. There is no other reason for birth control other than to make up for those leaving the church. Got to keep the cash flow coming. Got to keep most Bishops and the Vatican living like Barons.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Hmm, that great philosopher Forest Gump said that ''stupid is as stupid does''. How do you define ''stupid''? Not knowledgeable? Not analytical? Not logical? (I think we are still awaiting your own rules of logic.) Was Pascal stupid? Was Pascal's Wager illogical?



OK

Do you find the following argument ''stupid''? If so, why?



If marriage without procreation is sanctioned, then is sex on its own in marriage always good?

If sex on its own in marriage is good, can sex outside marriage be good?

If sex outside of marriage with one partner is good, then is sex outside of marriage with two partners good?

If sex with many partners is good, then are sexual relations with a member of the same sex good?

If sex with members of the same sex is good, then is sex with other animals good?

If sex with other animals is good, should it be banned from the public square?



The above argument is ''logical''. If giving in on one step of the argument leads to pressure to give in on the next step, then is it ''stupid'' to defend the initial stance? If it has been made clear to you by your founder that the first stance is critical, then is it not wrong to change it --- rather than stupid not to change it?



Does truth change?



Seriously, Jim, does the truth change?



If a set of facts is true today, can that same set be untrue tomorrow? Next year? Next millennium?



For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has never --- repeat never --- reversed a teaching on Faith and morals. It has never --- repeat never --- modified any sacred document to further its own case. It has never dropped books of the bible which others might misinterpret in arguing against its teachings. God --- Father, Son or Holy Spirit --- gave these interpretations to the Church so they CANNOT be changed and they should not be changed because they cannot be wrong. (God knows they might be misunderstood sometimes).







[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

The vast majority of intelligent Catholics practice it anyway. Will they all go to hell????[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Jesus promised that what the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Whenever Jesus was asked what one needed to do to get to heaven He always said to follow the instructions --- though not all the examples --- of the priests, even though Jesus knew many Temple Priests to be sinful.



So if the Church guarantees one eternal life with Jesus if one merely does what it teaches for a mere three score and ten years, then why would one choose another option? The Church does teach that God can make exceptions, so people who practice birth control might have some sort of a chance of avoiding hell. Why take the risk?





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

Birth control is actually reducing the number of practicing Catholics as many, especially the young, are staying away from the Church because of it. They feel the Church is still in the 16th century.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



And the objective of the Catholic Church is what? Popularity?





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

. The Church's opposition to the death penalty is also without logic. How does an evil man who kidnaps, rapes and then BURIES ALIVE a 12 year old girl deserve to live. It also costs us a fortune to keep these individuals incarcerated and alive.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Here's that favorite word, ''logic'', again! First, I am not aware that the Church has condemned capital punishment as a sin. I am pretty sure it was Aquinas or another Church Doctor who defended capital punishment as one defended just wars. I am aware that the Pope has said that capital punishment is not the best course. Can you enlighten me?



Second, is it not a question not of what a criminal deserves but what is best for society?



Third, is the economic cost of incarceration more valuable than ''gaining the whole world''? I think we already covered gold in God's hierarchy of value, no?





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

. The Church has killed off more innocent people than Hitler or Stalin (the Crusades, Inquisitions, Invasion of Central & South America. They all add up). Horrible and over long stretches of time, not just isolated instances.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



Wow! Is this your own form of rhetoric again or can you cite even an impeachable source which validates that statement? Let's see, Stalin is credited with killing at least 20-million and perhaps as many as 60-million. Hitler killed at least 11-million, and also as many as 60-million, by published estimates.



How many people were in the Holy Land in the 11th century?



Want to hazard a guess on the calculated deaths attributable to the inquisition?



Please try!



When did the Church invade Central and South America? I must have missed that in World History.



BTW how do you define ''innocent''?





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

Sorry I am not as knowledgeable as you, but if anyone takes what I have posted above and spreadsheets it over the centuries, they will see an endemic problem with those within the Church. The only logical answer for this is that the Church itself provides a facile vehicle for these evil men to make bad choices and commit criminal and horrible actions. These cases are not isolated as they exist in every era of the Church. [/B]



Unquote:[/B]



How can one ''spreadsheet'' BS --- Oops, I mean rhetoric??



Since you say these are in every era of the Church, please list a mere ten true examples and show how the Church's --- not some Catholics', or even some Clergy's --- involvement. Please quantify one example with a respectable source.





[/B]

On 7/28 at 11:44 PM jim34238 in his Post #2973 wrote:[/B]

Quote:[/B]

The evil within the Church is like an amoeba. Always changing form and shape, but always there.[/B]



Unquote:[/B]



I agree! And the evil in all men is the same! Wherever one finds humans, one encounters evil of some shape and size.



How would YOU make the Catholic Church and its entire clergy into perfect actors?



Or are you still indicting the Church for being MERELY the absolutely best of all human institutions?

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SHPIRATE:
There is a lot of controversy about the role of Pius Xll. You can find many writings in both directions. Here is what we do know. His predecessor Pius Xl spoke out frequently about the horrors of nazism. Pius Xll did not follow suit. Some even suggest that pro nazi influence in the Vatican led to his election. You say that if he had spoken out things would have been worse yet for the victims. How much worse could they be. They were already being tortured and killed. Don't you think that the word of the person with such great moral authority could have caused those Catholics who were nazi supporters to have second thoughts about what they were doing and maybe even inspired resistance..

SHPirate, ''worse'' like ''beauty'' is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. As I understand it, after Pius XII told Bishops in the Netherlands (I think) to condemn certain NAZI actions against the Jews, the Nazis escalated the persecution ten fold, including the initial round-up in that country. I also have read that Jewsish leaders then specifically asked Pius XII not to condemn any more or else their people would suffer more. But what's ''worse'' for them might not be ''worse'' in your eyes.

Can you quote a single authoritative and objective source who has delineated and condemned Pius XII's so called transgressions?

Slander is easy to do and extremely hard to reverse.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SHPIRATE:
There were many priests that did couragious things to oppose the nazi's but if you read the history of the times you would know that Pius Xll was mostly silent and did not excercise that moral authority he was bestowed with. It was a time for leadership and courage that was not used. As to the eulogies at his death of course many good things are often said about the departed that are not deserved. Golda Meir's comments were most likely just statements made to build better bridges with the Vatican.

Can you cite any examples in which the Israeli government and its rabbis--- let alone Golda Meir --- , after the death of someone who had hurt the Jews or their cause, then told lies about how good he was? I am not aware of any.

The rule I was taught was if you cannot say something nice about someone then say nothing at all. I was never told to then lie about how nice they were.

BTW to which history book are you referring?

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SHPIRATE:

Originally posted by Old_alum:




Before the Catholic Church, practices such as physical abuse of women and children, pedophilia, slavery, prostitution, rape and --- in too many cases --- genocide were tolerated, accepted or even condoned for the powerful.





Statistically the Catholic clergy has a lower incidence of what Jim calls ''moral deviations'' than any religion, school system, or scouting organization.





Thus, on the norm (as in statistically normative) I think it is fair to say that the Catholic Church has been far and away the best and most praiseworthy example of a social institution in the history of the world---bar none.

I am not a theologian nor do I want to be. However to say the church is absolved for bad deeds because of the good ones does not fly. The Church must be held to a higher moral standard. It has to speak out about that which is wrong not just passively ignore it. You talk about the Church opposing genocide, but where was Pope Pius Xll excercise of that moral mandate when he remained silent about the genocide and murderous actions of the Nazi's before and during WW2. How do you rationalize that away. Was it not his duty to speak out about the obvious crimes being committed against humanity. Likewise isn't the mandate of the church to speak out rather than to protect the pedafile priests. To say our record is better than that of society as a whole is just not good enough. The Church is expected to have a higher morality bar.

Where did I say that the Church is absolved for bad deeds because of the good ones. What I was trying to say is that ALL humans commit sins, some crimes. All organizations are composed of people. All organizations have members who disappoint.

I agree that the Church is ONLY about holding a higher standard. But unless the Church teachings are evil or were to cause some evil, then one cannot indict the entire Church per se for members who countermand their teachings. If one condemns the Catholic church for this then one must condemn EVERY organization: Presbyterians, Methodists, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Republicans, Democrats, Tories, Labor, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, democracy itself, the Fortune 500, etc. ad nauseum.

The Church's role is to set the higher standard.

The Church's role is to guide people to that higher standard.

The Church cannot assure that every member of all its religious orders never commits a sin against that higher standard.

As was said elsewhere, Moses sinned, David sinned, Peter sinned, Judas sinned.

If Jesus did not pick only the sinless how can one expect the Church to know who is a potential pervert? Is there a better screen we can implement?


Whether the Pope speaks out or not,
whether a bishop speaks out or not,
whether a priest speaks out or not,
whether a Catholic speaks out or not,
is NOT under the control of the Church per se except on teachings on Faith and morals.

Humans sin!

To quote the old saw, you can lead a horse to water but....
This post was edited on 7/29 4:48 PM by Old_alum

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by jim34238:

Jcalz88: that is my hope, That this Pope cleans up the church and also brings it into the 21st century. Perception becomes reality and the perception of the Church, by the majority, is not good.

Jim, exactly what can the Pope do to ''clean up the Church''?

Which is more important, Jim:
1. the truth
2. popularity (perceptions)

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by jim34238:
The church's stance on contraception does not make sense to me nor to millions of other catholics who practice it. The only dopes who do not practice contraception are the ones who are too poor to have more children. Explain to me why so many priests, during confession go "wink wink" on this subject. Our stance makes us so 15th century.

I guess that ''sense'', like ''beauty'' is in the eye of the beholder, huh, Jim?

So you really believe that no one above the poverty lines disdains contraception, Jim?

Wanna bet?



I was going to ask you how a Priest goes ''wink, wink'' in the Confessional, but I will accept your premise.
I am just glad you still go to Confession!
The role of a pastor is a tough row to hoe. If one's parishioners do not listen to you, then they cannot understand you. Each pastor must try his best to change the hearts of the misguided.

I fear that simple condemnation lost much --- not all --- of its power after Vatican II. Not BECAUSE of Vatican II but at that time. TV changed the culture and then the world. I guess it is like coaching. Some players respond to the stick, some to the carrot, some to both, some to neither. A pastor like a coach often must feel like (s)he is herding cats. But the differences in coaching methods do not eviscerate the essential value of the fundamentals, do they?

 

[jim34238]

Old alum, I don't have a lot of time to answer each of you points but I will try. How do you swallow an elephant....one bite at a time.

The pope can clean up the church by holding a massive house cleaning starting with the ex communication of Bernard Law and any other Bishop that hid pedophiles. This could also be applied to any other priest who committed a major crime. Combined with a very strong policy statement, it would send shockwaves throughout the church and make everyone there think more than twice. When Berard Law was promoted, it sent a signal that hiding pedophiles was OK, and that the vatican's law enforcement was weak.

Truth and perception are equally important because perception often becomes the truth.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by jim34238:
Old alum, I don't have a lot of time to answer each of you points but I will try. How do you swallow an elephant....one bite at a time.

The pope can clean up the church by holding a massive house cleaning starting with the ex communication of Bernard Law and any other Bishop that hid pedophiles. This could also be applied to any other priest who committed a major crime. Combined with a very strong policy statement, it would send shockwaves throughout the church and make everyone there think more than twice. When Berard Law was promoted, it sent a signal that hiding pedophiles was OK, and that the vatican's law enforcement was weak.

Truth and perception are equally important because perception often becomes the truth.

Agree with you on excommunication of pedophiles and their protectors, but I respectfully disagree with much else that you opine.

The Church has killed more than Hitler and Stalin? Quite the opposite -- read Dinesh D'Souza

As far as contraception and stances on capital punishment: they are very consistent with the respect for the sanctity of life. When I went through pre-Caana, there was no "wink-wink."

While I am glad you are a good Catholic, and I think concerned Catholics should be involved, and vigilant for abuses and actions that smear the Church's name, I don't think any reasonable person should expect a sea change, because of the times, in central dogma. We live in a rapidly degenerating society, and just because prominent Catholics, like the Kennedys, have turned their back (for nearly a half-century) on the core teachings of the Church, and flaunted it, doesn't make them any less true, or relevant.

Where is the legitimacy of a moral authority that changes with the tide?


If people choose to leave the Church on those grounds, it's likely because they find the truth painful.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by jim34238:
The pope can clean up the church by holding a massive house cleaning starting with the ex communication of Bernard Law and any other Bishop that hid pedophiles. This could also be applied to any other priest who committed a major crime. Combined with a very strong policy statement, it would send shockwaves throughout the church and make everyone there think more than twice.

I fully support full criminal, civil and administrative punishments for all criminals and full civil and administrative punishments for all who cover up, where these have not committed a crime. Sadly, the Massachusetts law the law requiring abuse to be reported was not expanded to include priests until 2002. So one cannot be accused of breaking a law that did not exist.

That said, the purpose and rules of ex communication are a very separate matter. The Catholic Church is founded on forgiveness and reform. There is no --- nor IMHO should there be --- any direct or automatic connection between committing a crime and ex communication. Jesus said that the physician deals with the sick, not the healthy. He had to come specifically for sinners, even criminal sinners.

Ex communication has an entirely different set of prerequisites, as IMHO it should. Therefore I cannot agree with your ''fix'', which I see really as punishment. We can discuss the preventative effects of severe punishment if you wish (perhaps after you respond to my response to your original thoughts on Capital Punishment). Is there anything else you would like to see the Church do systemically in the future?

Originally posted by jim34238:
When Berard Law was promoted, it sent a signal that hiding pedophiles was OK, and that the vatican's law enforcement was weak.

Cardinal Law seemed to have had a very distinguished career EXCEPT for his horrible handling of the sex abuse scandal. (Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?) I am no supporter of Cardinal Law.

Per Wikipedia, when the Massachusetts attorney general issued his report he severely criticized Law mentioning that "the Archdiocese has shown an institutional reluctance to adequately address the problem and, in fact, made choices that allowed the abuse to continue" but did not allege that Law had tried to evade investigation and he did state that Law had not broken any laws.

Law is reported to have said, "To all those who have suffered from my shortcomings and mistakes I both apologize and from them beg forgiveness."

In December 2002, Law left Boston. It is often alleged that he left just hours before state troopers arrived with subpoenas seeking his grand jury testimony; however, he had previously given evidence before two grand juries and been fully investigated by the state attorney general and the five district attorneys in the counties in which the archdiocese operates.

The Pope did not ''promote'' Law. He was given a titular role as Archpriest of a basilica. I would have preferred that had not been the case. IMHO it does not justify an indictment of the Catholic Church per se.

Originally posted by jim34238:
Truth and perception are equally important because perception often becomes the truth.

I cannot disagree with this more. I might support that perception becomes reality, but never truth. In fact, I detest the concept that perception might be ''construed'' as truth, as it evidences a lack of respect for the truth and a malady which --- as you imply --- seems rampant in the world, or at least the US.

IMHO too many consider ''truth'' mere ''inconvenience'' and many will say anything that helps them in the smallest way, even when they know it is not true. To me that is not only a cancer in the very sinew of society, but --- as Thomas More said --- letting one's own self slip through one's own grasp.


After greater thought about my inability to convey my thoughts on this whole topic, I believe I have a better analogy to convey my feelings. When I hear someone say that the Church cannot be trusted, to me it is even more problematic than if someone were to say that our country cannot be trusted. I ask you, Jim, if someone told you that the United States was not trustworthy, would you take umbrage. Would you not argue that it is not our country, per se, but a few men who have governed our country who cannot be trusted. This distinction might seem trivial to some, but to me it is very important.

 

[jim34238]

Donnie: A couple of points (one) I did more research on my statement that the church was responsible for more deaths than either Hitler or Stalin and discovered that my original source was wrong. However; The Church either directly or indirectly is responsible for the torture or death of thousands. Nothing to be proud of. (two) the pre caanan instructor is not going to "wink wink" in front of witnesses. But one on one, this goes on. It went on with me personally. Millions of Catholics practice birth control ( contraception) Are they all going to hell?
This post was edited on 7/30 8:33 PM by jim34238

 

[jim34238]

Originally posted by catholicman:
The Church's teaching on human life, including its teaching against contraception is quite beautiful and perfectly logical. But it is difficult for many to understand, influenced as we are in modern times by Cartesian dualism and other misuderstandings of the human person, and specifically the body.

Some time ago, when I was younger, I really set out to try to understand the Church's teaching on contraception. It was a rewarding experience through which I gained much. The Church is so right on this but it is very difficult for people to find their way to the truth. Only by the power of the Holy Spirit could the Church have maintained its proper teaching and not have bent to the massive amount of pressure placed on her to buckle...




This post was edited on 7/29 12:24 PM by catholicman

Catholicman, you have to be kidding: Nancy Reilly and her husband, good Catholics, have six children who they can barely feed and cloth. do they risk a seventh child an eighth? Where does it stop, when they lose the kids? When one dies because they can't afford insurance, When they become welfare receipients because their parent cannot afford their education? To deny contraception to millions of similar families around the world is SICK and that is the church's position.

This post was edited on 7/30 8:29 PM by jim34238

 

[jim34238]

Old alum: Sorry, I was having fun with this discussion until I realized I was trying to explain vast oceans to frogs living in wells. You just don't understand the "Real World" . It appears you and your fellow apologists have sat around in a room, discussed these issues and have come to conclusions of mutual agreement that you cannot bend from.

You and the church remind me very much of the Management of General Motors. A group of very smart guys who also had all of the answers. They sat in conference rooms and told each other how smart they were and how their way was the right way and the only way. Meanwhile, the general public was buying Toyotas and GM was going broke. The Catholic Church is GM. Go to any mass and the amount of white hair is staggering. Churches are being closed all over this country. The parishoners are dying off and there is little youth to replace them. Unless the Church listens to people like me it will continue to shrink.

Now I'm having too much fun to waste more of my valuable time on this. I play golf three times a week or I go fishing or to the beach. I eat out every day and I have three girlfriends and we sin. (all fact) But at our age, who cares.....I'm going to Heaven...Life is Good...Thanks to SHU!

 

[SHPIRATE]

Originally posted by jim34238:

Old alum: Sorry, I was having fun with this discussion until I realized I was trying to explain vast oceans to frogs living in wells. You just don't understand the "Real World" . It appears you and your fellow apologists have sat around in a room, discussed these issues and have come to conclusions of mutual agreement that you cannot bend from.

You and the church remind me very much of the Management of General Motors. A group of very smart guys who also had all of the answers. They sat in conference rooms and told each other how smart they were and how their way was the right way and the only way. Meanwhile, the general public was buying Toyotas and GM was going broke. The Catholic Church is GM. Go to any mass and the amount of white hair is staggering. Churches are being closed all over this country. The parishoners are dying off and there is little youth to replace them. Unless the Church listens to people like me it will continue to shrink.

Now I'm having too much fun to waste more of my valuable time on this. I play golf three times a week or I go fishing or to the beach. I eat out every day and I have three girlfriends and we sin. (all fact) But at our age, who cares.....I'm going to Heaven...Life is Good...Thanks to SHU!

+1 We've seen old alum and catholicman's answer to this before. Forget poverty and overpopulation. They are as not important as propagating the faith. Old Alum has previously told us the only purpose to having sex is procreation. So the answer is after you have those 5 or 6 kids that you can't afford stop having sex. Sorry, I like Jim's idea better.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by jim34238:

Old alum: Sorry, I was having fun with this discussion until I realized I was trying to explain vast oceans to frogs living in wells. You just don't understand the "Real World" . It appears you and your fellow apologists have sat around in a room, discussed these issues and have come to conclusions of mutual agreement that you cannot bend from.

You and the church remind me very much of the Management of General Motors. A group of very smart guys who also had all of the answers. They sat in conference rooms and told each other how smart they were and how their way was the right way and the only way. Meanwhile, the general public was buying Toyotas and GM was going broke. The Catholic Church is GM. Go to any mass and the amount of white hair is staggering. Churches are being closed all over this country. The parishoners are dying off and there is little youth to replace them. Unless the Church listens to people like me it will continue to shrink.

Now I'm having too much fun to waste more of my valuable time on this. I play golf three times a week or I go fishing or to the beach. I eat out every day and I have three girlfriends and we sin. (all fact) But at our age, who cares.....I'm going to Heaven...Life is Good...Thanks to SHU!

Old alum has a much better grasp on the "real" world than you do; the yacht clubs, houses, golf outings -- that is an illusion. A nice distraction for some, a way of life for others. As one of the white hairs, you'd think you'd get smarter as you aged, instead of losing sight of what is truly important.

As far as the Mass attendance, true on the coasts, not so much in the center of the country. Also, Catholicism is exploding in South America, fortunately for the church. Contrary to popular belief, the world doesn't revolve around the United States, and our sick, celebrity-obsessed, status-obsessed culture.