Catholic Church Hypocracy

Aug 18, 2001
233
0
0
54
Mind/Body Dichotomy

The Catholic Church (nay, all forms of Christianity) must hold to a anti-sexual view *if* they want to be consistant. Does this self denial lead to sexual pathologies?

You can read St Augustine's "Confessions" online: www.stoa.org/hippo/
 

Mikehorn

Govt Designated Pervert
DenWa said:
It takes a certain kind of guy to be willing to live a a life of celibacy. The catholic church could make a huge difference by allowing priests to marry. It would attract more people to the priesthood, and it would eliminate the frustration that could tempt otherwise good men.

DW
Being allowed to marry doesn't guarantee them a sexual outlet, as many here would attest (unless they're also allowed to hobby) ;)
 

twinkle

New member
Jun 6, 2003
173
0
0
44
planet earth
Furor and outspokenness towards all 'sins' including child abuse

The Doctor said:
This FUROR is a result of the Churches position on same-sex marriages...not their past track record in dealing with the unthinkable behaviour of a few individuals who abused their position and trust to take advantage of innocent children. And I agree they have a spot at the front of the line at the gates to hell.

However the Churches views on Marriage as a sacrament are clearly stated and have no changed. As well they have been simlarly vocal regarding other world and social issues that affect us today.

I beleieve that the Catholic church is a long way from doing what is right in regards to the priests and the abused children, however, the actions of a few sick priests do not change the beliefs of the collective Catholic faith.
Actually I do believe that the RC has the right and freedom to display in an outspoken manner their FUROR against and opposing same sex marriages. And I dont expect (or even care if) their views on marriage as sacrament should or have to change because of the MANY priests who abused kids or allowed the abuse to continue by turning a blind eye or intentionally covering up (in my eyes they are just as guilty!) ....... soley to protect the 'image' of the church, to keep people in the pews and ultimately money in the collection plate$$$. 'The love of mony is the root of all evil'.

My anger is they did not display this same LEVEL of FUROR and outspokenness when it came to KNOWN and DOCUMENTED child abuse by their own 'servants of god' for countless years. Look at all the new info coming out in Boston right now. It was more than just a 'few' priests. It is just the tip of the iceberg!

The RC has so much money and power and influence around the world. I recall reading a bio on the guy who did the show 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous'. And when he was asked who/what was the RICHEST person, company, organization, etc. he had ever seen....he answered , 'by far the RC!'
The RC should have used that power and influence to set a Christain/biblical/moral example on how to protect the most innocent amongst us. The RC should be as vocal and with just as much FUROR, about speaking up about and trying to influence politiciains and the goverments, to make much more strict laws for punishment for child abusers, in order to help protect children from sexual predators, and other forms of abuse.
 
Aug 18, 2001
233
0
0
54
Twinkle Should learn to Think a Little More Deeply.

I've read your responses in this thread, and your responses to me in another thread. I think you need to read more. (I will respond to what you've writen in the other thread at a later time).

Let us deal with the topic at hand. The Roman Catholic Church, historicially, has always acted like a *totalitarian* organization. Of course they'll protect their own. I really don't understand your anger. You want a contradiction.
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,992
0
0
Above 7
Re: Twinkle Should learn to Think a Little More Deeply.

Wired For Sound said:


Let us deal with the topic at hand. The Roman Catholic Church, historicially, has always acted like a *totalitarian* organization. Of course they'll protect their own. I really don't understand your anger. You want a contradiction.
This is , in itself , a cause for anger . Perhaps anger is too strong a word . After all they are becoming increasingly irrevelant .
 

The Doctor

Still Without Humour
Jun 2, 2003
2,319
1
0
1060 West Addision
Is the RC church becoming irrelevant or is religion in general becoming less important in today's society? As we become more diverse cuturally, and Canada is one of the most diverse countries in the world, the influence of one specific religion is diluted. However, the relevance of religion is determined by an individual and not by society.

Whether Christianity's objection to same-sex marriages has any influence on the passing of the legislation will play out through the lead up to the spring election. Catholic MP's choices in whether they support the bill or not (i.e. Paul Martin vs. Dennis Mills) will answer the question of whether they put religion before politics. At that point I know I will be in a better position to cast my vote.
 
When can we ever get over this religion stuff ?!?!?!?!

I think its time to move on ...

Hypocrates ? Well yeah sure ... sometimes we all are at least once or twice in our lives. The church, though an institution is the same thing ... but remember, institutions are runned by people like you and me. Though "saintly" (peeps working for the Chruch)are still tempted by earthly delights and worldly pleasures ...
 

SirLickheralot

New member
Mar 23, 2002
121
0
0
Here
Re: Just an observation....

Pallydin said:
The Church is not robbing anyone of the choice, but they are making them aware of the fully aware of the consequences. Perhaps some of them should stop being hypocrits and cease saying they are religious if they are not. I would support any organization that is trying to take back its image from those misrepresenting it as many do these days.
I don't think it makes politicians hypocrits if they are able to separate their religious beliefs from their political decisions. The church and state should be separate. Laws should be based on protecting the people in a society from harm, not upon moral judgements. How do laws preventing same sex unions protect anyone, the answer they don't. Therefore the decision to allow same sex unions is a good one politically.

Allow the church and state to mix and you end up with countries like Iran, Afganistan, etc. In Iran the politicians are just puppets controlled by the real power of the ayatollahs. In Afganistan the Taliban didn't even bother with this type of charade and just took power themselves. I don't care if its the RC church or any other religion they have no place in politics.

As for the churches stand against homosexuality, it is a significant contributor to the sexual abuse problems they have faced over the years. Homosexual Catholic men know that if they act on their urges they will be sinning. Therefore they join the priesthood in the hopes of suppressing their sexuality. Since they are in a position of power over many young boys they become the unfortunate outlet for the priests urges. Allowing priests to marry won't eliminate the problem because it still wouldn't allow for any sexual outlet for all the homosexual priests.
 

Alias

New member
Jan 18, 2003
29
0
1
It's all about power and money. Throughout history, the Church has always played politics. And they're at it again (The Vatican has already got Bush onside). A directive from the Pope all the way to the Cdn Catholic chapters & interfering in Canadian politics is a disgrace. The Catholic Church is just trying to deflect attention away from their priest-child sex scandals and they're doing a good job of it. As for the current hoopla of same-sex marriages, the late Pierre Trudeau would have said something like, "THE CHURCH HAS NO BUSINESS IN OUR BEDROOMS" and waved the finger.

And what about Chretien & Martin? Both from Quebec & both Liberals. Are the right wing political parties behind this? looking to split the Federal Liberal Party before the next fed'l election?
 

IB_VI_UB_IX!!!

New member
Jun 20, 2003
117
0
0
in a house...somewhere....i think
Websters definition of a CULT : a cult : a mass group of people congregating in a specific place, praising and singing to a statue or idol of any kind.

Sound familiar anyone??? I hope i've not offended btw. I'm a non practicing ex-alter server head of the chior and youth group catholic sooo, tis just my opinion
Besides the Vatican 2 church has been losing it's straggle hold grasp as the new generation grows up. Religion isn't a priority for most ppl anymore.
 

cooper

New member
Apr 1, 2002
57
0
0
Interesting thread. The hypocracy of the Catholic church is perhaps my number one pet peeve. Let me begin by stating that I was born and raised Catholic and have been active in the Church over the years (was a lay reader at mass and worked for a Catholic organization for over 15 years).

First, the Catholic Church in North AMerica has totally lost touch with Catholics. Most Catholics do no support the Church's views on birth control, premarital sex, same sex marriages, celebacy and women in the preist hood. These "rules" are grossly outdated and have no bearing on reality. And, interestingly many, many people in religious life don't even agree with many of the Church's positions on these matters. I think a lot of it has to do with no more than the elderly priests thinking "hey I went through being celebate, damned if I am going to allow a newly ordained priest to marry, if I can do it so can they." I mean it is insane not to allow people in religious life to marry. Many of the people I knew in religious life were a bit "odd". They never really had the closeness and intimacy that we as human beings crave and need. As a result they turn out to be a bit off center.

I find it particularly interesting that many of the Church's leaders live a rather luxurious lifestyle. The Church continues as it has to serve the interests of those in positions of power within the Catholic church. I once worked for a priest that drove a luxury automobile and vacationed in Jamaica. Jamaica? Can you possibly pick a more decadent place to vacation?

What is also interesting is that the Church can change the rules if they wish. Theologians come up with very erudite and scholarly rationale for these "rule changes". They try to "mystify" the whole process, when in fact it is pretty simple. For example, SOME Catholic hospitals can do vasectomies and tubal ligations. It is up to the local bishop to allow this.

The Catholic Church is, in my opinoin, in crisis and they are doing little to address it. It is indeed unfortunate because the Church does a lot of good and the core values and prinicpals that the Church is based on are of great value to society.
 
Aug 18, 2001
233
0
0
54
Re: Re: Re: Just an observation....

Pallydin said:
As for laws based on protection and not morality, if this were the case then we would be allowed to kill those who have done us wrong or who are a threat to us.....it is morality that gives us a law that makes all forms of killing unacceptable (and makes capital punishment not legal in Canada). In truth, laws are based neither on morality nor protection of people, but as an extension of the will of the people. If people don't want same-sex unions, they will make sure their representatives don't vote for it and that is how democracy works regardless of whether those people are basing their desires on rational thought or other factors like religion.....people are free to use their religion as their means of choice.
PAL
Who determines the "will" of the people? 51% of Canadians? Democracy is a nebulous concept. Who are the people and how do they rule? There is social democracy, direct democracy and constitutionally limited democracy. The West-- most consistantly the United States -- have choosen to bind a democratically elected Government to a Constitution that protects the sovereignity of the individual (This protection is eroding because of the confusions that Pallydin demonstrates). The purpose of the Law is to protect the life, liberty and property of the individual. These laws are the social application of the MORAL nature of man. Reason and volition are atributes of the individual. In order for me to exist I need to be free to use my mind to sustain my life. Voluntary contracts between rational adults (marriages by those who want to marry them) -- and are NOT the business of anyone but those who consent to the contract. You can have an opinion, but no right to force others to accept it.
 

cooper

New member
Apr 1, 2002
57
0
0
Pallydin..... very articulate and excellent response to my post. After thought you are correct in that I had things backwards. Perhaps it is Catholics that have lost touch with the Church and not vice versa. However, I did not mean to proclaim that I wanted to condone immoral behavior or acts. I am most supportive of having those in religious life be able to marry, women entering the priesthood and allowing married couples to use birth control.

With regard to whether priests should be compensated well, I can't argue that they do a job and should reap the rewards. However, there is such inconsistencies in the Church. There are women religious that are hospital CEOs who could earn $200,000 per year but get "paid" $50 a month. And, if a woman religious choses to leave after a long tenure in what would be a high paying job they get nothing. How can the Church justify paying salaries to preists when women religious live a life of poverty? And, typically it is only dioscesan preists that get paid a salary, others take an oath of poverty. With regard to the priest I knew vacationing in Jamaica, lets just say that I highly doubt he was there on missionary work. You would just have to know him.

With regard to the decisions of bishops running contrary to Church teachings the example I gave (about Catholic Hospitals allowing vasecotmies or tubal ligations) would be an example where the bishop does make the decision but it IS allowed in Church doctrine. There is a prinicipal of undo harm, or something of that nature. At any rate if, in this case, a Catholic Hospital maternity program feels at risk of closing down the bishop can invoke this principal of undo harm and allow the hospital to do tubal ligations in order to have the program be competitive.

The bottom line is that the Church IS out of touch with society in the year 2003. They could allow those in religious life to marry, but they chose not to do so. In so doing they are limiting the pool of high quality people that could provide a valuable service. But, they do so to protect their own self interests, just as compensating SOME priests and not compensating the women serves their own self interest. It is the hypocracy of these actions that alienates many Catholics. And, it is very unfortunate as I said before the Church has, and will continue to, do a lot of good for the poor and needy.
 
Aug 18, 2001
233
0
0
54
cooper said:
The bottom line is that the Church IS out of touch with society in the year 2003. They could allow those in religious life to marry, but they chose not to do so. In so doing they are limiting the pool of high quality people that could provide a valuable service. But, they do so to protect their own self interests, just as compensating SOME priests and not compensating the women serves their own self interest. It is the hypocracy of these actions that alienates many Catholics. And, it is very unfortunate as I said before the Church has, and will continue to, do a lot of good for the poor and needy.
The bottom line is, you have a very rudimentary understanding of Catholicism. The hypocrisy is a natural outcome of being consistant with the morality of altruism. True, the institution practises a form (really a perversion) of "self" interest. Yet, they preach the ethics of selflessness at mass. Therefore, the false dichotomy is internalized by all Catholics. To be selfish is to sacrfice others to the self. So the institution practices this. And, logically, there needs to be those who are willing to sacrifice themselves to this "selfish" institution. As for looking after the poor and needy. Read Chrisopher Hitchens account of Mother Teresa.
 

cooper

New member
Apr 1, 2002
57
0
0
Wired For Sound said:
The bottom line is, you have a very rudimentary understanding of Catholicism. The hypocrisy is a natural outcome of being consistant with the morality of altruism. True, the institution practises a form (really a perversion) of "self" interest. Yet, they preach the ethics of selflessness at mass. Therefore, the false dichotomy is internalized by all Catholics. To be selfish is to sacrfice others to the self. So the institution practices this. And, logically, there needs to be those who are willing to sacrifice themselves to this "selfish" institution. As for looking after the poor and needy. Read Chrisopher Hitchens account of Mother Teresa.
I do have a rudimentary understanding of Catholicism, I am not arguing that at all. However, I do feel that I am not speaking from total ingnorance either. Born and raised a Catholic and worked for Catholic organizations for over 15 years. I had the opportunity to know many people in religious life on a personal level. So my thoughts and views come from personal experience and are not rooted in an in depth knowledge of Catholicism per se.

I simply feel that the Church could be more proactive in being responsive to the needs of today's Catholics without compromising their core values. And, I think that it is possible to express an opinion on the Church without being a theological scholar.
 
Aug 18, 2001
233
0
0
54
cooper said:
I do have a rudimentary understanding of Catholicism, I am not arguing that at all. However, I do feel that I am not speaking from total ingnorance either. Born and raised a Catholic and worked for Catholic organizations for over 15 years. I had the opportunity to know many people in religious life on a personal level. So my thoughts and views come from personal experience and are not rooted in an in depth knowledge of Catholicism per se.

I simply feel that the Church could be more proactive in being responsive to the needs of today's Catholics without compromising their core values. And, I think that it is possible to express an opinion on the Church without being a theological scholar.
True, but your opinion of the Catholic Church is only worth so much without a knowledge of Catholicism.

The two propositions:

1) The Catholic Church should be "proactive in being responsive to the needs of today's Catholics..."

Contradicts the following propostion implied in the same sentence.

2) The Catholic Church should do this "without compromising their core values."

The Catholic Church is a top down hierarchical institution -- it's inherent in the institution itself -- and thus permeates "their core values". You want a grass roots Catholic Church that makes the individual members interprete Catholic dogma; then have the Church react to their thoughts and feelings. Heard of the Protestant Reformation? It's a contradiction you want. You can't have it both ways.
 

boyr

New member
Oct 11, 2002
175
0
0
Toronto
Catholicism is a very old religion with its "darkness" and "lightness" . A "double-standard" reality. As a former seminarian, I would say that there was the darkness in the catholic church before and during Vatican I, where really the church is a "hypocryte" because of her believers' mentality, Catholics who practiced a "closed religion" mentality- wherein they believe the Church is only a sacrament/hierarchy, They were only seeing one side of the coin. I would say there was also the "lightness" during Vatican II era, an enlightenment, wherein the church started to practice "social theology", the church began to recognize the church as the "people of God" and not just a building, a sacrament or hierarchy. A new mentality had been developing, maybe that's why most of us(catholics) here belong to this new mentality. Nowadays, the catholic church becomes "vulnerable", with this developing new mentality. That's why some of us catholics are confused about her teachings. But, if you are a believer in whatever era, you won't be disturbed as long as you have faith in this Church. Anyways, the Pope maintained its teaching regarding marriage as a "sacrament" and "conjugal union" between a man and a woman, in order to build a "family". It's "Adam" and "Eve"as what the Bible says and not "Steve' and 'Steve' . About celibacy, it means "total service to God and his people". Not only to his wife, love ones or friends but for everyone who are in need of her service. That is why priesthood is a vocation as well as marriage is. Priesthood is very hard vocation because you have to deny everything. That's why I left the seminary because I could not resist the temptation of beautiful girls" to love and be loved". Priests are only human and should not be treated as saint . They are sinners too that need retributions from their sins. Well, I hope I made my point.....
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Church and state should remain as two separate entities and the church should not condemn a government decision to give equality.
Depends on what one considers true equality. Afterall, no public pressure seems to be asking the government to recognize polygamy. No one seems to be pressuring the government to recognize hippie communes as legal marriages.
And of course what I find most ironic is that the people who tell religion to keep its mouth shut on government policy seem to be the same ones that blame religion for keeping its mouth shut during the Holocaust.
 
Toronto Escorts