Atheist,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are Cardinals who are eligible for promotion despite the fact they protected child rapists. I can't imagine what children with stolen innocence must be feeling.

Stop the planet, a few people need to get off.

You could always just jump. Which Cardinals are protected child rapists?

"Which Cardinals are protected child rapists?"

Law, Mahoney just to name two American cardinals

JIm: Have Law and mahoney been convicted of anything? I concur that they should be investigated, and, if the evidence is there, prosecuted. However, your statements are irresponsible. By the way, I, as a Roman Catholic, have stopped all contributions at the Bishop level and higher, but I won't deprive the local parish of the funds it needs to carry out its charitable works.

Jatty. If you are allowing your children to be alone with ANY Priest, you should be charged with child endangerment.

If Catholics could "embrace change"... there wouldn't be any Catholics.

Organized religion is such a business.

was: You are a fool. Address my question. Your unsupported opinion means less than nothing.

What do people mean when they say that the church should modernize? Are the teachings going to change? Didn't we see enough change with Vatican II, which was a disaster? Why would any institution want to "modernize" with this sick world?

Vatican II happened wwwaaayyyy too long ago. The Church's officials need to get into the 21st century as their tenets are quite outdated, most of them to be sure.

Change is very slow with the Vatican.

At Joe DeCarlo:

Modernize as in accept social change that is happening in the 21st Century.

The Vatcan is just as corrupt as any business and government.

An American pope, surely you jest! Bernard Law and his predecessors in Boston were responsible for covering up DECADES of child abuse, ditto those red hats in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philly. Dare I go on?

Had the independent weekly "The Boston Phoenix" not originally investigated the Boston area allegations, nothing would have come to light. When the tiny, little Phoenix understood the enormity of their discoveries, the publishers took their information to much bigger and better financed "Boston Globe." The Globe, which won a Pulitizer for its "I-Team" work tore the top off the whole festering mess. Included in this was the fact that the Boston Archdiocese took in abusing priests from Ireland and parcelled them around New England. When these moral microbes screwed up they were shipped out West, many going to RC run "Indian Schools," which probably contributed to the right rate of alcoholism among Native Americans.

At present, "Pope-contender" Cardinal Sean O'Malley has mouthed to apologies to a few victims; but spent more time yipping about uppity nuns who complained when their retirement coffers were pilfered to pay abuse claims. He and his minions also invested time and tax-free treasure into the defeat of a Massachusetts "Death With Dignity" proposal which is a bit of overstepping that pesky Church/State thing.

Oh, a great bunch of reformers, they.

Look at the past 5 years plus in America. Our democracy is nearly gone. What we have here today is not what Jesus created and left for the world to follow. We do however have a president who believes he is a diety.

Joke: "Mr Obama dies and stands before God. God asks him what do you have to say. Mr Obama responds, you are sitting in my seat."

If you believe an American Pope will give us married priests, women priests, abortion, contraception, or euthanasia, you are kidding yourself. You either accept the rules or you don't. I personally do not agree with the Church on contraception or gay rights. Well, if that means God judges me harshly, that is something for which I am prepared.

"Look at the past 5 years plus in America. Our democracy is nearly gone."

Our democracy is nearly gone?? What?? Tell us sandiego1969 -- what rights do you NOT have not have today that you did have on January 19, 2009?

As for your joke -- that's only been around (with different names) for at least 60 years. Get some new material!!

If you want real reform...

Total disagreement. If you want real reform, take away the power of the "Church". The church is not GOD. The church is not faith. The church has acquired it's power using GOD as it's backdrop.

Real reform starts with the demands of the masses. Take away this illusion that the church=GOD and the masses will be forced to renew their faith in GOD and not in the church. Then they will see the church for all that it really is. A corrupt, power hungry, tax sheltered entity that has no real accountability to anyone. Then like everything else in history, it will fade away into nothingness...as it should.

AMEN

didn't Nostradamus predict the end of the Catholic church?....

No, he predicted the end of days.

THIS. This is the what causes my anger towards the Catholic Church. It is not at all the case that I do not like the Catholic people themselves, it is that it dismays me to see the hierarchy of their church rule over the Catholic believers in ways that cause needless suffering.

Please read some examples below.

For example, the leaders of the Catholic faith in Sub-Saharan Africa continue to discourage the use of condoms, even though an estimated 22.4 million people in the region are currently infected with HIV. In South Africa, 17.5% of the population is infected with HIV and an estimated 310,000 people die each year from HIV/AIDS; there are approximately 1,900,000 orphans living in South Africa because of HIV/AIDS. In Zambia, the average life expectancy has been reduced to 33 years because of Aids. Yet the leaders in the Catholic Church continue to value their rule about condoms more than they care about the suffering of those whose lives are destroyed by Aids.

If an impoverished family is unable to properly feed and care for the children it already has, it is cruel for the Catholic Church to tell them that they should not use contraception and instead should have as many children as God sees fit to give them.

You can see the effects of the Catholic Church's ban on contraception in many countries. One example is Haiti, where Catholicism is the dominant religion -- poor families live crowded in slums, struggling to provide enough food for too many children. It is a common practice for poor families to send away children as young as four years old to be live-in domestic servants for wealthier families. Over 300,000 Haitian children work as "restavecs", which the United Nations considers to be modern slavery because the children often work long hours, do not receive an education, are mistreated, poorly fed and suffer abuse.

Wouldn't it be better for the families in Haiti to only have as many children as they have the ability to provide a quality life for -- both enough food and enough love? Wouldn't it be better for couples to use contraception than for children to suffer through poverty and slavery? Hmmm...the Catholic Church says, "No. It is more important that they follow our church's rules of not using birth control."

JavaSkull - I agree 100%. I also believe that the same is true of virtually any large organization. We've seen the same thing with Penn State, and recently with the Peace Corps. The organization/institution is either designed or becomes self-protective, and will always put itself above individuals.

its hard for a church to take a stance that promotes promiscuity.

apostle: that's where modernization should step in. humans are sexual creatures by nature. we are literally hard wired to reproduce. A long time ago, the church made rules to control who and what they didn't understand. welcome to the 21st century. time only marches forward.

I don't think the Church would be promoting promiscuity any more than promiscuity already exists, probably in most cultures of the world. But there might be a lessening of the spread of HIV/AIDS if more people used condoms. That's just a guess on my part, though. Even with their Sharia law, I would bet there's promiscuity in Islamic countries, maybe more men than women, just because of opportunity, but I'd bet it's there.

And I thought I read somewhere within the last six months or so that the Church has quietly given permission for condom use in Africa, at least, specifically because of the AIDS epidemic. A cynic might say they're worried that too many of their followers would die without replacing themselves, but I won't go there.

The reason that many American Catholics practice contraception is that Vatican II, which really was a liberalizing of the Church's teaching (and we've seen nothing on a similar scale since Paul VI died) is that one of the principles articulated at that Council was that each individual is responsible for forming his or her own conscience, taking into account the teachings of the Church. That was revolutionary. And it scared the Church so badly that, next time they had an opportunity, they elected a rock-ribbed reactionary as pope. John Paul II, may have been a good man personally, but I think his papacy was a disaster for the Church. Too many of the current College of Cardinals were appointed by him, and he tended to appoint the most reactionary bishops he could find.

The reason that more Catholics in other countries, especially the less-developed ones, do not practice birth control is that many of the people are not sufficiently educated to understand that distinction. Serious studies by the World Health Organization and other NGOs and agencies have shown that when the women in a country begin to become educated, they opt for birth control; maybe not all of them, but enough that the effect is measurable.

The pope aside, there's really no other world-wide head of any church that's responsible for defining the tenets of the faith except for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Anglican Communion is subdivided in ways the Catholic church is not. Possibly some of the Eastern Orthodox churches (yes, I'm lumping them all together here, but they're, most of them, not world-wide in the same numbers as either the Roman or Anglican Church) have an equivalent position, but I don't know how they all work, nor do I know whether the Chief Metropolitan (I think that's the term used by most of them) has the same canonical authority over the tenets of the faith as do either the pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I grew up in the Catholic church and was educated in Catholic schools for 12 years (including a degree from a Jesuit university). I used to believe all that, but no longer do. I realized after Vatican II did away with the use of Latin in church ritual, that what to me was the beauty of the ritual covered up some pretty unpleasant doctrines that I could no longer support in my own conscience. These days, if I go to church at all, I find a High Anglican church, because they still observe some of the practices and rituals I grew up with, and which comforted me when I was a child; I go for sentiment, not for salvation (I don't believe any of that anymore, either). Regrettably, there are fewer and fewer of those.

But to get back to what would make a good pope, and taking a lesson from the Anglicans, the next pope should be one who has had pastoral responsibilities (I think John XXIII was the last one who did), and who is aware of the ways of the world, not just the ways of the church. I would eliminate from consideration anyone in the Curia for that reason. The new A of C is a former banking executive, not a bad background for heading what is really a huge corporation. Inbreeding, whether of people, animals, or church officials, leads to fundamental weaknesses. The management of the church as a whole is desperately in need of reform, and someone who has been part of the problem, e.g., in the Curia, is highly unlikely to be part of the solution.

As Einstein said, "You cannot solve problems at the same level of thinking that created them." That is a lesson that a lot of people would do well to heed, but especially the College of Cardinals.

Publia- interesting post...reminds me of an article that was here a few days ago that essentially they need Jesus Christ with an MBA... I live in Rome now- and Piazza San Pietro is definitely in full conclave swing even if they havent started...

Change came only because Henry wanted a divorce and to remarry. I guess change was good for Anne Boleyn.

Then Henry went after Ann's sister later, what a horny bloke he was and desperate like his father Henry IV.

Jatty --- "I guess change was good for Anne Boleyn."

Change brought Anne Bolyn---in approximately a thousand days--beheading. It also left Anne's infant half-orphaned daughter in the hands of selfish, evil men (including her father) for the rest of her life.

Recognize sarcasm?

Recall Vatican II?

Vatican II did not change the church. It changed how the laity interact with it.

There was no Catholic church 2000 years ago (please remember that Christ was still under 20 years old 2000 years ago).

must we get it accurate to the day and hour? i think your being a little picky

Believer: That is a really stupid comment to anyone who knows Catholicism, which you obviously don't.

Right on! The Catholic Church, founded by the Son Of God, is true and Eternal. God does not change. Those "Catholic"s who want drastic change should investigate one of the many Protestant denominations, where change is accepted. Dominus Vobiscum

Traditional,

Go ahead liberals, make all the comments about the sex scandal. Sure, it is tragic. And so are the sex scandals we have heard about over the decades involving Protestant ministers and kids, secretaries, etc. But you dont seem to make a lot of noise about those scandals.

Great post all in all. However, I would caution you on bringing in the Protestants as an example. Most of them, myself included, are on your side. We can agree that man is not without sin. The Liberals are godless anyway. What I do find amusing is out of one side of their mouths they'll talk about the rape and abuse of male children by priests and then say it's a good idea to allow for homosexual Boy Scout leaders. Queue - the Left's "most pedophiles are heterosexual" mantra :)

No, no and NO!

Only the Catholic Church has been shown, by evidence, to engage in a global conspiracy to protect child predators and lie about it. Not the boyscouts, not the protestants. Only the Catholic Church for generations on every continent with a country! Let that detonate in your brain.

Shame on you for essentially disparaging the innocence lost by children with your overt defense of the indefensible.

Remain quiet and reflect on the evil you protect and nourish by your continued participation! Or better yet, keep posting so your irrational claims can continue to be destroyed publicly.

Jatty,

The Nation of Islam has programs to get young men off of drugs. Hamas, the terrorist organization also has charitable programs. Your logic, as it stands, says you must therefore support Hamas and Louis Farrakhan. Think a little bit here, ok?

You are clinging to a mammoth of a fallacy: it goes something like this, that if Catholicism disappeared somehow people would starve or people would be less charitable or that charity would vanish.

There is no evidence to suggest that good will would disappear. In fact, people of good will exist DESPITE the Catholic Church, not because of it. I tell you one thing, if Catholicism disappeared, there would no longer be generations of virgin priests being protected by your leaders for raping children.

Try again.

Those are psychotic comparisons. If the Catholic Church had armed killing forces all over the world, I would agree with you. Moreover, if the two orgs you cite would quit the violence and stick to the charity, no one would have an issue with them. You just have a huge chip on your shoulder. You say you were formerly Catholic. I don't believe it. If you were, you were clearly of the cafeteria variety.

We contradict one another. These things happen.

The Church must change. We need another John XXIII.

It is the fundamentalists that have infiltrated the Catholic Church that has turned it into a protestant religion. The Catholic CVhurch used to be the intellectual church in how it interpreted the Bible, fully aware that man without knowledge when the books were written are full iof superstition and not a mirror of the real world. The Church, within this context, brought out a deeper, more meaningful picture of the real Jesus and not some guy running around doing miracles. I pray for another John XXXIII to reop[en the doors to the Church Pope John Paul II irrationally closed.

We will be just fine. Go a head take all the shots you want, I will forgive each one of you, and not speak a bad word for you doing it. God Bless

Traditional Catholic,

You claim that Vatican II is destroying the Catholic Church, yet you do not explain how it is doing so, besides the vague claim that it introduced "modern" thought.

Having the Priest face the congregation and speak a language the people can actually understand is destroying the Church? Are you serious?

McGee - this is not the forum to explain all the various means with which Vatican II has destroyed the Catholic Church. Not the faith, that is still alive and well in many parts of the world. Even in the USA.

Overall, VAT II has destroyed the Catholic Church by allowing all the "openness" John XXIII wanted.

People can talk all they want about the "interpretation" of VAT II. Garbage. It was a rebellious bunch of bishops and priests who decided they knew better than the Pope. Most of them are still alive today. I am glad they are so they can see the damage they have done.

What damage?

For one - souls. All those people under all those rebellious priests and bishops may have lost their eternal souls due to the non-existent and/or poor catechesis those sons of satan plagued the church with.

If you care to read more on ALL they have done, there are many books out there that will do a much better job of explaining than I can.

Read books by

Malachi Martin (former priest-deceased),

Michael Davies - has written a bunch and they are all documented VERY well,

Scott Hahn - former Protestant minister who is WELL AWARE of the errors of VAT II.

there are many others.

Read them yourself. Learn. Understand our Catholic faith. Not the VAT II "fast food" edition, but the real, valid, Tradition-based Catholic faith that has been celebrated for 2,000 years.

Remember Catholics, St. Paul said to Timothy - "abide by the Traditions you were taught" and he also told us "do not follow another Gospel".

That is what VAT II is - another Gospel and a false one at that. It does not obey ANY of the Traditions of the Mass that have been celebrated for 2,000 years.

When Archbishop Bugnini presented his "new mass" to about 50 Cardinals, the mass lasted about 20 minutes. The Cardinals asked why it was so short and why it did not cover anything, Bugnini told them he would find something "to fill in the time". Nice. Good catechesis.

Vatican II leads Catholic AWAY from their faith. In doing so, it is heretical. Heretics have always been excommunicated in the Catholic faith. They should be today as well.

It is not about using Latin, everyone back in the pre-Vatican II days had Missals that translated the Latin. They still do so in Traditional churches today. VAT II is about destroying the Catholic Church so it is no longer a force in the world. They almost did it.

Thank you for your response. I am a confirmed Catholic but was born the the 80s, so I'm intereted to learn more about Vatican II.

McGee -

Honestly, I strive to learn more aboout the Traditions of our faith than the brief adultery with modernism we have had tossed in our face by Bugnini and others in the Vatican. John XXIII had 6 (six) Protestant ministers at Vatican II. They were called "advisors". It is interesting to note that the "new mass" has more in common with a Lutheran mass than with the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that has been celebrated by faithful Catholics for 2,000 years.

Look for the FSSP, SSPX and SSPV and Canons Regular of St. John Cantius (Chicago). They celebrate The Most Holy Sacrifice of The Mass as it has been and should be celebrated. We attend an FSSP Catholic church and it is BEAUTIFUL!!

Another point to consider - why does Vatican II allow "concelebrating"? That is, more than one Priest celebrating a mass? The Church is paid for masses by those who want them said. Each Priest who celebrates a Mass is paid a "mass stipend" for his work. Now, consider this, let's say you have 4 Priests concelebrating a mass. Each is to be paid their stipend by the church. Let's say their stipend is $50. In this example the church has to pay $200 for their services. But only ONE mass was celebrated, not four. So the church - and the world - is getting less mass and paying MORE for the little they get.

That is not right - at all. Even church teachers understand that error. It is wrong. Each Priest should do his mass, not join with others. Each mass allows grace into our fallen world. When Priests join together - that grace is reduced because you have 4 Priests doing the work of one.

God be with you as you continue to search for Him and His Catholic Faith.

as usua athiest cites claims and allegations without providing proof or sources that would hold up in a court of law. his court is the one of public opinion

man has evolved away from the need for religion.

Athiest: We don't contradict each other. You make false comparisons in an attempt to push a hate filled agenda designed to convince the weak minded. That's all.

Half of you commentators are so conservative that I wonder that your aren't writing in Latin.

And writing with your backs to your keyboard like the priests of pre Vatican II did.

Masses were mumbled in Latin by priests facing away from the congregation.

We were forced to endure that every day through years of parochial school.

Yes by all means, let's return to traditional catholicism...the burning of people alive, torture, selling indulgences, teaching the earth is the center of the universe, Bibles for the clergy only, etc, etc, etc.

No.

Thank you.

John XXIII began this slow rot with his "vision" of ecumenicalism. Sorry. It has not worked.

Pope Paul VI even said "Satan has entered the House of God" when he described Vatican II. Go read it.

The Catholic faith that is growing 15% to 25% per year?? What is this single point of the faith (which DOES NOT CHANGE at all) of the Roman Catholic Church??

Traditional Catholicism.

In the Traditions:

- boys serve at the Altar, not girls (this alone has increased the Priestly order dramatically)

- Priests teach the faith, they do not just hand over control to the laity

- Priests observe and teach all Sacraments. They do not contradict the Pope on every single topic

- Priests do not go off on their own and teach one child. All is done in groups all the time.

- their seminaries are full. One seminary has brought over 20 Catholic Priests into full time service every year for quite some time now. The Archdiocese of Boston and of NY TOGETHER have not done that.

We need a Holy Pope, not a "modern" Pope.

We have seen what modernism has done since it was given a chance with Vatican II. I was sick of going to Mass and seeing all the women and their daughters dressed like whores and the men sitting like they are waiting for a bus.

No thanks.

I refound the Catholic faith. It is wonderful.

Oh, please! You think Vatican II was the first time the Church "reformed?" Do some research, go back to the Papal States in the 1860s, yes there was reform back then, some good and some bad but it happened. Then read about St. Thomas Aquinas, yep another reformer and major leader of the Church.

As for Pope Paul VI, he was the genuis who declare birth control a form of genocide, a decree we've been stuck with ever since. (Oh, sorry, I guess I don't accept "papal infallibility," apparently you don't either! Then again, that phrase flew out of Pope Pius IX's mouth during an argument with reformers - what, you thought that doctrine had been around for 2,000 years?) If there's one thing THIS Catholic woman would like to see change, it's the prohibition against birth control which is not even based on Scripture but was one Pope's opinion. It should be seen for what it truly is and treated as such.

T Bourlon,

Birth conttrol such as the pill is an abortifacient. Look the word up. What pope worth his salt would be in favor of anything that causes abortions?

Before you spout off, you should educate yourself on basic Catholic teaching.

Before you spout off, you should educate yourself about birth control pills - they PREVENT ovulation, they ARE NOT abortifacients. Neither are condoms or diaphrams; for that matter a tubal ligation isn't an abortifacient, either. And I teach a Sunday School class, so I am VERY aware of basic Catholic teaching - doesn't mean it makes sense; i.e. papal infallibility, etc.

T -

I suggest you attend a Protestant church. It is quite obvious you have no understanding nor interest in the Catholic faith.

Protestant churches are filled with women and their daughters (who are dressed like hookers) who pray to a God who loves all His children - born and unborn and then they go support abortion.

I see license plates that read "support life" on cars with "Obama 2012" stickers. Oil and water.

A little contradictory??? Yes. It is.

A little confusing? Yes, most certanly.

Does it happen today? Yes, in about every Protestant church in the world.

But they will welcome you with open arms because all they care about are the numbers they seat every Sunday.

They want large numbers in their church. And apparently in hell also.

Dont think that is a fair comment? Sorry, the truth hurts. But it is still the truth.

perhaps if people would exercise a little restraint in thier sex lives,quit acting like rabbits , spend more time in prayer and more in serving others abortion and birth control wouldnt be an issue

Apostle -

Not exactly what I would have said, but I get your point. It is interesting that the world makes such a big deal about condoms, abortion, etc. yet they never talk about slowing down all the sex ads, sex talk, sex shows, sex phones, etc.

Could it possibly be that all that sex causes some people to think about sex more. Thereby thinking about it they then wish to do it??

Oh no,no,no,no,no - that is Dark Ages thinking. Who ever heard of physical and visual promptings causing people to do things????

Ad agencies do it to us every minute of every day.

Your daughter does not have the "right" to dress like a whore so that my son has to deal with that prompting in his mind and avoid making a bad decision. Put a shirt on and cover yourself. I am not interested in what you think of yourself. Your husband/wife can be - that is great. i have no need to see whatever it is you feel you have the "right" to show the world.

Oh - no-no-no-no-no-no-no that is so Dark Ages. No. It is the MODERN age. I am sick of all the psycho-babble about how kids are "supposed" to be sexually active. Just because they can - they are "supposed to" do it???? Great, I might be able to do a few things. So I should do them???

No.

Show a little self-control. Show a little restraint. Show a little decency.

All of that "crazy" talk might just reveal that we can be better than we are allowing ourselves to be. In doing so, we may just be able to turn this tide a crazed sex deviants into actual human beings. In doing so, we might just reduce the number of abortions and cause the money-grubbing Planned Parenthood to sell cookies and not carve up our expectant mothers.

its really pathetic how ads even on channels that have a decent show on but the ads in between breaks show so much sex, its all about sex, showing not just adults but teens which tell teenagers its ok to be sexually active at a young age. the devil is getting in at the root level , as they say we are letting him in the back door.

apostle: you seem obsessed with sex. science tells us that you aren't getting any and it shows. nobody really wants a church to dictate their sex lives. welcome to the 21st century.

Traditional, I have never seen anyone so JUDGEMENTAL in my life! The NERVE of you telling me to go to another Church, did the Pope die and leave you in charge? Ever heard the phrase "Judge not, lest thou be judged?" I read it in a good book, you should check it out sometime, and maybe remove the beam in your own eye before you try to take the speck out of mine!

Dont think that is a fair comment? Sorry, the truth hurts. But it is still the truth.

I'm wondering where in my first or second post I EVER said I support either Obama or abortion - for the record I support neither. I don't want to accuse you of lying, so instead I'll suggest that perhaps you are reading things into my post that aren't actually THERE, so therefore it is not the truth.

A well informed and well reasoned post. Thanks for your on-point observations.

Let's not also forget that during the Dark Ages - as well as the Renissance - that families sometimes ruled over the Papacy. Oh, and let's not forget the Dark Ages Pope that carried on an affair with his MOTHER. And let's not forget a few other things.

For example, while priests weren't married during The Middle Ages and Renissance, it wasn't uncommon for priests and other clergy to be fooling around with prositutes and courtesans. In fact, prositution was LEGAL according to Catholic Standards of the time. They also fooled around with altar boys too, but usually they were at the age of consent for that time period. Of course, atlar boys lived with the priests at the time, so it wouldn't have been uncommon for a priest to be the one the altar boy turned to for advice on things like love, admiration, sex, etc.

Third of all, the Catholic Church was more political back then than it was today. Ever heard the area of Italy once called "The Papal States?" Over the centuries - especially before the unification of Italy, the Pope had secular power over land. Thus, being Pope was more about politics than spirituality. In fact, politics goes on in the Vatican even today. It's just back that back then, there was more vote buying, simony, and other political moving and shaking going on. So if you want to be honest, the fact that cardinals who are going to the conclave aren't clean - well, it's never been that clean for hundred - if not thousands of years. If a cardinal can buy votes, offer votes, and exchanget hem for bribes, etc. Hiding Child Molesters is nothing compared to what was done in the past.

Third of all, I really hope you don't take off your wedding and engagement rings after this, but that gold engagement you wear and/or are planning to give to that special girl - well, guess what, you're doing exactly what a Pope decreed. In the year 810, pope Nicholas I made it manditory that all engagement rings be made out of gold. The idea was, if you're going to get married, you're going to have to be prepared for the finacial trappings that come with it aka a place to live, food a wife to support, children, etc.. It wasn't until several centuries later that a betrothed royal couple got the diamond on top of the gold ring. And the diamond was secular, not religious.

So while you guys are blasting the church for stuff that would have been considered child's play back during the Middle Ages and the Renissance, make sure you take off that gold engagement ring for husband/fiancee gave you, sell it for cash, and once you've explained your decision as to why you just wasted their money, then go protest the Catholic Church.

Like I said, this stuff is mere child's play for the cardinals of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for sharing part of history.

It is always interesting to see the parts of history that people leave out. Do they not like it? Are they not aware of it?

Please remember, the Catholic Church and its religious workers (Priests, nuns, etc.) were all there was in those "Dark Ages" you speak of. Who created the hospitals? Who gave the help? Who took care of the lame, insane, sick, etc., etc., etc.??? Mostly, it was the local Catholic Churches who were instructed to do so by --- who? Yes, THE POPE. Yes, that mean old man you hate so much was the force behind all the help. Not just one Pope, but every one of them.

Ironic? Yes. Today's society seeks to hate the very person who has been most helpful throughout the history of the Catholic Church.

Society hates the Pope. They make him out to be a monster during WWII. Yet, documents uncovered recently have shown that he alone was directly and indirectly involved in saving AT LEAST 300,000 Jews from Hitler's ovens. Wow. We really should hate him for that - right?

Wrong.

We need a HOLY POPE, not a modern Pope.

This is just a brief history of what really went down. Oh, and BTW, The Dark Ages is a term used to discribe Europe after the Fall of Rome but before the Middle Ages. I just used an historical name - nothing to bash the church with.

I'm just curious...does MAN make the Pope HOLY? They're voting for a political figure. A MAN to say he knows the word of God. Well, I don't believe he "knows the word of God". God didn't pick him...man did.

Sorry to burst your bubble, that's how it was before the pope's secular power was erroded away by events such as the Unification of Italy. In fact, my father's family comes from an area that was known as the papal states before Italy became unified and delt a huge blow to the pope's securlar power.

Vatican City is all that's left of the Pope's secular power. Vatican City has it's own rules, laws, etc. If you think the world runs on American ideals, you are quite mistaken. That's why when the butler got arrested for leaking documents, he was breaking the law because he had broken Vatican Law. Now, in America, we might call him a whistle blower, but in Vatican City - well, American ideals don't exist there and they never had.

Back to the point you were making. Selecting a pope, at the time I'm talking about historically, was considered a blend of God and Human. If you were clever enough - a God given gift - and you played that gift well-enough, you got the votes to become Pope. Hell, look at Julius II - he had to play second fiddle to Rodrigo Borgia until he died. Used his wit - a so-called God Given Gift - and won the papcy.

If you're clever enough to use a "God-Given Gift" and use it well with other moral and legal shady dealings, you got the top spot of the Church. If you want to read about politics back then, check out The Prince. The book may be morally disgusting, but it gives people a clear view of how politics was thought of back then.

Izzy, If you're talking to me, I mean just ME. I was raised Catholic and I pretty much gave up on it by age 10. All the hope for the poor etc, etc, seemed to dissipate once the cogregation walked out the church. It was back to business as usual. Other people can believe what they want. I don't fault them. It's just the Church seems more like a business with losses(payment to abuse victims)and profits(people who believe the Church can do no wrong or feel they are "sinning" for not giving the Church money). They can do what they want, I am just not a part of that and never will be again. This is my personal decision and I would not try to change anybody elses beliefs.

@ Robert - No it's fine. If I told you I'm Catholic as well, it might suprise many people on the board. The difference is, I researched the Catholic Church's History long before I decided to get confirmed - I ended up taking the saint name Catherine because she was one of the few female doctors (leading experts) on church theology during the Middle Ages.

What I've posted on this board is the actual history of the church. Yes, it is ugly, but it's the truth. That Dark Ages Pope doing his mother - that was actually a real rumor going around at the time of his papacy. The Middle Ages and Rennisance things I mentioned, did research on that as well. I am dissapointed in the church for handling the sex abuse cases - I agree that what was done was wrong, but sadly, church history has more ugly stuff that's brought up than good stuff.

But I knew this information before I decided to stay with the church. I made the choice to stay and take the sacrament of confirmation. So I have no illusions about what I got myself into. Now, I'd like to go back to church, but the problem is, I don't drive. I live farther away from my family, so I can't make it to church at all. Hell, money-wise, I can't even put anything in the collection plate because I need that money for food.

But all those tidbits I posted, yes, they all happened. I knew this and was fine with it. Now, people can accuse me of being a sheep or whatnot, but I checked my history, read historical, secular books of that time period, and I made my choice.

Nothing to be offended about. I just made my choice to accept the good and the bad of my faith. Again, I can get called a sheep, but I would encourage everyone - on the road to being confirmed or not - to look up your faith's history. To look at the bad and the good of their faith. I did, got confirmed, and though I've questioned some of my church's legal policies, my faith hasn't change one bit.

Izzy, sounds like you did your research and make a decision. I like your choice for your confirmation name. It seemed at home to you. I respect your decision the convert with all the mud being thrown. My problem with the Church is the sexual coverups. Like I said, that was my decision to walk. I dislike people making excuses for the Church, or saying it happens worse in other places. It should not happen PERIOD. I'm glad you still question the Church....some people put a bag over their head after the Church says something and refuse any other opinion. I don't know if Blind Faith is a virtue. I know people who believe the Old Testament is 100% factual. I never got those folks. I know Jesus didn't say it, but "Live and let live". Just respect my beliefs also, and don't hammer into me that I'm somehow wrong and you're right. I don't like fanatics. They're kinda nuts. :-)

I see I stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest--that's OK. Hypocrisy (especially one's own) is always difficult to face and acknowledge. It's sad that beneficial organizations like Catholic Charities also have to carry the stench brought about by scandals in the church.

It's not as if the secular world is as pure as the wind-driven snow... Wherever human beings are found, atrocities will be there as well. That, too, will never change. The Catholic Church teaches this as well, but, as I stated above, always has problems properly dealing with its own atrocities.

• This entire process is little more than a bunch of hocus-pocus, superstitions, and meaningless 7^th century ritual.

Traditions and morals change all the time. All/The/Time. We don't look back in time to decide what the best medicine is. Why should we look back 2,000 years to decide what the best morals are?

It is moral and civilized to hate the actions of the Catholic leaders who vouchsafed the security of their "brothers" while letting the innocence of children be stolen.

As for good in the world, you may want to consider the principles found espoused in the Enlightenment (reason, cosmopolitanism, effective government). It's those principles that have ushered in what is likely the most peaceful era of our species existence. (Source: The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker).

"There is much more good than bad". Wrong. It is all bad. Teaching children that they will suffer for all eternity if they don't do exactly as they are told is emotional abuse. Teaching children to discard critical thinking and just have faith is handicaps them for the rest of their lives. The reality is, that the mass of people keep christianity in check. Left unchecked, it would only be a matter of time before the pastors and priests start burning people alive again in the name of their god!

One does not have to discard critical thinking to have faith as long as logic and belief can be kept separate. It's a shame religious extremists as well as anti-believers can't do this. I think we'd cooperate much more easily if we did.

Ryan, I wish more people (religious or not) would think more about their actions. Historically, "the world is flat, she's a witch so burn her alive, etc", religion is very opinionated and has no reservations about pushing it's views on anyone within it's reach. You may think that those examples of complete disregard of critical thinking are not applicable to our times now, so let me give you some for now. Most churches are actively attempting to block sex ed classes. Classes that would help educate children on how their body works, what dangers threaten it and how to protect it. Why would the religious community oppose such vital material? Where is the critical thinking there?

And priests had sex with courtisans, prositutes, and consenting altar boys during the Middle Ages and the Renissance. Were they faithful back pecular about the sex life of their parish priest? Their Bishop, who probably held land and had servants like the wealthy do today?

Besides, there was a Pope who had an affair with his mother. If you think a tradition of having sex with the above three types of people is wrong, I'm sure you'd love to hear about the pope who did his mother.

Oh, BTW, if you hate the Catholic Church so much, get rid of your gold wedding and engagement rings. After all, a pope did decree that the only way for a marriage to be valid was through gold ring exchanges. The diamonds were just secular.

Funny....im quite mentally stable and attend a catholic church. Get a life and instead of comming down on all catholics to make your pathetic self feel better.

Your comment makes me feel sorry for you. You seem to be filled with fear of a godless world. Many people for many ages have experienced this same fear. The Greeks had lots of gods to please, not just one. You would feel much better understanding that homosexuals won't harm you in any way. You are a religious person because you grew up around religious people and you have been conditioned to believe. You feel that you would betray your family if you went against what they told you. You will raise your children to hate people who don't share your same beliefs. Sad, very sad. You would feel much better if you would realize... god isn't real...

Why does someone have to be godless to tolerate and support homosexuality? Unless you can explain HOW it's impossible for something to exist, you don't know what all is real or not. I think if some people thought a little more about how they chose their words they'd find they would have more cooperation from people like Pro Life Activoist.

I never said anyone HAD to be godless to support homosexuality. Um, no, the burden of proof is on the religious folks. I do not have to prove god doesn't exist. You have to prove it does. This might get you pointed in the right direction:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

Jim....no one has to prove anything to anyone. If someone believes in God then so be it. Not YOU or ANY other person has the right to tell them to believe otherwise.

Pal... That is exactly my point! I don't give a care if you waste your life believing in whatever you want for however long you want. BUT, religion has NO right to push it's views on me or any other citizen, and THAT is my problem with religion. It attempts to limit my freedoms as well as the freedoms of so many others.

"Um, no, the burden of proof is on the religious folks."

I never said God IS real. I said you, like everyone else, does not actually know if God is real or not. If we did, we should have no problem either proving its existence or explaining how it's impossible. Things exist whether we prove them or not in reality, not the other way around (well besides observation possibly changing reality but I think you get the point). I prefer to believe in some type of "God" which is not predefined in book. Not that I need it to enjoy life, I just prefer to believe in at least some type of "why." I also know to remember the difference between logic and belief. If you have to be absolutely certain of something just to simply believe, then go for it. On the other hand as long as those who believe can learn to keep logic separate from their beliefs, then go for it.

" and THAT is my problem with religion." You are mistaken in your understanding of what religion is. Religion is merely the set of rules and beliefs you use to live your life. Some people believe in a religion where a deity is worshiped and the rules the deity is believed to have set down are followed.

The most common religion in the US is not Christianity, it is secular humanism. Whatever the driving set of beliefs are in your life you can pretty much tell what it is by looking at your check book and your calendar: that is your religion.

A religious belief I hear coming from gays and their supporters is "My sexual activity and who I love in a marriage relationship is my business"

I would suggest if you believe that to be true, why have any restriction at all on marriage: How about siblings marry, polygamy, multiple marriages (2 men marry 4 women) and so on.

On one hand you have the "fine tuning" in our universe which scientists have noticed. Maybe we happen to be in the right universe like string theory, the most mathematically dense scientific theory suggests, but then that means anything we done or imagined should be inevitable anyways. Oh but "god isn't real"..... Agnosticism for the logical win.

typo: "On the other hand as long as those who believe can learn to keep their beliefs separate from logic for as long as need be, then go for it.*"

"If you have to be as certain as possible* of something just to simply believe"

Ok, Ryan, I'm not looking to argue. True, I can't prove god isn't real. But you can't prove the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, etc. You just know the FSM isn't, and I just know THEY aren't. You are 100% correct, things exist or don't exist independently of our beliefs. This makes your statement about your beliefs a little ironic. Understand that a god doesn't HAVE to exist because you want it to. You argue that you believe regardless of a book. That book is the precedent to what you now believe in... Food for thought.

". You will raise your children to hate people who don't share your same beliefs. Sad, very sad. You would feel much better if you would realize... god isn't real..."

The pervasive gay belief that because Christians believe homosexuality to be sin and an unacceptable lifestyle that we hate gays has got to be some sort of massive self deceptions and perhaps even a indicative of a mental illness. Or, perhaps your understanding of God is so distorted that you don't understand or accept that you are greatly loved in spite of the sin you might have in your life. God does not stop loving you because you refuse to do His will and quite frankly if you choose to not follow Him in your life, He lets you keep that choice for eternity: It is perfect justice! In either case He allows you your will: If your will is to separate your self from him in this life then He simply allows you that same separation you chose for eternity. On the other hand if you choose to follow Him, he allows your will for eternity as being with Him.

Pro... I agree completely. There shouldn't be any restrictions on marriage at all (gasp). In fact marriage doesn't even have to exist. I'm not opposed to it (I'm married). But there is no need for a legal binding or perks. It is a tradition and traditions don't have to be followed. And I agree, a person's relationship with whomever isn't the churches business. So you say you don't hate gays? In you voting, are you voting to protect their freedoms or limit them? My understanding of religion is not distorted. It is an organization that wishes to oppress others that do not follow. Take a look around at all the suffering in the world. My understanding of god, there is no god. The only good in this world comes from those who care for one another.

"the flying spaghetti monster isn't real"

Yeah, I could believe in that too if it provided a "why" or purpose to my beliefs.

"You just know the FSM isn't, and I just know THEY aren't"
Refer to string theory. If you wish to disregard that then I would assume the FSM if it did exist and could do so, would fine-tune our universe specifically for spaghetti rather than all of life we know of.

"things exist or don't exist independently of our beliefs. This makes your statement about your beliefs a little ironic."

Only if I didn't acknowledge and accept my beliefs could be completely and utterly wrong. That's why they are beliefs not logic. Why did you you assume that?

"Understand that a god doesn't HAVE to exist because you want it to."

Again, "That's why they are beliefs not logic."

"You argue that you believe regardless of a book. That book is the precedent to what you now believe in.."

Not so much. I don't believe in heaven or hell. I dont believe "God", which I tend to put quotes around for a reason if you haven't noticed, has to be a omni-anything. I believe "God" may not necessarily of love, but good or just life/consciousness itself. I've come a ways in my beliefs past the certain specifics of any one religion. Im haven't been a subscriber for a while fyi. I could see how you might have assumed that one though with this being a catholic article and all.

"My understanding of god, there is no god."
That sounds so much more logical than just, in an absolute way, flat out saying any one thing isn't real. Agnosticism for the logical win

I havent*

Unfortunately, it'll never happen. They need a way to make money.

I have a pagan friend, and the only reason he thinks Benedict resigned was because the pope had embarassed the church to the point that he was being given subtle hints. More or less likely, those hints were - if you believe John Paul I was murdered - you either get out or you're going to end up like John Paul I.

Now, we could debate all day if John Paul I was murdered or died naturally, but that's what he thinks. And, sadly, the Vatican - if you go back historically - has had no problem offing people who were critics of the pope and his policies.

I agree that unless this issue is addressed, the Church might be able to do some damage control. If the next pope buries his head in the sand - there could be another resignation on the way.

"While science is inevitably a "two edged sword", ... "

By this I mean that science can potentially be either 'constructive' or 'destructive' (if only in the short run). But please keep in mind that there have always been dual applications of these diametric forces of science and technology starting with the stone axe. - RC

The modern Catholic Church has no issue with Evolution, the Big Bang, or any other scientific theory. You're getting it confused with conservative Protestant Sects.

For example, see:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

Wow, broad brush you paint with there, Jim.

Inaccurate in any way??? Ben...

Very. Now don't post any further, Jim, before you embarrass yourself even more.

"very"... yet no examples... Strong argument you have there. :(

Bene...do you talk to dolphins? sounds like it.

Pal, at least reply under the comments so you can keep the thread intact. :) Like I said, I don't care what your beliefs are. I just don't want you or any religious organizations caring about mine and trying to suppress my freedoms based on their beliefs. Try not to take this post personally, and you will realize there is nothing foolish about it.

No one has mentioned those of us out here that believe deeply in God but a scared to death of church people and their rhetoric. I share the central belief of Christianity, however, I think most Christians that attend church regularly are lunatics and I keep my beliefs to myself for fear of being lumped in with those crazies... The central belief of Christianity is love God first and then love your neighbor as yourself. It is impossible to love your neighbor while judging him.