Fall of the Catholic Church

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119035651#Comment_119035651

I quite enjoy a nice cathedral to be honest. Usually stop into at least one when I travel to a new city, find them incredibly peaceful places and lovely to walk around.

Can totally get that aspect of the whole thing and understand why religious people would feel awe in such a place. I quite like to imagine what it must have been like hundreds of years ago in a world with no technology, to go into a building like that and see the sun shining in through the stained glass windows. Must have been magical.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119028202#Comment_119028202

There is a certain degree of "correlation/causation" error going on in your post there however. When you say a lot of human progress was made in religious times... you are actually saying nothing AT ALL. Why? Because historically humans were and continue to be religious. So EVERYTHING was pretty much done in "religious times".

A large amount of human wars were made in religious times. A large amount of chickens were plucked in religious times. A large amount of the martial arts where formed during religious times. A large amount of our art was produced in religious times. And so on and so on and so on. You might as well say "A large amount of human progress was made while the sun was up". Of course it was because for the majority of human history we had little to no light at night.

So really the fact much achievement was done in "religious times" tells us nothing more than most of human history was "religious times". You are creating what is essentially called "a self selecting data set".

So correlating human achievements with "religious times" is going to get you nowhere rhetorically. A more interesting question would be whether any of that human progress was actively BECAUSE of religion, rather than whether it simply occurred under its rubric. Which is a much harder question to answer because I am generally unaware of any human advancement at all, let alone a significant quantity of them, that could not be achieved without religion.

In fact we have examples where people simply stuck religion in where progress actually failed them. Even some of our greatest minds like Newton, when they hit the limits of their own amazing intellect, simply assumed a divine hand to explain away their own limitations. Not to mention the times where religion actively materially hampered progress by declaring certain ideas blasphemy in one form or another.

And the same is true for anything we value it seems. Moral actions. Art. Self Sacrifice. Charity. Scientific Progress. Education. Many of these things happened against a background of religion, or were even achieved by people who were actively religious. But that does not mean religion had to have anything whatsoever to do with it. But we can find examples where religion also actively hampered some such areas.

Christopher Hitchens used to have a fairly basic challenge on this from the moral perspective. Which was to name for him a single moral actual made by a person of faith that was precluded, on grounds of lack of faith, to an atheist. The counter argument he pointed out was much easier to make, which is to point out an immoral action performed precisely from a motivation of, or justified by faith.

Sam Harris had a similar argument from the perspective of scientific progress. His challenge was to try and name a single question for which we once had a scientific answer, which was then replaced by a better religious one. Again the counter question was easier to answer... as few of us struggle to name quite a few religious or supernatural conclusions for which we now have better answers afforded us by science (dear history, epileptics were NOT possessed by demons :) ).

So before we credit religion with anything, as you recommend.... let us do so by a methodology that ensures that credit is given if, when, and only where credit is actually due. Where and when they actually deserve it, I am not sure which atheists you will find actively denying it. I certainly will not be one of them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030505#Comment_119030505

Bringing people physically into one location though does not automatically mean "community". In fact of all the catholic religious services I have personally experienced over the years..... in Ireland, UK, Germany and Poland mostly.... the people would quietly file in the door, take seats and knees for nearly an hour.... then file out and home again. I saw little to no "community" in effect there myself. In fact when people left the main door and hung around outside to even talk to anyone, I saw them politely asked to move on so the rest of the congregation were not impeded at the door to get out.

Rather than "community" what I did see them getting was a lot of world view validation. They sat nodding away to what the priest was saying, and they could look around and see x hundred other people doing the same. So it was probably feeding some internal need for "community" in the same way that masturbation feeds a need for "sex". Providing a form of pseudo stimulus that convinces the brain it is getting something it actually isn't.

Though interestingly I had an anecdote back where I was performing scientific experiments on consecrated wafers. I met two little old women who had been going to church together for decades. I was asking them some questions and it turned out they disagreed really strongly on a few rather core points of catholic doctrine. They did not even know this until meeting me. Why? Because apparently despite going and sitting in pretty much the same seats together every Sunday for decades..... they never actually talked about any of it to even a moderate degree. And talking with ME was the first time they each realised what the other believed which was "Oh I don't believe that AT ALL".

But sure.... clarity on this question can be compounded by the local church being a focal point.... outside the religious aspect and services.... for aspects of community. For example I wanted to get involved actively in charity and community work myself in my earlier years. So I looked around for where to get active in this. And the local church, and church related groups, were really the "only game in town" at the time. Later when I wanted some information on some community issues.... it was the churches noticeboard I went to first.

So it got a bit "chicken and egg" for me. Was it that religion was bringing or giving a sense of community? Or was it that the religion was as convenient a focal point as any for community to bring itself to it? Is religion here, as it is for things like morality, simply a packaging for a perfectly serviceable and existent product?

I suspect it is not "community" that a lot of people get from religion, but other things that human beings tend to feel a need for. Such as ritual and narrative. We are a narrative driven species after all and religion, if nothing else, certainly affords people one of those to cling to!

People, and it has permeated a few posts on this thread already, try to correlate the constant decline and death of religion with increasing depression, and loneliness and isolation in our society. But again we have a correlation / causation issue there. Is the decline one in any way actively the cause of the increase of the other? I have my doubts to be honest. I think human behaviour is far to complicated to be distilled down to a simplistic assumption of that magnitude. And I can point to many things in fact that I suspect have fingers in the pie of human depression, isolation, anxiety and suffering.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119033696#Comment_119033696

Unsubstantiated claims are unsubstantiated claims... regardless of whether you label it "Catholic" "Christian" "Islam" or "The Cayenne Pepper diet". What am I "hoping" for therefore? That we continually strive towards an ideal we will probably never reach whereby our moral and ethical and political decisions are based as much as possible in the realms of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning.

While having almost no specific feelings about the man myself, positive or negative, I do think Obama in an early Keynote speech said it more eloquently than I ever have. If you read that speech you will understand my own view on what I hope for "Christianity in general" as you put it. The hope I have regarding the fall of the Catholic Church and it's influence is secular rather than atheistic.

sojo.net/articles/transcript-obamas-2006-sojournerscall-renewal-address-faith-and-politics

Then again it is hard to know what "Christianity in General" even means. Last time I checked an encyclopedia, which was some time ago now I admit, there was over 33000 recognised sects / schisms / groups under the umbrella term "Christianity" and Americans for example were changing religion more often than they were changing their Mobile Phone Provider. So to discuss Christianity "in general" one seemingly has to get VERY damn "general". It seems even under something like "Catholicism" people generally can not agree what it is they are meant to be believing. It seems significant %s of them do not even believe there is a god.... which I myself would have considered a low bar assumption on what qualifies as being "Catholic" let alone "Christian in General" :p

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119035651#Comment_119035651

Yeah I have seen things like The Church getting a community centre built as you put it. Or the church setting up feeding the homeless. And so on and so on.

But what does that actually mean? Rome is quite wealthy. It would appear to me that what the church effectively is.... is a business model based on being a charity broker. It takes in donations.... does pretty well for itself financially by doing so.... and then distributes some of that wealth to charity and community causes.

So sure they get things done at times, but I would not laud praise on them without reservation for that. It is still a business model.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119035712#Comment_119035712

There are criminals and frauds in all walks of life.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119035851#Comment_119035851

Everything is a business model. Very hard to get everything done in life for free.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119035272#Comment_119035272

Kinda taking things out of context.

Ancient Greece and Rome were highly religious, it was ingrained in their culture and much of that passed into religions like Christianity.

As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),[1][5][6] and now scholars also reject its usage in this period.[7] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate.[8][9][10][11] Petrarch's pejorative meaning remains in use,[12][13][14] typically in popular culture which often mischaracterises the Middle Ages as a time of violence and backwardness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036004#Comment_119036004

We're not talking about other walks of life though, we're talking about the Catholic Church.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036067#Comment_119036067

Last I checked the Catholic Church is mostly humans and thus subject to human nature. If you want to take a blinkered view on it thats your choice.

One on hand we praise the Romans for what they did for us. But they were no saints either.

John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, KCVO, DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), better known as Lord Acton, was an English Catholic historian, politician, and writer. He was the only son of Sir Ferdinand Dalberg-Acton, 7th Baronet,[1] and a grandson of the Neapolitan admiral and prime minister Sir John Acton, 6th Baronet.[2][3] Between 1837 and 1869 he was known as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet.

He is perhaps best known for the remark,

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men...", which he made in a letter to an Anglican bishop

Ash.J.Williams

just saw a a prime example now in the paper, a born again christian choir master and broadcaster, turned his back on vice and drugs and there was a judge in his choir and he had said "god told me i would be seated beside judges" ....now he's up on kiddie porn charges

i don't think he heard god talking :)

Flinty997

That's Broadcasters for you.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036106#Comment_119036106

More whataboutery.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036016#Comment_119036016

Agreed. I am not against business models per se. But I also think we should recognise them for what they are rather than dress them up pretty.

So when someone rolls out the claim that "Well the church built a community centre" or "The church is giving money to this feed the homeless drive every week night" or anything similar to that.... yeah well so has the National Lottery. The lottery sells hopes and dreams, the church sells lies to children, but they are essentially operating as profitable charity brokers.

So if you have the choice between giving money to the church in the hope they will feed some homeless.... or give it directly to a homeless charity.... then it is an option worth looking into. Just like if I know a good insurance deal on my car I will go directly to that dealer.... and not do it via a broker who is going to add yet another layer onto my fee.

Brokers have their uses but let's recognise their profit model and not act like they are all our god given saints and saviours.

Alas charities are not guilt free either as we have discovered all too often in the past. Looking at you CRC for example.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036240#Comment_119036240

Not really. but if you are only looking for the negative, thats all you find. Not that there isn't a lot of negative to find.

Kaybaykwah

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119028073#Comment_119028073

Lol.

I wonder who was it said it?

A bad plumber? A good dentist?

There have been plumbers and dentists known to fiddle little kids and get a chuckle out of a bad joke.

Either way, when someone enforces the hanging bit, they reinvigorate the cycle of Religious/Political authority they sought (?) to do away with.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036307#Comment_119036307

There are lot of people (and also religious people) who give their time and resources (often money) for altruistic reasons. That some of it gets corrupted should not devalue those people. But also recognize sometimes some times money is need to get things done.

downtheroad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119035651#Comment_119035651

That is great, and genuinely happy for you that you find relief, calm etc in your faith.

The real issue we have in the country though is that your religion is deeply ingrained in many institutions, eg schools and hospitals, and this shouldn't be the default position.

I don't think many are calling for the catholic church to be disbanded, just removed from schools for a start and let people like yourself go about your religious life as and when you choose to do so.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036329#Comment_119036329

That's exactly what it is. What the Catholic Church did in terms of abusing children is fine because people who aren't Catholic did terrible things as well.

Flinty997

In Japan the allies severed the ties between state church after the war. There is no religion in Japanese's schools. But its not through cultural/social choice.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036443#Comment_119036443

What has this to do with the Catholic Church?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036423#Comment_119036423

What you are doing is shutting down any debate by associating any opinion you don't agree with, with abuse. Even if that isn't the discussion. Its a classic strawman.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Nice.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036449#Comment_119036449

Its a state that has severed state (and education) from religion.

Which is what was proposed by quite a few people in this thread.

I guess you see what you want to see.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036475#Comment_119036475

No, I'm criticizing your opinion but like anyone desperately trying to spread guff online you take any criticism as some form of attack.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036513#Comment_119036513

And? Japan is a modern, highly developed society. Don't see anything wrong with that.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036553#Comment_119036553

I never said what bad people (catholic or not) did was fine. That's deliberate gross miss representation on your part.

I never said there anything was wrong with Japan separation of state and religion. I thought it was interesting. I think you can discuss something without having to pick a side. You obviously disagree.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036604#Comment_119036604

It's inherent in the concept of whataboutery. If you employ it as a tactic, this is the point you're making.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036608#Comment_119036608

But I didn't employ it as a tactic.

If there was a Tulip picker convicted of some terrible fraud. I don't make the a sweeping assumption that all tulip pickers are fraudsters. If someone says not all Tulip pickers are fraudsters. I don't then accuse them of condoning fraud (or worse).

If someone makes the argument the people in power (especially in the church) abused their authority and position. That's valid. No argument from me.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119034553#Comment_119034553

What value is a catholic mass to an atheist student? Or a Muslim student?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036676#Comment_119036676

You did. If you're going to pretend otherwise and gaslight then this conversation is pointless.

Flinty997

Kettle black in fairness.

Whataboutery, abuse, gaslight all but the kitchen sink in there.

I agree though pointless.

o1s1n

How can you say you haven't employed whataboutery when you literally posted this a few lines above?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119036004#Comment_119036004

That's pure whataboutery.

We're talking about the Catholic Church.

'But what about criminals in other walks of life?'

'But what about the Romans?'

'But what about Japan?'

'But what about human nature?'

Can we not just talk about the actual Catholic Church itself and leave the whataboutery out of it?

Cluedo Monopoly

The thing that always bothered me about the Catholic church is the lack of internal agitation within when they all knew what was going on. The abuse victims had to do it all themselves and the church fought them at every opportunity. The priests and bishops knew who the paedophiles were (are) and moved them from parish to parish but I never heard them going to the Gardai and telling them what they knew. Nobody shouted stop. It was all denial and cover-up. It still is.

We had that priest Brady who swore 2 children to an oath of secrecy when they reported the sexual abuse of Brendan Smyth. Brady later became cardinal - for his church protection services I presume. Smyth went on to abuse for 20 more years. They all knew he was doing it too.

There were no whistleblowers - they never opened up their own records to reveal the abusers or their victims. The nuns cannot figure out where they buried 900 babies in Bessborough. It's nonsense. Utterly complicit by their ongoing silence. And yet the Gardai seem to be afraid of tackling the church head on. They are not proactive enough. It's not normal. Where was the internal agitation? How many known abusers are out there now getting away with their crimes? To be honest I don't know how people darken the doors of churches - it must take exceptional blinkers with a heavy dose of brainwashing. It's an abomination of an organisation and thankfully the young people today have no religious baggage and will see it for what it is.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119037083#Comment_119037083

And there's the absurd pretence that dissent is assault. Again.