Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks for fixing that--silly oversight on my part. Although, I did intend to include the Orthodox Churches as well in that statement, it's clearer the way you did it. Much obliged.Researcher 14:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

The written word is much like thought. We can type it out but unless we read it out loud, we must rely on others to do the proofing. No problem and yer welcommen. I am as always....CЯacke®

Wait a minute...[edit]

...Why does nothing below "Abuse" show, even though when I go to edit it in the Computer says it's already there? — Unsigned, by: Stilldeciding / talk / contribs 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The importance of a single character... --ZooGuard (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they prefer to be called "differently formed ref tags" --I'm bored (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My respect[edit]

This article is not as biased as I thought it would be :) . Actually it's probably the best one can expect on a website full of liberal fundies. (By objective standards this article is horrible, though) --Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Occult imagery[edit]

I've got to go out today so I can't check yet if this is reasonable or woo but some people suggest that there is Satanic imagery in centuries old Roman Catholic art and this has perverted Roman Catholics making them Satannic. See:-

If Satanists dedicated to the Left hand path became influential and promoted Satanist art this might be a reasonable suggestion. I will follow it up when I have time. Kirk Johnson (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all Protestant fundamentalist conspiracy-mongering. If you go looking for Satanic symbols, you will find them everywhere... but they are just in your own mind. (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Catholic view of Anglican apostolic succession[edit]

Article says regarding Catholic view of apostolic succession:

the Anglican chain was broken on account of how their church was founded because Henry VIII couldn't keep it in his pants

That isn't true. The Catholic belief is that a church can break away from the Catholic church and still retain valid orders. The Old Catholic church is an example of a church which has done so (at least up until recent times — their recent adoption of ordination of women would invalidate them now in the eyes of the Vatican). The Catholic Church however believes that Anglican ordination is invalid, because the ordination and eucharistic rites in the Book of Common Prayer reflect an incorrect Protestant understanding of the priesthood and of the Eucharist. So, Henry VIII could have split off his church, and married and divorced whoever he wanted, and the Catholic church would still consider Anglican orders valid. But, when they came under Protestant influence with respect to their sacramental theology, then they lost the apostolic succession, in the Catholic view. (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Overemphasis on the abuse scandals?[edit]

For the record, I am a practicing Catholic who is considering becoming a priest. I know that this site has a liberal bias, and I actually enjoy it. However, doesn't anyone else think there is too much of an emphasis on the abuse scandals? Yes, I agree that what happened is wrong, but it seems to make up the bulk of the article. Any other thoughts? --Jordanes (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article was written by a user with a terribly written-agenda against all things Catholic, but especially the abuse scandals. While it is very important, the subject is spread throughout the article as if it was the only thing they'd ever done. I'm actually in the process of rewriting it so the child sexual abuse is contained in its own section, to make room for other things. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This article gives an extremely robust and clear description of Catholic theology, dogma, and history without sacrificing quality treatment of recent Church scandals. My congratulations to Proxima Centauri. Nate Keaton (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Discipline of priests, monks and nuns[edit]

I put the text below back into the article.

Priests, monks and nuns take a vow of obedience which means they have to obey any reasonable or unreasonable orders from a superior that are not sinful.

“”But at the end of the day, the bishop is heir to the apostles, and unless he is teaching a false doctrine — namely a heresy, or asking a priest to do something immoral or evil or acting contrary to Church teaching — obedience is still required. We are called to trust the Holy Spirit, as God can write straight with crooked lines.
—[1]

Administration of justice can potentially be arbitrary and unfair, either lenient or harsh.

  1. On the one hand those guilty of serious abuse to children or others have too frequently escaped with little more than a call to repentance.
  2. On the other hand priests can be ordered to retire to a monastery which amounts to an indefinite prison sentence. Most Reverend Vangheluwe was ordered to a monastery after admitting serial child abuse for example, though he disobeyed. [2] The normal rules of Natural justice and other safeguards which would apply in law courts of liberal countries when a defendant faces a possible prison sentence may not exist. Cardinal Keith O'Brien for example, complains that he has not been told the charges against him. [3]

How the O'Brien case will end is as of late February 2013 unclear but a serious weakness in the Roman Catholic justice system has been exposed.[4] Worryingly obedient priests, monks and nuns are at greater risk of abuse than those like Vangheluwe who was willing to disobey.

  1. ↑ The Promises That Free Priests to Serve Christ
  2. ↑ Child abuse bishop disappears from French monastery;Pedophile Bishop goes into hiding
  3. ↑ Cardinal Keith O'Brien 'very upset' about his resignation;Cardinal O'Brien's departure leaves a rudderless Church
  4. ↑ RationalWiki is not arguing one way or the other over whether Cardinal O'Brien should face discipline, as of late Feb 2013 the public does not know enough. Concern is over lack of safeguards for the accused in the disciplinary procedure generally.

O'Brien doesn't specifically mention Natural justice but his claim that he doesn't know the charges against him amounts to a denial of natural justice. With the quote the section was a bit unwieldy so I removed the quote but kept the link as a reference.

O'Brien doesn't face charges, there is no formal discipline procedure involved. If the new pope when elected orders O'Brien to a monastery or subjects him to other onerous orders without proof of guilt O'Brien is required to obey. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing a lot of things which are not related. Priests have a responsibility to their superiors, as does anyone working within a hierarchical organisation, and may face disciplinary action based on their actions; they do not take the ascetic vows of poverty, chastity & obedience which monastics do (though obviously RC priests take a vow of celibacy). Cardinal O'Brien has resigned amidst the rumours and accusations surrounding him, and says that he does not know what all of these are. You are presenting this in terms of a charges being concealed from a defendant (and some crap about natural justice) which is outright distortion of the facts. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The whole point is any Roman Catholic religious who has taken the vow of obedience is obliged to follow onerous orders from superiors regardless of the subordinate's virtue or moral failings. If the new pope tells O'Brien to enter a monastery and thinks that's the best way to hush things up then guilty or innocent O'Brien must obey. Please read the link, The Promises That Free Priests to Serve Christ. Will the new pope do a proper inquiry and ensure justice is done? That will depend entirely on the pope's conscience and if the new pope abuses power O'Brien has no remedy. It's clear this puts all Roman Catholics in the religious life at risk of abuse.
I personally think more likely than not O'Brien is guilty but collusion between 3 priests and 1 former priest to bear false witness is conceivable. I'm not sure beyond reasonable doubt that O'Brien is guilty and if O'Brien is punished without further evidence being made public justice will not be seen to be done. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The link you posted contradicts what you are saying. It states that priests can question the decision of their superiors if they have doubts, and are not under obligation to obey if the order is immoral or contradicts church teaching. And why all this speculation about things that may or may not (but probably won't) happen to O'Brien? At this point, all we know is that he has resigned amidst allegations of misconduct. There's not enough info available to talk about what kind of "discipline" he is under. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the four, referred to only as "Priest C", alleges that the degree of control a superior has over subordinate priests made it hard for him to refuse O'Brien's demands. "He [the bishop above a priest] has immense power over you. He can move you, freeze you out, bring you into the fold … he controls every aspect of your life." UK's top cardinal accused of 'inappropriate acts' by priests

A subordinate can refuse to obey an order to do anything that's wrong but the superior can make life hell for the subordinate afterwards. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Terminology[edit]

Apostolic succession (heirachy) or priestly hierarchy? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Gay sex rings, 'The Filth' corrupting the Vatican...and why the Pope REALLY quit[edit]

Gay sex rings, 'The Filth' corrupting the Vatican...and why the Pope REALLY quit
The above from the Daily Fail is worth adding to the article if anyone can find a better source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources are slowly building up though I'd like to know how Tatchel worked out the percentages of gay clergy. I'd really appreciate it if anyone could add links to sources that are less subjective than Pink News. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

These from CBS News and Huffington Post look reliable but the more I can get the better. Proxima Centauri (talk)

These from the BBC are fairly sympathetic to the Roman Catholics but includes what the authors hope will be constructive criticism.

The above are reliable newspapers which explain the allegations without confirming or denying. We may never find out the truth. [1] but the fact that all this is credible says a lot about the public standing of the Vatican. Note: These allegations first surfaced in Italian newspapers and Italy is a Roman Catholic country so this isn't just Anti-Catholic bigots. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reads like the least clear mess you have posted here to date, PC. Have you ever checked your work for clarity? Ever? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Anticlericalism is an actual thing (though not a majority position) in Italy, so your last sentence is not quite as sound as you want it to be. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Everything will be as expected on this site if the anti-Catholic bigotry and speculation makes it into every article on Catholicism Proxima Centauri edits and nobody does anything about it. Nate Keaton (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah... I actually think he resigned for personal reasons - firstly he is very bookish and not a PR person like JPII... he tried to resign as a cardinal, but JPII wouldn't let him. Secondly, I think he has genuine health concerns, he has a pacemaker now for example, and is vey elderly. Setting a precedent for younger popes is not a bad thing from an RC Pov.

Everybody assumes the worst when a politician or churchman resigns, but they may have honorable reasons too. I suspect this is the case here. Cardinal O' Brien's in deep doodoo just now though.

Next up's Petrus Romanus. -Albannach (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dahhhhhhhhhh!!!!![edit]

From a literary standpoint, this article is terrible. To the person who keeps adding in nonsense to this article, I ask you: please, allow me to scrub it clean of all the filth that was previously in it and make it legible once again. I call to the Heavens, "Please, I beg thee!!! Let me fix this grammatical and literary abomination!" Alas, my calls to the Gods even go unanswered. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can improve the wording please do. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to, but somebody or some people continue to undo my doing. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation[edit]

Is anyone else bumping into Catholics going on about how the scientific method, genetics, and all these other major break throughs were done by Catholics? I keep telling them, of COURSE major scientific breakthroughs came out of the church, up until the adoption of universal education, the only people who were literate and had the free time to experiment were clergymen and upperclass nobility. So, SURPRISE, guess who made a lot of discoveries? Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 06:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much what we learned in college, too. I've told my students countless times that a lot of the literature from about 1100-1600 C.E that comes out of Europe is going to have sort of Christian undertone somewhere in it because those who could write and read, unless they were nobles, learned from a religious-oriented institution. Moreover, we need to remember that early science was, in fact, based on attempts to find God or figure out who God was. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Like most religions[edit]

Someone reverted to a version which includes, ". Like most religions, they believe that they are the only universal valid Church of Christ". This is untrue, Non-Christians don't see themselves as any type of Church of Christ. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, reverted for contentious reference. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 12:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Politics[edit]

Please don't remove material just to play political games. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh you're finally talking to me. Good. Stop editing articles to further your personal grudge. You're really challenging people who don't want to make a bigger deal about this. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This edit seemed legitimate though. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Compliments (to R.W.) and criticisms (to R.W. and above all to this page) from a young man like many others[edit]

Hi, I discovered this Wiki just a couple of hours ago but I liked very much several articles about abortion, logic, holocaust denial and other topics! I look forward to read your articles about conspiracy theories. I'm not catholic, not even religious, but I have great respect for religious people and I found myself 'spiritual' too, in some strange way, but it's far more related with philosophy rather than with religion. Anyway, I find this page excessive and counterproductive. I mean, I don't find it offensive but sadly it's not encyclopedic and INMHO it's also kind of factious (looks a lot like the collection of selected info and sources made ​by ​right the kind of people that you try to 'unmask', and it lacks Popper's falsification), full of CONS and poor of PROS. I said 'counterproductive' because it will make go away right those american pseudo-religious right-winged white-supremacist ignorant -and surely armed- boys who should learn at lot of things from you! Don't get offence, but R.W. need to be more similar to encyclopedic style of Wikipedia (and they should learn from you about courage, original researches and menus) if you want to grow up stronger, bigger and wiser. Again, <<don't get offence at my innuendo>> and be kind with me. Bye!

- G.

— Unsigned, by: 95.238.97.220 / talk / contribs 02:17, 31 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Changing minds is a worthwhile aim. Thanks for your input, and if you feel like pointing out particular bits of text that could be improved, this talk page is the place for that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Major schism[edit]

how reliable is the Daily Beast? I'm looking for other sources for what's in this article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ree my edits to the section, Modern and traditional. I haven't found a source that I'm sure is impartial. Ross Douthat is a traditionalist who wants the Church to stay traditional. Other Roman Catholic authors may be playing down the threat of schism out of loyalty to the pope or the Church. Andrew Brown should be more neutral but in my opinion any recipient of Templeton money may be suspect. We don't know yet if a schism will happen but the issue is certainly worth watching. Papal authority among western Roman Catholics has been declining continually since the 1950's at least as western educational standards have risen and a western culture developed that questions authority figures. A major schism could happen now, 10 -20 years from now any time we'll have to wait and see. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Father John O' Connor and the Antichrist[edit]

Father John O' Connor is a Catholic Priest (He's dead now) who ran a sermon. After this, he was kicked out of the church. (this is his sermon) http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=46CC486F15DF4837

Depending on who you ask, he either exposed Homosexuality in the Church, "Masonic" Communism, the NWO Benjamin Creme, new age occult practices Federal Reserve Maitreya, Freemasonry, or the Antichrist.... Or all of these.

This site seems to be arguing about it: http://romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/2009/03/fr-john-oconnor.html.

Question: What EXACTLY did he expose (If anything) in this sermon that got him kicked out? It can NOT be the antichrist, or the NWO, or at least VERY unlikely so due to the fact that he didn't even die until more than a decade later.... Plus wouldn't kicking him out be too obvious... but is the Catholic Chruch doing something we should be knowing about? (Besides scamming everyone who tithes I mean), or is it just another Blah Blah Blah blah homosexuality in the church, blah blah, (insert sin that "infiltrated" the church), and the Pope didn't like it so he kicked him out (I can see the pope doing that. He has a busijness to run and hypocrisy wouldn't look good for him)?--75.164.160.124 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, he wasn't kicked out of the church. Cursory research shows he tried to retire at 75, but Pope John Paul II asked him to stay five more years. He served as archbishop for the remainder of his life. (Have a source).
I think this is why people claim you're doing a drive-by YouTubing -- because A) You're still posting under an IP Address, which drive-by linkposters and spammers tend to do, and B) there's a rather simple explanation that two minutes on Google brings up; i.e., whoever told you that conspiracy theory was pulling your leg. Noir LeSable (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy Years[edit]

As Francis-and-Benedict (being non-screaming Popes and not Francis Bacon) have declared a Holy Year (and why 2016 in particular?) should there be a mention in the article?

Do we have unholy years the rest of the time? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive1&oldid=2550662"