Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[Henry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25121121

[StandFree1982]

He realised that he's spent his life living a lie.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

'Things' can be built at minimum cost, even religious 'things'.

 

So what are you now, the "heavenly auditor" or something?

 

 

As for 'Top ranked football clubs', they aren't religious organisations, nor are they charitable organisations. To compare them to a religious organisation, one which allegedly holds charity as an important part of its dogma, is somewhat odd.

 

In what way is it odd?

 

The Church is routinely attacked as being "disgustingly wealthy" or for "hoarding wealth" or for supposedly being "one of the richest organisations in the world".

 

And yet - for those with half a brain, who actually check these things out - we can see that the money flowing through the Vatican per annum is but a fraction of that going through European Football Clubs.

 

Its clear to see those who make these allegations of "digusting wealth" are malicious liars, and those who believe them are unthinking dopes. Isnt it?

 

but there are 'things' that have no place in a church

 

Who are you, a non-Christian, to dictate what does and does not belong in a Church?

 

If I were a member of any organisation, religious, secular, or otherwise, and the CEO had a vast throne-room

 

Its important to distinguish between the Pope as a man, and the Papal office. Honour and importance are attached to the role of the Papacy, not the specific individual who currently occupies the berth.

 

It's very easy for the Catholic church to give to charity, because they're raking in vast amounts of money, tax free, from their adherents.

 

Its very because thats part of what the Catholic Church is for, to care for people, to educate people, to look after people. Thats exactly why people donate money to it.

 

I wonder how the Vatican would feel if all that cash went instead to people who actually needed it.

 

You must have missed the part where I said:

 

- the Church provides 25% of the worlds total healthcare provision

- the Church is the largest non-governmental educational body in the world

 

- the Church spends billions on the poor/needy per annum

 

Catholic resources do go to those who need them - demonstrably.

 

Meanwhile western secular nations waste several times the small amounts which they give in aid (as I showed elsehwere). Your criticisms are badly misplaced.

 

This above an impressive record, there is no other comparable for a single organisation.

 

And yet its still not good enough in your eyes?

 

There surely becomes a point - and I think we have reached it lol - when criticisms become clearly absurd in the face of reality!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

It doesn't matter how much you were disinterested at a younger age you were indoctrinated.

 

 

 

 

You ARE indoctrinated

 

 

But guys I am the only one of the three of us prepared to countenance the idea that I might be wrong (and I might be).

 

Neither of you are, not for a second.

 

I contend it is your position therefore, which takes on the character of unthinking fantasism.

 

You can only see the world in terms of you being right - anyone who disagrees is clearly brainwashed or ill.

 

People who are purely materialists / rationalists cannot allow themselves to even think they might be wrong, to even think of the possiiblity of God, or then they have lost.

 

In his book "Orthodoxy" (which I have not finished) Chesterton describes how similar atheistic thinking is to madness, in that both occupy small circles of thought and cannot break out of them. To see how some people cannot countenence another possibility, or the chance of being wrong, I think hes right.

 

 

 

Your belief in and adherence to specific Catholic doctrine means....?

You have been indoctrinated into the Catholic faith

 

 

Thats word play.

 

I accept Catholic doctrine because I have weighed it up and it makes sense.

 

Look back at the conversations about contraception / HIV etc. I was the only one able to quote statistics and expert opinion in defence of my (Catholic) stance.

 

When we talked about homosexuality, I could justify my (Catholic) stance via reference to human biology and health statistics. The only counter arguments were sentimentalism and permissiveness.

 

The stances makes sense. If they didnt, I wouldnt accept them. OK, aspects of faith cannot be proven in a similar fashion, I accept that, but for me the stances which are proven cast crediiblity on the faith of the Church.

 

I also have the benefit of having lived as a wholly secular person and as a religious person and so are able to directly compare my experience of both.

 

And regarding "indoctrination" in general - I feel this is often a misued term.

 

If raising your children in a faith environment is "indoctrination" then so is every lesson, value and teaching that parents impart to their children.

 

Teaching your kids to do their homework on time? Indoctrination.

Teaching them to speak english? Indoctrination.

Teaching them its nice to be nice? Indoctrination.

Teach them to wash their hands after the toilet? Indoctrination.

 

I suppose there an argument that this is what parenting is - indoctrinating offspring with the values and outlook which parents think will best equip them to make their way in life.

 

Nearly time for lunch!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25121121

 

He stepped down because frankly his physical conditions means he just cant hack it. His intellect is still formidable, but then what good is that if you dont even have the strength to walk across to someone to engage with them?

 

For some time (months or years) before his decision, he was unable to walk the length of St Peters Basillica. If he tried, he would be so knackered that he wasnt fit to say the mass.

 

They had taken to wheeling him in on a mobile platform, to preserve his energy. But its clear that isnt really sustainable. It might not look like it to an observer, but its actually quite a rigorous role - lots of travel, lots of engagements and meetings, lots of addressing people etc - especially for an old man.

 

Additionally, his sight is or has gone - I read he had lost sight in at least one eye, at the time of his stepping-down.

 

Btw - a BBC article about Catholicism, written by a homosexual (Mark Dowd), is probably as impartial as an article on Capitalism written by Karl Marx, or an article on the merits and character of the Jews, written by Adolf Hitler.

 

Its important to balance ones intake of news sources. (Though in the BBCs case "propaganda" would be a better term than "news").

[Henry]

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly time for lunch!

 

 

What you having?

 

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=30746

[alscotoz]

C_S. How do you define 'indoctrination'?

[Monkey]

 

 

 

 

 

 

But guys I am the only one of the three of us prepared to countenance the idea that I might be wrong (and I might be).

 

Neither of you are, not for a second.

 

I contend it is your position therefore, which takes on the character of unthinking fantasism.

 

You can only see the world in terms of you being right - anyone who disagrees is clearly brainwashed or ill.

 

People who are purely materialists / rationalists cannot allow themselves to even think they might be wrong, to even think of the possiiblity of God, or then they have lost.

 

In his book "Orthodoxy" (which I have not finished) Chesterton describes how similar atheistic thinking is to madness, in that both occupy small circles of thought and cannot break out of them. To see how some people cannot countenence another possibility, or the chance of being wrong, I think hes right.

 

 

 

 

 

Thats word play.

 

I accept Catholic doctrine because I have weighed it up and it makes sense.

 

Look back at the conversations about contraception / HIV etc. I was the only one able to quote statistics and expert opinion in defence of my (Catholic) stance.

 

When we talked about homosexuality, I could justify my (Catholic) stance via reference to human biology and health statistics. The only counter arguments were sentimentalism and permissiveness.

 

The stances makes sense. If they didnt, I wouldnt accept them. OK, aspects of faith cannot be proven in a similar fashion, I accept that, but for me the stances which are proven cast crediiblity on the faith of the Church.

 

I also have the benefit of having lived as a wholly secular person and as a religious person and so are able to directly compare my experience of both.

 

And regarding "indoctrination" in general - I feel this is often a misued term.

 

If raising your children in a faith environment is "indoctrination" then so is every lesson, value and teaching that parents impart to their children.

 

Teaching your kids to do their homework on time? Indoctrination.

Teaching them to speak english? Indoctrination.

Teaching them its nice to be nice? Indoctrination.

Teach them to wash their hands after the toilet? Indoctrination.

 

I suppose there an argument that this is what parenting is - indoctrinating offspring with the values and outlook which parents think will best equip them to make their way in life.

 

Nearly time for lunch!

Absolute rubbish, you quoted minority stats or untruths that suited your position and ignored outright or avoided anything that you didn't agree with. I'll rejoin this debate later when I have I more time and patience to sit and pick apart some of your outrageous and sometime offensive statements.

[fatjim]

That is what he does, Monkey.

 

I said christianity was in decline and he used figures to dispute that but with a better understanding would have actually noticed that my assertion was correct.

[StandFree1982]

Religion is a brainwashing tool.

 

It is just as plausible that a 4 legged monkey called Clive is running the show from a secret location in Croyden as there is a God(s), whichever one you wish to believe in.

 

Equally plausible is that I am Jesus and/or God.

[fatjim]

Jesus the christian son of god or Jesus the islamic prophet?

[StandFree1982]

Jesus the christian son of god or Jesus the islamic prophet?

Either. Both.

 

I could also just have a spanish boys name.

[Jocky Balboa]

A stoic defence of your faith CS, but while I would not restrict faith at the individual level, organised religions have proven they cannot be trusted when there is no law to separate religion and state.

 

Personally, I can't stand seeing the influence that the 3 Semite religions have on our everyday lives. I find it particularly laughable when people equate Christian and Western values as mutually inclusive, when in fact it is no more European than Judaism or Islam and did in fact plagiarise many of its teachings and celebrations from native Pagan beliefs.

 

Long live the decline of the Abrahamic religions, I say.

[Henry]

CATHOLIC parishes across the west of Scotland are to face closure amid ­dwindling congregations and clergy numbers, it has emerged.

The Archdiocese of Glasgow, home to Scotland's largest Catholic population, will begin consulting with all its 90-plus parishes in the run-up to Christmas on the pressures facing the church.

Parishioners will be informed of the consultation at masses this weekend.

Church insiders have dismissed claims that one-quarter of parishes in the Archdiocese will go, saying that there are "no figures and no hit-lists".

According to today's Scottish ­Catholic Observer, it is understood that the Motherwell Diocese, which covers most of Lanarkshire and is awaiting the appointment of a new bishop, is also in the early stages of reorganising plans.

Galloway, which covers Ayrshire and most of south-west Scotland, is another diocese formally looking to deal with the same issues. It has already shut many parishes in the past few years, with one priest covering four parishes in some areas.

The move will lead again to questions on whether Scotland needs eight dioceses, half of which require replacement bishops.

Commentators have spoken for some time of the need for a radical restructure of the Catholic Church.

Some sources have ­questioned the timing of the consultation's launch, saying it is causing some upset among parishioners fearful they are spending their last Christmas in churches they have been attending for lifetimes.

The move follows the most turbulent years in the Scottish Catholic Church's history, with the scandal surrounding Cardinal Keith O'Brien and the emergence of historic abuse cases.

It comes as the appointment of Pope Francis has led to an upsurge in mass attendance, while the recent census figures showed a rise in the number of people declaring themselves Catholic, up to 841,000 from 804,000 in 2001.

At the same time, those identifying themselves with the Church of ­Scotland fell by more than 400,000. However, Glasgow's Archbishop, Philip Tartaglia, warned on the day he was appointed of "tough decisions", a clear reference to shutting parishes.

Called Archdiocese of Glasgow: This Affects You, the leaflet "lays the groundwork" for necessary "changes" to come. Questions asked include: "When was the last time you saw your church packed?"

It also highlights that the number of parishes in the diocese has fallen from 111 in 1977 to 93 today.

The population of Glasgow has fallen, it states, from 1.1 million to 585,000 since the 1950s, with mass attendance dropping by 51% in the last 25 years.

A senior source said: "This exercise is being driven by two things: the changing demographics of the archdiocese and the demographics of the clergy.

"Many of the parishes were built during the housing boom of the 1950s, from where there has been a population migration in recent years. Places like Castlemilk have already seen the number of parishes fall.

"Priests are getting older and there's not as many joining the priesthood as there was. But we have no hit-list, no numbers and while the document doesn't say explicitly parishes will close it's sensible to assume that the archdiocese is looking at provision. It's felt there are too many in the wrong places."

The source also dismissed claims the church would reap significant financial benefits from the sale of churches and land, saying assets would transfer along with parishes and congregations.

The plans involve meetings in each Glasgow deanery, essentially a grouping of around 10 parishes, of all priests, deacons and parish council members before Christmas, followed by a discussion paper in the New Year. Further meetings will place next spring, when Archbishop Tartaglia will meet with each Glasgow priest individually.

Other Christian faith denominations have also been struggling with falling attendances. Reports have suggested the Church of Scotland stands to lose more than £1 million a year in givings as congregations begin resigning from the Kirk in the row over gay ordination.

[Ke1t]

 

So what are you now, the "heavenly auditor" or something?

 

 

I'm the guy pointing out that you don't require solid gold fixtures when people are starving, not when you pretend to be a charitable institution.

 

 

In what way is it odd?

 

The Church is routinely attacked as being "disgustingly wealthy" or for "hoarding wealth" or for supposedly being "one of the richest organisations in the world".

 

And yet - for those with half a brain, who actually check these things out - we can see that the money flowing through the Vatican per annum is but a fraction of that going through European Football Clubs.

 

Its clear to see those who make these allegations of "digusting wealth" are malicious liars, and those who believe them are unthinking dopes. Isnt it?

 

 

No, it isn't clear at all. What is clear is that football teams are not tax exempt, and are not religious or charitable institutions. Their mandate is to entertain. I was being rather kind when I said your comparison was 'odd', since 'disingenuous' would be nearer the truth.

 

 

Who are you, a non-Christian, to dictate what does and does not belong in a Church?

 

 

I'm not dictating anything, I'm expressing an opinion. I understand how personal opinion is discouraged in an organisation like the Catholic Church, but in the secular world we are free to express an opinion.

 

 

Its important to distinguish between the Pope as a man, and the Papal office. Honour and importance are attached to the role of the Papacy, not the specific individual who currently occupies the berth.

 

 

Its very because thats part of what the Catholic Church is for, to care for people, to educate people, to look after people. Thats exactly why people donate money to it.

 

 

You must have missed the part where I said:

 

- the Church provides 25% of the worlds total healthcare provision

- the Church is the largest non-governmental educational body in the world

 

- the Church spends billions on the poor/needy per annum

 

Catholic resources do go to those who need them - demonstrably.

 

A PORTION of Catholic income/resources demonstrably go towards these things. What portion is that? 10%? 5%? 2%?

 

Meanwhile western secular nations waste several times the small amounts which they give in aid (as I showed elsehwere). Your criticisms are badly misplaced.

 

 

You're the one who started a thread about Catholicism, ergo I'm criticising Catholicism in the Catholicism thread, ergo my criticism is in fact perfectly placed. Start a threat about Capitalism and I'll criticise Capitalism too... again, my criticism will be beautifully placed. Don;t start a thread specifically about something then whine about that specific thing being criticised.

 

This above an impressive record, there is no other comparable for a single organisation.

 

And yet its still not good enough in your eyes?

 

 

It's absolutely nowhere good enough in my eyes. You're obviously more easily impressed than I... in fact I think the fact that you can be impressed by a deity that manifests itself not at all shows just how easily impressed you are. So it's no extraordinary revelation to find that you may be impressed by the great deeds of your church while I remain entirely disgusted by the opulence which surrounds the Papacy.

 

There surely becomes a point - and I think we have reached it lol - when criticisms become clearly absurd in the face of reality!

 

As a believer in that which requires no evidence, you're in no position to determine a framework regards 'reality'.

[fatjim]

 

 

I contend it is your position therefore, which takes on the character of unthinking fantasism.

 

 

 

You weren't thinking when you wrote that were you?

 

Not sure if you are relating to fantasy which would be very ironic or did you mean fanaticism?

[Ke1t]

Of interest to anyone with an interest.

 

http://youtu.be/cCUmKP4NFKs

[Clydeside_Sheep]

A stoic defence of your faith CS

Thank you.

organised religions have proven they cannot be trusted when there is no law to separate religion and state.

There is truth in that, of course; but then, at times, so too have the variety of non-religious people (however they define themselves).

 

I think the fundamental point here is not about organised religion (which cannot be tackled together as a monolith), but rather that humanity is prone to corruption when holding reigns of power.

Personally, I can't stand seeing the influence that the 3 Semite religions have on our everyday lives.

What influence do you perceive they have?

 

Surely the only religion which has any influence over your life is the Church of England, which has Bishops sitting in the House of Lords?

 

There is certainly a very good argument that they should not be there; but then the argument should properly be directed at the entire House of Lords (all of which is unelected) not just the Anglican Bishops. An unelected Bishop is no worse than an unelected <anything>.

 

That said, the function of the Lords is to broadly represent the population and act as a safety check to the Commons. Accordingly, it would be only right that there is religious representation, the same as there is ethnic, feminist, homosexual etc influence, as well as reps from every social background. When it comes to democractic law making, (or what passes for it), everyones opinion counts (or is meant to).

 

At it stands, the Church of England is so puerile / half-hearted / conflicted that its presence in the Lords should be of concern to no-one as its Bishops generally abstain in any vote which might prove even slightly controversial.

 

The CofE isnt so much a Church, as it is an AmDram group which meets once a week to play at Catholics.

 

In constrast Catholic Bishops decline peerages (think they offered one to the former Archbishop of Westminster) as that would require their loyalty to someone other than the Pope - in this case the queen.

I find it particularly laughable when people equate Christian and Western values as mutually inclusive

The Catholic Church built european civilisation and provided the basis for all laws and fundamental values. Even atheists agree:

In 2007, for example, an atheist businessman, Robert Wilson, gave $22.5 million (£13.5 million) to Catholic education in New York, arguing that, “without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no western civilisation.”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2011/05/06/what-the-church-has-given-the-world/

 

That is a good article and sets out the impressive contribution of Catholic civlisation to humanity, across the following areas:

 

1) Light and the Cosmos

2) Earth and Nature

3) Philosophy and Theology

4) Education and the University System

5) Art and Architecture

6) Law and Jurisprudence

7) Language

8) Music

9) Status of women

 

After 500 years of various kinds of protestantism, (which gave us nothing and is now failing), its somewhat understandable why the Catholic Church is so misundestood / viewed with suspicion in the UK, given the fundamental basis for (any) Protestantism is that Catholicism - Universal Christianity - is somehow bad / wrong etc.

 

Even the Imperial Romans - with all their power, granduer, might and sophistication - were pagan savages until they converted. And the Imperial Romans were the cream of the savages - having conquered all the lesser savages - before the englightenment of Christianity swept through the continent and beyond.

 

Imperial Rome is a good example, as they were impressive builders, traders, artists, philosphers and warriors - yet, without Christianity, they were still savages.

 

We already see area of humanity - including the UK - regressing without Christianity and our social values again begin to ape pagan Rome: mostly notably / concerningly in the total lack of regard for human life at all levels: war for oil, abortion, euthanasia, huge inequality through poverty and greed etc.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

That is what he does, Monkey.

 

I said christianity was in decline and he used figures to dispute that but with a better understanding would have actually noticed that my assertion was correct.

 

Aye, God forbid we ever use facts, figures and evidence to clarify anything in our debate lol

 

What use is the truth, after all, eh?

[fatjim]

 

Aye, God forbid we ever use facts, figures and evidence to clarify anything in our debate lol

 

What use is the truth, after all, eh?

 

The facts were that the overall figures supported my assertion. You manipulated it to look like what I said was wrong. Which is why you are disingenuous.

You used figures for Catholics alone but you ignored the percentages. The figure of Catholics had gone up but so had the overall population. The percentage for catholics had stayed the same but overall the figures and percentages of christians had gone down. Non believers had gone up. So my assertion that christianity was in decline was correct. The facts showed that but you chose to ignore those facts.

[Ke1t]

 

Thank you.

 

There is truth in that, of course; but then, at times, so too have the variety of non-religious people (however they define themselves).

 

I think the fundamental point here is not about organised religion (which cannot be tackled together as a monolith), but rather that humanity is prone to corruption when holding reigns of power.

 

What influence do you perceive they have?

 

Surely the only religion which has any influence over your life is the Church of England, which has Bishops sitting in the House of Lords?

 

There is certainly a very good argument that they should not be there; but then the argument should properly be directed at the entire House of Lords (all of which is unelected) not just the Anglican Bishops. An unelected Bishop is no worse than an unelected <anything>.

 

That said, the function of the Lords is to broadly represent the population and act as a safety check to the Commons. Accordingly, it would be only right that there is religious representation, the same as there is ethnic, feminist, homosexual etc influence, as well as reps from every social background. When it comes to democractic law making, (or what passes for it), everyones opinion counts (or is meant to).

 

At it stands, the Church of England is so puerile / half-hearted / conflicted that its presence in the Lords should be of concern to no-one as its Bishops generally abstain in any vote which might prove even slightly controversial.

 

The CofE isnt so much a Church, as it is an AmDram group which meets once a week to play at Catholics.

 

In constrast Catholic Bishops decline peerages (think they offered one to the former Archbishop of Westminster) as that would require their loyalty to someone other than the Pope - in this case the queen.

 

The Catholic Church built european civilisation and provided the basis for all laws and fundamental values. Even atheists agree:

 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2011/05/06/what-the-church-has-given-the-world/

 

That is a good article and sets out the impressive contribution of Catholic civlisation to humanity, across the following areas:

 

1) Light and the Cosmos

2) Earth and Nature

3) Philosophy and Theology

4) Education and the University System

5) Art and Architecture

6) Law and Jurisprudence

7) Language

8) Music

9) Status of women

 

After 500 years of various kinds of protestantism, (which gave us nothing and is now failing), its somewhat understandable why the Catholic Church is so misundestood / viewed with suspicion in the UK, given the fundamental basis for (any) Protestantism is that Catholicism - Universal Christianity - is somehow bad / wrong etc.

 

Even the Imperial Romans - with all their power, granduer, might and sophistication - were pagan savages until they converted. And the Imperial Romans were the cream of the savages - having conquered all the lesser savages - before the englightenment of Christianity swept through the continent and beyond.

 

[/b]Imperial Rome is a good example, as they were impressive builders, traders, artists, philosphers and warriors - yet, without Christianity, they were still savages.[/b]

 

We already see area of humanity - including the UK - regressing without Christianity and our social values again begin to ape pagan Rome: mostly notably / concerningly in the total lack of regard for human life at all levels: war for oil, abortion, euthanasia, huge inequality through poverty and greed etc.

 

 

Utter horseshit.

 

You're not going to get away with telling me there was any difference between the philosophy of Rome regardless of whether we're talking about the era of the Etruscan Kings, the Republic, or Imperial Rome.

 

If anything, the reign of Augustus, three centuries earlier, is considered the high point of Roman peace and prosperity, and he was no Christian, and neither was his empire.

 

Tell me all about the 'enlightened' behaviour of Rome towards the Goths on the Danube half a century after Constanine, and tell me the Romans weren't savages.

[ChutneyLove]

Years ago, before I knew AFC Chat existed (let's call it my Old Testament), I used to post on the TAMB. There was some Canadian Scot on there (CTA or something I think), that used to spout all this shite about religion, cultivating massive threads and derailing others with massive posts, just like Weegie Sheep is doing here. A lot of his arguments probably fell apart when the world didn't end in 2012 (he was convinced of some "rapture" occurring). I don't know if he is still posting there, haven't been on that site in years - I kept getting warnings and bans for not tolerating weegies. With a few exceptions, bunch of cocks on there anyway. My point is, you get folk with these beliefs all over the place, just letting them be is probably the best way to turn down their volume. No offence CS, you're probably nice enough in real life, just nae the type of bloke I'd have a few pints with. I'm sure the feeling is reciprocated.

[Guest]

CS for a pint-sharing experience? Fuck no. Boy's an arse.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I'm the guy pointing out that you don't require solid gold fixtures when people are starving, not when you pretend to be a charitable institution.

Your analysis is so cheap!

 

See those gold fixures and beautiful churches you get uptight about? Well, ts taken us 2,000 years to build / make that. Its not like any Pope or Bishop has said "Hey, lets buy La Pieta" (or whatever) and spent incomprehensible sums all at once.

 

Through beautiful Churches and inspiration art, we give glory to God. The reason we (the church) have these things is because we (the people) have donated it (or the money to buy an item).

 

You can walk round most Catholic churches and people who are knowledgeble can point out items that were made, donated or bequethed by parishioners over time. The Church buildings usually start off quite modest, and - over decades, centuries, milleniums - are gradually "worked up" / decorated to become something special. Its not uncommon historically for funds to run out during building even, causing a redesign or a stop-start construction. It took well over 600 years to manage to build Cologne Catherdral to its original specification (inc many 100s of years of no building).

 

(if its any consolation, I cant think of anything worthwhile which the Church has built in Scotland in at least half a century. Most of its modern buildings here are appalling.)

 

It was Christ Himself who taught us that "the poor with always be with you". He knew, given the nature of humanity, inequality will always exist. (indeed, logically, if wealth exists, then so too must poverty. Just as happiness is balanced by sadness, ying by yang etc). Despite this, He allowed that it was proper to honour God*.

 

(*Theres a story where a woman anoited him with an expensive oil, as a mark of respect - she got a row from Judas Escariot, who said that she could have sold the oil and given the money to the poor (there were smart arses even in those days lol). He was then corrected by Jesus.)

 

Of course, it would be completely empty and unChristian to build fine, handsome churches, while doing nothing to help the poor or needy. But I have given evidence of the Churchs great record in this capacity, such that I think only the most intransient, fiercely ideological critic would then deny us our fine churches (which all of humanity can appreciate, not just Catholics).

 

At Carfin Grotto, near Motherwell - built as a means of giving unemployed men something useful to do, including many kind hearted protestant man (also unemployed) - a beautiful monstrance (a liturgical item) was created from amounts of jewellery people donated for the purpose (including even wedding rings). None of these people would have been especially wealthy, indeed many of them were probably the same unemployed people who built the Grotto.

 

In these materialistic times, many people would regard such an action (such donations) as stupid / guillible or even just incomprehensible. But I would pity such a view, as it can only come from an outlook which cannot conceive of a depth of love so great as to make such selfless generousity seem as natural as breathing.

 

In any case, the items were not "lost" as such, but rather immortalised as a symbol of the donors faith - for the donors themselves and for countless generations after them.

No, it isn't clear at all. What is clear is that football teams are not tax exempt, and are not religious or charitable institutions. Their mandate is to entertain. I was being rather kind when I said your comparison was 'odd', since 'disingenuous' would be nearer the truth.

Come on. Clutching at straws.

 

Some people say the Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest organisations going - but the figures I have referenced clear show thats not the case, not even nearly. In terms of annual cash flow, the Vatican cant even compete with the better English Premiership teams lol.

 

No doubt - if you sold every catholic church, every item and resource the church owns, and all the land the churches are built on - it would add up to very impressive sum. But then there would be no Catholic Church and so selling our stuff is obviously a non-starter. Accordingly, the items might as well be worthless, regardless of whatever paper value land or buildings may have.

I'm not dictating anything, I'm expressing an opinion.

OK, but you must accept that different opinions are equally valid - and for us, we will obviously go with what yer man Jesus told us (as above).

A PORTION of Catholic income/resources demonstrably go towards these things. What portion is that? 10%? 5%? 2%?

The greater vast majority. I think thats pretty evident. So, (eg) Michaelangelo did a bit of art for us, which has accrued value over the years. Big wow - unfortunately that cant be helped. That doesnt mean the Church isnt spending most of its dosh on good works (locally and globally).

 

The things you see in Catholic Churches do have a value for us, but not a financial value. It is the world which applies a price-tag to them, which is ultimately irrelevant if they are never sold.

It's absolutely nowhere good enough in my eyes.

Well I think thats grossly unfair. Of course improvement is always good, but as (eg) the Church is already the biggest non-governmental educational body in the world, we feel a bit like Alexander here, in that there are no more (educational) worlds to conqeur.

 

And what approx percentage exactly of the worlds total healthcare provision must we provide, before you would be satisfied? If the current 25% is not good enough, what is? 50%?? 75%? Is no-one else going to pitch in (or do secular nations prefer to instead buy nuclear weapons, arnaments and personal luxury goods?)

 

Poverty doesnt exist because St Peters Basillica is arguably the most beautiful thing on earth, nor because the Church has very many gold-plated candlesticks.

 

It exists because the global economy works in such a way as to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of the few.

 

It exists because developed nations give just a tiny fraction of their wealth to underdeveloped nations, (a sum dwarfed even by the equivalent value of food wastage in the same countries.)

 

It exists because we in the west are greedy and consume more than our fair share (34% of americans obese, 25% of britons - through over consumption, not cultural factors as is sometimes the case. Plus look at how much fuel and energy we westerners all use, especially in North America with the big "V" petrol engines, less than 20 mpg etc).

 

It exists because we in the west are wasteful. (America wastes 40% of its food for example)

 

It exists because western consumers want to be able to walk into a mega-market - 24 hours a day, regardless of season - and choose from a massive selection of products from all over the world. We expect unlimited access to an unlimited range of global products and all at the cheapest price - meanwhile people die elsewhere, for want of access to even basic nutrition.

 

(Its seems strange that we can put people on the moon, and vehicles on mars, but we cant work together to make sure everyone has something to eat. Perhaps we are not as clever as we think we are?)

 

In the middle of this scenario, you see fit to heap criticism on the (admittedly flawed) organisation with likely the best individual record at trying to redress the balance? (I of course recognise that many people from all religions and none also do a great deal of good in the world).

 

I contend thats a very bleak outlook, one which must actually require a considerable effort to sustain.

 

And Im off to bed for now!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

You weren't thinking when you wrote that were you?

 

Not sure if you are relating to fantasy which would be very ironic or did you mean fanaticism?

 

I did indeed!

 

[Ke1t]

1. Your analysis is so cheap!

3. See those gold fixures and beautiful churches you get uptight about? Well, ts taken us 2,000 years to build / make that. Its not like any Pope or Bishop has said "Hey, lets buy La Pieta" (or whatever) and spent incomprehensible sums all at once.

Through beautiful Churches and inspiration art, we give glory to God. The reason we (the church) have these things is because we (the people) have donated it (or the money to buy an item).

You can walk round most Catholic churches and people who are knowledgeble can point out items that were made, donated or bequethed by parishioners over time. The Church buildings usually start off quite modest, and - over decades, centuries, milleniums - are gradually "worked up" / decorated to become something special. Its not uncommon historically for funds to run out during building even, causing a redesign or a stop-start construction. It took well over 600 years to manage to build Cologne Catherdral to its original specification (inc many 100s of years of no building).

(if its any consolation, I cant think of anything worthwhile which the Church has built in Scotland in at least half a century. Most of its modern buildings here are appalling.)

3. It was Christ Himself who taught us that "the poor with always be with you". He knew, given the nature of humanity, inequality will always exist. (indeed, logically, if wealth exists, then so too must poverty. Just as happiness is balanced by sadness, ying by yang etc). Despite this, He allowed that it was proper to honour God*.

(*Theres a story where a woman anoited him with an expensive oil, as a mark of respect - she got a row from Judas Escariot, who said that she could have sold the oil and given the money to the poor (there were smart arses even in those days lol). He was then corrected by Jesus.)

Of course, it would be completely empty and unChristian to build fine, handsome churches, while doing nothing to help the poor or needy. But I have given evidence of the Churchs great record in this capacity, such that I think only the most intransient, fiercely ideological critic would then deny us our fine churches (which all of humanity can appreciate, not just Catholics).

4. At Carfin Grotto, near Motherwell - built as a means of giving unemployed men something useful to do, including many kind hearted protestant man (also unemployed) - a beautiful monstrance (a liturgical item) was created from amounts of jewellery people donated for the purpose (including even wedding rings). None of these people would have been especially wealthy, indeed many of them were probably the same unemployed people who built the Grotto.

In these materialistic times, many people would regard such an action (such donations) as stupid / guillible or even just incomprehensible. But I would pity such a view, as it can only come from an outlook which cannot conceive of a depth of love so great as to make such selfless generousity seem as natural as breathing.

In any case, the items were not "lost" as such, but rather immortalised as a symbol of the donors faith - for the donors themselves and for countless generations after them.Come on. Clutching at straws.

Some people say the Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest organisations going - but the figures I have referenced clear show thats not the case, not even nearly. In terms of annual cash flow, the Vatican cant even compete with the better English Premiership teams lol.

5. No doubt - if you sold every catholic church, every item and resource the church owns, and all the land the churches are built on - it would add up to very impressive sum. But then there would be no Catholic Church and so selling our stuff is obviously a non-starter. Accordingly, the items might as well be worthless, regardless of whatever paper value land or buildings may have.OK, but you must accept that different opinions are equally valid - and for us, we will obviously go with what yer man Jesus told us (as above).The greater vast majority. I think thats pretty evident. So, (eg) Michaelangelo did a bit of art for us, which has accrued value over the years. Big wow - unfortunately that cant be helped. That doesnt mean the Church isnt spending most of its dosh on good works (locally and globally).

The things you see in Catholic Churches do have a value for us, but not a financial value. It is the world which applies a price-tag to them, which is ultimately irrelevant if they are never sold.Well I think thats grossly unfair. Of course improvement is always good, but as (eg) the Church is already the biggest non-governmental educational body in the world, we feel a bit like Alexander here, in that there are no more (educational) worlds to conqeur.

And what approx percentage exactly of the worlds total healthcare provision must we provide, before you would be satisfied? If the current 25% is not good enough, what is? 50%?? 75%? Is no-one else going to pitch in (or do secular nations prefer to instead buy nuclear weapons, arnaments and personal luxury goods?)

6. Poverty doesnt exist because St Peters Basillica is arguably the most beautiful thing on earth, nor because the Church has very many gold-plated candlesticks.

It exists because the global economy works in such a way as to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of the few.

It exists because developed nations give just a tiny fraction of their wealth to underdeveloped nations, (a sum dwarfed even by the equivalent value of food wastage in the same countries.)

It exists because we in the west are greedy and consume more than our fair share (34% of americans obese, 25% of britons - through over consumption, not cultural factors as is sometimes the case. Plus look at how much fuel and energy we westerners all use, especially in North America with the big "V" petrol engines, less than 20 mpg etc).

It exists because we in the west are wasteful. (America wastes 40% of its food for example)

It exists because western consumers want to be able to walk into a mega-market - 24 hours a day, regardless of season - and choose from a massive selection of products from all over the world. We expect unlimited access to an unlimited range of global products and all at the cheapest price - meanwhile people die elsewhere, for want of access to even basic nutrition.

7. (Its seems strange that we can put people on the moon, and vehicles on mars, but we cant work together to make sure everyone has something to eat. Perhaps we are not as clever as we think we are?)

8. In the middle of this scenario, you see fit to heap criticism on the (admittedly flawed) organisation with likely the best individual record at trying to redress the balance? (I of course recognise that many people from all religions and none also do a great deal of good in the world).

I contend thats a very bleak outlook, one which must actually require a considerable effort to sustain.

And Im off to bed for now!

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1. It's not an analysis, it's an opinion.

 

2. It's irrelevant if it took the Vatican 2000 years to accrue its obscene wealth or if it bought it all yesterday at Solid-Gold-R-Us. That the Vatican sees fit to surround itself with sheer opulance is the criticism.

 

3. I'm not sure how that's at all relevant to the accumulation of church wealth. Maybe if the church didn't sit on such obscene wealth there would be fewer poor people. I wonder if Jesus would agree with that logic.

 

4. Presumably it could have fetched a good sum on Ebay, and fed a few hungry kids. Did it? Or did it just lay around so people could idolise it (oops).

 

5. I don't recall saying anything about selling off everything... in fact I think I specifically mentioned that buildings could be less opulant and fixtures don;t have to be solid gold. That's not saying "sell everything." Figured you'd just slip in a strawman and see if you could get away with it, did you?

 

6. You're arguing against a position I haven't made here, presumably as a further extension of your strawman. Once again, this is a thread YOU started, specifically regarding the Catholic Church... ergo in this thread you will be seeing criticism directed specifically at the Catholic Church. That OTHER organisations are responsible for poverty is not the point in question, whther or not you personally feel these other organisations are more responsible than your own. I WILL point out, however, that Capitalist society is not a charitable society and nor is it intended to be a charitable society. It, like the Catholic Church, demands the accumulation of wealth with the odd table-scrap thrown to the dogs and peasants.

 

7. Well, the Catholic Church hasn't put anyone on the moon as far as I'm aware... in fact as far as I recall the Catholic Church only officially admitted geocentricism was bullshit aout 8 years ago... about 4 centuries after the rest of us realised this. At this rate of scientific acceptance, the Catholic Church won't be putting anyone on the moon for about another 10 billion years... and even then only to declare that heliocentricism is a crock.

 

8. Once again, because you keep bringing this up as if it's out of place.... this is a thread about Catholicism... and in this thread I'm going to be criticising Catholicism. You should not be surprised about this, I will say that some of your 'examples' ahve been atrocious, however. Football Clubs and Capitalist countries... neither of which make claims to be any kind of benificent, altruistic organisation there for the good of their fellow man. Football teams are there to entertain, not feed the hungry or save our souls... that was a seriously weird contnetion on your part, and Capitalist countries say 'get wealthy, and if you can't then fuck you." not, "Hey, have free shit." Remember that... you're criticising an entertainment industry that makes no pretence at being charitable, and an economic system that makes no pretence at being charitable.

 

I will mention I've been to a couple of churches in Russia, and I felt physically sick at the scale of decadence on show in both of them.

 

The Church of the Saviour on Spilled Blood in St Petersburg was possibly the worst example I've seen... You stand in there surrounded by this horrendous wealth and are supposed to be moved by the beauty of the place. I suppose when it comes to the simple-minded peasantry then it probably has the desired effect. But having just come from streets where the houses look like they're ready to fall down, and people who are one step above homeless, the 'majesty' of the place was entirely lost on me. But give the Church some rubles and you may enter heaven... as the priests pish down your back and tell you it's raining.

 

I understand this particular cult calls itself 'Eastern Orthodox' and your own cult refers to itself as Catholicism, but you all worship the same undead creature, even if interpretation differs slightly, so I think it's fair to mention one cult inthe context of another very similar cult.

[The Hulk]

 

non-religious people (however they define themselves).

 

I think that herein lies the problem with people's interpretation of your views. In another post you mentioned that you do not consider any of the non-Abrahamic religions as religions at all, ergo by that statement you elevate your own piety to a state superior to all others while conceivably rubbishing the likes of Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Additionally you rubbish Protestantism. Now, imagine yourself as someone looking in from outside the west of Scotland, as I am doing now (and incidentally I lived there for a number of years), and consider if publicly voicing such an opinion in a place where said denomination is the majority (to a lesser extent in Glasgow than in the rest of Scotland admittedly), can you understand how the sectarian spiral continues? Now I admire your faith & I strongly believe that everyone is free to follow their own path, but I believe even moreso that it should exist in a secular society as we have been moving towards for years.

 

(if its any consolation, I cant think of anything worthwhile which the Church has built in Scotland in at least half a century. Most of its modern buildings here are appalling.)

 

 

Beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder, but it is a fairly commonly held view in architectural circles that the most important building constructed in Scotland in the twentieth century is St Peter's Seminary at Cardross which is sadly now just a ruin. The irony being that the primary architect was Isi Metzstein, the atheist son of Polish Jews, whom with his firm Gillespie, Kidd & Coia designed many 20th C churches for the Archdiocese of Glasgow:

 

The archdiocese was about to embark on a programme of churchbuilding. At first, Coia's archi tecture continued in the manner of his prewar work, but soon the influence of his two and open-minded assistants became evident, familiar as they were with avant-garde buildings in continental Europe, in particular the work of the Swiss architect Charles-Édouard Jeanneret, better known as Le Corbusier.

The turning point was the church at Glenrothes, a new town in Fife, which was completed in 1957. With its tapering, open plan, austere aesthetic and white exterior, this was clearly the creation of different hands. Henceforth, Coia's task was to secure the commissions, while the work was carried out by his young and expanding office. Although GKC were responsible for schools and some housing during the late 1950s and 60s, what stood out was the series of bold and inventive churches. It is ironic that, while the Roman Catholic hierarchy believed the architect to be the almost mythical Coia, the designing was in fact carried out by a Jewish refugee from Berlin and a Glaswegian of Highland Presbyterian ancestry.

Metzstein, who described himself as a "lapsed atheist", had a strong sense of the numinous, achieved in his churches by the dramatic handling of light in dark interiors. Some of the churches were in the tradition of tall and powerful brick boxes, such as those at East Kilbride (1962) and Kilsyth (1964). Others – St Benedict's, Drumchapel (1970), Our Lady of Good Counsel, Dennistoun (1965) – had highly inventive plans and unconventional internal spaces.

However, their masterpiece was undoubtedly St Peter's (1966), where neo-Corbusian ranges with a brilliant stepped-section were disposed around an existing Victorian mansion.

 

As an architect myself, I spent some of my formative years working on what you may call a benevolent project funded by a body governed by the Catholic Church in Scotland, so I have first-hand experience of that kind of benevolence. Not being catholic myself, but having a name that in the west coast led to "accusations" of being so (and yet never in my puff had that in the NE), I sometimes felt a bit intimidated by the apparent perceived strictness of Catholicism. When it boils down to it, most people are intimidated by things they don't completely understand. A group I am involved with suffers persecution of a similar sort and it's all just a lack of understanding. The objectives of most religions are fairly common to each other, it's the means of getting there that differs.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

No offence CS, you're probably nice enough in real life, just nae the type of bloke I'd have a few pints with.

 

Aye merry christmas to you too, ya miserable c*nt.

I'm sure the feeling is reciprocated.

On the contrary, I know as little about you, as you do about me - I aint one to condemn strangers!

 

PS - why read a thread you know you wont like, and then complain about it? Its like a letter from "outraged of turnbridge wells" or something

[Clydeside_Sheep]

CS for a pint-sharing experience? Fuck no. Boy's an arse.

Luckily, I have a policy of avoiding people who call going for a drink a "pint sharing experience".

 

Do you go for a "pint sharing experience" after watching "the deen"?

[StandFree1982]

Luckily, I have a policy of avoiding people who call going for a drink a "pint sharing experience".

 

Do you go for a "pint sharing experience" after watching "the deen"?

The question really should be, who shares pints? that's the sort of things women do when they are out for "cocktails" with two straws.