Condemns ISIS for war and hate but okay with Catholic church's past atrocities for centuries?

[Subhankar Zac]

It isnt. It is evidence of the fact that you are a hating troll, however.

How exactly? Believe me, if I was hateful, only one us would be here right now.

 

[Demonslayer]

The members of the church that still venerates many instigators of the atrocities as saints and patrons

Perhaps what he means is something like this:

1. Most Catholics I know will praise Pope John Paul II as a wonderful, holy man who did many super awesome things.
2. In 2011 the Catholics saw fit canonize Pope John Paul II, making him an official Saint
3. Pope John Paul II for the entirety of his reign as head of the RCC...nearly 30 years...was responsible for hiding and protecting hundreds of child molesting priests, actively protecting them from the law and continuing to allow them to hold paying positions with the church and preach in parishes with small children around.
4. Catholics seem to have no problem reconciling #1 and #2 with #3.

 

[Revoltingest]

Their membership of 1.2 billion should be evidence enough

This sounds more like a mischievous stereotype.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

This sounds more like a mischievous stereotype.

If it was about Kkk, it wouldn't be the case.
But we all must handle child rapes, homophobic deaths and hostility against atheists. The latter two largely in Christian Africa

 

[4consideration]

You sir, are either incapable of reading English or funding loopholes to somehow dodge the question by twisting what I asked.

OK. Two can play that game.

You, madam, are either jealous of my masculinity, or you are providing a false dichotomy!

I asked about the membership with a church that has slaughtered millions, not what they are doing right now.

I don't have to justify one bit of what the Catholic church has done in the past for me to not get on a crusade against them as people here and now -- which is what you appear to be doing.

So... You condemn ISIS for the atrocities that might have killed around a few million in the last few years.
But 1.2 billion people are okay being the member of the church that slaughtered people globally in many many millions over 1600 years?

I did answer your question. You asked if we think 1.2 billion people are okay being members of the Catholic church, and I think they are just fine being members of that church if they want to be.

Atrocities against others is the legacy of the entire human race. I'm not interesting in participating in a crusade against anyone.

But, I do support the stopping of people that are beheading, raping, torturing, and enslaving people now. So, yes, I will condemn ISIS while paying almost no attention to that which is the past, and that I can do nothing about, nor can any human alive. Attitudes of revenge and hatred for past wrongs do nothing but keep horrors and misery alive.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I'm constantly bemused as to why so many people on this site claim that child abuse by clerics is a uniquely Catholic problem. Protestant ministers do it. Jewish rabbis do it. And the profession with the most abusers is teaching. Cover-ups? All organisations cover up such things, if they can get away with it: churches, schools, children's homes ...

As for Christian atrocities in the past, everyone can be attacked on those grounds. Should we be blaming the atheists for persecution of religion in the old USSR and other places? The fact is that most of the persecution today is done by Muslims. The Church hasn't burned anyone lately, as far as I'm aware. I haven't thrown any non-pagans to the lions - no lion :-(

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really? I'd like to see what was said that you're thinking is being okay with it.

Not necessarily ok, but it gets dismissed by saying either they weren't "true" Christians, or that because it was so long ago that it's not an issue anymore, or that someone the past is totally irrelevant.

 

[4consideration]

Not necessarily ok, but it gets dismissed by saying either they weren't "true" Christians, or that because it was so long ago that it's not an issue anymore, or that someone the past is totally irrelevant.

OK. I've seen that myself. I agree that happens. Thanks.

 

[Demonslayer]

I'm constantly bemused as to why so many people on this site claim that child abuse by clerics is a uniquely Catholic problem. Protestant ministers do it. Jewish rabbis do it. And the profession with the most abusers is teaching.

I don't think anyone has said "only Catholic priests molest children." I think it's just the most famous, widespread case. No one has shown 6% of all rabbis have molested children, and no one has uncovered such a deep and complex program of protecting, hiding, and continuing to employ so many known child molesters.

If a teacher gets caught molesting a child, they are immediately fired with extreme prejudice. When a Catholic priest is caught, they are quietly given another job in another parish somewhere.

Now perhaps if we turned a sharper eye to other denominations we'd find just as many Baptist pastors molest as Catholic priests. But there is a lot of evidence that the policy of celibacy attracts more sexually maladjusted men to the priesthood than to other walks of life, and so most people recognize that...while not a problem unique to the Catholic Church, it was/is more prevalent in the RCC than elsewhere.

The Church hasn't burned anyone lately, as far as I'm aware.

The Church still refuses to release the list of molesting priests to this day, including Pope Francis who continues a long line of Popes who refuse to turn out hundreds of offenders. Cardinal Law, the perpetrator of literally thousands of cases of protecting molesting priests, has been given a cushy job at the Vatican where he continues to live with great respect and comfort.

This is a serious needle in the sides of many Catholics today, and a dang good reason to view the Church as not doing nearly enough to right that particular wrong.

 

[4consideration]

How exactly? Believe me, if I was hateful, only one us would be here right now.

Please explain what you mean here. It comes across as a (edit: veiled) threat. If it is not meant that way, please clarify your meaning.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Please explain what you mean here. It comes across as a (edit: veiled) threat. If it is not meant that way, please clarify your meaning.

Seems like, a threat is when someone talks about reporting content and possibly having them banned from this forum.
But children hanging around child molesters from the church is no more threatening than a peacock spreading its feathers before heavy rain, by your logic.
Again clarifying, the whatever threat you gathered from here is about reporting each others posts... Not an imaginary assault or something worse.

 

[4consideration]

Seems like, a threat is when someone talks about reporting content and possibly having them banned from this forum.
But children hanging around child molesters from the church is no more threatening than a peacock spreading its feathers before heavy rain, by your logic.
Again clarifying, the whatever threat you gathered from here is about reporting each others posts... Not an imaginary assault or something worse.

I simply asked you to clarify your meaning. It sounded like a threat. I added no reference to "assault or something worse." You made that up.

Additionally, I said nothing about child molesters or peacocks, so I see you made up more stuff. I don't mind you insulting my logic when you are talking about things I never said, and that you simply are making up. I see it as a reflection of you more than me. Other people can read this thread and see what I said and meant. I'm good with leaving it at that.

 

[Pudding]

ISIS is dubbed as unIslamic by many for their violent and inhumane treatment of people.
But the Catholic church that destroyed sacred pagan temples all over Europe, forcefully converted millions, started wars with their neighbors in the name of religion in Europe and in Israel.
StArted the LGBT persecution, burning atheists and scientists to death and also even protestant who are also Christians.
Later caused the witchunts that killed millions of women, Spanish inquisition that spread all over Europe except maybe England.
Catholic emissaries destroyed native indian lands, killing everyone and practically making them extinct.
Coming to India and forcefully converting people to their religion.

So... You condemn ISIS for the atrocities that might have killed around a few million in the last few years.
But 1.2 billion people are okay being the member of the church that slaughtered people globally in many many millions over 1600 years?

And before the blame game starts, I m a Buddhist and not a fanatical Muslim.
And just curious about the possible reasons that wants to be members of this community.

The people who condemns ISIS for war and hate but okay with Catholic church's past atrocities for centuries is refer to who?

 

[McBell]

The people who condemns ISIS for war and hate but okay with Catholic church's past atrocities for centuries is refer to who?

Based on his emotional rants, it seems that he thinks every single Catholic must support all atrocities, real and imagined, current and past, by simply being a Catholic.

 

[Rival]

The people who condemns ISIS for war and hate but okay with Catholic church's past atrocities for centuries is refer to who?

I can't believe you changed your avatar. I'm so depressed.

 

[Rival]

Based on his emotional rants, it seems that he thinks every single Catholic must support all atrocities, real and imagined, current and past, by simply being a Catholic.

I support colonisation and Empire because I'm British.

Amiright?

 

[McBell]

I support colonisation and Empire because I'm British.

Amiright?

Of course.
Though I would take it a few steps further and say that everyone alive has to condone, support, and like anything and everything ever done by any living person at any time in any place simply because they are alive.

Makes as much sense as his ramblings.

 

[Pudding]

I m asking a reason of why they condemn ISIS if their church committed a lot more atrocities over the years globally and is still a member of that church?

Probably because the members of the present church is not the members of the past times church who committed many atrocities globally using their scriptural interpretation to justify their act, and the present church is not the exactly same church of the past times church, many of the scriptural interpretations have change. Maybe there're minority of the present member may agree with some or many of the past times scriptural interpretations but generally majority of the present members disagree with it.

So you're asking why those majority present members who disagree(not okay) with "past times church who committed many atrocities globally using the past times scriptural interpretation to justify the act", have the qualification to condemn ISIS for war and hate?

Or you're asking why those minority present members who partially or generally agree(okay) with "past times church who committed many atrocities globally using the past times scriptural interpretation to justify the act", have the qualification to condemn ISIS for war and hate?

 

[Pudding]

Based on his emotional rants, it seems that he thinks every single Catholic must support all atrocities, real and imagined, current and past, by simply being a Catholic.

Maybe or maybe not, maybe there're some misunderstandings and miscommunications, he'll have to clarify for this.

 

[Pudding]

I can't believe you changed your avatar. I'm so depressed.

Don't be.