Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

[mrk]

So what exactly has all this huff puff brought to light and what problems has it solved?


Just as I thought.

 

[spudbynight]

This is a very good piece from Damien Thompson of the Telegraph in 2009 where he refutes the accusations that Pope Benedict XVI covered up child rape.

Today The Guardian published a vitriolic attack on Pope Benedict XVI by Tanya Gold which accused him of colluding in the protection of paedophiles and ended thus: "Welcome, Benedict XVI, Episcopus Romae, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles… Don't tread on the corpses."
I described it this morning as the most poisonously anti-Catholic article to have appeared in the mainstream media in decades. However, The Guardian is anti-Catholic these days, and we do have free speech in this country, and on the whole I think professional offence-taking is a bad thing.
But, as CP Scott himself put it, "comment is free but facts are sacred", and when Gold accuses the Pope of colluding in the protection of paedophiles she is making an accusation that requires a pretty high level of proof.
Which she doesn't have.
She writes: "In May 2001 [the then Cardinal Ratzinger] wrote a confidential letter to Catholic bishops, ordering them not to notify the police – or anyone else – about the allegations, on pain of excommunication."
No, he didn't.
As Archbishop Vincent Nichols pointed out in 2006, when a BBC Panorama documentary made this allegation, the 2001 letter to bishops "clarified the law of the Church, ensuring that the Vatican is informed of every case of child abuse and that each case is dealt with properly.
"This document does not hinder the investigation by civil authorities of allegations of child abuse, nor is it a method of cover-up, as the [BBC] programme persistently claims. In fact it is a measure of the seriousness with which the Vatican views these offences.
"Since 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, took many steps to apply the law of the Church to allegations and offences of child abuse with absolute thoroughness and scruple."
Gold's article is also highly selective, not to say misleading, in its presentation of the facts relating to the Church investigation into the scandal surrounding Fr Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Maciel was a favourite of Pope John Paul II, on whose instructions Cardinal Ratzinger closed down an investigation into various allegations. Perhaps he should have refused to obey the Pope – but what Gold fails to mention is that the moment Ratzinger was free to reopen the case (ie, when JPII became mortally ill) he did so, and as Pope sent the dying octagenarian priest into exile while a proper investigation into this massively complicated case began.
It's nowhere near finished, but Pope Benedict is determined that the truth comes out, even at the price of dismantling the entire order. Quite right: Maciel was a vile piece of work, a seducer of young men and the father of several illegitimate childrn – but even if you think Cardinal Ratzinger colluded in his protection, the awkward fact remains that the Mexican was not, so far as we know, a paedophile. A nice distinction? Not in a court of law, which is where The Guardian would end up if it had made these claims about an ordinary individual.
Gold's attack on Pope Benedict doesn't read like the work of someone very familiar with the detail of the paedophile scandals. I'd like to know how much research actually went into it. The sad fact is that the upper ranks of the clergy are stuffed with prelates who were complicit in the protection of paedophiles – but the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whose Congregation assumed responsibility for investigating the scandals only at the end of JPII's pontificate, is not one of them.
On the contrary: Benedict XVI is currently engaged in "purifying" (his word) the Church of the "filth" (his word again) of priestly sex abusers. It's one of his priorities as Pope. It wasn't one of John Paul II's priorities, though it should have been. But he is dead, so Gold goes after his successor, intending to trash his reputation but actually doing serious damage to that of The Guardian.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...n-throwing-wild-accusations-at-pope-benedict/

 

[RDM]

OK - I am happy to address both points.

1) Sexism - Can I quote the Catholic Church's official position on women.



The Catholic Church believes men and women are equal but it recognises that they are different. What people get confused about is the lack of women priests in the Catholic Church.

I do not at all get confused about the lack of priests in the Catholic Church, it is an outward sign of the misogyny of the faith. There is no strong biblical reason for not having women priests, bishops or even a pope, yet the chruch developed under a patriarchal system and stayed that way. At the end of the day the same opportunities are not available to men and women in the Catholic Church. This is putting aside their reluctance of contraception which does little for female equality and pretty much leaves women as biological baby factories.

2) Homosexuality

Here is the official teaching on homosexuality from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

So yes the Catholic Church is very clearly against homosexual activities but not against homosexuals. The entire Catholic Church is very clear on the distinction between sin and the sinner him or herself. The Church is also very clear in its teaching that the only person able to cast judgement on a person is God himself.

The difference is pretty much semantics. How would you feel if the organisation that you were brought up in basically said "Your feelings of love for your wife are completely unnatural and a sin against God, stop it."

The very article you quote from calls homosexuality "objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial" surely you can see how, coming from someone other than a church, this would be considered homophobic?

Would you consider me bigoted against if I said that you believing in God was objectively disordered?

The Catholic faith is demonstrably discriminatory against women and homosexuals.

 

[spudbynight]

I do not at all get confused about the lack of priests in the Catholic Church, it is an outward sign of the misogyny of the faith. There is no strong biblical reason for not having women priests, bishops or even a pope, yet the chruch developed under a patriarchal system and stayed that way. At the end of the day the same opportunities are not available to men and women in the Catholic Church. This is putting aside their reluctance of contraception which does little for female equality and pretty much leaves women as biological baby factories.

The short answer to the lack of female priests in the Catholic church is based on Jesus selecting 12 male disciples. It isn't a case of "man" making this decision and the Church is explicit when it affirms the absolute equality of man and woman. When you talk about men and women not having the same "opportunities" in the Catholic Church that shows a lack of understanding. There are no "opportunities" in the Church, only vocations. It isn't a job. I also fail to see how the Church opposing contraception has anything to do with equality.

The difference is pretty much semantics. How would you feel if the organisation that you were brought up in basically said "Your feelings of love for your wife are completely unnatural and a sin against God, stop it."

The very article you quote from calls homosexuality "objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial" surely you can see how, coming from someone other than a church, this would be considered homophobic?

Would you consider me bigoted against if I said that you believing in God was objectively disordered?

The Catholic faith is demonstrably discriminatory against women and homosexuals.

The thing is my love for my wife IS perfectly natural and normal. I do believe that homosexual sexual activity is a disorder. I also believe that any sex outside of marriage is a sin. I don't have any prejudices against gay people. In fact to be honest I wouldn't have the arrogance to seek to judge them. I have gay friends - I don't have any ill feelings towards them. I am not perfect and I accept that, but I live my life with the understanding that when I die I will have to account for my sins.

 

[Nitefly]

The thing is my love for my wife IS perfectly natural and normal. I do believe that homosexual sexual activity is a disorder. I also believe that any sex outside of marriage is a sin. I don't have any prejudices against gay people. In fact to be honest I wouldn't have the arrogance to seek to judge them. I have gay friends - I don't have any ill feelings towards them. I am not perfect and I accept that, but I live my life with the understanding that when I die I will have to account for my sins.

I would personally look for another word than 'disorder', but I think it's good that you do not judge gay people detrimentally.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Something tells me that this thread didn't go quite where the OP was hoping.

 

[RDM]

The short answer to the lack of female priests in the Catholic church is based on Jesus selecting 12 male disciples.

As I said, no strong biblical justification. At no point did Jesus say "Women cannot be priests". Probably because he said very little about priests...

It isn't a case of "man" making this decision and the Church is explicit when it affirms the absolute equality of man and woman.

It is absolutely about man making a decision because God most certainly hasn't or if he has decided not to get it written down. Regardless of what the church says it's actions show that there isn't equality.

When you talk about men and women not having the same "opportunities" in the Catholic Church that shows a lack of understanding. There are no "opportunities" in the Church, only vocations. It isn't a job.

However women are not allowed to follow the same vocations. If a woman wants to be a priest she cannot be. The Catholic Church is ruled by men.

I also fail to see how the Church opposing contraception has anything to do with equality.

Because education and easy access to control their own bodies is pretty much essential for female equality?

The thing is my love for my wife IS perfectly natural and normal. I do believe that homosexual sexual activity is a disorder.

Which pretty much proves the point? If I said that I thought religion was a disorder you would think I was bigoted yet you do not feel that saying homosexuality is a disorder is at all bigoted? They are exactly the same thing.

I don't have any prejudices against gay people.

Other than thinking of them suffering from a disorder...

 

[Xordium]

Something tells me that this thread didn't go quite where the OP was hoping.

Then the OP should have known better.

 

[spudbynight]

I would personally look for another word than 'disorder', but I think it's good that you do not judge gay people detrimentally.

Well if you take the definition of disorder as a deviation from the normal system or order then you will see where the Church teaching comes from.

I certainly wouldn't intend to judge others, unless I was perfect that is. I am human however and I acknowledge that I do sometimes judge other people.

 

[spudbynight]

Something tells me that this thread didn't go quite where the OP was hoping.

Correct

 

[kedge]

Christianity happily coexists with science.

I agree yeah, but you didn't really clarify "science". The science or knowledge of how things work, the incredible universe, the inner workings of living things and this amazing planet. It is really interesting to try and get to know the mind of God. However, there is no support for theistic evolution in the Holy Bible or scriptures, in fact as mentioned by others - such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance.

 

[elmarko]

The fact you believe that homosexuality (something that exists within the animal kingdom outside of humans) is a disorder speaks volumes.

The entire concept of "sin" is based on the flawed understanding of human behaviour.

If you actually read up & understand neurobiology, psychology, sociology & behaviourism you will understand that concepts like "free will" & "good/evil & sin" are not compatible with our current understanding of reality.

It's the unwillingness to attempt to understand the whole range of the human condition & label things as "black & white" which get's my goat personally.

We will never achieve anything as a species if such a large portion of the population continues to deny reality in favour of wishful thinking.

Perhaps if religion stayed away from indoctrinating children, interfering with education & ended the blatant promotion of sexist & homophobic points of view I'd be happy to leave it alone.

Perhaps if I could live in peace without somebody knocking on my door with a bible telling me I'm a sinner because me & my girlfriend are not married/I don't believe in a deity every so often I'd be a little more understanding.

That's in the UK, one of the most "laid back" countries - now imagine what it's like for people who don't share in your delusion who live in Saudi Arabia, USA or Iran.

 

[Naffa]

Because education and easy access to control their own bodies is pretty much essential for female equality?

Excellent point, and one that should be made much more often.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I agree yeah, but you didn't really clarify "science". The science or knowledge of how things work, the incredible universe, the inner workings of living things and this amazing planet. It is really interesting to try and get to know the mind of God. However, there is no support for theistic evolution in the Holy Bible or scriptures, in fact as mentioned by others - such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance.

Augustin says hi.

 

[Nitefly]

Well if you take the definition of disorder as a deviation from the normal system or order then you will see where the Church teaching comes from.

Well... it's a bit silly really if you can't see why that has some pretty offensive connotations.

Disorderly -> not in order -> not as should be -> broken / defective / wrong

I certainly wouldn't go about saying that gay people have any sort of disorder when their behaviour is (from a non-religious perspective) neither broken, defective or wrong.

So I would avoid the use of that word, it's not a great label.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Perhaps if I could live in peace without somebody knocking on my door with a bible telling me I'm a sinner because me & my girlfriend are not married ... every so often I'd be a little more understanding.

They knock on your door just to tell you that? But how do they know? Is God telling them the details of your private life?

 

[elmarko]

They knock on your door just to tell you that? But how do they know? Is God telling them the details of your private life?

Because I like to hear what they have to say & see what kind of questions they come out with - I enjoy engaging them in conversation & ask them how they would feel if I knocked onto there family door & tried to tell them they were all going to hell for not believing in Allah.

I ask them if they think I'm a sinner based on a few basic facts of my life - which unsurprising I was & needed "saving".

 

[spudbynight]

As I said, no strong biblical justification. At no point did Jesus say "Women cannot be priests". Probably because he said very little about priests...

It is absolutely about man making a decision because God most certainly hasn't or if he has decided not to get it written down. Regardless of what the church says it's actions show that there isn't equality.

Well I think we could populate another thread on this topic. If you want to discuss it on a separate thread I am more than happy to. I think it is going a little bit off tangent here though. The stock answer for the authority on this is as follows :

So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

However women are not allowed to follow the same vocations. If a woman wants to be a priest she cannot be. The Catholic Church is ruled by men.

Men can't become nuns. Again you are failing to understand the significance of a vocation. The Catholic church recognises that men and women are different - but equal. Do you disagree with that statement

Because education and easy access to control their own bodies is pretty much essential for female equality?

Why? (Genuine question)

Which pretty much proves the point? If I said that I thought religion was a disorder you would think I was bigoted yet you do not feel that saying homosexuality is a disorder is at all bigoted? They are exactly the same thing.

I am puzzled by your view on this. Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?

Other than thinking of them suffering from a disorder...

I believe I have clarified this above.

 

[elmarko]

I am puzzled by your view on this. Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?

It exists within the animal kingdom.

Are animals disordered now?, it also has a number of theoretical evolutionary purposes for a species so socially reliant.

Being as you are, how would you feel if your son/daughter turned out to be gay.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I ask them if they think I'm a sinner based on a few basic facts of my life - which unsurprising I was & needed "saving".

A fairly pointless exercise, given that we're all sinners from a Christian perspective.