AFAIK, the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox Churches are the original and prototypical Christian churches.  By definition, the protestant churches were formed after the Roman Catholic church. 

Another Christian church claiming that the RC church is not Christian is like Tim Hortons claiming that Dunkin’ Donuts isn’t a donut shop.

It’s a piece of unleavened bread. Not a cracker.  It is not cannibalism, either, though it may seem as such to the uninitiated.

Do I believe it is right to use physical force to defend the Eucharist? No. Is it the body of Christ, and is it required for those who seek salvation? Yes, I believe so. Do I understand how it might look to an outsider that Catholics “eat” their God? Yes. But this is a practice that has gone on for 20 centuries in western civilization, and is not exactly a practice of a deranged fringe group.

As for the Catholic Church; people tend to hate it because it doesn’t negotiate its beliefs away for political correctness, though also because Catholics have done many immoral things throughout the course of Catholic history. Catholics, as individuals with the same faults that all people share, have never claimed to be perfect, but we do believe that our beliefs, when put into practice, are the only means by which a person can be in true communion with God. And, as a Catholic, I understand, as Christ said, that I will be hated and ridiculed for my beliefs; and so I accept it.

Thank you.

Hated, usually not, but ridiculed; absolutely.  You believe an invisible man watches everything you do.  The fact that others have shared that belief for a long time makes no difference.  And your church has a power structure where (supposedly) celibate old men know how married couples should conduct themselves.  Where gays are alienated and women are marginalized.  Your leader lives in a fabulously wealthy palace while millions of poor Catholics send money.

As for Catholics “not compromising their beliefs for political correctness” does that extend to the AIDS deaths of people given misinformation about condoms by the church?  Does it extend to the pregnant teens who were given no real guidance in “abstinence only” programs?  How about the opposition to stem cell research because the church has a mythological definition problem with a few cells in a dish?  (Hint: we don’t share the doctrine of ensoulment, that’s a religious not a secular concept so it can’t constitutionally be used as the basis of law.) 

Are we just supposed to forget Bush and Pope patting each other on the back as if one didn’t lie a war into existence and the other helped cover up abuses in churches?  You can’t just sweep that stuff aside by compartmentalizing church doctrine from humanity.

So forgive us if we don’t say; “Oh, well OK then.”

Catholics, as individuals with the same faults that all people share, have never claimed to be perfect,

Ummm, that mean that the Pope is NOT infallable?

But this is a practice that has gone on for 20 centuries in western civilization, and is not exactly a practice of a deranged fringe group.

OK, delete the word, “fringe”.

Positive writes…

and is not exactly a practice of a deranged fringe group

Fringe? Sadly no. Deranged? Absolutely!

but ridiculed; absolutely.  You believe an invisible man watches everything you do.  The fact that others have shared that belief for a long time makes no difference.  And your church has a power structure where (supposedly) celibate old men know how married couples should conduct themselves.  Where gays are alienated and women are marginalized.  Your leader lives in a fabulously wealthy palace while millions of poor Catholics send money.

And as a follower of Jesus I accept your ridicule. I point out that belief in the Eucharist has existed for 20 centuries not because it justifies the belief, it certainly does not, simply to point out that many, many people have believed in the Eucharist, and they were not all insane; as some here seem to be suggesting. As for the rest of your paragraph; I am not sure that celibacy takes away one’s ability to give marital advice, and as far as I know priests are given training in how to deal with those matters. Now, if Catholics have ever alienated gays, which they obviously have, they were wrong to do so. Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Do I believe that gays should be alienated for that behavior? No, and neither is that the position of the Church. I dislike the saying, because it sounds cynical and almost condescending, but I am sure you have heard the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin.” As for the Church’s dealings with the poor; I think the Church has done more for charity and more for the poor than possibly any institution in human history. Does that mean it has not exploited the poor? It certainly has. I could say the same for the United States; I wish our country would do more for the poor, and it does on occasion, but things could be better.

And, yes, I am aware that the United States is simply a country while the Church claims to be the most sacred institution on earth. But the Church is also run by sinners. Still, I will say it again, Catholic history has many examples of the Church and of individual Catholics caring for the poor. Does that prove anything? No, but it should not be said that Catholicism has only exploited and never helped those in poverty.

As for Catholics “not compromising their beliefs for political correctness” does that extend to the AIDS deaths of people given misinformation about condoms by the church?  Does it extend to the pregnant teens who were given no real guidance in “abstinence only” programs?  How about the opposition to stem cell research because the church has a mythological definition problem with a few cells in a dish?  (Hint: we don’t share the doctrine of ensoulment, that’s a religious not a secular concept so it can’t constitutionally be used as the basis of law.)

If a prominent Catholic has ever given misinformation about condoms, and I am aware of at least one case, than that person was doing something terribly wrong. That kind of lying is never alright, regardless of who is doing it. But as for the Church’s opposition to use of condoms, this is something the Church does oppose, though many find this belief terribly repugnant and politically incorrect. The Church also opposes promiscuous sex, however, and this ties into your comment about abstinence; if people followed Catholicism’s position about avoiding promiscuity (promiscuity being something which many secularists promote with great eagerness) AIDS and other sexual diseases would be much less widespread. Again, this it is not politically correct to say this. Now, is it easy to avoid promiscuity? No, and Catholicism has never claimed that it is. Does everyone agree with the Church that promiscuity and condom use should be avoided? No, and those who do not agree with the Church are free to practice promiscuity and are free to use condoms. As for the federal government not funding embryonic stem cell research, you cannot really blame that on Catholicism. If Catholicism had it its way then yes, abortion and embryonic stem cell research would be banned. But Catholicism does not have it its way. If you want to blame someone for the federal government not funding embryonic stem cell research, your target should be the Bush administration. But do I personally think that the religious beliefs of one group should be forced on to another group by law? No, I do not. If someone who is pro-life wants to pass pro-life laws in our society, they in my opinion need to provide arguments that do not have a religious basis.

Are we just supposed to forget Bush and Pope patting each other on the back as if one didn’t lie a war into existence and the other helped cover up abuses in churches?  You can’t just sweep that stuff aside by compartmentalizing church doctrine from humanity.

Well, put it this way. Do I think Pope Benedict should be openly condemning Bush? I really do not know. As a Christian I embrace pacifism and am opposed to all war (and, yes, I am sure that many here will get a kick out of this because most here seem to think of Christianity as a violent religion, based on some of its unfortunate history which often does not conform with the tenants of the religion). But, with that said, I am not sure that the pope should be publicly condemning Bush. I am not sure if that would accomplish anything. What I would say is that he should publicly speak out for the U.S. to push for a speedy end to the conflict in Iraq; though that’s not exactly a creative thought, and realistically neither would his doing so accomplish anything, either. I really do not know what I would do if I was in his position, I would just try to be as honest as possible. I would also keep in mind that it is not only the fault of the United States, though much of it is.

As for the pope covering up abuse cases.  I have heard about this, but I cannot honestly say that I have all the facts and know if this is true or not. It is something that I need to do research into, and I will accept criticism for not having done so already. But, yes, if there is evidence of this then the pope should step down and be put on some sort of trial. And this ties into leguru’s comment, and the answer is no, the pope is not perfect in terms of his own personal actions and conduct. That is unrelated to the Catholic belief about papal infallibility. Though, with that said, as far as I understand the accusations are directed at the time that he was still a Cardinal.

Thank you for your thoughts, and I certainly think that you raise valid points, even though I am sure that you feel that I raise none.

I would just like to add that the Church has donated a lot of money to AIDS research. And yes, I am sure that you are unimpressed, but I felt that it needed to be said.

Thank you.

Wow, Positive, it’s like opening a fire hose of religious denialism.  I have to go to work so will just focus on one point:

Well, put it this way. Do I think Pope Benedict should be openly condemning Bush?

YES!  Yes!  A thousand time, yes! This is not an issue of pacifism vs whatever; if the church cannot condemn the telling of lies to plunge a country into war, it should shut the hell up about “Pro Life” because it has demonstrated a complete lack of moral authority.

Christians are always shocked that anyone can find their “morality” reprehensible. It’s as if they think that Christianity is the definition of morality.  But it isn’t.

Ummm, that mean that the Pope is NOT infallable?

Never claimed to be.  The ‘infallibity’ only extends to very few circumstances, and is rarely used- the pope makes a pronouncement from ‘the chair’ using a specific form of wording.

Positive writes…

and they were not all insane; as some here seem to be suggesting.

I said they were delusional. You can be quite delusional without being insane. You can even be willfully delusional because whatever you want to be deluded about makes you feel better. Though, admittedly, the reaction some of these Catholics have had to Crackergate certainly makes them look insane.

I’d really love to hear you justify some of the death threats that have come about from that event.

Wow, Positive, it’s like opening a fire hose of religious denialism.

Game, set, and match.

The Catholic Church is one of the oldest multi-national corporations (if not the oldest) and has committed or aided a mind-numbing amount of atrocities over the centuries. For recent examples, look no further than the conspiracy to shield the Church’s coffers from the child rape committed by its corporate officers and the cover-up by high-ranking executives. Or have a look at the closest the Catholic Church has come to a Christian theocracy in modern times, the repressive Ireland and particularly the Irish Madgalene Asylums.

The Catholic Church in its bigotry and hypocrisy represents and defends social and political ultra-conservative values and its most devout customers are actually proud of that. They are also proud that they’ve outsourced their thinking and values to a sodomizing class of parasites also known as clergy—for two millennia and counting—and consider the ritual cannibalism (that’s what it is, whether the devout like it or not) as a winning feature of their chosen religion.

It is always instructive how far the devout will take their cognitive bias to whitewash an institution that has no moral ground to stand on, much less any kind of moral high ground to hold. A common defense is that the Church is all good, it’s just that the people are bad. It’s a permissible defense in case of isolated incidents, but not when faced with long-standing, entrenched, and systemic design flaws.

Of course, none of the above should be construed as a statement to the effect of “all Catholics are bad”. The way I see it, there are roughly four types of Catholics who vary in the degree in which one can get along with them; those that are Catholic in name only, those that cherry-pick where they agree with the Church, those who swallow the party line hook, line and sinker, and lastly the Catholic Christianists like Donahue who use the Church to further their own bigoted agenda.

Positive, I am utterly unimpressed about Catholic Church. Call me back once they elect a Pope who’s a lesbian married to her female partner.

Les wrote:

I’d really love to hear you justify some of the death threats that have come about from that event.

Well, as I wrote above, I do not think that it is alright to defend the Eucharist with physical force. Much less death threats. I would never try to justify that. If an Atheist made a death threat on someone I would not presume that all Atheists would agree, so I do not think that it is fair to assume that simply because I am a Catholic that I would condone that kind of behavior, just because other Catholics are doing it.

Decrepit wrote:

YES! Yes!  A thousand time, yes!

You might be right. I really do not know what the answer is, but maybe he should have spoken up about it. I do not agree with the Iraq war either, though I honestly do not know what Benedict’s views are. I know that John Paul II opposed it.

I never said that it was wrong or that I was shocked that one would question Christian morality. Did I express any shock in anything that I wrote above?

Elwedriddsche… certainly everyone will have their different views about it. I obviously do not share yours, though I do share your dislike for much of Catholic history. Jesus spoke a lot about the hypocrisy of religious believers, and what was true then is true now. I would not claim to be perfect either.

It is not cannibalism, either, though it may seem as such to the uninitiated.

Catholics believe in transubstantiation, the cracker and the wine have literally been changed into the body of Christ.  This transubstantiation is the sole reason for the furor, if it weren’t literally the body of Christ it would have just been a cracker, and not a “hostage”.  According to Catholic teaching, Christ was a human being; eating the flesh and blood of a human is cannibalism.

In a Church History class my Jesuit-educated professor used to drive this point home to students who avoided unpleasant-sounding descriptions of Christian doctrine.  On one occasion, a student said “But Mary isn’t the mother of God!”  The professor said;

“Is Jesus God?”
“Um… yes, but He’s…”
“Is Mary, Jesus’ mother?”
(long silence)

You didn’t mess with that guy. What a great class that was.

Another Christian church claiming that the RC church is not Christian is like Tim Hortons claiming that Dunkin’ Donuts isn’t a donut shop.

The claim is usually that the Catholic Church has strayed from the Christian way, espousing works over grace, putting intermediaries (priests, saints) between people and God, claiming all sorts of non-Biblical stuff as holy (holidays, ceremonies, etc.), and, in fact, placing all sorts of stuff (papal commands and canon law) over the word of the Bible.  Oh, and idols—they worship lots of idols, and make Mary a goddess, and other stuff like that.  In short, the claim is that whatever Christianity was in the Church left it long ago, thus the need for the Reformation.

Catholics believe in transubstantiation, the cracker and the wine have literally been changed into the body of Christ.  This transubstantiation is the sole reason for the furor, if it weren’t literally the body of Christ it would have just been a cracker, and not a “hostage”.  According to Catholic teaching, Christ was a human being; eating the flesh and blood of a human is cannibalism.

Which is why lay people should practice neither law nor theology. 

Wikipedia sums it up as follows:

The Roman Catholic Church considers the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is about what is changed, not about how the change occurs, the best defence against what it sees as the mutually opposed interpretations, on the one hand, a merely figurative understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (it teaches that the change of the substance is real), and, on the other hand, an interpretation that would amount to cannibalistic eating of the flesh and corporal drinking of the blood of Christ (it teaches that the accidents that remain are real, not an illusion, and that Christ is “really, truly, and substantially present” in the Eucharist,[5] not physically present, as he was physically present in the Palestine of two millennia ago).[6]

So it’s a floor wax *and* a dessert topping, but it’s not really cannibalism to the theologians.  It does, in some ways, though, serve the same emotional purpose.

That guff comes off as ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ to us heatherns.  The change of the substance is ‘real’, but the ‘accidents’ don’t change - and by ‘accidents’ they pretty much mean what the rest of us mean by ‘real’.

Real.  They keep using that word.  But I do not think it means what they think it means.

Here’s a comment from Jesus and Mo:

I just mean that because, as someone said, the “accidents” remain, that for this reason the Church does not consider it to be a form of cannibalism. I’m not trying to avoid “unpleasant sounding descriptions”, I’m just saying that this is the theological view of it.

From what I understand the ancient Romans, actually, used to refer to the early Christians as “cannibals,” likely because of the Eucharist. Interestingly, the Romans also referred to the Christians as “Atheists” as well.

But, yes, I recognize that Atheists would find transubstantiation absurd and irrational; but it is not supposed to be rational. It is an article of faith. As far as I know even Aquinas did not claim that someone could prove the Eucharist to be what it is claimed to be.

We understand what the Catholic Church’s view of the Eucharist is. That’s pretty much what we’ve been ridiculing.

The fact that you admit that it’s irrational just supports my position that Catholics who claim that the Eucharist undergoes transubstantiation are delusional.

We understand what the Catholic Church’s view of the Eucharist is.

It’s having your Jesus and eat him, too.

I’m not trying to avoid “unpleasant sounding descriptions”, I’m just saying that this is the theological view of it.

“The theological view”.  It sounds similar to “the geological view” or “the biological view” but those fields have something observable as their object of study.  Has anyone observed god?  Have you?  Or have you convinced yourself that god exists and he has a bunch of attributes, and you know what they are?

Theology—the art of make-belief.