Corruption and Opulance in the Church

[gingentleman]

Here are some things to consider about the Catholic church...

1. The art in the Vatican and the Vatican vaults only belongs to the church because it was stolen in the first place. Often considered heretical or dangerous for the general population to view, the church simply sent agents to confiscate it. This was certainly a device used for social control of the masses. The church maintains that its population of the faithful are not in the best position to think for themselves on matters of faith and questions of importance; instead, the masses must be told what to think and how to think it.

2. It is utter hogwash to try and suggest that members of the mental health community are pedophiles and child-abusers, simply because the church wishes to direct attention away from the ever-growing problem with its own priests and sexual abuse of children. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

3. Shall we talk of corruption, the acquisition of wealth, and the use of power and bloody force to oppress and visit tyranny on those who oppose the church? The church has a long and reprehensible history of war and bloodshed on any who oppose it. The acquisition of wealth for the ruling members of the church is legendary. I have often marveled at the homes and chauffeur-driven limousines of the bishops and cardinals , in comparison to the many, many poor in the church districts.

4. Let us look at further social control imposed on the members of the church...birth control. Even though it is a scientifically-proven fact that our planet is becoming over-populated to the point of dire consequences, the catholic church still maintains it is a sin to use birth control. From a societal-control standpoint, it is easy to understand the church forbade birth control early on, in order to increase its numbers. But to continue with this standpoint in the modern era is ludicrous and harmful. Also consider the fact that the greatest numbers of church members live in developing nations or poor nations where poverty is rampant and the quality of life is extremely low, and you have another heinous thing for the church to answer to.

[Nemothepanda]

Okay, prove it! People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God.

More like only just the Church.

[gingentleman]

'' People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God. ''

I think humanity would not agree, considering how many disparate religions exist, and compete in their claims that theirs is the only 'true' faith. As to god, whose god are you referring to? I make no claims to speak on behalf of mine...are you presumptuous enough to do so for yours? And do you think it likely your god would approve of your trying to insist your religion is the only one to value? It does not appear to me that you closely follow the original tenets of your own religion.

As to proving anything, [Text: Removed] Have a lovely day.

[Telstra]

How does one defend celibacy in light of these abuses?

You can't defend celibacy. It is against nature.

[palbert]

You might work on bringing your accounts receivable up to date.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post8624267

[Spensed]

Okay, prove it! People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God.

I have some sympathy with staying with the Catholic Church, if one is a Catholic, for various reasons. But there are very good reasons to disparage the Church on a number of issues, e.g. AIDS deaths in Africa arising from the Church's teaching on contraception, which, in the developed world, many Catholics completely ignore with the Church's tacit collusion.

For me, the wealth of the Papacy is indefensible and not something Christ or St Peter would tolerate.

If the hierarchy wanted to, it could easily rationalize contraception (almost happened), married priests and women priests and, indeed, homosexual sex and marriage and make the Church and the priesthood more inclusive. I suspect that the Church will eventually see reason on all those issues.

While, as I understand it, there is no automatic relationship between celibacy and pedophilia, you'd have to be a fool to leave your children supervised by a Catholic priest in circumstances where sexual abuse might occur. Not a happy situation, but one created by the Church's own responses to sexual abuse, suppress the facts, move the priest to another parish, play legal hardball with the victims.

It's hardly a disgrace to God and humanity to disparage the Church on these issues or to point out that the sanctimony and self-satisfied arrogance displaced in Bro. Ignatius' answer above has little, if anything, to do the forgiveness and charity required by Jesus.

[tigerfan482]

The Church is a group of humans that are just as corrupt and fallible as any other group of humans. I'm not surprised at all by the opulence and abuse that goes on within the church. What bothers me most about them though is that they hide their hate and intolerance behind a veil of "love"("love the sinner but not the sin" type of thinking.) They also display a level of hypocrisy that rivals that of the Republican Party (that just happens to have a high concentration of highly religious people). I would venture to say that more people have been killed throughout history in the name of religion than anything else. They preach ideas like the Golden Rule and "love thy neighbor" but then turn around and fight against rights for various groups they disagree with. I view organized religion as just another social group that preaches hate and fear in order to impose their views on anyone who doesn't agree with them. The only thing they're better at is their recruitment drives.

[swerve]

Wasn't the whole "celibacy" thing for the priests a COST-CUTTING measure rather than ANYTHING theological...

I always thought it was because it SAVED the Catholic church money -- since they didn't have to support FAMILIES associated with the Priests...

Am I wrong???

[Mariatenebre]

Okay, prove it! People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God.

As far as I am concerned your god and Church are some of the most ignorant personality figures in the world. The crimes of the Catholic Church have already been shown and proven such as the persecutions of disbelievers, hoarding of wealth and sheltering of child molesters as well as the ban on birth control which greatly causes pain. It is also sexist, unscientific and homophobic.

[Text: Removed]

[Queerwitch]

I actually went through a phase last summer where I was reconsidering Christianity, and thought about becoming Roman Catholic as well as returning to my Eastern Christian roots. Didn't happen. I'm no Bible scholar, but I do recall a passage about good trees bearing good fruit and bad trees bearing bad fruit. Child molestation and its cover-up, crusades and inquisitions, sexism and homophobia are bad fruit. I empathize to a degree with those who remain in the church and are holding it accountable and fighting for change. However, anyone who would defend a blatantly corrupt organization that has contributed to untold human suffering (all while daring to be God's mouthpiece on earth), has completely lost my respect.

[Gros Morne Guy]

Mikey,
Rather than a rather blind and naive defense of the Church, like Fr. Ignatius Mary gives, and which is totally unconvincing, you need to give an honest critique.

As you say, there are dishonest and corrupt individuals in the hierarchy of the Roman Church, and it is an old and entrenched bureaucracy. Therein lie many of the problems. And these problems should not be excused or defended.

As to opulence, grand cathedrals, art, and music give a vision and foretaste of the transcendence of God, and is nothing to be ashamed of. (Indeed, the Roman church falls short in comparison with Eastern Orthodoxy). Vast art collections, grand episcopal palaces, first class travel, etc., are not defensible, and, though criticized by many within since Francis of Assisi, have persisted. (I give Sean Cardinal O'Malley of Boston a lot of credit for selling his palace and living in a small apartment adjacent to the cathedral in a less desirable neighborhood; of course, he is a Franciscan). As to wealth itself, a good case can be made that having an endowment to provide for ongoing ministry to the poor is better than spending everything for temporary relief ("the poor will always be with you").

As to the abuse scandals, I don't think the conduct of the hierarchy can be defended. They have consistently covered up and shown more concern for their own status and reputation, than for the victims. All churches, not just Rome, have problems with sexual abuse by clergy; the difference is that most other churches have, at least in recent years, dealt with it more honestly and with much more concern for the victims.

[FirmaFan]

so, if these people who govern the church are just as imperfect as the rest of us, shouldn't they be held accountable and be prosecuted for their crimes in a court of law...just like the rest of us ?

Here's something to wrap one's head around - If they are just as sinful and imperfect as the rest of us, how can we determine if their teachings that we are all sinful and imperfect are true and accurate?

[Mariatenebre]

You mean the crimes of the imperfect Human beings who Govern the Divinely Instituted Catholic Church. The Church itself isn't the problem.

No I mean the doctrines of the Church which causes terrible harm to humanity.

[Mariatenebre]

Very easy for one the Church is exceedingly homophobic and believes that homosexuals can not have natural sex and intimacy. This is harmful to homosexuals as psychology shows that denial of one's sexuality is not healthy. The Church is also wrong about homosexuality being caused by original sin and being immoral as science shows that it is caused by nature and is beneficial.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
The Church also has many repressive sexist doctrines against women. For instance women are denied equality of the priesthood, they wish to deny women the right to abortion even though science has proven that fetuses/embryos/clusters of cells are not lives.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...h_and_abortion

The Catholic Church is against birth control which due to this has helped the spread of AIDS and STDs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._birth_control

The Catholic Church also teaches the doctrine of inherited guilt or original sin which says that we are all cursed for the actions of two people.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

There are far more evils advocated by the Church this is just a small piece.

[FirmaFan]

Science has never proven such a thing, actually it has proven quite the opposite. Every single cell is alive, because every single one of them shows all the activities that are related to a living organism.
A cell is the singlemost basic living thing. The cells in a fetus are omnipotent cells, meaning that they can develop into any human cells. They also show all attributes of a living organism.

You have no proof.

Let's, for the sake of argument, grant you your position - a fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, is a complete 100 percent human being, entitled to all the rights and privileges of every other human being.

Now, that being said, there is one thing that makes a fertilized egg different from every other human being - they require the mother's body for their survival. The mother must use her own body to sustain the life of another. Does the rights of the fertilized egg trump the rights of the mother who may not want to use her body to sustain another life? Can you think of any other instance in which someone is forced against their will to sacrifice their bodily autonomy in order to sustain the life of another individual? Call a fertilized egg a full person all you want, it does nothing to strengthen the argument against abortion; in fact, by defining it as a person, it does just the opposite.

I am, by no means, pro-abortion. I am, however, pro-choice. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually likes the idea of aborting a pregnancy. I am pro-choice because of the respect I have for the rights of a person to their own body.

Now, removing our hypothetical scenario, science has traced the development of an embryo from conception to gestation in great detail. There is a point before which the cluster of cells could never, in any circumstance, be defined as a person. The complete lack of a nervous system, for one, would make any cluster of cells absolutely NOT a person. They would be no more a person than would the cells you scrape off your nose when you scratch it be a person.

[FirmaFan]

No.
Please don' assume that I said something I didn't say, I only said that the cluster of cells in the womb is alive. Whether it is a person or not is up for interpretation.

No-one, however, can deny that it is a living organism. It is basic science. I am not taking sides here, I am only stating facts, because there are some grave mistakes here. Mariatenebre said that fetuses/cells etc are not lives. This is a false assumption.

I didn't respond in order to reflect to the moral adjudication of abortion, I merely corrected something she said.

Mariatenebre claimed that science has proven that a fetus is not alive.
I disagree, because science would obviously never claim such a thing.

See, you are saying 2 different things about Mariantenebre's claim. There is a difference between saying something isn't a life and saying something isn't alive. I don't think anyone doubts that the cells are alive, but what she said was that they are not "lives". Maybe it's just a matter of a simple semantic misunderstanding, but, usually, in this context, giving something the attribute of "life" implies a characteristic of personhood, as opposed to "alive", which, in the simplest terms, is merely the ability to carry out biochemical processes. Mariantenebre was denying the attribute of "life" to those cells, hence her claim:

science has proven that fetuses/embryos/clusters of cells are not lives

--note that she did not say that the cells weren't alive.

I apologize for my inference about your opinions on this subject, but, as you were opposing Mariantenebre's claim about cells being life, my response seemed appropriate; however, it seems you are responding to a claim about the cells being alive - I believe that to be an error with regards to Mariantenebre's actual position, though. Seems to me we both misunderstood the positions of another.

[HoodedRat]

I will not have a Woman over me in any form of supposed authority,

Wow!

I sure hope you never come into conflict with a female police officer or judge.
'I'm sorry, you are a women, I do not respect your supposed authority over me'.

especially one who turns the Blessed Mother Mary into a Goddess.

No one turned Mary into a Goddess; rather, it was the Catholic Church who co-opted the ancient concept of the Great Mother Goddess and demoted her to the role of Mary. However, the notion of 'The Mother of God' gives away her true origin.

[zoltanspawn]

Yes, I still struggle with some of the issues concerning the "Behavior". There is absolutely nothing wrong with having these struggles, and they are between me and my God, and none else except through the confessional.

Well, and between all of us when you put them on a public message board intended for discussion...as in this very post. And, as in every post which includes a personal reference to being gay, no matter how much official catholicism wants to erase our presence in the world. And, as in the other posts in which you personally discuss your take on sexuality.

Other than that your "behavior" is between you and your god.

[ludolfo]

When abortion was illegal do you think women would worry what some men thought about the rightness of their decision from their own perspective? No, they would seek out an abortion and many had to suffer back-street abortions where they could become seriously injured and even die from incompetent and dirty procedures.

In this world where some people make such a big deal about aborting unwanted fetuses they usually seem very quiet about the dire poverty, and other forms of abuse many impoverished and unwanted and abandoned children have to endure. But then isn't it the Christian mentality that makes such a fuss about abortion? So again we look at their myth and we see that they think the soul is individual and comes from nothing and this life is all or nothing, or heaven or hell, and that it is GOOD women suffer in childbirth and children and people should suffer in this "veil of tears". Their saviour Jesus suffered, (I have read that sadistic film The Passion of Christ was the biggest ever box office hit! Even I --who has seen Goodfellas, and other very violent films haven't been able to watch all of the torture scenes in that film) and thus suffering is seen as some kind of virtue. Isn't this what celibacy is all about? That through suffering one comes to the love of Jesus etc etc. Isn't this part of the fear and shame of sexual pleasure?

[zoltanspawn]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually likes the idea of aborting a pregnancy.

Oh, not that hard pressed.

I very much like the idea of aborting pregnancy before the embryo develops too much of a nervous system. Human overpopulation is causing a mass-extinction of species. Amongst other problems we author, that alone makes abortion a likable imperative.

[FirmaFan]

Oh, not that hard pressed.

I very much like the idea of aborting pregnancy before the embryo develops too much of a nervous system. Human overpopulation is causing a mass-extinction of species. Amongst other problems we author, that alone makes abortion a likable imperative.

I much rather like the idea of proper education and birth control. Abortions would still be inevitable, and sooner rather than later is preferred, but better still is not having to do it in the first place because proper precautions were taken. It's quite ironic that the very thing that would decrease the number of abortions (birth control) is also the very thing that many religious institutions fight to prevent, second only to actual abortions.

[palbert]

It's Mikey. He's still trying to find his savior. Will take a while.

[zoltanspawn]

I much rather like the idea of proper education and birth control. Abortions would still be inevitable, and sooner rather than later is preferred, but better still is not having to do it in the first place because proper precautions were taken. It's quite ironic that the very thing that would decrease the number of abortions (birth control) is also the very thing that many religious institutions fight to prevent, second only to actual abortions.

Education and birth control are more practical than abortion, but from a strictly ethical point of view I don't prefer them to abortion. I find all this agonizing over a totally mindless, sense-less chance of later personhood bewildering. (I tend to think it's rooted in some unexamined notion that people literally have souls.)

We should feel quite light-hearted and carefree about early term abortions. They are doing nothing but good for the world.

[zoltanspawn]

I think that it would be very helpful if People look up on Youtube and watch the Video called "Silent Scream".

And wash it down with some facts from Planned Parenthood. Linkage:

Although riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as well as misleading statements and exaggerations, The Silent Scream is still wildly popular with anti-abortion zealots.

[Benvolio]

In the balance, the church does more harm than good. It is still forbidding the use of contraceptives, not for any moral or rational reason, but because decades ago it rejected them as a knee jerk reaction, and has been trying to think up a reason ever since. It is monstrous evil that causes very poor people to have large families which they cannot support. Third world Catholic countries have huge percentages of the desperately poor with no chance of improvement. Many clergy encourage immigration to the US, and the church here offers sanctuary or at least preferential help.
Every generation of the church has some monstrous evil to apologize for.
It makes a joke of the Popes' claim of infallibility. The biggest moral issue of our time in Catholic countries is contraception because it causes massive poverty and suffering AND destruction of the environment. The earth cannot support infinite population.BUT the Pope has never invoked his alleged infallibility on faith and morals on the question of contraception. He only invokes it on silly irrelevancies like the immaculate conception, upon which he is certain he cannot be shown to be wrong. What a joke.

[HoodedRat]

sounds like you don't have much respect for women

Much like the Catholic Church.

[ludolfo]

two God-fearing Christians in action:

[zoltanspawn]

Me too.

About overpopulation: It's not exactly true the way they say.

About overpopulation, people say a variety of things. Some of what they say is exactly true. Some of what they say isn't exactly true.

I don't think there are many people who dispute what I've claimed: that human overpopulation is the cause of a mass extinction of species.

[zoltanspawn]

Just curious....what species are you talking about?

It's a mass extinction. That means that there are so many species threatened with extinction that the list is too long for me to include here. However, for example, the IUCN estimates that 41% of amphibians, 25% of mammals, 13% of birds, 30% of conifers and 20% of plants are currently threatened by extinction.

In the last decade, some of the most iconic species we've lost forever, due to human overpopulation, include the Baiji dolphin, the Pyrenean Ibex, Spix's Macaw and the West African Black Rhino.

Edited to add this link:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

It shows 795 extinct species, 63 species extinct in the wild, 4091 that are critically endangered, 5919 endangered, 10,212 vulnerable species, 4574 near threatened and 28,940 with some concern. Almost exclusively, the reasons are due to human influence.

[ludolfo]

Indigenous peoples on the whole knew about the danger of threatening the other species and land of which they were/are a part of. But with the rise of civilization people become more and more physically and psychologically cut off from the natural world and so lose the deep understanding of connection between them/us and nature and the ultimate importance of the natural world for the well being of all living things. This sense of loss simultaneously comes about with the prohibition of psychedelic sacraments which indigenous peoples often call sacred medicine. In my own experience I recall losing a sense of wonder about nature I had as a small child but when 15 and being turned onto LSD I saw nature as like a garden of eden.
But then the culture creates more myths to undermine this relationship. IE its scientific materialist myth claims we are will-less robots and natures is dead, and that if you have experience seeing a feeling nature in a close relationship with psychedelics it is all a merely hallucination, chemical reaction, delusion. Some of them even try and reduce the feeling of love this way!
So see it---The Christian myth would claim such feelings for nature were diabolical, and the scientism myth which grows out of that myth claims it is meaningless.

[ludolfo]

Saints Francis of Asissi, and John of the Cross are some of the few who have found God through the Natural World, a beautiful way to contemplate the Christian Mysteries. Just go out into the Wilderness and meditate.

No sorry, iot is not the same at all. Both the characters you mention are caught up in amyth which sees nature as sinful. Indigenous people do not on the whole did not and do not share that world view. For them, as it was/is in Goddess religious understanding, nature is sacred.

Here is a bit of how St Francis of Assisi came to be seen by some ecologists as one of them (maybe they are Christian!):

One of Francis's most famous sermons is one he gave to a flock of birds. One day while Francis and some friars were traveling along the road, Francis looked up and saw the trees full of birds. Francis "left his companions in the road and ran eagerly toward the birds" and "humbly begged them to listen to the word of God." ...Thomas of Celano records that the birds stretched their necks and extended their wings as Francis walked among them touching and blessing them. This event was a turning point of sorts for Francis. "He began to blame himself for negligence in not having preached to the birds before" and "from that day on, he solicitously admonished the birds, all animals and reptiles, and even creatures that have no feeling, to praise and love their Creator." source

Same is so with St John of the Cross, they are obsessed with Christian dogma and hence their premise is in the sinfulness of nature. HOW can you be really ecological if that is your underlying guiding myth?



This is not real ecological feeling and insight but delusion. Imagining animals are cut OFF from nature is the epitome of delusion. In Native American myths--for example-- animals were understood to be our very teachers, our ancient relatives, they did not need being preached at by some whacky Christian preacher! The term 'animal' derives from anima (soul). There are also a LOT of gay and/or bisexual animals!

Just curious, say you went back in times and met these characters, and you had a chat with them and mentioned gay people---though you may have to explain that term to them lol, , do you think they would only love the "sinner" but not the "sin"...or love both? What do you think?

[zoltanspawn]

About overpopulation:
Some areas of Earth are overpopulated, but Earth in general is not overpopulated. Not even the resources are scarce (and I mean food here). However for example in Africa there are not many resources, but with the proper leadership, african countries could become self-sufficient and very prospering societies. Sadly, however, a lot of African leaders still pursue ancient tribal wars and they don't give a fuck about the people they are supposed to take care of.

Overpopulation isn't just an issue of resource management for the benefit of one species. If that were the case, plagues of rats and weeds wouldn't be considered an overpopulation because there are enough resources to sustain that plague. A species is also overpopulated when its numbers threaten the other members of the ecosystem.

Even if one were to insist on an understanding of overpopulation solely in terms of resource management, the earth is also overpopulated. Plant species, for example, are a resource to us; they offer us all sorts of technological possibilities, including medicine. If we blithely squander 20% of them, we are squandering precious resources.

The earth needs less people. We ought to abort their production before it happens.

[ludolfo]

but you seem to be saying something different. That is, that IF 'we'--whatever group you think you belong to--do not keep populating then we will be taken over by 'another group' such as the 'Turks' etc. THAT I think is what has driven over-population. In Abrahamic religions the their gods and prophets and priests and books ALWAYS promote multiplying their 'people', and this is so that their shit will get imposed over everything else. it is THAT we need to get over, see through, and rather focus on what is happening to the natural world from such ignore-ance.

Surely it can be understood that if there are more and more humans who have mouths and want food, and more and more materials to live, and this want becomes more and more sophisticates and is also manipulated by the control-freaks at the helm who make LOTSOF money OUT of consumerism and they see to it we all live in massive natural-resources-sucking big cities that this will have--IS HAVING--disastrous effect on the natural world, other species, and including indigenous peoples round the world who mostly still live depending on the natural world, free flowing rivers, other species, unpolluted waters, fresh air, good rich earth and so on--like we ALL should be wanting.

Have you heard of Edward Bernays? He is known as the father of spin or propaganda, and one of his tricks was to get people to buy stuff they didn't need. Using the psychological techniques of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, he and a secret elite group would find ways to manipulate unsuspecting people--the 'masses'--and this means that you THINK your thinking for yourself but maybe your not, and this remind me of other toxic myths we've been discussing. It is a carry on of the manipulation of the psyche isn't it by 'myth-makers' using text, images, etc to manipulate you.

This video is a good intro:

[lambdaboy]

The artwork alone at the Vatican is worth 38 Billion Dollars, and in light of all the people starving on Earth is is truly a sin. In addition shove silent scream a woman has the right to determine what to do with her body! How anyone can be Catholic with the way gay people are treated is absurd!

[ludolfo]

that is a convenient thing to believe if it aint you that's starving or your children are not starving!

[Mariatenebre]

Science has never proven such a thing, actually it has proven quite the opposite. Every single cell is alive, because every single one of them shows all the activities that are related to a living organism.
A cell is the singlemost basic living thing. The cells in a fetus are omnipotent cells, meaning that they can develop into any human cells. They also show all attributes of a living organism.

You have no proof.

They may be living in the sense that they are organic however they are not persons. They have no intelligence, sentience or personhood which is what we determine to be lives. Any given animal has more of these things then these pre life forms but I don't see pro lifers running out to be vegetarians.

[Mariatenebre]

You have chosen your resources quite well, and I still have to disagree with you on many issues as stated in those resources. Yes, I still struggle with some of the issues concerning the "Behavior". There is absolutely nothing wrong with having these struggles, and they are between me and my God, and none else except through the confessional. I will not have a Woman over me in any form of supposed authority, especially one who turns the Blessed Mother Mary into a Goddess. This is my last and final communication with you on these boards. Thank you for the fun.

Yes there is something wrong with having these struggles when all major psychological groups say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and to suppress your orientation causes harm.

Next as I expected you show your true misogynist colors by saying that you would not have a woman in authority over you. Women have shown to be just as good and just in positions of authority and spirituality as men. Women can be in any position of authority as a man can and still do a good job. In actuality the reason you have so much abuse and turmoil in your church is because you give men absolute control and deny women equality which is probably why your priests are fucking little boys without any form of recompense. This is also why women are leaving Catholicism and all other Abrahamic ideologies because they deny women equality and place men in authority over women. This is clear with your view of a supreme male god with no female equals over the universe. As for Mary, the iconography and titles of the Blessed Mother Mary are replete with Divine titles and she is merely the example of when full patriarchy takes over the eradication of the Mother God as she has all of the titles and devotion of The Goddess even though her divinity is denied.

Thank you yet again for showing your true misogynist and homophobic ideas as a Catholic and why this religion is a poison on everyone. Especially women and gays.

Wow!

I sure hope you never come into conflict with a female police officer or judge.
'I'm sorry, you are a women, I do not respect your supposed authority over me'.


No one turned Mary into a Goddess; rather, it was the Catholic Church who co-opted the ancient concept of the Great Mother Goddess and demoted her to the role of Mary. However, the notion of 'The Mother of God' gives away her true origin.

I am a Collyridian and Arab Pagan. So Mary is a Goddess to me.

However I hope that Mikey cracks this patriarchal jive to a female police officer or judge and they hand his ass to him.

The fetus is a living organism, because it is growing and developing, and through the contructive co-operation of the cells something greater (a human) is being created. It is, however true, that the embryo is uncapable of developing on its own, thus it can't be called an independent being, and if you separate the embryo from the womb, the embryo will stop developing.

You however stated that being alive requires more than developing and growing. You are right there. Being alive is like being awaken, being aware of our environment and our surroundings. This is the best metaphore I can come up with in your language.

Let's see if the Embryo/fetus does possess awareness and human qualities:
-An embryo has undeniable human qualities, like its genetic material, potential to develop into a sentient being, vulnerability and mortality. Nobody can deny this 4 human quality, because they apply to every single human being without exception. Based on theese attributes the embryo is a human (Only the genetic code would be enough to consider it human from a scientific point of view, but our societies agree in that humans are sentient beings, who are mostly flawed and everybody dies.)
-Awareness: Depending on stage of development the embryo possesses we can measure different degrees of awareness. The embryo has no awareness whatsoever only in the stage where it's nervous system is nonexistent.That stage however is very brief. It can be theorized that with the appearance of the primitive nervous system, comes a degree of awareness even without organs to sense the environment with, but nobody can prove it, and we can't prove that it is not true either.

If the embryo does indeed possess a degree of awareness, than it is alive at least as much as my cat. If it doesn't it has a potential to "become alive" with time.

Now let's see what happens if we remove the embryo from the womb:

If the embryo is developed enought to have a heart (and it takes only a month to happen) then the heart will keep pumping and the cells will scream for oxygen. The primitive muscle tissues will be twitching. The embryo is capable of feeling the sensation we describe as pain, because the pain-sensors are among the first ones that are being developed along with the skin. If the embryo is removed from the womb, it will suffocate, but not the way we would describe it. We know what it is to breathe. The embryos lungs are not developed enough at the time.

That was the scientific part.

By this time I have learned not to pass judgements, but I think people must be aware of what actually is happening.
What I want is that if someone decides to have an abortion, let that decision be the hardest motherfucking decison that she ever has to make.
I want people to realize what an abortion means.
I want people to take abortions seriously.
I want people to feel the weight of such a decision.
I want people to know, what the cost of their decisions is.
I want people not to take this lightly.
And I want people not to make the same mistake twice. Or at least not the mistake that leads to an abortion.

Because even though it may not be a person, or it may not be entirely human, if it wasn't important, there wouldn't be two sides fighting over the subject for centuries. As a scientist, I can tell that every abortion is a waste of a unique specimen. Sometimes neccessary. It is everyone's right to make the decision. But with rights come responsibilities. And if you don't take the responsibilities, you are not worthy of your rights.
And I am not saying that abortion is always bad. Sometimes it is neccessary. But it should always be a last resort.
Life is important. Do not degrade it. Do not turn it into currency. Do not turn it into a token you can exchange for comfort. It is your right, but I think you should not do it.

These things may have developments of life but because they have no sentience, personhood or intelligence at the early points in the womb. They are not considered lives.

From a post I found.
care means to care about all aspects of the persn's existence, and how can you vouch for the life of someone you'll obviously dismiss and won't care anything for once it is born? If you want to get technical about your "belief that it's a kid, check out these facts below, taking from the unbiased source, wikipedia.org. It will only show that you base your "belief" on the notion of a soul, which is religious, and don't come pushing your religious, fanatical beliefs on me!




Article taken from the third trimester:








"In spite of these developments, premature birth remains a major threat to the fetus, and may result in ill-health in later life, even if the baby survives."








"It isn't until week 23 that the fetus can survive, albeit with major medical support, outside of the womb. It is not until then that the fetus possesses a sustainable human brain."








Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy








Here's some more



"Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from conception or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.[1] From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any alleged benefits to others, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth, such as anencephalitic fetuses. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that all human life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of people who want to end their own lives.








Many pro-lifers oppose certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as ECPs, which are alleged to prevent the implantation of an embryo. Because they believe that personhood begins at fertilization, they refer to these contraceptives as abortifacients.[2] The Catholic Church recognizes this view,[3] but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is disputed within the scientific community. (See also: Mechanism of action and United States legal and ethical controversies.)








Attachment to a pro-life position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also Culture of Life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates.[4] While this group is a distinct minority, they are a growing and burgeoning movement, and seek to put new meaning into the phrase "pro-life".[5]













[edit] Diversity of pro-life views"








Basically, their stance is about religion.








"Also, in some countries, laws have been passed to restrict the practice of abortion based upon the gender of the fetus." More than likely, the female fetus will suffer








I like Canada:



In Canadian law, under section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a fetus is a "human being ... when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has completely breathed, it has an independent circulation or the navel string is severed."








"In 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush announced a plan to ensure health care coverage for fetuses under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)" But his ass takes away programs to help single mothers who carry the kid to term and condemns them through harsh anti- welfare programs.








"Week 4-5 Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the woman's menstrual cycle. Neurogenesis is underway, showing brain activity at about the 6th week.[citation needed] The heart will begin to beat around the same time. Limb buds appear where the arms and legs will grow later. Organogenesis begins. The head represents about one half of the embryo's axial length, and more than half of the embryo's mass. The brain develops into five areas. Tissue formation occurs that develops into the vertebra and some other bones. The heart starts to beat and blood starts to flow.[2]"








"A fetus (or foetus or fœtus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth. The plural is fetuses, or sometimes feti"








"The risk of miscarriage decreases sharply at the beginning of the fetal stage, and loss is "virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period."[11][12] At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but they will continue to grow, develop, and become more functional.[13] When the fetal stage commences, a fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams.[14] The heart is beating.[15] Some fingerprint formation can be seen from the beginning of the fetal stage.[16] By the fetal stage, the embryonic tail is gone, and an atrophied embryonic tail bud remains.[17][18]"








And FINALLY:








"The fetus is considered full-term between weeks 35 and 40,[29] which means that the fetus is considered sufficiently developed for life outside the uterus."








So, to all you religious fanatics out there, technically speaking, it is NOT a baby, this is done out of religious (fanatical) intent, and you can all go to hell with their argument that it's a baby.



---- In other words, bitch it ain't a baby, so you and your religion can calm the fuck down!

I think that it would be very helpful if People look up on Youtube and watch the Video called "Silent Scream".

The video silent screm is yet another example of pro life psuedo science. Said pre life form has no sentience and has no personhood to feel or even care about being terminated.

Saints Francis of Asissi, and John of the Cross are some of the few who have found God through the Natural World, a beautiful way to contemplate the Christian Mysteries. Just go out into the Wilderness and meditate.

And I suppose they will have jerk off parties at how wonderful it is to be males just like your god. Oh wait I forgot in Catholicism people can't wack off!

[ludolfo]

each sperm is alive and aware? is THAT why the Catholic Church has also condemned birth control?

[ludolfo]

Is that why the Old Testament in just one place condemns Masterbation?

So do you condone masturbation?

[HoodedRat]

Is that why the Old Testament in just one place condemns Masterbation?

I trust you are not referring to the tale of Onan [Genesis chapter 38]? That particular fable has nothing whatsoever to do with mastubation; it is about Onan wanting to avoid the responsibilities of a levirate marriage. Naturally, this 'displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him'.

[ludolfo]

I have just been notified about this article:

Brazil: Catholic Church Excommunicates Mother Of 9 Year-Old Rape Victim For Approving Abortion

Declaring that “life must always be protected”, a senior Vatican cleric has defended the Catholic Church’s decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim who had a life-saving abortion in Brazil.

Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told reporters that although the girl fell pregnant after apparently being abused by her stepfather, her twins had, “the right to live, and could not be eliminated”.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, the cardinal added: “It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons. Life must always be protected.”

Police believe the girl was sexually assaulted for years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six. That she was four months pregnant with twins emerged only after she was taken to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains.

The controversy represents a PR nightmare for the Vatican. The unnamed girl’s mother and doctors were excommunicated for agreeing to Wednesday’s emergency abortion yet the Church has not taken formal steps against the stepfather, who is in custody. Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the conservative regional archbishop for Pernambuco where the girl was rushed to hospital, has said that the man would not be thrown out of the Church, because although he had allegedly committed “a heinous crime”, the Church took the view that “the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious”. continue reading

[DreamDancer310]

religion is a massive MONEY MAKING cover up created by lonely, old men many years ago as a means to corrupt, control, and gain money. It's brainwashing has worked for ages, because people are BORN into their religion based on the religious affiliation of their parents, and seeing how many people don't question it....you get a society that lacks free thinking. A rational society would demand these religious people PROVE their religion. Yes, it's on you religious people's shoulders to prove every single anecdote of your religion considering you have now decided you want this sham to be part of LAW MAKING and policy making. They should now eithe be forced to sceintifically prove each event happened..or be taxed. Why we as a society have to constantly treated religion as sacred is beyond me. It's not at all sacred to me, and frankly should be be filed with Cinderella and The Little Mermaid in library shelves. That many religious people demand their MAN MADE religion be part of policy making should make them and their religion completely open to full scrutiny.

[thewiz]

Getting back to the original post, I find the response given by the church official arrogant and condescending.

1. The priests that committed abuse (and it was not just on boys, many girls were also molested -- the head of my diaconate program was removed from the priesthood for such offense) were not homosexuals; they were pedophiles. There is a significant difference and the church continues to try to blow off its responsibility by pointing the finger at gays and homosexuals; the fact is that most pedophiles would likely be married and to someone of the opposite sex. From the priests I have talked with and met, most joined the priesthood because of the severe attraction to children; they thought that a lifetime of prayer and contemplation would remove the temptation and "cure" them of the problem. The church's first response when confronted with abusers was to send them to "cure" centers located, for the most part, in the southwest portion of the United States. We now know that pedophilia is not something that is curable.

For the same reason as most pedophiles, the priesthood is populated with a high percentage of homosexuals. They usually joined the church (at least from the discussions I have had with bishops and priests who were gay) thinking they would be "cured" of such tendancies. Again, we know that there is nothing to cure; they were made that way and to deny that a Creator could make people different is to say the same Creator "made a mistake" when people are LGBT. That makes the Creator imperfect; kind of flies in the face of the teaching of the church. (As one gay priest told me, it also challenges the church because if everyone is created in God the Trinity's image -- is God gay?)

The church -- which is not a building and not the bishops but rather the people -- placed priests, bishops, cardinals and popes on such high pedestals that they could do no wrong. So for those wishing to abuse or take advantage, it is a perfect platform from which they can act with impunity. We -- the church -- need to demand that there be correction and force removal of offenders. Until WE do, we get an imperfection. Under Cannon Laws and from Vatican II, the laity has a responsibility to particiapte and should demand to be heard.

I have enjoyed the beauty of the art in Rome. I agree it is really a museum and, prior to today's technology, the artwork formed the pictures for the masses to envision that which they worshipped. When much of the great art was created, there was not internet, there was not television, and books were a luxury item. The artwork in the churches was free and told the story that then became action in the order of the Mass. The words in the Word became flesh in the Eucharist which was displayed through the artwork that graced churches.

I find much of the artwork stirs my soul and inner being when I have time to soak it all in. As I sat in the Sistine Chapel, I couldn't help but think of a human on his back painting the grand canvas I sat beneath without lasers, computers, or any technology.

With that said, I do think many in the hierarchy are corrupt. They get comfortable being driven around, waited upon hand and foot, given the best seat at the table and prime box at the theater. They think nothing of having the finest robes, manicures, and fine foods. Funny but if they read the scripture that they beat over the head of many in their flocks, they'd find that those who are first on earth will be last (or least) in heaven. They will have far longer to not enjoy their position than the time they now get to laud it over the masses.

Celibacy, which they so defend, is poppycock. Peter, the first pope, was married (see scripture talking about his mother-in-law). Up until the fourth century, it was common for priests, bishops, and popes to be married. It was marriage and children that caused great challenge to the church because children were often willed the positions and wealth accumulated by the "father." Several papacies were corrupted by such events which is why the church moved to requiring celibacy. Today, celibacy is defended on one front because of the cost married priests would add to the church, not to mention time it might take away. However, many priests enjoy "housekeepers" or other companionship which I find no fault with. Even the Apostles were sent out by Jesus in pairs for company and support. To send out priests alone and to deal with some of the worst humanity can offer seems cruel and ignorant. Perhaps if the pope and those in Rome had to work the hours and demands of small parish priests instead of the pageants of clergy they surround themselves with, there would be much more respect for changing the system.

Lastly, I find the church's teaching as it relates to celibacy somewhat hypocritical. On one hand they say celibacy is a gift and priests are given that gift so they can be married to the church and serve her. At the same time they tell gays like me that it is okay I am gay but I must spend my life celibate. Well I didn't have the gift of celibacy or I would have been ordained a priest long ago (and was ready to be ordained a permanent deacon at one point). I do not have nor do I pray for the gift of celibacy which I think is an added cross around someone's neck. So calling it a gift but demanding I try to take it is two faced. Perhaps if they truly saw it as the gift they describe, they would not "require" it of someone; after all you can't force a gift. Just my thoughts.

[ludolfo]

This is a foolish argument, because a sperm is not self-aware and doesn't contain enough chromosomes to potentially become a human being.

Why then does the Pope condemn birth control like he does abortion?

[ludolfo]

dya know his phone number...?
But seriously, that is the subject of this thread isn't it? There has been much talk about abortion, and you've gone to a lot of effort to try and convince people that fetuses are alive --which I agree with. EVERYTHING is alive! You emphasize more than once that abortion is a terrible thing. With this judgement you are on same wavelength with the Pope and other Catholics and other Christians who feel the same way. So this is why I asked you about semen, and IF you feel it is not AS alive as a fetus how comes the Pope is against birth control. Can you not even speculate?

[ludolfo]

better do it soon


he's quitting at the end of the month

i WONT say cum back soon LOL

[Spensed]

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, always was and continues to be.

While that may be theologically true, it's a small comfort with respect to the Church's historical and current viciousness. Where is the Holy Spirit when a priest is abusing a child or when a bishop is covering it up?

[ludolfo]

and THAT is the corruption. That idea.

[Spensed]

If the Holy Spirit's comfort and righteousness cannot concern human errors or natural disasters, I am not clear what use it is. As well, say the Devil cannot ever be in error. On your theory, there's no way to demonstrate otherwise.

I'm aware that the theory is that the Holy Spirit is always available for spiritual comfort, etc., but it can sometimes intervene is human events as a function of grace or unexpected result.

But, if it does exist, it seems to me that the Holy Spirits existence is meaningless in human terms unless it is more consistent, reliable and, indeed, accessible. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking.

[zoltanspawn]

Again you are speaking in human terms, What you mean are concerning Human errors, as The Holy Spirit cannot ever be in error.

Child-raping priests may not be errors by way of the holy spirit. But I agree, that is inhuman.