Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

You're clearly referring to the Cornelius Tacitus myth.

Scholars who believe in Tacitus's writings as "myth" are very much in the minority and, dare I say, bordering on conspiracist. Rather than consider one source did you compare the writings of Pliny or Josephus with those of Tacitus? Did you examine the evidence that dates them? Who was the professor? We should definitely have some of his work here as it will add to the discussion. For now have a browse of the notes and sources in the relevant Wiki, they make interesting reading.

It's doesn't pass the test for me though.

What's's your test?

 

[huskeR32]

As I was reading another news article about the Catholic Church covering for child rapists, it struck me that just about any other organisation would have been disbanded and outlawed at this point. The level of willful enabling of child rape just seems incredible, and that by all accounts it seems to go all the way to the top I would have thought to be the last straw.

Was it the same article talking about how the New York Catholic Conference has lobbied against a proposed one-year window to revive cold cases against the church, arguing that such an action would probably end up bankrupting the church? I had the same thought; how in the world has this been allowed to go unreckoned with?

 

[Dotini]

Scholars who believe in Tacitus's writings as "myth" are very much in the minority and, dare I say, bordering on conspiracist. Rather than consider one source did you compare the writings of Pliny or Josephus with those of Tacitus? Did you examine the evidence that dates them? Who was the professor? We should definitely have some of his work here as it will add to the discussion. For now have a browse of the notes and sources in the relevant Wiki, they make interesting reading.



What's's your test?

I agree. "Jesus" was probably an historical figure, a Samaritan prophet or rabble rouser, killed by Pilate. Beyond that, the story has been too purposefully mixed up to be readily accepted as other than grist for somebody's agenda.

 

[TheCracker]

Was it the same article talking about how the New York Catholic Conference has lobbied against a proposed one-year window to revive cold cases against the church, arguing that such an action would probably end up bankrupting the church? I had the same thought; how in the world has this been allowed to go unreckoned with?

Because the Catholic church is very powerful and far reaching and has the funds and the influence to make sure things swept under the carpet stay under the carpet, even though it's obvious from the outside that the carpet has bumps in it.

 

[Imari]

Because the Catholic church is very powerful and far reaching and has the funds and the influence to make sure things swept under the carpet stay under the carpet, even though it's obvious from the outside that the carpet has bumps in it.

Clearly, but it does serve as a bit of an example of the extent to which power and political influence can override basic justice. Even more so when the things we're talking about are directly opposed to the teachings of the Church. Legality aside, it's a testament to the level of control that the priesthood holds over their parishioners that the upper levels of the Church hierarchy haven't been dragged into the street and beaten to death.

 

[TheCracker]

Legality aside, it's a testament to the level of control that the priesthood holds over their parishioners that the upper levels of the Church hierarchy haven't been dragged into the street and beaten to death.

It doesn't take a massive stretch of imagination to see that if people can believe the fanciful stories the bible teaches to be truth, even though science has proven it to be baloney, then people can turn a blind eye or not even conceive it to be possible that this kind of cover-up happens within the churches senior ranks.

 

[Dotini]

It doesn't take a massive stretch of imagination to see that if people can believe the fanciful stories the bible teaches to be truth, even though science has proven it to be baloney, then people can turn a blind eye or not even conceive it to be possible that this kind of cover-up happens within the churches senior ranks.

In The Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin says through the character Tyrion that it's preferable for priests to be diddling little boys than to be preaching the baloney of bible stories.

 

[Imari]

It doesn't take a massive stretch of imagination to see that if people can believe the fanciful stories the bible teaches to be truth, even though science has proven it to be baloney, then people can turn a blind eye or not even conceive it to be possible that this kind of cover-up happens within the churches senior ranks.

Science has proven nothing of the sort. Rational thinking suggests that unless you have evidence to indicate that something exists, it's more likely to be correct to assume that it doesn't.

People can believe whatever they like. It's a huge leap from believing in Sky Daddy, which in and of itself harms no one, and ignoring child rapists who are real problem happening to real people and for which there is real evidence.

 

[TexRex]

People can believe whatever they like. It's a huge leap from believing in Sky Daddy, which in and of itself harms no one, and ignoring child rapists who are real problem happening to real people and for which there is real evidence.

Doesn't that leap shorten significantly when you consider the church's long history of efforts to suppress and discredit accusers? Who are those efforts really for?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

such an action would probably end up bankrupting the church

Not taking issue with anything you said, just plucking this bit from it because it got me thinking: would that even be possible? I've little doubt the Catholic Church is actually one of, if not the, wealthiest organization in the world, at least in terms of possessions. The Vatican alone, if it were pieced out in a sale, would probably crack ten figures.

 

[TheCracker]

Science has proven nothing of the sort. Rational thinking suggests that unless you have evidence to indicate that something exists, it's more likely to be correct to assume that it doesn't.

People can believe whatever they like. It's a huge leap from believing in Sky Daddy, which in and of itself harms no one, and ignoring child rapists who are real problem happening to real people and for which there is real evidence.

My point was that if people can believe the earth is 6000 - 10,000 years old, that humans and apes didn't evolve from a common ancestor (or that we have not evolved at all) or that the earth is flat and turn a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then it is easily conceivable that they can turn a blind eye to the darker goings on within their own church. If people don't want to believe events to be true, because it contradicts how they want to view those people surrounding those events, then they are quite able to metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears to ignore hearing the evidence. See holocaust denial.

If the Pope is well aware of the systemic levels of child abuse and is perhaps even complicit in the act of covering it up and/or reluctant to do anything about bring those who committed the crimes to justice, then yes it does harm people as papal infallibility absolves the Pope of any wrong doing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not taking issue with anything you said, just plucking this bit from it because it got me thinking: would that even be possible? I've little doubt the Catholic Church is actually one of, if not the, wealthiest organization in the world, at least in terms of possessions. The Vatican alone, if it were pieced out in a sale, would probably crack ten figures.

Accurate statistics are hard to come by but various sources attribute more than 70 million hectares or 270,000 sq. miles of land ownership to the Church. That would be a rather large bankruptcy.

 

[MustangManiac]

Not taking issue with anything you said, just plucking this bit from it because it got me thinking: would that even be possible? I've little doubt the Catholic Church is actually one of, if not the, wealthiest organization in the world, at least in terms of possessions. The Vatican alone, if it were pieced out in a sale, would probably crack ten figures.

The key word here being "organization", there is no question that the crimes and the cover-up occurred. I have no doubt that a RICO case could be made (at least here in the states) and all U.S. assets seized as a result. Not that it will ever happen, but it should!

 

[Dotini]

The key word here being "organization", there is no question that the crimes and the cover-up occurred. I have no doubt that a RICO case could be made (at least here in the states) and all U.S. assets seized as a result. Not that it will ever happen, but it should!

The Vatican was the only sovereign state left standing in solid financial health after WWII, this despite supporting the Nazis and exfiltrating Nazis out of Europe into South America after the war. Now these obvious sex crimes and coverups. Why doesn't some righteous European nation or the EU itself simply attack and invade them and seize their assets?

 

[TheCracker]

Why doesn't some righteous European nation or the EU itself simply attack and invade them and seize their assets?

An attack on The Vatican is an attack on Italy, even if technically it isn't. It's so influential in Italian politics that Italy would defend it as if it was part of their own sovereign state.

 

[zzz_pt]

Let's just remember that up until very recently (2013) the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. They only changed it to 18 because of scandals related to pedophilia. (Yes, I asked myself why the heel would the pope, priests, cardinals and bishops need an age of consent in the first place, but apparently there are "norma

It's mindbogglingly that there's a state for the Catholic Church. They can (and do) hide and protect pedophiles within their borders and no other state can simply go there and arrest them.

It is a bankrupted organization and it should be taken down. But of course, we can't do it... "because Jesus, man".

 

[TheCracker]

It is a morally bankrupted organization and it should be taken down. But of course, we can't do it... "because Jesus, man".

Fixed that for you.

 

[Liquid]

The Vatican was the only sovereign state left standing in solid financial health after WWII

Apart from Switzerland.

this despite supporting the Nazis and exfiltrating Nazis out of Europe into South America after the war.

Whilst it is true that the Vatican maintained diplomatic relations with Germany, so did many other nations; the Allies all recognised and had diplomatic relations with Germany. That isn't something unique to the Vatican, let alone the fact that the Vatican is a less-than-a-square-mile building completely surrounded by Italy, which most certainly actively supported Germany at the time.

Pope Pius XII wrote and spoke extensively of the persecution of Catholics, especially in Poland, and actively supplied what intelligence he could gather as a head of state and passed it on to both the German resistance and the Allies. Ludwig Beck, a General in the Germany army, was a key character in assisting Pius with his intelligence network.

The Vatican City, through Pius XII, publicly and explicitly stated its objection to anti-Semitism and racism in a 1939 edict titled Summi Pontificatus.

This is not an apologist trying to defend the Catholic Church, merely trying to bring balance and counterpoints to the discussion. As most of you know, I am not quick to step in and "defend" any Church. But:

It's not just saying "Pius was Hitler's Pope"
It's not just saying "The Church helped the Nazis"

Hitler hated the Church as an institution as it threatened his total state control. But he himself believed in "something" up there and as a native of the very Catholic Germanic south, recognised the usefulness of diplomacy with the Vatican; there was a Reichskonkordat outlining relations between Germany and the Vatican.

The Church did not "help" the Nazis but as a neutral power by the terms of the Lateran treaty* (see below next quote) it couldn't actively do much in a public capacity. Especially when it was completely surrounded and isolated by another fascist state. There was help and aid given to the Allies and the German resistence, whether they trusted the sincerity of the Vatican or not.

As ever, it falls somewhere closer to the middle. You could very easily say that the Vatican didn't do enough or could have done more, and I'd agree with you one hundred percent, but to take a too simplistic view is facile.

Let's just remember that up until very recently (2003 or 2004) the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. They only changed it to 18 because of scandals related to pedophilia.

The reason the Vatican City has (or had?) an age of consent of 12 is that by the terms of the 1929 Lateran treaty which formalised and gave final settlement on the difference between Italy and the Vatican as nations, the Vatican accepted the laws of Italy as was at the time and back then the age of consent in Italy was 12. Given the demographics of the Vatican City, where pretty much every person who lives there would drop dead if you told them to act their age, there was probably not a reason to have to update it. I mean, you could argue the toss about it ever being 12 just like in almost every other country at one time or another but still...

*The Lateran treaty also dictated the terms by which the Vatican City is an officially neutral country and can only be called in on UN issues or arbiter disputes when officially requested to do so by all other parties. Hence why they're there but not there at the same time.

 

[zzz_pt]

@Liquid

My point had nothing to do with when the law was implemented but when it changed. Until 5 years ago it was 12, the lowest in Europe (and probably in all western, civilized world).

If it weren't for the public pressure, they would still have the same age of consent.

Still, today, girls can marry at 14 (with a 16 yo boy) in the Vatican. Go figure.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apart from Switzerland.

And Sweden.

Still, today, girls can marry at 14 (with a 16 yo boy) in the Vatican. Go figure.

They can, but given the high demand for weddings in the Vatican and the strict process of review that applies to them it seems it never happens. I can't find any records of it doing so?

Besides, 14 is old when you look at some parts of the US.

 

[Imari]

If it weren't for the public pressure, they would still have the same age of consent.

Which is true of a bunch of places that used to have low ages of consent. What is publically acceptable changes over time. Historically the age of consent in the US has been shockingly low. Delaware actually lowered it's age of consent at one point from the obviously far too high 10 years old to the much more reasonable 7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform#United_States

I seriously doubt that there's even grass on the field at 7.

Still, today, girls can marry at 14 (with a 16 yo boy) in the Vatican. Go figure.

Worldwide, 14 is not an uncommon number. Especially with additional restrictions on relative age. Canada allows 14 year olds to have sex too, as long as the age gap is less than 5 years, or at least such is my understanding. I don't think anyone paints Canada as a world leader in child molestation because of it.

 

[zzz_pt]

Which is true of a bunch of places that used to have low ages of consent. What is publically acceptable changes over time. Historically the age of consent in the US has been shockingly low. Delaware actually lowered it's age of consent at one point from the obviously far too high 10 years old to the much more reasonable 7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform#United_States

I seriously doubt that there's even grass on the field at 7.



Worldwide, 14 is not an uncommon number. Especially with additional restrictions on relative age. Canada allows 14 year olds to have sex too, as long as the age gap is less than 5 years, or at least such is my understanding. I don't think anyone paints Canada as a world leader in child molestation because of it.

Yeah I'm aware of that. The thing is billions of people and lots of governments and public institutions still bow to the pope and the Vatican as if they were a moral example of any kind.

If they were seen as just another state, I wouldn't mind as much with their laws. But whatever laws they implement (or do not change) influence millions of people around the world. Imagine the Vatican would be the first state to recognize gays their right to marry. How many millions around the would would have had a better life because of that*? But no, it's the last one it comes to make moral and ethical decisions. And the only state (I suppose) who can have diret influence in other governments and people's lives across the planet.

*I know they have their own dogmas and religious BS but if they're directly impacting other people's lives (through law), we shouldn't respect it.

 

[Imari]

Yeah I'm aware of that. The thing is billions of people and lots of governments and public institutions still bow to the pope and the Vatican as if they were a moral example of any kind.

If they were seen as just another state, I wouldn't mind as much with their laws. But whatever laws they implement (or do not change) influence millions of people around the world.

Honestly, I think whatever laws the Vatican might have in place are less likely to have an effect on people (outside the Vatican) than the actual content of the bible and the catechism that the church teaches.

Imagine the Vatican would be the first state to recognize gays their right to marry. How many millions around the would would have had a better life because of that*? But no, it's the last one it comes to make moral and ethical decisions.

Well, they'd have to invent a time machine because that ship sailed quite a long time ago, even if we're only considering modern societies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Same-sex_marriage_around_the_world

And the only state (I suppose) who can have diret influence in other governments and people's lives across the planet.

Really, really not. The US is the big one that immediately springs to mind, they've been meddling directly and indirectly in how other states are run for at least a solid century. They are still probably the most influential single state on the planet. Prior to that you could argue that the entirety of Europe was competing to see how many other governments and peoples they could subjugate and control across the planet. The USSR was certainly having a good go during the Cold War as well, as were the Chinese as the other major Communist power.

The Catholic Church is far from the only major political organisation to meddle in others affairs. There's a huge history of it and it still goes on to this day (I mean, that's sort of the point of diplomacy). It simply remains one of the few to do so fairly overtly, in an age where that has become less acceptable.

*I know they have their own dogmas and religious BS but if they're directly impacting other people's lives (through law), we shouldn't respect it.

You don't have to, unless you live in the Vatican, which your profile would suggest that you do not. As far as Christian/Catholic dogma directly impacting people's lives through law, I think you'll find that the vast majority of Western law and morals are constructed from a foundation of Judeo-Christianity. It's unavoidable at this stage in our culture, and we're fortunate that for the most part common sense has prevailed and law has been made of the good bits and the bad bits have (mostly) been dropped.

It's probably important to note as well that just because some law or moral principle arises from Judeo-Christianity, doesn't make it bad. On a broad scale, it tends to recommend a reasonably tolerant and calm society. It just requires ignoring a lot of the specific examples laid out in documents like the Torah and Bible and sticking to the spirit of what was intended rather than the letter.

 

[zzz_pt]

Honestly, I think whatever laws the Vatican might have in place are less likely to have an effect on people (outside the Vatican) than the actual content of the bible and the catechism that the church teaches.



Well, they'd have to invent a time machine because that ship sailed quite a long time ago, even if we're only considering modern societies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Same-sex_marriage_around_the_world



Really, really not. The US is the big one that immediately springs to mind, they've been meddling directly and indirectly in how other states are run for at least a solid century. They are still probably the most influential single state on the planet. Prior to that you could argue that the entirety of Europe was competing to see how many other governments and peoples they could subjugate and control across the planet. The USSR was certainly having a good go during the Cold War as well, as were the Chinese as the other major Communist power.

The Catholic Church is far from the only major political organisation to meddle in others affairs. There's a huge history of it and it still goes on to this day (I mean, that's sort of the point of diplomacy). It simply remains one of the few to do so fairly overtly, in an age where that has become less acceptable.



You don't have to, unless you live in the Vatican, which your profile would suggest that you do not. As far as Christian/Catholic dogma directly impacting people's lives through law, I think you'll find that the vast majority of Western law and morals are constructed from a foundation of Judeo-Christianity. It's unavoidable at this stage in our culture, and we're fortunate that for the most part common sense has prevailed and law has been made of the good bits and the bad bits have (mostly) been dropped.

It's probably important to note as well that just because some law or moral principle arises from Judeo-Christianity, doesn't make it bad. On a broad scale, it tends to recommend a reasonably tolerant and calm society. It just requires ignoring a lot of the specific examples laid out in documents like the Torah and Bible and sticking to the spirit of what was intended rather than the letter.

I think we're talking past each other.

I agree with everything you said. But, if the Pope would comes out tomorrow and say gay marriage is OK and contraception is a good thing for the future of our children, the next day, individual people across the planet would start to change their behaviour towards gay people and contraception wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is in some parts of other world for people who regard their religion and the Pope as the most important things in their lives. In the USA for instance, gay people still get weird looks and judgment from Christians because the church gives them a reason to do it.

If the president of the USA, Germany, UK or France would say the same thing as a Pope (or a similar thing of the same importance), no one would care other than the citizens of that country and those sympathetic to that idea already.

If an Ayatollah or important Imam comes out tomorrow saying gays are just as deserving of God's love and mercy as everyone else, probably that would impact muslims (of that particular sect, which is a problem in itself) around the planet.

And when individual people change their minds, they have a direct impact in their own countries governments.

I might be exaggerating. It's possible. But I'd like to be proven right, some day.

 

[Imari]

If an Ayatollah or important Imam comes out tomorrow saying gays are just as deserving of God's love and mercy as everyone else, probably that would impact muslims (of that particular sect, which is a problem in itself) around the planet.

Why is that a problem?

 

[zzz_pt]

Why is that a problem?

Because muslims of different sects kill and mistreat each other on the basis of doctrinal disagreements and opinions about their dogma. The same doesn't happen with christians from different sects (it happened a lot in the past but not anymore).

 

[Imari]

Because muslims of different sects kill and mistreat each other on the basis of doctrinal disagreements and opinions about their dogma. The same doesn't happen with christians from different sects (it happened a lot in the past but not anymore).

Right. Christians have the decency to kill people from other religions instead of the same one. Notwithstanding that Christians have been killing each other in the very recent past (The Troubles was not so long ago, and Protestant vs. Catholic remains pretty violent in some parts of the world), and can realistically be expected to do so again in the not too distant future. Christians continue to mistreat each other on the basis of doctrinal disagreements; see any number of issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I think you know better than this. Just because Muslims have been/are involved in a lot of current violence (current in the sense of the last decade or two), that doesn't really mean anything on the scale of religions that are millennia old. If you look at the last century, both have had periods of violence and periods of peace.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are fundamentally all derived from the same root. One could totally reasonably link them all together as different branches of the same basic religion. As such, separating Christian behaviour from Muslim behaviour seems a bit odd. Both can use the same doctrinal principles to justify aggression against those that they see as either heretics or outsiders.

Whether any given sub-set of them choose to do so is largely up to the individuals and their situation, and doesn't really have that much to do with the religion. Painting Christians as peaceful and Muslims as violent is just misleading.

 

[Dotini]

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are fundamentally all derived from the same root. One could totally reasonably link them all together as different branches of the same basic religion. As such, separating Christian behaviour from Muslim behaviour seems a bit odd.

Would you describe Buddhism and Hinduism as coming from a fundamentally different root than Judaism, Islam and Christianity, enough for it to be less odd to identify their separate their behavior? Would you say Jainism and Zoroastrianism come from different roots, or not? Would it be quite reasonable to identify certain religions as being totally unrelated to any other? What would be the criterion for doing that?

 

[TenEightyOne]

The same doesn't happen with christians from different sects (it happened a lot in the past but not anymore).

Ireland would like to say hello. And stay on the right side of the street, please.

 

[TexRex]

But, if the Pope would comes out tomorrow and say gay marriage is OK and contraception is a good thing for the future of our children, the next day, individual people across the planet would start to change their behaviour towards gay people and contraception wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is in some parts of other world for people who regard their religion and the Pope as the most important things in their lives.

I mean...it's a nice thought, and you might get a smattering of people who pause to consider the notion, but I suspect in the current political and social climate you'd a get an overwhelming rejection of the notion--"not my Pope"--with people favoring the views of the talking heads and pundits paraded before them online and on television.