I’ve been a Catholic blogger for a few years now and I’ve noticed that angry atheists and just plain ol’ anti-Catholic folks can’t seem to stay out of Catholic comboxes. Like moths to a flame they just love igniting flame wars in our comboxes. I think there’s probably some good news in that because they know they’re missing something and I think part of them coming back is to fill that hole in their lives.
I think many Catholic bloggers don’t see the angry anti-Catholic coming. So I offer this as a “What to Expect when you’re expecting anti-Catholic Commenters.”
As far as I know there is no “Guide to Catholic Comboxes for Anti-Catholics” but I thought it would look something like this:
1) If the writer of a Catholic blog has raised the specter of something being immoral (like say abortion), the angry comboxer must bring up the sex abuse scandal as a way of discounting anything or everything any Catholic writer says about anything. In fact, any topic a Catholic blogger wants to discuss can be derailed by accusing them of ignoring the abuse scandal.
2) Anytime a conversation actually starts where something might be learned it’s always helpful to accuse the Pope of being a Nazi. It’s a last ditch thing but surprisingly effective. If you don’t know the name of the Pope during WWII, just say, “The Pope” helped Hitler kill Jews or something like that. And there’s always accusing Pope Benedict XVI a “Hitler Youth.” Sure, registration was mandatory but who cares? It’s a cheap shot and will have Catholics bending over backwards to explain it when the whole time you just want the word “Nazi” and “Pope” linked together as often as possible.
3) In the 21st century it’s become commonplace to accuse opponents of “hating.” These days, if someone isn’t publicly rooting for “gay marriage” you can say “You hate gays!” If the writer is male, also accuse him of being “homophobic.” After you do that, sign into the combox under another name and wonder aloud if the writer who’s now been proven to be “homophobic” may be gay himself.
4) Introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Always a combox hit.
5) Confuse infallibility. Pretend to believe that when the Church says the Pope is infallible it means that Catholics believe he’s some kind of demigod. Confusion is rampant on infallibility. You should take advantage of the confusion and score some easy points. Even the Toronto Star recently had this to say about the Pope:
Though most in the Coptic Orthodox community send their children to Catholic school, they are not Catholic themselves. The differences are slight — they use the same liturgies, though Orthodox Christians differ from Roman Catholics in their belief that the Pope is a human being, not a divine figure
Ha! With help like that in the media, we’ll be scoring easy points for years.
6) Accuse Catholics of only caring about babies before they’re born. This one works quite well in that Catholics often speak out against abortion and don’t talk often about all the Church does for young people with their schools and hospitals. Use their humility against them. We should ignore all the schools, charities and hospitals and just keep accusing them of not caring about anyone outside the womb.
7) Insist that 99.999999% of what Planned Parenthood does for women has nothing to do with abortion. We all know that’s a lie but hey, as long as the media has our back on this one we would do well to continue with it. DO NOT!!! I repeat. DO NOT get into a detailed argument about abortion. The more that’s brought into the light the worse it is for us. If it starts getting too detailed just say that millions of women died from back alley abortions. Actually, just make up the number.
Oh. And don’t defend Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She kinda’ was a racist and eugenics supporter. So just keep saying that 99.9999999% of what Planned Parenthood does has nothing to do with abortion.
8) Say that the only reason the Church is against abortion and contraception is because they want more people in the pews to donate money. It’s all about the Benjamins baby! Say this often but don’t get into an argument about it because it doesn’t really make sense because we also say that the Church’s outspokenness on these issues is what’s driving so many people out of the Church. Those two things are kinda’ mutually exclusive but as long as we leave at least five comments between them we should be fine.
9) Scream something IN CAPS about the separation of Church and state being in the Constitution. This will start a long treatise from some Catholic about how it’s not in the Constitution and how it was taken from a letter by some dead white slave owner or something blah blah blah. Let them keep arguing history while you say things like “keep your rosaries off my ovaries” or you can invent your own rhyme if you’re a creative angry person.
10) If your comment is deleted, then sign in under another name and yell about being censored or something.
11) Write “Judge not lest ye be judged!” as often as possible. And then call the Catholic a hypocrite for judging. I know we don’t like quoting the Bible but it’s awesome to use Catholics’ own book against them. There’s currently no greater sin than being caught judging. And if a Catholic says anything is a sin or evil just tell them they’re not allowed to judge.
12) If none of this works, then just string together a bunch of curses.




View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
Let’s have the Confessional State now! Did you hear me, shade of Paul Blanshard? Hahahahhaaaaa!
Erh.
If a Catholic thinks he can be saved by anything other than trust in Jesus Christ as the risen Son Of God, that Catholic is deceived.
I just find it hard to believe anything that the Roman Catholic Church says. With such a checkered past, and such a pattern of choosing self preservation over the individual, and in many cases Truth, the church hierarchy continues to put itself and its agenda first.
I am Pro-God, Pro Jesus, and Pro Life and pro peace etc. I have been a practicing catholic for 40yr, But the whole “Do what i say, and not what I do” mantra is so OLD. For example, their response to the Priest scandal was a prayer for Vocations. Really? Really? How about fixing the selection process first!
And the whole women cant be priest because Jesus was an unmarried man? What? As good Practicing Jews at the time,it was Mary and Joseph’s obligation to make sure Jesus was married by age 20 and that hopefully he would have children ask any Jewish person. The apostles all married and This decision to exclude women was a church hierarchy decision in the middle centuries.
And if i ever ask for some detail on how my donations to the church are used, i am told its none of my business! what? really? isnt it my money and my Church?
The Roman Catholic Church is a country in Italy who’s chief export is being the Middle man or broker of a relationship with God. What happens to the church when individuals realize that they dont need the church to have a personal relationship with God?
Yes, its true that most commenters that are not catholic, come off just naming the wrongs in the catholic church. They dont show love for their catholic brothers and sisters. Mainly, because they dont have any. But the mistake made by catholics is when they call anyone who speaks out against the catholic org as hating catholics. That way, in their mind, they can dismiss what the commenter says because this person hates them. Never mind that it is true.For instance….when i bring up the fact that the catholic church teaches its flock to bow to statues, i am dismissed as a hater. Or, the answer is given that god commands them to make images(they stop short of saying god commands them to bow to them). This is an attempt to get my catholic brother to start thinking about what his church teaches. And maybe he should ask Jesus for help on his salvation. Not all non catholic commenters hate catholic folks. I doubt if hardly any do, but the ignorant do, because they hate what they dont know. Thanks, Chris
@Sister Terese - “I can think of a number of cases where teachers have been accused from former students. Also, I read somewhere that 90% of the sexual abuse in the Church has been perpetrated by homosexual priests.” You are absolutely correct, Sister Terese! The vast majority of the sexual abuse was perpetrated against adolescents. This is not pedophilia as the mainstream media has reported, but homosexual activity. Many seminaries have been “cleaned up” and many of these cases go way back. I am very confident that the priests entering the seminary now are chaste and heterosexual.
Amy: Good points! It is rarely reported in the mainstream media if it occurs in non-Catholic churches, or in secular society. (I can think of a number of cases where teachers have been accused from former students.) Also, I read somewhere that 90% of the sexual abuse in the Church has been perpetrated by homosexual priests. It seems (and I could be very, very wrong in this…) that this problem started about 40 years ago in the seminaries and got worse as years progressed. I’m not clear on why this happened, just that it did. I suppose some of it could have been from the relaxing of many seminary rules. I remember when I first started teaching (many moons ago!) a young seminarian came in to my 8th grade class to speak to the class about vocations. However, I was very scandalized at that time about his recounting how he and his seminarian friends would go out on dates and that this was perfectly ok with their superiors, and even encouraged. That is what I experienced first hand. I had to do a lot of “damage control” after he left. I don’t know whatever happened to him or his other seminarian-buddies, but I do know that this particular seminary has been revamped—significantly.
@anny - Why don’t you also post all the rape cases that occur in society and in other religions? But then, again, you don’t have anything against the Catholic Church, right? Of course you want to be fair in your comments, right so of course you will acknowledge sex abuse occurs in society and among other religions, right?
It’s so silly isn’t it? The documented rape of tens of thousands of children always gets used against you guys. You know, like you’re supposed to think it’s a big deal or something. The Pope said he was sorta sorry, maybe, not like it was his fault or anything. And it’s not like it’s still happening…
Oh wait.
Rico,
I once again bow to your wisdom. The church is in the forgiveness business, not the punishment business. It is hard to turn over and not forgive the fallen.
Well said,
Amy: Gotcha…and, I would have bitten! :)
@Sister Terese - You get to recognize verbiage. I also think there can even be one troll who takes on multiple identities. Sort of like multiple personalities. :-)
Here’s a typical troll comment: “On a follow up comment made a few minutes ago I did refuse to defend Margaret Sanger. Why would non-Catholics (I’m not “anti-Catholic” in the same sense Catholics claim to not be “anti-gay”) defend her? He/she delivers the bait hoping you’ll “bite”.
Roz: I guess I just can’t distinguish between a troll and a non-troll sometimes. I’m new to this website/blog stuff. Maybe someone can give me some pointers…?
Don’t. Feed. The. Trolls.
I loved the combox I saw where every nasty-natured comment was followed by 6 or 7 heartfelt prayers for that commenter.
Wouldn’t it be cool to go and do likewise.
Moogle: I guess I came late into the discussion because I’m confused at to what you are referring. Could you explain it a little more clearly to me? I’d very much like to respond.
I thought this was going to have actual tips for commenting. A month or so ago I over at Mark Shea’s post “Up Next: Glamorizing Pedophiles” and I didn’t do any of these things.* The most troll-like thing I’ve done on these blogs is refuse to use my real name (if it matters, my real name is Tyler).
/
Not funny, not helpful.
/
*On a follow up comment made a few minutes ago I did refuse to defend Margaret Sanger. Why would non-Catholics (I’m not “anti-Catholic” in the same sense Catholics claim to not be “anti-gay”) defend her?
Sister: I agree completely. “When I love someone or something so much, it hurts me deep inside when that person or thing is attacked or maligned… and it doesn’t matter where or who is maligning or attacking.”
Laus Deo? I just found that amusing (inside joke, sorry all).
Be well,
Rover.
Rico: You are too kind. I just hope my words don’t SCANDALIZE anyone! I speak from my heart, and many times, my poor words simply cannot express what is in my heart and therefore make a mess out of what I’m really trying to say.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. We must be part of the solution otherwise we become part of the problem. I think that is true of any organization. Sometimes, though, we try to “fix” everything on our own. That’s where I have had a problem in the past. I am an organizer, problem-solver, manager, and director all rolled into one. So, that should tell you a little about my personality! When I see something needs to be done, I dive head first…which is not always a good thing! So, part of my growth over the past 10 years has been discerning where those boundaries lie. I think I got it! Only time will tell, though.
Part of letting go of the need to control everything is allowing others to do things, too. I’ve learned that that also includes God. When I allow Him to take the reigns, we usually wind up on a smooth road. But, I’m always grabbing at those reigns! It’s in my DNA, so I guess I can blame God for that…
When I love someone or something so much, it hurts me deep inside when that person or thing is attacked or maligned… and it doesn’t matter where or who is maligning or attacking. My fur goes up, my claws come out, and I start hissing…much like my cat does when she sees the UPS guy… I am very protective of the Church. But, I also have to let the Holy Spirit take over, too. There are reasons for everything. God allows evil to exist so that good may triumph. People don’t always get that. I get tired of hearing people moan over and over, “Why does God let childen get cancer? Why does God allow good people to die tragically? Why does God allow poverty? Killings? And on and on the list goes. I want to scream sometimes at them. But, what good would that do? It only makes them angrier and more convinced that the Church is bad, wrong, or the cause of most of the world’d past and present problems. So, I do what I do the easiest—I pray.
Oh, Sister, you had me until the very end. I think part of recognizing the flaws in our institution is that we must also fix them where we can. We have, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fixed many of them already. After all, we don’t, as an institution, try to deny science. We don’t burn books. We don’t execute heretics. We don’t burn books. I think all of this came from us ACTING to fix the institution. I’m really not trying to nitpick, here, it’s just that our faith in the Church can sometimes make us complacent.
Today, we have a big challenge with the scandal to which you have referred. We tend to distrust secular institutions, and the thought of handing over our priests and deacons (even the most flawed of them) is distasteful to some in our hierarchy who feel that Vatican sovereignty is being threatened. Nevertheless, render unto Caesar and all that. We can’t just trust that these sorts of issues will work themselves out, we must be a part of the solution. I don’t mean to disrupt the peace you have found by trusting in the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you just took on too much in the past. Your best opportunities may simply lay in your own community of sisters. Even your online comments may have an impact on somebody, somewhere.
Rico: OMGosh, I just love what you said here: “I think we are sometimes afraid to own up to our faults because we don’t have enough faith that our Church can survive its own flaws.”
I think you hit the nail on its proverbial head!! I also think that along with this fear of many Catholics, they are either not fully catechized, poorly catechized, or do not believe that the Holy Spirit, promised and given by our Blessed Lord, guides the Catholic Church. It took me a long while to come to that realization…not to mention the fact that I also used to have this inflated ego thinking that I needed to fix all the problems of the world, including those in the Church! It wasn’t until a few years ago that I realized that, NO, I am NOT God!! One of my favorite scripture verses is somewhere in Psalms: “Be still and know that I am God.” I have to remind myself of that all day, everyday.
Amy: JP2’s apologies got tremendous coverage, and he was beloved by many many non-Catholics (in part) because it it. Perhaps *some* do not accept the apology, but a great many more are simply frustrated when some of the most pious Catholics don’t want to walk in the spirit of those apologies. It’s not enough to say sorry once. We must always and forever *own* those mistakes. I think Sister has it right when she says how amazing it is that we have survived our own (very human) tendencies toward corruption and malfeasance, and done so for two *thousand* years. Might that be due to the essential pulchritude of the beatific vision? ...or the essential truth of the core message? Yes and yes. I think we are sometimes afraid to own up to our faults because we don’t have enough faith that our Church can survive its own flaws. I say, however, that we can. Clearly his holiness the Blessed John Paul thought so when he went on a years-long apology tour.
Much to the consternation of “you-know-who” and many who don’t believe he exists!! :)
If we all need to remember that the Church is holy because the Church belongs to Jesus Christ. He is holy and He is the head of the Church. The rest of us are just poor sinners, weak and imperfect. Jesus promised to be with the Church until the end of time and after 2011 the Church is still here indeed!
Rico and Amy: You both said things so simply that I wish I could say! I am in complete agreement, Rico, with what you said about “oh, it gets much worse!” I am flabbergasted sometimes when I read Church history (or history, in general) at how corrupt some Bishops, priests, religious and even Popes were! I used to lament about the “state of the Church” until I read Church history! What we see today in the sex scandals, mass exits from the Church, and all the other stuff is really NOTHING compared to the challenges the Church has had to face in the past. And the beautiful part about it is that THE CHURCH HAS SURVIVED!! Many other cultures, civilizations and groups have come and gone, but the Church still is. What does that say? So there, trolls!
@Rico - I think the Church has apologized and maybe the question should be why are some not willing to accept the apology? As Catholics we go to confession. We repent of our sins, God hears us and the priest gives us absolution in the person of Christ. Now here is the important part. Jesus not only forgives but He forgets! Why can’t we?
“I’m just tired as are many others on the Catholic blogs of being subjected to the repetitive comments.”
Amy: Those complaints about the Church used to bother me, too. And when they are illegitimate, I do defend Her. I found, however, that denying our past mistakes only makes repeating the accusations more valid. The best way to get past it is to admit it and move on. Phillip Yancey (I think in the introduction to Soul Survivor) once said he deals with such critics by responding “oh no, it gets much worse than that!” The introspection and willingness to expose the skeletons in our collective closet, he says, puts them off guard and often allows them to open up to underlying value of the faith. Ever since then, I’ve worked really hard to understand why the legitimate criticisms are legitimate, and confess as much as is honest, while defending against the flawed critiques.
@Sister Terese - “Free Will” Love it! Sister, there are “professional trolls” who frequent the Catholic blogs. They won’t admit to it, but they really do hate the Church. “We” are a voice crying out in the wilderness against all the pagan practices and immorality that exists and are accepted by many. “We” speak out against all the “hot topic” issues and they just cannot stand it! If you are Catholic and you don’t like what the Church teaches then take it to a church that does. There are many churches that will support your views! No one is forcing anyone to join the church or stay with the church. Why the need to constantly harp on the same issues? The Catholic Church is not changing. Thank God!
Amy: I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I know, from being in Catholic education for 25+ years, that the sex scandal is on the minds of many Catholic and non-Catholics—especially in regards to children. I feel that whenever there is a discussion on ANY topic which involves the Catholic Church/Faith, the sex scandal is always brought up to somehow justify why the Church is not to be believed/followed/whatever. Sometimes it seems that Catholics, especially those who dance around the edges, use that as a way to justify their disagreements with issues that they are personally involved with. I don’t know if that makes any sense…it makes sense in my head, but my mouth/fingers don’t always communicate what my brains thinks in clear terms.
I don’t think anyone from any blog would appreciate other bloggers coming in to disrupt and cause dissention and arguments for the sake of some need to “get back” at the Church or Catholics. I don’t know if that is the case all the time, but I do wonder sometimes why people come here and seem to be clearly anti-Catholic yet want to express their hatred/dislike/disagreements with certain teachings of the Church. No one in the Church is making them stay in the Church or even believe. They have free will (one of the gifts from God!) to make choices. Why do they want to force others to support or condone their beliefs or unbeliefs. It is a quirky practice, in my opinion.
@Lisa - I make no assumptions that you are not Catholic or that you are not serious about the faith. I’m just tired as are many others on the Catholic blogs of being subjected to the repetitive comments (emphasis on REPETITIVE) by some who continue to post any and all “problems” that exist within the Catholic Church on any given topic. Enough already. We get it.
Amy, it actually does have relevance because it was mentioned by the original author of the article. The original author of the article is claiming that counterarguments that mention sexual abuse in the context of discussions about the Catholic church making moral judgments are irrelevant and sort of a “red herring” argument. My argument is that the “what about sexual abuse” argument *can* be misapplied (and often is), but it is not *always* misapplied. To put it in another way, just as the Catholic point of view can’t be automatically nullified by saying “but what about sexual abuse scandals,” so also can we not automatically nullify the non-Catholic point of view by calling *all* mentions of sexual abuse irrelevant. It is sometimes quite germane to the discussion. I agree that inflammatory rhetoric is useless. I would also encourage you not to assume that I am non-Catholic or non-serious about faith.
@Lisa - I think that those of who are Catholic and take our faith very seriously are very tired of being maligned in Catholic blogs. You, yourself, just took the opportunity to bring up the sexual abuse of children when it has no relevance to this topic. Why not also point out that sexual abuse exists in all areas of society including the Protestant faith, which, by the way, has an even higher rate of sex abuse? Most people are civilized and will engage in discussion with others when respect is at the core of their comments. When someone posts inflammatory comments just for the sake of getting a reaction; it’s clear that person has an agenda and is not interested in serious dialogue.
@Sister Terese Peter - I totally understand and agree with your concerns about the watering down of the faith. My husband and I teach RCIA at our parish and one of the things we tell those who are inquiring about becoming Catholic is that we teach what the Church teaches. Sadly, that is not always the case. My husband became Catholic through the RCIA process and the catechesis he received was definitely watered down. Believe me, I am ready to get up on that soap box with you!
Well, these are good points to lighten the discussion. But distilling non-Catholics into one “anti-Catholic” voice who is irrational and angry really doesn’t do justice to the debate. There are many careful, loving, Christian people who choose not to be Catholic. And the problem of an institution in which immorality has been protected at the expense of abused children (for example) is a real concern, even if it isn’t always applied correctly in a debate. Articles like this, which might give a chuckle to the “in crowd” of believing Catholics, serve to alienate those on the margins, who may be questioning their faith or dealing with the real fallout of the human failings of the Church. Making fun of them for a quick laugh is maybe not the best path to take—look to the example of Christ, who sat down and shared fellowship with those on the margins, rather than laughing at them.
Lets see who approves his card for starters: Libyan leader Mu’ammar al- Qadhafi is a ‘right-winger’ I am sure, ;-), says that Obama is a Muslim ... http://youtu.be/mZiqexz7aqQ
You did read Obama’s own quote in his book right? Not to mention that the man has bowed to every Muslim Leader in the East.
A card carrying Muslim, eh? I’d be interested to see who approves his card? Let’s go through the relevant political checklist, shall we?
Muslims are anti-abortion.
Muslims are anti-secularism.
Muslims are for the death penalty.
Muslims believed pornography should be banned.
Muslims are anti-euthanasia.
Are you accusing Barack Obama of holding these largely conservative values? I don’t know an imam in the world who would accept Obama’s membership in their religion, mainly because of the above characteristics of Islam.
Sister Terese I want to respond to your response to Amy on an earlier post. You said “I believe that those in “power” in the secular world are marxist at the least, or communist at the worst. More and more I am coming to the realization that the man who occupies the White House is not just socialist, but I do believe he is or was a card-carrying muslim. Yet, he is too spineless to admit it. Ugh!! I shouldn’t get started because it is off topic! Anyway, I have a new saying: “SAY NO TO BO IN 2012!” I think I should patent it, don’t you? :)”
I like your slogan for 2012. As for President Obama who wrote in his book Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Scary stuff. Also from Dreams From My Father: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.” Then there is: “There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white.”
I also think that this President was voted in under affirmative action and is President simply because he would be the 1st black President. Not because he had any experience to do the job. His whole life and education is missing in action. He was not vetted by the MSM nor both political parties simply based on the fact that he was black. This was a huge disservice to the people of America. Such is the evil of affirmative action.
Sister Terese. No the B is for Barbara. However, I always loved “Aunt Bea” of Mayberry also.
Here is a back up ref for Thomas Edison: Lest anyone (Mobius LibTroll responses) question the accuracy or authenticity of this quote, or the sentiment behind it, here is a letter in Einstein’s hand, confirming his own words emphatically:
“Yes, I did say this about the Christian Church. It is the only social institution that could stand up to the Nazi regime.”—Albert Einstein in letter to American preacher wanting confirmation
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/200706A19.html
Aunt B: (Is your “name” a reference to “Aunt Bea” of Mayberry?? I loved her!) Your response is awesome and I went to the website you provide. Incredible. I also want to add that one of my favorite saints, St. Maximilian Kolbe, gave his testament to his total belief in the Gospel message by giving his life for another.
An addition to Answer to #2: About the Pope being a Nazi and using this as an attack on Catholics and Christians.
From Hitler’s viewpoint the most dangerous aspect of Christian resistance is the refusal of thousands of churches, both Protestant and Catholic, to pray for a Nazi victory. The Gestapo can silence all open attacks from the pulpit, can imprison all outspoken pastors and forbid bishops to write pastoral letters, but it cannot make them pray for Nazi success. “Not you, Herr Hitler, but God is my Führer”. These defiant words of Pastor Martin Niemoller were echoed by millions of Germans. And Hitler raged: “It is Niemoller or I.” The 2nd Christmas of Hitler’s war finds Niemoller and upwards of 800,000 other Christians behind the barbed wire of the frozen Nazi concentration camps. Here men bear mute witness that the Christ—whose birth the outside world celebrates unthinkingly at Christmas—can still inspire a living faith for which men and women even now endure imprisonment, torture and death as bravely as in centuries past. More than 80% of the prisoners in the concentration camps are not Jews but Christians, and the best tribute to the spirit of Germany’s Christians comes from a Jew and agnostic (TIME, Sept. 23) — the world’s most famous scientist, Albert Einstein. “Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . . “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”
From Time article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765103-6,00.html
Amy: Ahhh…you say things so simply, but right to the point! Yes, you are correct. The Church in many instances has been competing against the religion of secular humanism. In her attempts, however, many have compromised the purity and truth of her teachings. Being in Catholic education has been a privilege, but has also brought much sadness. When I see textbooks and curricula that is passed on as “catholic” yet they are the same textbooks, curricula, methods that public schools use, that causes much angst in my heart. In competing with Big Brother and the pittances it will offer to “help” Catholic schools, the schools then must compromise their identity as Catholic schools as a requirement to receiving funds from the government. And for what?? A watering down of basic education methods and philosophies which have been the impetus of scholars throughout history, to be replaced with feel good psycho-babble, politically correct mumbo-jumbo. Yet, our children can’t read, can’t think, can’t analyze, can’t relate to everyday life in terms of their own faith, and have an abnormal attitude of grandiosity, entitlement, and self-absorption. It is very upsetting. This evil must be routed out by the roots. The American Catholic Church in many ways has fallen for the lure and enticements of modern greed, false sense of success, and an evil definition of compromise, all to the detriment of the faithful, most innocent, are our children. Oh…I’m on my soapbox again! Sorry!
Sister Terese Peter - I think what is happening in the Church in the United States is symptomatic of what is happening in society in general. Secularism has become the religion of choice.
Manticore: I appreciate your thoughts and marvel in the ease with which you express them. I wish I had that wonderful gift! Unfortunately, I tend to get lost in verbosity…oh well. In any case, I would like to ask a question about one of your statements. You said: “...it’s far better to apply the Gospel demands in all their rigour, than to dilute them in order to make them easier for us to follow.” I believe that this is part and parcel of the “condition” of the Catholic Church in America. For too long, Bishops, particularly American bishops, have attempted to thwart the mass exodus of Catholics leaving the Church by “compromise”. Ex: deferring Holy Days of Obligation to the Sunday Masses. This mentality/approach has not attracted or retained a single Catholic back into the Church, in my opinion. If anything, it has caused good Cathoiics to lose faith in not just the Bishops, but in hope that the Church is on the right track. Now, to my question: Who determines the Gospel demands if not the Church? There have been many, many rigorous interpretations of Jesus’ teachings over the past 2000 years. However, many saints and Holy men and women have adapted those interpretations (when not regarding faith and morals) differently. Case in point: St. Benedict wrote the Holy Rule specifically for those Catholics seeking religious life who could not live up to the strict rules and demands of the rules of convents and monasteries of his day. Who is to say which rule is the holier one or the correct one? Perhaps this is like comparing apples to oranges, but in my mind, it is precisely at the core of what we have faced in the Church for 40+ years. (Please forgive me if I have not made my point very clear.)
@Rico:
*
“Don’t confuse saints with popes. Popes (starting with Peter) have always been flawed, just like the rest of us. Come to think of it, saints are flawed, too (as Augustine confessed). A young boy will certainly not likely stand up to an entire autocratic regime and risk the well being of his entire family, especially when he has no way of knowing all there is to know about what is going on. Certainly it is the adults who we should hold accountable, anyhow.”
***
No confusion made - he was, after all, not Pope then. Being flawed is not the point - it is beside the point. Other “young boys” have done “[stood] up to…autocratic regime[s]” - in Nazi Germany, the USSR, 16th-century Japan. & elsewhere: many martyrs have been younger than he was. As for family - that is a poor excuse, because Jesus requires loyalty to Him & His Kingdom first, and said so. This is a colossal condemnation of a lot of us, but it’s far better to apply the Gospel demands in all their rigour, than to dilute them in order to make them easier for us to follow. If we dilute them, we are not following what Jesus requires of us, but a sham that we have created so that it won;‘t condemn our lack of generosity. And that is not good. A sham religion can’t nurture Saints - only a religion that finds us wanting but is faithful to what God wills of us, can do that.
*
As to the adults - I agree with you.
Great post and some interesting comments especially those who are trolls! Apparently anything will bring them out!My biggest complaint is actually not with “atheists” but with fallen away Catholics or liberal Catholics who come on blogs written by Catholics whom they know, based on the blogger’s posts, are devout Catholics.These lapsed, careless Catholics then love to boast about how they lived together with so many men before getting married and how wonderful their marriage is now or how many abortions they’ve had or how they’ve handed their daughters the pill or how yes, they found a priest to marry them and how they lied to the priest etc. etc. etc.It’s one thing to be an atheist or agnostic or whatever but to me there is just something really stinking rotten about coming on a Catholic blog and bragging about all your mortal sins. Makes me gag.
Anon: Whatever…
Nah, I think some of the Catholics are WORSE THAN those awful atheists. At least we know where they stand.
It has gotten sooooo political in some blogs. If you don’t homeschool you are worse than an atheist. You may have a Baptismal Cert from the Church but many are clueless, yet claim to know it all.
And the back and forth and subtle inbred fighting goeth on and on and on.
No wonder why we have athiests. My RIP dad who was very Catholic and very SPIRIT FILLED used to say that.
Thank you, Sister Terese Peter for putting our names in your Holy Hour prayer book. That was so kind and thoughtful.
One remaining question, will there be blogs in heaven? Just kidding. LOL
God’s blessings to all. Hope to see you on another topic.
Rico, Amy: COOL! Now…what do we talk about??? (Only kidding!) Our faith entails so much that if we were to live as long as Noah, we would still be learning about our faith and the mysteries of God! I read somewhere that we will NEVER know everything about God even in Heaven…that is how immense and eternal He is! We will be perfectly happy and learn new things about Him each moment of eternity. (I just hope my cat will be there with me! :) ) God bless you. I know this sounds silly, but I put all of your names in our Holy Hour prayer book…amongst other names.
Sister and Amy: We seem to have reached an accord, because I agree with what you both just said…except one small point…
Sister: On matters of history, there is some divergence. It seems there were never any walls around Jericho, for instance. It matters little to me, of course. I’d rather believe that the whole incident never happened. I don’t like the idea of a genocidal Joshua killing women and children. At any rate, I’m only obliged to see Scripture as infallible as regards faith and morals, which is how I do see it.
Rico - The Bible, as Sister indicated is not meant to be read as a science book. It is infallible in faith and morals insofar as it relates to our salvation. I would agree that there is a tremendous amount if bias in the world these days against Christians and in particular Catholics. After all, while the world is indulging in all kinds of pagan behavior, the Catholic Church is speaking up about immorality and it’s something people just don’t want to hear and that includes even those who identify themselves as Catholic. I think John Paul II was a very unique individual and he was able to see things in a very simplistic way. It must have been a very special grace that he was given. I would not concur with everything that he did but perhaps that special grace had was able to take him to places that I am not able to reach.
Rico: You bring up some valuable points, and I was not aware of the sources you cited. I will, indeed, look into them. I guess I was not saying that the Church is perfect, as you described the perfect example of St. Peter…that is precisely why I took his name when I made my final profession. However, I do think that there is much more of a bias against the Catholic Church for many reasons. Perhaps there is more of it today that there was in the past…I’m not sure. By no means do I believe that any of the Scriptures should be read as a science book, for they were not intended as such. But, I believe (and I may appear as being very simple-minded—which I tend to be—in this belief) that the Scriptures are not in error in matters of faith and morals. I also believe that the Scriptures can be read as an historical account of Salvation History, AND as ancient history as well. I’ve read several accounts where geographical sites identified in the Scriptures are accurately described and can be proven to have existed: ex: Sodom & Gomorrah.
In any case, I appreciate your knowledge and input. I am never afraid to learn. I’m not so sure that a pope’s objectives should be apologizing for past Church mistakes—perhaps clarifying certain aspects or questions regarding past Church events. But, I am not a canonist either. I barely know my catechism, let alone the profound mysteries of our faith or the details of Church history. But, I’m learning!! May God bless you for your efforts.
Amy: You misunderstand. Many Catholics, including the blessed John Paul II, apologized for many past sins of the Church. I’m talking about those of us who do not follow suit. We have this knee-jerk reaction to deny most of what we hear and to cast ourselves as victims. Sometimes criticism is unfair. We have to have to be really honest with ourselves to determine when it is and when it isn’t. Defending the encomienda system, or the latter crusades or the inquisition or Justinian’s persecution of pagans or the atrocities of Teutonic knights (the list goes on) just doesn’t make any sense. There is a reason we don’t do these things anymore. We are better than that.
By the way, for the VAST majority of the Church’s history, such atrocities did not happen, and we did great work. It’s just that 2,000 years of fallible human rule will pile up quite a long list. This why JP2 spent the better part of a decade acknowledging many of these sins. He was beloved for it, inside and outside the Church.
“Tell me one time the Jewish or Muslim community apologized to Catholics.”
I’ll give you two:
Al-Islam magazine apologized for offending Catholics in 2010
Muslims of Faisalabad apologized just his year for a riot that target Catholics in Pakistan
Rover, Amy: I’m not the literalist that you both seem to be. There was a time when it was “required” that Catholics believe in geocentrism, as well. Just because I’m Catholic doesn’t mean I have to check my brain at the door. Adam and Eve are our first parents. As a poet, I believe that, still…but Genesis is not a science book. The story of man’s fall from grace is universal. Original sin is something we all share because we are ALL capable of doing what the Adam of Genesis does. I can’t and won’t replace genetic findings with dogma. As Augustine instructs, I do not allow a particular Scriptural interpretation to determine how science is done. It was a mistake in 15th century Italy, and it would be a mistake now.
Rico - I don’t recall anyone ever saying that Catholic are perfect. Catholics admit no fault? Are you kidding???? Tell me one time the Jewish or Muslim community apologized to Catholics. Why do you feel the need to provide resources on Catholic atrocities; do you have any other atrocities to share by other religions?
Sister: I agree that accountability for evil acts is distributed unevenly. It’s no reason to maintain that Catholics are perfect. In fact, I would argue that it is the fact that we Catholics admit no fault that we get attacked so much. We are a 2,000 year old institution. Of course, we screw up. Have we forgotten that Peter (our first pope) denied Christ three times? Have we forgotten that he argued (against Paul) that Christ’s message should be for Jews only? If our first Holy Father could make so many mistakes, why can’t all the others?
If you want sources on the encomienda system, I’d recommend “A History of the Mexican American people,” by Julian Samora. Encyclopaedia Britannica has a short overview about how it worked, as well. If you want an original (and Catholic) source, you ought to read the writings of Bartolomé de las Casas, a Dominican friar, who witnessed many of the Spanish atrocities on native Americans.
If you are Catholic you are to believe that Adam and Eve are our first parents. End of story! This blog is not meant to be a discourse on the validity of Catholic beliefs nor about all the the “problems” with the Catholic Church. The topic was actually about The Anti-Catholic’s Guide to Catholic Comboxes before it morphed into other things. The “best” post I have read so far is that the Catholic Church is responsible for placing the disabled into circuses.
Rico, Sorry, been a busy day. Apologists do what they feel they need to do to defend the faith. I don’t begrudge them for what they do, but their finely honed answers are like marshmallows, smooth but not filling.
This discussion, going from a literal 1 Adam, 1 Eve origional sin morphing into a population of 10,000 but 2 were given metaphysical souls is the ultimate moving of the goal post. My head is spinning with this “logic”.
My sister in law, a fundy, was staying at my house when it was announced that Neanderthal man was not a close relative. She crowed “I knew it!”. I asked her, “Did Neanderthal man die out before the ark, was he on the ark or was Noah one?”. She said “What makes you think he ever existed”.
15 years and not an inteligent dialog since.
Amy: My point exactly! It isn’t just on this blog, but everywhere in public discourse. The mainstream media will explode a hydrogen bomb story of some priest somewhere who was accused of something, yet there are actually more Protestant ministers and deacons (I really don’t know what the correct term is for those serving in non-Catholic Christian churches) who have been accused and found guilty than are Catholic priests. But, we rarely hear about those. Likewise, the Church does so much good in the world, yet rarely are those stories reported. I believe that those in “power” in the secular world are marxist at the least, or communist at the worst. More and more I am coming to the realization that the man who occupies the White House is not just socialist, but I do believe he is or was a card-carrying muslim. Yet, he is too spineless to admit it. Ugh!! I shouldn’t get started because it is off topic! Anyway, I have a new saying: “SAY NO TO BO IN 2012!” I think I should patent it, don’t you? :)
@ Sister Terese - “There are other religions, other political groups, and other societal organization who participated in many other evils that are never recounted—for whatever political reason. There was, and continues to be a very persistent and pernicious undercurrent of anti-Catholicism in this country and in the world. I suppose it is partly because we’re doing many RIGHT things, but there are many other reasons, not so apparently clear.” You are so right! There are “professional antagonists” whose only purpose for living it would seem is to attack the Church. My question is this, is anyone who posts on the Catholic blogs ever going to mention what evil other religions and groups have done that is wrong? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Rico: Could you please note your sources for that information? I know that there are evil people in every group—in all parts of the world. What is troubling is that the evil folks in every other group are given waivers for their actions for one political reason or another. However, such is not afforded to Catholics, especially Catholic religious, and even more especially to Catholic priests, nuns, and popes who lived in the past. There are other religions, other political groups, and other societal organization who participated in many other evils that are never recounted—for whatever political reason. There was, and continues to be a very persistent and pernicious undercurrent of anti-Catholicism in this country and in the world. I suppose it is partly because we’re doing many RIGHT things, but there are many other reasons, not so apparently clear.
Rover: I take it you don’t approve of apologetics?
mk: The encomienda system in California and other areas essentially amounted to slavery. There were also forced conversions. The Church was against such practices, but Rome was far away, and local priests were often corrupt. We’re a 2,000 year old institution of fallible sinners. We’re going to get it wrong, sometimes. We should get more comfortable with admitting it, sometimes.
Rico,
I typically agree completely with what you say but Origional sin, as I understand it requires one Adam, one Eve sinning. Sorry, but that sounds like an apologist’s answer.
It was kind of nice for awhile, when George W. Bush was getting blamed for everything, wasn’t it? Took the heat off of us… ;)
Not long ago I had the unhappy opportunity to spend sometime with some very radical-leftist nuns who worship at the altar at “wymen church”. During a discussion, I was astounding to find out that it is the Catholic Church’s fault that so many “wymen” religious today have turned to lesbianism and have had their sexual proclivities hindered, frustrated, and suppressed due to “antiquated” Church teachings on sexuality. (Of course, they always use the term “sexuality” instead of purity, chastity, etc.) Ugh!! It was a less-than-edifying experience, to say the least! One rather pompous nun stated that the terms “sexuality” and “spirituality” have the same base word “sha” in Greek or Latin or something like that. Therefore, the obvious conclusion must mean that both words are synonyms, or at least close cousins. I sure would like to know where they got THAT information!
Oh, and another thing I heard was that it was Catholic missionary priests in California who enslaved native Americans. Good grief! What ELSE is the Church responsible? Chicken pox? Crooked teeth? Body odor?
I have a new one from a post I saw on another blog ..... the Church is responsible for putting the disabled into the circus so they can be ridiculed. That’s definitely a new one.
“A Saint would have acted with fortitude and preferred death to compromising with evil.”
Don’t confuse saints with popes. Popes (starting with Peter) have always been flawed, just like the rest of us. Come to think of it, saints are flawed, too (as Augustine confessed). A young boy will certainly not likely stand up to an entire autocratic regime and risk the well being of his entire family, especially when he has no way of knowing all there is to know about what is going on. Certainly it is the adults who we should hold accountable, anyhow.
“And don’t defend Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She kinda’ was a racist and eugenics supporter.”
_ _ _
Those who will not defend others, will have no defenders in their turn. Maybe she was not always in the wrong all the time. Is anyone ?
Posted by Karl on Friday, Sep 9, 2011 6:58 AM (EDT):
“Sometimes there have been very serious, very consequential and very immoral actions, which are documented and which have been presented to the Catholic Church at many levels which are ignored and the wrongdoing is supported openly in the Catholic Church at all levels.”
_ _ _
Don’t expect people to agree with you - but what you mention is all too obvious :(
“And there’s always accusing Pope Benedict XVI a “Hitler Youth.” Sure, registration was mandatory but who cares?”
***
That’s no excuse. A Saint would have acted with fortitude and preferred death to compromising with evil - others refused to do so. The ancient Church had no time for the excuse of many that they offered incense to Caesar’s genius out of fear and not conviction during persecution - if they were re-admitted to the Churches, it was as penitents, and they often had to do 20 years of penance before being re-admitted to the Eucharist. Liberius of Rome, with fully as much excuse as the young Ratzinger, co-operated with evil after two years of exile and signed an ambiguous creed, to prevent further trouble in the Church - that moment of weakness, despite his good intentions, is the reason that he is not honoured as a Saint: the first Roman bishop not to be so remembered.
*
When Catholic standards are moulded to fit the objectively sinful acts of someone who failed to show the fortitude he should have, the Faith is being corrupted. It’s totally irrelevant whether that Catholic who became a member of the HJ is now Pope - what he did was wrong. It is downright relativism, and human respect (also a sin), to argue otherwise. There would be no martyrs, if that defence of what Ratzinger did ever became current morality. All the English & Welsh Martyrs could have lived, if they had done as Ratzinger did on the plea “Who cares ?” With an attitude like that, no-one needs fortitude - or any other virtue.
Rover: Original sin still works as a concept with evolution. Have you seen 2001: A Space Odyssey? It depicts the fall of man quite well.
Oops…sorry! I will email you!
This is too off topic, I sent you an email yesterday, we can talk better there.
Rover: Wow…I just signed up for Twitter and I don’t even know how to Twit! Or maybe it’s just that I’M the twit! What does it mean when it says that someone is “following” you? Is it like MSN IM? Geesh…it’s all so complicated! As soon as I learn one thing, that’s passe and I have to learn something new.
Your son sounds very talented. I will check out his performance and your sets later on. As for coming “out” as an atheist, that is pretty funny! I never thought of atheists as being “in the closet”! Maybe you guys ought to lobby for atheist rights or something…oops…maybe I opened a “Pandora’s Box” here! Actually, Margaret O’Hare did a fine job of that…poor thing!
I believe my one and only nephew is a “closet atheist”. He is a very brilliant college student in VA and is a fan of Ayn Rand…(yuk!) So, I have my work cut out for me, don’t I??! My knees are going to crumble under me one of these days!
What can you tell me about Ayn Rand? I’ve read a little about her, but I still don’t have a feel for what her beliefs (if any) were. Looking forward to coffee and LSD!!
I’m kind of a google savant (sometimes with, sometimes without, the idiot in front of it). Simple search of [ “lake shore drive” song ] pulled it right up. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Not to brag but my son does some incredible work. He arranged this song (and has the lead) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUNDtPi6eXg
He also did the “why god” from Miss Siagon (I built the set) in high school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZwTCb5d8pM I did NOT play the french horns bad note in it. I even go to build the helicopter for the show.
He came out as an atheist at 19. I told him “me too”. Ne never knew. We went to a UMC church for his whole life. I kept mine a secret so he wouldn’t be corrupted. He chose. I’m about to come out myself.
Rover.
Rover: When I wrote my last post, I hadn’t watched the video (YouTube)...OMGosh!! It literally brought tears to my eyes! What an awesome city! I’m sure that’s what Heaven looks like!! Wow…seriously, my heart skipped a beat—especially looking at those OLD pics of LSD and all the folks walking along it. Did you know that the name “Chicago” is Iroquois for “big stink”? You know why? Because at one time Chicago was an onion field! That’s the truth! Well…it certainly doesn’t stink anymore (except when the Aleweise fish wash up dead on the shore…yuk!). Rover, thanks so much! You really made my day! I wish I knew how to find stuff like that. I don’t even know how to use YouTube except how to play videos when someone sends them to me. Very, very cool! Thanks again!
Rover: Very, VERY cool!! Thanks! Will talk at you later! GBU (whether you like it or not!) :)
The wife would be uncomfortable as a Methodist/Catholic and the discussion re: theiesm/atheism around a campfire.
I recently explained to her how, without Origional sin (One Adam, one Eve), origional sin is meaningless and makes Jesus’s cross experience pointless. Since she agrees with evolution, it caused her pause. I have no desire to change her belief in god, she finds comfort in the stories.
Lake shore drive, kind of catchy! Listening to it now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjNSmAl7hF0 Would take about 15 minutes to work it up on guitar, simple progression. Harmonies like the Kinston trio. Kind of funky piano work.
Oh well, work to do,
Rover.
Rover: LSD—there’s actually a song that was written about it (Lake Shore Drive) in the 60’s by a group of guys (from Chicago, of course!) named Aliotta, Hayes, and Jeremiah. The song went something like this: “...running down on LSD…something, something…” anyway, I really liked the song and it actually hit the national airwaves. The group really never got off the ground except in Chi-Town.
Sure, I know where Jackson is! Let’s do it!
I don’t understand the connection between camping and being an atheist…is there something about singing around a campfire, cooking on an open fire…doesn’t sound tooooo religious to me! :)
P.S. Bring your guitar to Jackson!
Pergatory, such an intersting concept, so many questions. I go to Jackson about 3 times/week so AA is not far away for coffee. LSD had me confused for a while but Lake Shore Drive was meant, not the drug. Somehow, “lets have coffee on LSD” seemed odd.
Please don’t drag me someplace I don’t want to go.
MK, Camping would be very interesting. Discussions, then singing (My wife and I play guitar and sing, often at weddings). Sadly, I’m not out to my wife, she knows I’m an atheist but we don’t talk about it, so camping is out.
Rover.
Hell is a long way from me (60 miles), a long way to Hell and back for a cup of coffee. I am facing eternity without God, meeting you should not be scary (unless you have one of those clicker things and a ruler for my knuckles).
Rover.
Rover: Yes, Hell is quite trek…as it should be! You are NOT facing eternit without God…because there are plenty of us who will be dragging you with us! And, believe me when I say this: In purgatory, when it is finally all over, I will be the one shutting the lights off and locking up. You can drag along with me, too!
As far as the “clicker” thing, I never had one of those, but I did have several rulers! I never used them on students, though, however there were times when I toyed with the idea!
Oh, mk: thanks for the definition of monogenesis. I guess I would be a monogenesis-ist in that case. *sigh* I know that some things can sort of shake your soul up a little, but God always intervenes. As far as suffering goes, it is a perfect waste of time and energy UNLESS one uses that suffering/energy for the good of another, or even for one’s self. Why else would firemen/women run into burning buildings, risk being burned or killed if not to save the life of another? I was taught a long time ago that if we, as weak humans, could “supernaturalize” our sufferings, it might make more sense to us. That is another way of looking at “transformative love” or as I prefer to call it “restorative love”. Suffering does have meaning, and it is something humans (and other species) encounter everyday. What we do with it is the rub. We can sit in a corner and sing our “poor-me” anthems with tears and gnashing of teeth, or we can raise our sufferings to a higher level by offering them for the good of another. That is how I see it. It was/is the Cross Christ Himself bore. It is THE reason why He was born. He even said as much. “It is unto this end for which I was born.”(I don’tknow where it is or the proper wording, but I know it’s somewhere!) Anyway, that is how I interpret the concept of suffering.
I am finding now, in my older years, that I have a much stronger will than I thought I did—and that it is my will, and my allowing myself to will to respond to certain life stimuli. Does that make any sense? I have difficulty putting the whispers of my heart into words of my mouth. They just don’t speak the same language. I was having a difficult time with something a day or so ago, and it was something that I had faced in the past. But, my reaction to it was totally different than any reaction I’ve ever had being in this same situation many times. But, this time, I WILLED to accept it and to ignore its negative aspects. I became acutely aware of my ability to WILL myself to will. Does that make any kind of sense? Anyway, I believe I am babbling now…so I’ll shut-up.
Anyway, thanks again for the explanation! God bless you!
Amy: Thank you…but I will need prayers! Lots of them! Well, of course we will have pizza! Pizza, especially deep-dish, was invented in Chicago! Did you by any chance get to have an “Italian beef sandwich” (“dipped” of course!) while in Chicago?? It’s sort of like having a cheese-steak in Philly! Of course, the IBS is by far superior than the CS!! (I just know the posts of outrage from devout Philadelphians will be rolling on here soon! LOL!)
The thing I have going for me is that I love learning. I hated school when I was a kid, but as an adult, I really grew to appreciate and actually ENJOY my college classes. I have that cerebral, analytical, logical left-brain syndrome, I guess! I’ll let you know how it goes.
I am on the East Side….coast that is…..in Pennsylvania….but have a cup of coffee for me…..or if it’s later in the day…..a slice of deep dish pizza. I’ve been to Chicago once in my life. Loved Lake Shore Drive.
Sister Terese Peter - I absolutely admire anyone that takes on challenges. Age should not be a deterrent. Active brains are healthy brains.
Monogenesis means that all of humanity descended from Two and only two original people. Polygenesis means that there were many people in “the beginning”. The real argument comes because it has always been understood that original sin is passed down from generation to generation, spiritually, the way genes are passed down physically. In other words we don’t just bear the burden of the “first” sin, but actually carry the stain of that sin. It’s not like my brother sinned and so now all of the teachers in that school assume that I am like my brother, but that I actually inherited my brothers love of practical jokes and will therefore ACT like my brother. Not a great analogy, but I’m wingin’ it here. So IF there were lots of people, logically speaking we couldn’t all “inherit” the same stain. However, from reading the article on the link I put up, Aquinas tackled this question centuries ago. His take (if I’m reading it right) is that the stain is part of human “nature”, meaning it’s not really about each individual as about the species. So I may sin in one way, and you in another. What is inherited is not a predisposition to say, pornography or adultery, but a “general” disposition to all sin. What he called concupiscence. Or a tendency to sin. As a whole, human beings have that “programmed” into their very being…this would allow for different parents. Many Adams, many Eves…when the idea was first put to me, it seriously rocked my faith. But I have come to see that there is sense in it. Now I’m struggling with the idea that suffering offsets sin. I have always understood that taking up the cross, meant accepting suffering and offering it up, uniting it with Christ, in order to offset the consequences of sin. But last night I was told that it isn’t about the suffering, but about the transformative power of the love behind the suffering. My boat is rocking again Maybe someone can put a post up about that!
MK: Traitor?? No,no,no,no…as a very wise person once said, “The Northside just doesn’t get it.” (I believe it was someone from the South Suburban paper some years back.) My parents were both northsiders and devout Cub fans, but I, being the rebel I am, chose the White Sox…equally disappointing, though. Actually, I am more a hockey fan and sometimes football fan, and a when-Michael-Jordan-plays basketball fan. I actually saw Michael Jordan’s and Charles Barkley’s bald heads going up the stairs at Jordan’s very crowded and popular restaurant during his hey-day. I was very edified, by the way! LOL! I don’t know why I settled on the southside because I was surrounded by democrats! Yikes! I almost lost my garbage pick up once when I blatantly announced to a precinct captain that I was a voting republican. You would have thought I cursed out his mother… but, thankfully, the garbage did get picked up!
Of course, now I am off topic…which I don’t even remember now what the original topic was! But, I have enjoyed thoroughly all of the posts here. God bless all of you! Even the “trolls” and “atheists”!
Oh…question: can someone give me a definition of monogenesis?? I think I have a sense of it, but I’m not sure.
:)
mk: In a way, it’s charming that there some people in the world who still believe in geocentrism. I have no need for non-Spartacus to change on that score. He’s sort of a living illustration of where a belief in scientific inerrancy can lead you. Normally, if I were to tell someone that such a line of thinking obligates one to be a geocentrist, no one would believe me. He actually goes there. It’s great! At the end of the day, it doesn’t hurt anyone. If anything, his arguments illustrated relativism quite well, because geocentric models (with the right kind of mathematics) CAN be made to work just fine, as can many other models.
Sparticus,
I sense that you are in disagreement with Rico, Rover and Brian? lol Don’t hold back.
Seriously tho, as Catholics we are not beholden to any one way of thinking about scientific matters. The Church has no doctrinal opinions one way or another on matters of science. They are two different schools. It’s like asking a plumber to fix your car. Unless he is also a mechanic, you’re not gonna have a drivable car. That’s what Rico keeps trying to tell you. You can believe in monogenesis and the literal interpretation of the bible, Rico can accept evolution and I can sit on the fence…yet we are ALL in good standing on CATHOLIC teaching. We are all faithful Catholics. Agreed Brian does not fit into that category, but not because of his belief in evolution…it’s because of his disbelief in God. Now stop badgering the witnesses! ;)
Sister Terese,
I am on the N.W.Side. Right outside of Park Ridge. Grew up in Jefferson Park. I’d love to meet. Seriously. (I see you are are a traitor and became a south sider. Oh the shame of it. ;)
Rico,
I have been having an ongoing discussion with a friend about monogenesis for months now, which is why your comments piqued my interest. Don’t know if it’s coincidence or if Mark Shea was reading this post, but he just put up a great article, with an even greater link, that explains in detail what you were trying to say to me. God is good.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/does-evolutionary-science-disprove-the-faith/
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html
Over Rover does not even know what macro-evolution means; Rico accepts certitude in a science that he admits is in such rapid change that what is still considered by many to be dogmatic, Darwinism, is, to him, no longer applicable but he remains wedded to a relativism that is dogmatic on heliocentrism while Brian is simply apoplectic that anyone can disagree with his dogmatic idea about heliocentrism even though it is unproven (general acceptance is not proof) and even though Einstein admits that either geocentrism or heliocentrism is an acceptable, um, world-view.
The main difference between me and them is that I accept that the Bible is inerrant and I accept the authority of Holy Mother Church. They think the Bible is in error; Rico thinks it is partially in error due to the temporary, transient, changing, conclusions of science , whereas Brian thinks the Bible is wholly errant
Belief in Divine Revleation and skepticism about enlightenment science causes Brian to curse. As for the atheist, Rover, and his embarrassing error that frogs mating in a valley and not crossing over mountains is what constitutes macro-evolution, well, that is actually highly amusing and his haughty demand that I define macro-evolutuon for him or I am considered a troll by him hurts me very very deeply :)
There is a ton of fun to be derived by making sport with the Darwinists. Their dogmatics are forever changing (and in admitting that they reveal that their beliefs are no beliefs at all) and yet they insist you accept what they believe today (but subject to change at any moment) is normative for every man or that man is stupid, a troll, a tiny ignoramus etc etc etc.
The very funny thing about that is that the demented darwinist will demand that you believe what he believes on Monday or that you are a fool and then when his superiors tell him on Thursday that darwinism now believes otherwise, he will insist that you believe in the different things that science says on Thursday or that you are a fool.
It is almost as though the Darwinist Emperor has no clothes but woe betide that man who mocks the naked emperor for that man shall be as a troll to the world.
The plain and simple truth is that the Christian Catholic has God as his authority when he accepts that The Bible is inerrant and the darwinist has the devil as his authority when he accepts that the Bible is errant. i mean, come on, even Bob Dylan knows that you’ve got to serve somebody
Trolls of the world unite!!!
Mock Darwinism whenever possible. It is the doctrine of the Devil and NOTHING angers the Devil more than laughter.
Rover, MK and Amy: I think we should ALL meet for coffee in Chicago!! How about we meet somewhere on LSD? Magnificent Mile anyone?? Or, better yet, let’s go to Navy Pier! We can sip coffee at the top of the Ferris Wheel…that is, if I don’t faint! Seriously though, I think it would be incredibly awesome if we COULD all meet some place just for coffee—maybe at some central location.
MK: I was born on the north-west side of Chicago near Oak Park. When I was two we moved to 79th and Cicero, and then we eventually moved to Oak Lawn. I lived in Chicago for over 30 years and I had a lovely apartment in Bridgeport (33rd and Halsted). I absolutely love Chicago and the city is in my blood. I’ve been all over the city from north, south, east and west and beyond. Where are you? I studied at National-Louis U.
Where I am in Michigan is about a 4 hour drive to Chicago…I’m in Ann Arbor. So, any takers??
Amy: I’m your hero, eh?? Hmmm…I think you ought to reconsider that!! LOL!
Sister Terese Peter - you are my “hero”. Go get ‘em!
Rover,
I camp at the Indiana Dunes Natl Lakeshore (which is just south of Michigan City. Do you do any camping? Now THAT would be some weekend!
Lansing is about 220 miles from Chicago. Easy drive.
Oh my gosh…Sister Terese…I live in Chicago now. Whereabouts did you live? And where are you guys in Michigan? How far from Chicago???
Hell is a long way from me (60 miles), a long way to Hell and back for coffee.
I’m facing eternity without God, meeting you should not be scary (unless you have one of those clicker things and a ruler for my knuckles).
Rover.
Rover: Too cool!! I don’t know where Dewitt is, but I have a an idea: Let’s meet in Hell!! (I hope you know there is a Hell, MI!! LOL!) I hear that Hell is a biker town…sounds way cool to me! Seriously, I would love to meet for coffee! Way cool, dude! (I get that from the kids…) I’m not from here, so I’m not too familiar with those places you mentioned, but I do have a GPS! I’m originally from Chicago, so you name the place in Chicago and I’m there!
I sincerely believe you when you say you believe yourself to be an atheist. But, (there’s always that “but” isn’t there?) you may not always be. God may have very special plans for you. I’m going to pray for you…and pet a few cats and dogs, too! God bless you and let’s get together! You can email me at: srterese@hotmail.com. That is, if I haven’t scared you away!!
Sister,
I live in Dewitt. This is funny, Want to meet for coffee?
I don’t mind anyone praying for me similar to the thoughts of Hitchens, but it is better if you pet a dog or cat, both of you will feel better and I’ll be the same either way.
Sir Pizza in old town for coffee? Sparty’s in Frandor? (appologies to unSpartacus). Zeus’s on Pennsylvania? (appologies to Yahweh).
My treat!
Rover.
Sister, I wish you the best but I am truely an Atheist. There is no going back. I enjoy reading this site because we are not of like mind. There is nothing comparible to the Catholics web sites as far as convition re: the bible.
My college had a 4 point max, unless you had special connections with the professors, now, I’m not casting aspersions but… (LOL!!!). Congrats on 4.1. I graduated Magna Cum Laude.
I am not “mad” at anything except bigots and hypocrites (my weak spots). My family ran the KKK in the thumb and I’m sensitive about that so don’t bring it up. As an atheist, it would be silly to be angry at God.
Thanks for the nice thoughts. BTW, before someone stole my thunder, I was writing a comment on your eloquent writing. It is very poetic.
(you still haven’t told me what you teach in science that doesn’t hurt your students by your unbelief in evolution).
Rover.
Rover: I do not believe you are an atheist. Only a fool says there is no God! You have too much intelligence and conviction to buy into atheism. I think you are just mad. And that’s ok. Being mad doesn’t last forever. In any case, YOU will be in my prayers now…I hope you don’t mind. Also, the Saginaw Catholic diocese was AWFUL!! I don’t belong to it, but the Lansing Diocese. Saginaw now has a different bishop. I don’t know who he is, but I’ve heard he is much better than the former. I know many people who left the Church because of the scandalous treatment that the former bishop (I don’t know his name) handed out to the faithful.
I went to college full time and worked full time when I was 38 years old. I managed to get through college with a GPA of 4.1. Believe it! (Some brains cells have died since then! LOL!) It was HARD work, but because I was going to school full time and managed to keep my GPA over 3.0, I was awarded a number of scholarships and grants. Now, at age 60, I am considering finishing my master’s degree in education. WHAT AM I THINKING????? Pray for me!
mk.
I might have misrepresented myself. I am an Atheist, my wife is a ex- Catholic that now leads a Methodist church. She left because we couldn’t get married in her church. I have a job that prevented me from making the 6 months of pre-cana classes. She was big in the Saginaw Catholic church but NO exceptions could be made for the 2 classes I had to miss. She left.
My family has a Methodist church in the Thumb (MI btw), I made a call and had a church and a pastor and a wedding date.
Rico, someday, I need to buy you a beer (reading your last comments, priceless).
Community college at 53! you will/should have straight A’s. I was in college after the military. “almost” straight A’s.
Be well,
Rover.
mk: Oh, I hope you enjoy the bio class. Hopefully, there will be a strong genetics component.
Yes, I thought I indicated earlier that you can believe in creationism and be a Catholic in good standing. Heck, you can believe that tractors don’t exist and it won’t harm your immortal soul. You can even think that the moon is made of cheese without violating any doctrine.
Thank you Rover,
Yeah, Psych seems to come naturally to me as does Philosophy…but math and science are like speaking Chinese (no offense to Chinese people, I just don’t do well with languages either). I love science and math as subjects in themselves…I mean I totally agree with Sister Tereses’ comment on Math being God’s language and Science being his art…it’s just that I’d rather smell a rose (or grow one) than know it’s Latin name or how to make a hybrid. (I’d also rather have money than count it…lol)
But I am awfully grateful that someone out there loves science and gets math….as someone pointed out earlier, it is thanks to you guys that I no longer have to worry about smallpox and can type that fact on a computer.
Also, being 53, you and I were on the cusp of the “Change”. I made my first communion at the railing and within 3 years was attending guitar masses! Those born after us never knew the pre vatican II Church. It means that we are able to converse in both “languages” and are not so quick to condemn or condone either one. I’m grateful for that. I wish that we could bring back what was good pre Vatican II and eliminate what is bad post Vatican II. What a Church THAT would be!
mk,
how embarrasing! I was reading your bio and thought you were the previous post. As I read “I am 53 and female, I was totally floored!. I am also 53. I’ve enjoyed your posts and wish you well with the biology. Phych and “Origins of Western Values (Bible class)” were the only 2 classes I got a B in College.
I’m pulling for you.
I’ve enjoyed our previous correspondence.
Rover
last comment to a troll. You were too lazy to look up what macroevolution was or provide your definition. No one benefits from what you say. Boom troll. No need for you to reply, I won’t.
You can be “redeamed” by giving me your definition of macroevolution. Otherwise, have a nice fulfilled life.
Rover.
btw, enjoyed the comment re: duct tape and ether.
Rico,
Just so we’re clear. I’m not saying I do believe in the 6 day creation. And I’m not speaking about being a “free” person, but a Catholic in good standing. You can remain a good Catholic and believe in evolution, Sister Terese can be a good Catholic and believe in 6 day creation and I can be a good Catholic and say “What the devil are you people going on about?”
I think you knew that’s what I meant, but I just wanted to clarify. I have always been more interested in why we are here and what we should do now that we are here, than how we got here. I am in college now (just a community college) and will have to eventually take a biology course. If I pass it, I can come back on here and claim that I now have empirical evidence of the existence of God and the reality of miracles…lol. For now, I am enjoying Abnormal Psych and Philosophy. BTW, I’m fifty three and female. A lot of the people here have probably run into me before.
Ockham and Nominalism as a basis for truth?
Puhleeze…
Gota run. The Bride is here for supper
Over, Rover. “If a person wants to be pre Vatican II, considers Wilson the greatest modern president, and considers ether a medical miracle, let him. I’ve moved on”
Because Vatican Two defined no new Doctrine one could say I am both a pre and post Vatican Two Catholic. I never wrote one word about POTUS Wilson - in fact, I think Jefferson Davis is the best President - and as far as ether goes, that and Duck Tape led to my first date.
That aside, you and Brian and Rico have failed in offering a defense of Evolution and Heliocentrism and so you have fallen back on cursing, obfuscation, vague subtextual appeals to “everybody knows” and making-up words that I never wrote.
Sad to say, that is what I have come to expect from those who have thrown-in with modernity and made their peace with the the post-Christian weltanschauung.
still, it has been fun identifying your errors and pointing-out your weaknesses. Maybe the experience will make you doubt your own selves rather than doubt the Catholic Church Jesus established and teaches in His name - but, I doubt it.
“as a Catholic I am free to believe in a 6 day creation, evolution or whatever else comes along and makes sense.”
mk: Absolutely. I’ll go even further and say that you are free to believe things that *don’t* make sense. It’s a free country, and it ought to be a free world. If you weren’t free to believe as you chose, you’d be as much victim as Galileo.
Rico,
Thank you for that explanation. It’s way over my head, but I think I got the gist of it. Like I said, I won’t even enter the evolution debate…BUT, I am always willing to learn something new. I don’t really know one way or the other how the universe began. I’m just thankful that it did. Science is not my forte. But there is no excuse for ignorance of a subject if someone is willing to teach me.
I know only this, the jury is out on how we got here, and as a Catholic I am free to believe in a 6 day creation, evolution or whatever else comes along and makes sense. Catholicism is not in the business of science. I would resent the scientific world telling me how to pray, or what the qualities of God are, just as I am sure they don’t want the Vatican telling them how to dissect frogs. (Understand, I am not speaking of specific Catholics who are also scientists, as in that respect the Catholic Church has contributed much to science…I mean THE CHURCH as a theological institution.)
I may not know science, but I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know…
For the record, geocentrism or *any* -centrism is possible as a subset of relativity. NASA, for instance, can use a geocentric model for satellites, but for a launch to Mars, it makes no sense…they must use a heliocentric model. Future interstellar launches will have to use a galactocentric (or at least a local solar cluster-centric model.
A geocentrist, of course, is not a relativist. The Earth must be the center in all cases for the geocentrist. To make that work, you have to bend over backwards in all sorts of ways, in violation of Friar William of Ockham’s own rule. Oh, those pesky Franciscans!
“He’s using relativity to claim that heliocentrism is no more right than geocentrism. ”
Dear Rico. Your reading comprehension is deficient. My appeal to Einstein was not due to his theory but to his putative authority.
But, I am not too surprised to read that small error amongst your much larger ones which I have previously identified.
Rico. Mr Sungenis has responded to your question at the link I posted
Brian: He’s using relativity to claim that heliocentrism is no more right than geocentrism. Of course, he also rejects relativity when it conflicts with his own theory, which, presumably, includes anything the church hierarchy has proclaimed to be true, including geocentrism.
Of course, geocentrism can only be true if you disregard the maximum speed of light, since a non-moving Earth would indicate that the even the closest stars are revolving around the Earth at many times that speed. Assuming geocentrist assumptions, I’d like to hear how most of the universe can travel so fast. (This should be good)
Dear Brian. That is what I wrote. The Sun revolves around the earth.
Brian. Did you know that NASA often uses Geocentrism when launching a satellite?
Doesn’t that just make you angrier than Rumplestiltskin when Esmerelda guessed his name?
http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/720205115/question-208—-struggling-with-question-on-geocentrism/
Brian and Rico, Feeding the troll. If a person wants to be pre Vatican II, considers Wilson the greatest modern president, and considers ether a medical miracle, let him. I’ve moved on.
Boom.
Rover.
I’M DONE!
Sparty,
Did u seriously just claim the earth does not revolve around the sun??? Are u insane? it can’t be proven?? Excuse me, but what the f*** ARE U TALKING ABOUT!?! Hey u know what else CAN’T BE PROVEN?? I never resort to namecalling but u are a small moronic ignoramous. The people in here are dumber for reading what u write
Can someone get this guy out of here? He makes everyone else look bad
It has been claimed that Pope Blessed John Paul Ii “endorsed” evolution. He didn;t and here is NCR’s own, Jimmy Akin with the explanation
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm
Good Lord. I merely cited Einstein because he is presumed to be the greatest thing prior to the discovery of AC. The point is that heliocentrism is no more “proved” to be correct than is geocentrism and so the Catholic Church was neither, as you claimed, ignorant about it then nor wrong in condemning Galileo.
Your idea of history is the Whig History summarised in that you think the Catholic Church was the enemy of science rather than the single institution that perfected it - see Fr Stanley Jaki. among others. And your idea that The Catholic Church did not permit scientific inquiry is flat out wrong. Who do you think Copernicus dedicated his book to; who do you think was the friend of Galielo and supported him?
And your ideas about Galileo are similarly way off target and ahistorical
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
unSpartacus: It isn’t just Catholics who have an acknowledged rigth of conscience. It is everyone. The hierarchy may not imprison me for advocating a scientific theory that contradicts theirs. The 17th century hierarchy did not understand that, hence John Paul’s apology.
I find it interesting that you now appeal to Einstein, since his position is one of relativity, which would have given Bellarmine such fits that he’d have forgotten Galileo altogether. The idea that there is no up or down, no center, no absolute position…that is about as heterdox from 17th century assumptions as one could get. In your zeal to blow up heliocentrism, you have also destroyed the Church’s own Scriptural claim. Nevertheless, I’m quite surprised that you find Einstein such an authority, as he was as materialistic as any biologist, and certainly more so than I. Given your affinity for him, however, I will declare us agreed, since I find his physics (and his understanding of biology) to be splendid.
On what I believe…I grant the Church the same authority as Augustine did (in De Genesi ad Litteram), which is over faith and morals. I no more view a pope as a scientist than I regard him as my king.
Far from being wrong about Galileo, Holy Mother Church was right about Galileo and, sadly, Pope Blessed John Paul II was wrong to issue an apology.
http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/p/articles.html
“The larger sin of the Church, of course, was to disallow any scientist the right of free enquiry”
Rico. That is simply a bald faced lie. The Pope was both a friend and supporter of Galielo
St Robert Bellarmine was right then and he remains right today and there is no definitive proof that the earth revolves around the sun as even Einstein admits.
Rico. It is clear you believe what the Catholic Church teaches only insofar as it accords with what you think science has established as fact and that is simply not sentire cum ecclesia and, in fact it is quite a heterodox position.
When it comes to Catholics and their conscience, the conscience must be formed in line with Catholic Doctrine.
Sister: Why, thank you. Yes, I write a little poetry (mostly sonnets) and I teach English. I am hoping to start on a few little short stories, soon. We’ll see how that works out.
Everything you just mentioned is precisely why we need the Church so desperately in this world. Science is a boon to humanity, but it is not without its dangers. The fact that Church is slow to change may be inconvenient at times (the aforementioned Galileo affair is certainly embarassing!), but I think it also forces humanity to slow down and think more about what we are doing. The Church, as the body of Christ, is a voice of conscience that we certainly need to strengthen as science marches us all toward an uncertain future. Just keep expressing your views in your congenial way, and I am sure that you will change hearts. That is what the Church does best.
Okay, on this whole Galileo thing: Yes, it is true that Galileo’s math was no better than the best Copernican calculations of his time. Scientists of his day had some valid reasons to challenge those. However, the hierarchy expressly refused to acknowledge that Jupiter had satellites, and scientists who had the opportunity to observe them first-hand expressly refused to do so. These observations, of course, proved beyond doubt that some bodies orbit things other than the Earth. That, my friend, is willful ignorance. Cremonini’s attachment was not so much to Scripture (although no one was happy to contradict Ecclisiastes) but to Aristotle.
The larger sin of the Church, of course, was to disallow any scientist the right of free enquiry. Such a right would not be acknolwedged until Vatican II, which enshrined every human’s right to conscience. I can forgive the hierarchy its position on heliocentrism, I have a harder time excusing its quashing of dissent. John Paul was right to apologize for the whole affair.
Rico: You have such a beautiful way of expressing yourself. Have you ever written anything professionally speaking? Yes, I do agree with you that science does serve a tremendous purpose in easing the suffering of human beings, just as you said. However, when I read things about “Chimera-Humans” and other such topics, I shiver inside. Should we be doing such things? Is there a limit? When do we say enough is enough? I marvel at science when I see photos of a surgeon performing unheard of surgery on an invitro fetus, and then that human baby reaching its hand outside of its womb to grasp the finger of the surgeon! My goodness!!! How great God is!! I am speechless when I see or hear things like that. However, I am also speechless when I hear respected men and women talk about human life (and for that matter, all life) as though WE were responsible for it and have the right to manipulate it in anyway we see fit! Those are very scarey moments for me. It causes me to get on my knees (if I could still GET on my knees!) and just sob inside my heart.
Amy: Thank you for your kind words. I do try to express myself as best as I can. I am no scholar, but I do have an education and LOTS of life experience!
I am not Spartacus: I’m curious about what you might think of Brother Guy Consolmagno, the vatican astronomer. I had the good fortune to hear him speak in Reno a few weeks ago, and he was quite the hit there, in an audience full of scientifically minded fans. His talk was over the Church’s endorsement of evolution (although, he didn’t speak on polygenism, in particular), and his arguments were mostly targeted against creationism and so-called “intelligent design theory.” Do you regard him as heterodox, or is it just monogenism that you are seeking to protect?
Brian. Neither you or rover have evinced one scientific fact. All you two have done is assert a religious belief in Darwinism which even rico admits is not longer valid.
And, no, I never give up and neither do I feel a need to justify myself or my existence. I know from Divine Revelation who I am and why I am here.
If you have no eschatoloy and no idea of your reason for existence that is to be pitied but that ignorance is not the fault of anyone else but you.
There are a lot of accusations and heresy being peddled as compatible with Divine Revelation and Catholic Doctrine. And they must be identified as materialistic propaganda and heresy.
The Catholic Church was not ignorant about heliocentrism. It knew it and rejected it.
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own”
(Humani Generis, 37, Pope Pius XII)
Sister: I must say that I find nothing objectionable in what you just said. I find the same awe inside of me when I look at creation (yes, it is still “creation” to me), and that sense of wonder sustains my faith in God, as well. In fact, I am so taken with it, that I find myself wanting to know more and more about the “how” of it, even though I know it has nothing to do with salvation. Perhaps it is hubristic to understand what Einstein described as “the mind of God,” but there it is. I still want to know. I think you are right that there is no true Power in knowledge, but I think there is some (lower case “p”) power in it to help ease the suffering of others for instance. We cured polio, after all. Pennicillan, in some ways, is doing the Lord’s work. Genomic discoveries (and adult stem cell research) will save lives. It can’t save us, but it is still good.
I should also add that I agree about the threat of man becoming his own god. It is very real. Still, it is a challenge that we must face as a consequence of obtaining knowledge that, in a sense, stems from our first act of disobedience. I assume you know the Felix Culpa from Easter Mass: Oh, how fortunate are we to have fallen, so that we may have so great a redeemer (that was a paraphrase). In the Felix Culpa, I see the two sided nature of the forbidden fruit. Yes, we fell from paradise, but in the end we are lucky to have done so, because knowledge is a boon for us. Our fall has, indeed, been fortunate.
@Sister Terese Peter - What you said, you said so beautifully and only those with faith will understand. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, what God has planned for those who love Him”.
Rico: :) Thank you for your clarification—as I said, I do not always use the correct terms, but it seems as though you understood the “gist” of what I was saying. In any case, I appreciate your explanation of what I saw. It was astounding to me—as all science is. I think the thing that just exhilarates me is the unbelievable vastness of the universe, and the unbelievable complexity of life—of all life forms. The first time I realized that was when I was in college and I was in some science class (can’t remember that far back!) and we were studying the intricasies of the human eye. It was then that I knew that a Being so powerful, so omnipotent had to exist. That knowledge has grown exponentially over the years as I have studied other scientific disciplines. Of course, knowledge is not power, as one historical person quipped. Some may THINK it is power, but real power lies elsewhere. YOu know, there are things that go on in my heart and my mind that words simply cannot express. And, especially can’t be expressed by the words I know! :) So, I guess at this point I will say that I do believe in God, I do believe that He created all things, that He created one man and one woman, named Adam and Eve (I know that those names were only symbolic of what they represented), and that all humans come from them. That is what I believe. There is no way my poor words could ever convince anyone of that. I have no proof…I have no scientific evidence…all I have is my poor heart that tells me what my mouth cannot utter. I hope that makes some sense to you. I love science especially because I believe that science is the handiwork of God in action. Mathematics is the language of God, but science is His artwork, so to speak. And what an Artist He is!!
Sister: I hate to interject on a thread between you and someone else, but I just wanted to point out that theory does not equal faith. Scientists do take things on faith, so to speak, but that would be not be theory. Theory, for one, is always doubted (which is why it changes so much). If Churchmen treated faith the way scientists treat theory, Christandom would be gone in a decade! The scientific analog to faith would be axioms. Axioms are thing that mathematicians (and scientists, by extention) assume in order to the make conclusions. For instance, science assumes that logic works. You can’t really prove that logic works, because logic assumes itself. You have to create an axiom THAT it works. At any rate, an axiom can be viewed as an analogue to faith, but theory requires lots and lots of evidence (when you don’t have evidence, you don’t have a theory…you only have a hypothesis).
Sister: Ah, then you must be referring to the Y-chromosomal Adam. There are actually several (at least three) of them in everyone’s DNA. One is as far out as 140,000 years, and another at around 5,000 years. There are, perhaps more of them. As with Mitochondrial Eve, he is simply one of many many ancestors for any given person, but is more like a distant uncle than a grandfather. The oldest instance of a Y-chromosonal Adam is still about 50,000 years younger than Mitochondrial Eve. There are excellent Wikipedia articles on both, and they link to very good peer-reviewed journal articles, if you want to get to the technical mumbo jumbo.
Rover: I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. It is true that life changes due to environmental causes. We can observe that very plainly in everyday life. However, what I object to, and what many of my “ilk” object to is the theory that one species somehow evolved into another species. Case in point: school children science textbooks teach that it is likely (from what source I don’t know) that birds evolved from reptiles. That is what I do not believe and it has nothing to do with my faith. It has to do with my intellect—and you can scorn that anyway you want. It is obvious you have a much higher scientific background and intellect than I. I concede to that. However, I also have an intellect an free will. I’ve had quite a history of reading and education, too. I’m sure you’re familiar with “intelligent design”.
As far as our first parents, I do believe that we came from one real human man and one real human woman. How that all happened is a mystery…just as the Blessed Trinity is a mystery. These are things that we accept on faith. Evolutionists accept many things on faith…or theory, shall we say. I find it easier to believe that a being, entity greater than ourselves put all things in motion including human life. The whole question “viability” is moot. This is a term that even the pro-abortionists are not using anymore. Who is to say what is viable and what is not? The problem, as I see it, in my poor mind, is that man has become his own god. That is where some scientists and science wants to lead us. It is no accident that Marx, Freud, and Darwin were contemporaries of each other.
“The Scientific Consensus is that Darwinism is dead”
I’m not sure why it should surprise anyone that a 19th century scientific theory should survive unscathed into the 21st. There are plenty of things that Darwin got wrong, according to 21st century science. Any debate that procedes solely from a reading of On the Origin of Species would be as pointless as condemning the Church for its ignorance of heliocentrism in the 17th century.
I do find it interesting that the very same people you are citing as authoritative because they are “anti-Darwinian” are the same ones you wish to discount because they are not creationists. They simply have developed a better theory that accounts for present data. They, themselves will freely admit that their own theories will some day be replaced with even better ones, as more and more data flows in. It won’t even take centuries. Progress is happening much faster than that, now.
Sparty,
You just don’t let up do u? I was trying to be respectful. You make the other good people on this website look bad. So sorry I can’t defend myself at your every post but I have a job sir. You’re the kind of person who procelytizes and rants and raves, then damns those who don’t believe under your breath. It seems as though neither myself nor Mr. Rover are here to denounce anything; however, we only ask u to make an attempt to understand a view other than your own. I do not think that I am god, but I do know that I am my own governing body. The decisions I make directly affect my fate. Praying doesn’t change that one iota. If u need this to make yourself feel worthy or to feel that you are here for a purpose then so be it. If you actually want to get into a real scientific argument I don’t think that this page would support the amount of evidence that we could provide. I’ve been nice to u for long enough sir…
1) Yes, I am Catholic
2) I am not aware of the pope commenting on the human genetic profile containing a lack of biodiversity in mitochondria as dated to that time period, which is what a literal claim would, today, require. Perhaps he made a claim of literal ancestry in the early 1990s, before genetic data could prove him wrong on that account. I’m not sure, but I trust your testimony to that effect. However, given what we know about the genetic profile, today, I think he might alter what he said.
2) Even if wouldn’t, I can’t give any more scientific authority to the Holy Father than I can the book of Eccliastes on the course of the sun. Furthermore, I am greatful that he did not say these things ex-cathedra. If he had, I suppose THEN I might be in a spot of trouble.
3) There is a way I might grant literal personhood to an Adam and Eve. I’m thinking of the opening scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where a peaceful tribe of proto-humans are depicted at the moment that one of them discovers tool-use for the first time. He is a sort of Adam, and that weapon (which he fashions out of a bone) becomes a metaphor for the forbidden fruit. Upon becoming intelligent, he understands good and evil, and commits an act that is both (good and evil), by winning a watering hole for his tribe through warfare. You can find the scene here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOx_nuuhq4E
I show this scene to my class when I teach Genesis. The analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s the strongest correlation I’ve seen yet between current theory and our faith.
Brian, agreed, boom go the dynamite.
out.
Over, Rovr. I think the lurkers can see you have abandoned your sleight-of-hand attempt at 2:27 and you are now onto frogs reproducing in valleys and yet you appear to have never heard that “Froggy Went a Courting” and that he rode a snail and snails have been known to cross mountains on the hair of horses and so, indeed, it is quite possible that a frog named Jeremiah could leap for joy (“Joy” being a common frog name) and not be confined to a valley like you Darwinists insist.
It is you who does not know the Doctrines of Darwinism. It is clear you have not the first idea what macro-evolution means.
Ta-ta. I am on to livelier climes and arguments with proponents of perverse positions who actually know the definitions of the matter under discussion.
Rico: Thank you for your response. However, the program I watched had nothing to do with the female DNA ancestor. It had to do with the MALE ancester. I am sorry that I cannot remember the program name or what station it was on, but I know what I saw and I understand scientific terminology. I was not confused nor did I misunderstand the topic. It was a program I saw less than a year ago.
Spartacus, Please look up macroevolution, understand it, and then come back with a question if you’d like.
If your definition is the same, please tell me what it means so I can understand your point. It is not, btw, a breeding pair making a crocoduck offspring.
Rover.
Over, rover. You do not even know what maro-evolution is. (Although Brian thinks you exploded a bomb, I think you merely bombed)
Are you trying to claim that frogs can mate and produce, say, finches?
And boom goes the dynamite
Spartacus, you wish to define what macroevolution is. Species of frogs, surounding mountains can breed with frogs next to them all the way around a mountain but a frog from one side can’t breed with the other sides, that is macroevolution.
Rover.
Over, Rover?
So, what exactly in the way of macro-evolutuion was observed?
All you posted was a cut and paste with footnotes that you did not post.
And, as is typical, y’all want to have it both ways:
Macro-Evolution took Billions and/or Millions of years through random selection and mutations AND we have observed such changes in the lab.
Hell, man. It ain’t even Happy Hour. Why are you rolling-out such absurdities?
Geocentrism or heliocentrism?
Fred Hoyle:
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.
Spartacus.
The term “macroevolution” frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species (“microevolution”), but deny that one species can evolve into another (“macroevolution”).[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (“macroevolution”, i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[13] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
But on a simpler matter, Darwin has NOTHING to do with how life started, just how life changes and adapts. The Darwin is dead link was not worth the effort. Darwin IS dead but so is Moses.
I’m out also, Evolutionist evolve thinking, creationists are static from day 6 to present.
Rover.
Dear Brian. I knew you would have no response to what one must accept to believe in macro-evolution. I know you have no explanation and I know that is why you like to ask others questions. You can put them on the spot because you can not provide even one, just one, reason for one person to think that a set of parents could produce an offspring that had an organ neither parent had.
As to my ignorance, it is unfathomably deep and galactically wide, and so I am Blessed to have been born into a large Catholic family and to have been learnt the Faith so as to be inoculated against enlightenment scientism and Whig History.
We Christian Catholics are prepared to give reasons for our Faith. You materialistic Darwinists have no reasons to give for your Faith in macro-evolution.
Hopeful Monsters? Spontaneous Generation of Life? Panspermia?
There is no shortage of absurdities one must believe in on Darwinist Faith.
Me and my ilk? All we have to do is believe in Divine Revelation,; The Bible, Tradition, and Holy Mother Church.
I’ll put my God, God, up against your God, you , any day of the week and twice on His Holy Day, Sunday.
Spartacus,
Neither of us will submit so I’ll bow out here. My “sneering” and your ignorance have no place here…so you win I suppose. I’ll just say this…macro evolution sounds like much less of a “fantasy” than “omnipotent space god”.
P.s.- have u ever served time in the military?
Innumerable are those Christian Catholics who have let the ceaseless stream of materialistic propaganda dissolve Divine Revelation in their minds. However, even though there remain many Christian Catholics who are proud proponents of materialistic evolution and who recite the Darwin Catechism as though it were truth and who appear to be embarrassed by Holy Mother Church- the facts are all on the side of Creation and Catholic Tradition.
Here is a link to Dr Sungenis’ website:
“Pope Leo XIII, in his 1880 encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, stated this about Creation:”
“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/science/evolution/576-response-to-ronald-l-conte-jr-regarding-evolution-v-creation
Now, be prepared to read that Dr Sungenis is a crank or an antisemite or a know-nothing etc etc etc. His opponents can not defeat him intellectually or factually - in fact, nearly everyone refuse to debate him - so they are constrained to attack his character in an attempt to silence him and the more it is revealed that enlightenment scientism is a joke, the more strident and vicious are the attacks against him.
Well, that is to be expected. He IS attacking THE faith of moderns - Darwinism - and those who have been deluded by it must remain in denial for that do not have the humility to publicly confess they were duped.
The Scientific Consensus is that Darwinism is dead - DED - dead.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article8784_A_Scientific_Consensus_Darwinism_is_Dead.html
Dear Rico. You appear to have memorised the materialistic catechism. Now, how about hearing Holy Mothr Church?
Pope Leo XIII, in his 1880 encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, stated this about Creation:
<I>“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”<?I>
http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/science/evolution/576-response-to-ronald-l-conte-jr-regarding-evolution-v-creation
Dear Rico. Your deadly mistake is to concede to “science” an authoritative preeminence it does not deserve especially seeing as how it has severed its connection with Sacred Theology.
As for the personal opinion by Pope Blessed John Paul Ii that quotation was mangled in the translation.
Adam and Eve are our first parents and just because the Catholic Church quakes and quails before the onslaught of materialistic science is now reason for me to concede that which remains unproven.
“For instance, prior to the 90s, we thought the long-slow-gradual theory was standard, and then we discovered that punctuated equilibrium was far more likely. “
That was not the case. The FACT is that long-slow-gradual evolution WAS Darwinian Dogma and AFTER that was disproven by the fossil record, the Commie, Steven Jay Gould, rebaptised the “Hopeful Monster” Theory as “punctuated equilibrium” which TOTALLY obliterates materialistic Darwinism.
Darwinism is shameless. What a tota crock
@Rico - Are you Catholic? The Church teaches that we are to take literally that our first parents were Adam and Eve. The Church has always taught that and continues to teach that.
Amy:
1) I was not arguing about what the Church says, only your claim that “Recent advances in science and DNA testing has been able to prove that the human race traces itself back to Adam and Eve.” You quoted the Church accurately, but science inaccurately.
2) The Church teaches that we must believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents, but does *not* say how literally we must take it. John Paul didn’t foresee the genetic discoveries of the past 15 years when he made that statement, but he also knew we could interpret our way out of future conflicts, just as we have with heliocentrism and evolution.
@Rico - I am telling you what the Catholic Church teaches. If you do not want to believe that it is your prerogative.
mk: I think you misunderstand the notion of genetic purity. First off, there is no such thing as purity. Second, even if there WERE, it would be the opposite of diversity. It is through cloning that purity would be maintained. Second to cloning, it would be incest. Incest wouldn’t POLLUTE the gene pool at all. Third, there is no theoretical gene that would survive self replication from one set of parents. It’s not just impossible with present day humans, it is even impossible theoretically. Genes just don’t work the way you think they do.
Are you a college or high school student, by chance? All of this could easily be cleared up by taking a biology class. I would at least recommend a basic text on genetics, if you are interested.
The irony of this conversation, of course, is that Mitochondrial Eve is a theory that itself relies on the general theory of evolution. Without evolutionary theory, you couldn’t trace mitochondrial DNA at all.
Rico,
Of course there is no such thing as a pure bloodline now. But IF there were two original people, male and female, their genes would be pure because there was no mixing yet of other genes. Even their first child’s wouldn’t be as pure. Then if their son coupled with their daughter you’d have a true polluting, but it would still be minimal. Eventually, we would get to the point where it was impossible to EVER again have a pure gene. But why couldn’t it have been so in the beginning…the very, very ultimate, beginning of man? You haven’t shown me anything to prove that it couldn’t. Again, not saying it could, I’m just asking why not? What would have polluted those first genes if indeed those first two people were created by God and by man.
mk: Ah, it has nothing to do with purity. There’s no such thing a “pure” gene. In fact, diversity is the opposite of purity. The belief in the purity of a bloodline is what led to all sorts of exotic diseases among the nobility in Europe.
mk: It’s because any species requires a certain amount of diversity in order to reproduce. Without it, you get serious genetic malformations that result in death. Think about what happens with incest…the product of incest may survive for a couple of generations, but eventually it results in 100% death before viability. The minimum amount of diversity necessary for an entire species is about 10,000 (probably more, actually). NPR did a great piece on this, recently.
Rico,
I remember reading somewhere that the earliest genes were uncompromised, a purer gene, and it was through those first incestuous couplings that the genes became polluted. I understand that NOW, we would need 10,000 people to create a population that was viable, but why did we need it then if the original genes were pure?
Amy: I’m sorry, but scientific evidence is against the notion that we have “first parents” at all. In an allegorical sense, yes, Adam and Eve were quite real. That’s as far as we can take it.
Rico,
Why? And how do we know that? My understanding from what little I have just read is that this was the most recent common ancestor but by no means the beginning or end of the line. Why could two people produce a child if they were the only two around? What am I not getting? I’m not arguing against you…I couldn’t…I’m trying to learn. What does that mean there must be no less than 10,000?
Catholic teaching permits us leeway in the literal translation of Genesis with the exception of denying that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Recent advances in science and DNA testing has been able to prove that the human race traces itself back to Adam and Eve. Please remember that the Bible is not a science book and it never was intended to be used for comparison purposes.
mk: No, it is literally impossible to have fewer than 10,000, because the continuation of the human species requires at least that much diversity. Anything less, and you don’t get viability.
Yes, well, that all depends on what it is you want proven. There are aspects of evolutionary theory that are in flux (and there are aspects that will always be). For instance, prior to the 90s, we thought the long-slow-gradual theory was standard, and then we discovered that punctuated equilibrium was far more likely. In that sense, yes, we still don’t know *exactly* what happened along every step in the evolutionary path.
What made John Paul say that evolution is now “more than just a theory” is the fact that: whatever the mechanism, we evolved *somehow*...and we have left too long a trail of fossil (and, now, genomic) evidence to doubt it. Clearly, you need not know about it in order to receive salvation, but it happened, nonetheless.
Pattie, RN,
I hope your venting makes you feel better, although your diagnosis is faulty.
Rico,
Why? All I see is that it cannot be “shown” that there were two, which is very different than showing that there cannot be two.
mk: in answer to your question, it makes one set of parents impossible. The minimum number to which the mitochondrial evidence could even theoretically be narrowed is about 10,000 sets of parents.
Rico,
I don’t really have any feelings one way or the other on the Evolution debate. There is simply too much there. (Or pehaps I should say, too little?) I am only saying that science has NOT proven one way or the other how life came about, and according to that video many scientists are as stubborn in their unsupported beliefs as you claim literalists are. If we are really talking about truth, big OR little “T”, then shouldn’t we refrain from claiming as “truth/Truth” any and all theories that have not been proven, whether they are scientific OR biblical? Isn’t it enough to say we don’t know, but here is our best “guess”, or here is what I “believe”?
I watched that video. While I agree that the Church teaches that when Science and Scripture do not gel, Science must be accepted and Scripture reinterpreted in that vain…BUT…I wonder if Science, itself, should not be held to the same standard. If one gets it into ones head that such and such is true, and refuses to give up the ghost despite new evidence or a lack of evidence, then aren’t they just as guilty as the Christian who continues to cling to a literal translation of Scripture against scientific evidence?
According to that video, this is exactly what some scientists today are doing. They are so married to the idea of Evolution, that even when their own science does not support it, or even refutes it, they cling to their beliefs as does the Fundamentalist…
mk: You are quite right to say that a literal interpretation of Genesis is allowed in Catholic doctrine. One can easily believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve and believe all doctrines of the Church. I would posit, however, that you cannot subscribe to such literal interpretations and understand much of all about the world or science. Faith does not require such worldly knowledge, so your soul is safe…but IMHO, it is regrettable to remain ignorant of the world at large.
Moreover, Christ tells us that He speaks in metaphors in order to hide the significance of his Truth from those who are not ready to understand and that his message is hidden by literal interpretations (Mark 4:10-20). To hold on to the literalness of our mythology at the expense of truth (even if it is with a lower case “t”) is to impoverish the real power of Scripture, IMHO.
As Catholics we do not need to defend ourselves because a non believer challenges us after we have provided the Catholic position and it is ignored. It’s pretty clear they are not interested in educating themselves on what the Church really teaches.
If you need it to be clearer, here’s something unambiguous and more succinct:
“as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.”
Augustine knew (even his day) that certain Scriptural accounts appeared to contradict the findings of science. Because science is not crucial to the salvation of man, he advised giving science priority over Scripture in its own sphere. For instance: when Ecclesiastes says that the sun hastens its way from sunset to sunrise, we need not prioritize the “truth” of this passage over the heliocentric view that the Earth spins on its axis. Similarly, we need not categorize a bat as a bird, just because Leviticus makes that simple scientific mistake. The Bible is inerrant in spiritual matters, but is clearly not a science book.
Spartacus: It’s all over De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim. Money quote:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
Do you mean it makes “one set of parents” impossible, or the whole “it happened it six days” thingy impossible?
Recently on Relevant Radio a caller phoned in and asked it if was against Catholic Teaching to believe in a literal intepretation of Genesis. He responded that while he tended toward a more modern interpretation (as do I), there was certainly nothing anti-Catholic about accepting the Story of Genesis on literal terms. The bottom line is…“We weren’t there”...
Has the Catholic Church taught Creation?
http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/science/evolution/576-response-to-ronald-l-conte-jr-regarding-evolution-v-creation
There all sorts of problems with the macro-evolution fantasy, which is aught but an attempt to explain existence without reference to God, but with the Christian Catholics constantly brow-beaten by “science” few Catholics are there willing to put “evolutionary science” on trial.
When it is put on trial its testimony begins to resemble a comedy routine by Professor Irwin Corey. There is not one thing to fear from the God-denying fantasy mongers. Other than philosophical nonsense and strident arrogance, they have got zip for proof of their “theory.”
http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/science/science-news/191-catholic-answers-misguided-attempt-to-support-the-theory-of-evolution
The religion of macro-evolution
http://noevolution.org/
“Fortunately, St. Augustine saw this sort of problem in his own time, which is why he instructs us to interpret scripture around science (not the other way around).”
No he did not. Please post proof of your assertion
Dear Brian. Your post was a summation of your belief in evolution. It had not one thing to do with science or evidence.
And, of course, you are not going to disengage because you have been caught out as one who has abandoned Faith in Our Triune God and transferred that Faith to materialistic evolution.
I know you and your ilk sneer at those who have Faith but reading what it is you believe on Faith is hysterically funny.
Animals with lungs suddenly decide to develop gills so they can breathe under water while others animals decide to grow feathers so they can fly and the “proof” this happened does not exist so the appeal to billions and billions and billions of years is made as though that had anything to do with the price of eggs in China, Maine.
There is not one scintilla of evidence that parents produce an offspring that has an organ neither parent had but that is what you believe in contrary to all science.
It is an absurdity.
Spartacus,
In the way of macro evolution being impossible…I’m sorry friend but I was under the impression that if there is a god then nothing is impossible. Quite simply though that is why its called EVOLUTION. It didn’t happen over night. When you look at scientific fact and realize that the planet is billions of years old then it is quite easy to ascertain the idea that because this planet is aligned the way that it is, life has been able to exist, die, and exist again—through all those years do I think mammals began to adapt and breathe under water-yes I do. Do I believe that bird like creatures developed wings to avoid predators-yes I do. I’m sorry but I cannot argue with anyone who still believes the earth is merely a few thousand years old. That’s like saying chocolate is better than vanilla and you arguing that chocolate does not exist
Sister: The documentaries you watched had to do with “Mitochondrial Eve,” and it suggests that all humanity has one common female ancestor. The problem with your interpretation is that it confuses “common ancestor” with “sole progenitor.” Think of Mitochondrial Eve as a distant aunt, one of many. As it turns out, the most recent analysis of mitochondria (and core genomic data) is that it is impossible to narrow ancestry to fewer than 10,000 ancestors (at a given time). Mitochondrial Eve appears to be present in all of our DNA, but she is one of 10,000+ in her time period. Far from disproving evolution (and though it shows that the human population had dwindled in her time), it makes a literal interpretation of Genesis impossible. Fortunately, St. Augustine saw this sort of problem in his own time, which is why he instructs us to interpret scripture around science (not the other way around).
FYI: In my last post, I meant to direct my answers to Brian, not Amy. I don’t know why that happened, but I’m still trying to wobble my way through this maze of computer techno-dweebie stuff! *sigh of frustration*
In my professional opinion, Karl has been off of his meds for a little too long.
Amy,
Some questions…and a little digression…
If I am a good person and live a “christian” life, but do not accept god—am I going to hell?
Were you satisfied when osama bin laden was executed?
Answer: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. Any more questions?
Just a quick note: I believe the popes have said that evolution is NOT contrary to Catholic teaching as long as there is belief that God infuses the soul into each human and that He is the First Cause. Now, just to clarify, I don’t personally buy that, but I don’t have to. Why? Because Catholics are not bound to believe anything a pope says unless it has to do with Faith and Morals, and even if that, it must be pronounced “ex cathedra” in order for Catholics to be bound by a dogmatic teaching (such as: the hypostatic union of Christ, or the True Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, etc.) Evolution or not-evolution belief is up to the individual person/Catholic. And, I have studied evolution & creationism & intelligent design quite extensively. However, I am no expert by any means. And, not too long ago there was a documentary on PBS or Discovery, or some such cable station on recent studies done by DNA experts and anthropologists who have, in fact, proven that the human race did come from one man and one woman. I don’t remember the details, but it was extremely interesting. Of course, these scientists were not on the side of creation, but were evolutionists. However, they realized as they began their multiple year experiment/tests, that they could not deny what was in front of them. I wish I could remember…ol’ timer’s disease, again!
Spartacus,
As for you, my friend, we will continue this later…
Amy,
I have perused it before but I plan on taking a long look at it tonight. Thank-you for the recommendation! Off to the gym…thanks all for the debate…talk to you soon. May the force be with you…
Spartacus, are you the same as “I am not Spartacus”?
Your above statement says all I need to know. The world was better before the enlightment. (I don’t understand the !@#$% children like Darwin btw).
The millenium was a stinker for you, I don’t mean 1999, I mean 999.
Be well,
Rover.
@Brian - I don’t make judgments on anyone’s salvation including my own, that’s up to God. I don’t take “satisfaction” in anyone’s death.
You also did not answer my question on your belief on hell nor on what I posted about Catholic belief on evolution, et al. Did you read it?
Spartacus,
You’re quite the hostile catholic aren’t you? I let my students quote any holy book they would like. It’s good for “discussion,” not argument. And I’m “not a good person,” eh?? Kind of judgmental of you isn’t it? Not a very Christian trait I should say…
Yes i suppose you’re right. A couple of crazy made up science stories of how humans came to be may be wrong, but I highly doubt your idea of two people “begatting” the rest of us seems a little incestuous doesn’t it….forgive me it’s been about 3 hours since I had a bible open but doesn’t it say something about “not laying” with your sister, or something like that. Well, you’re the expert…please continue
Spartacus,
How do you reconsile that fact that the Church leaders believes in Evolution?
Brian is the law-giver? All hail Brian? (that can’t be right).
Dear Brian. You do believe in God. Unfortunately, the God you believe in is your own self. You are the law-giver. You are the authority. You decide what is right or wrong based on your emotion. And yet you deride others for their naivete.
Old act in a new wine skin
lol I can not write constitute
constitue
constitue ought appear in that sentence before “rationality”
Dear Brian. Man can know the existence of God from many sources but the idea I would accept your No Bible Quotation strictures as to what does and does not rationality is irrationality on steroids.
Do these tactics really work on your tudents?
Brian Yes. You are on the road to Perdition as an agnostic, especially seeing as how you were taught the truth of Catholicism and you rejected it.
You can not be a good person because you do not worship God and keep His day Holy.
Spartacus,
Again, please do not quote scriptures when trying make a rational argument. One fish two fish red fish blue fish…how do u like it?
“My question to you is how can you teach science to children if you do not believe in evolution..”
Dear Brian, All one has to accept to believe in macro-evolution is that a set of parents gave birth to one or more offspring that had an organ or organs that the parents did not have. After one accepts that ontological impossibility, the rest of the fantasies, lies, and sleight-of-hand and/or fabricated “evidence” are easy
And yet, science preens about its Dark Doctrine of Darwinism with its putative proof. Darwinism is the Religious Dogma of the deluded.
Amy,
Some questions…and a little digression…
If I am a good person and live a “christian” life, but do not accept god—am I going to hell?
Were you satisfied when osama bin laden was executed?
Dear Brian: You are are living a life that proves as true this line from Holy Writ:
2 John 9 Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God….
Sister Terese Peter,
What kind of science do you teach? Popes believe in evolution and an old earth. I am having a hard time thinking of a science that a creationist, young earther could teach without lying to themselves or the class.
Thanks in advance,
Rover.
@Brian - “When I was 14 I began to realize that if there is a god then it is impossible for there to be a hell. And that made me happy.” Just wondering why you would think this? Not all humans want to be with God for all eternity. Since God is love; someone who hates could not possibly live with God for all eternity. It would be totally incompatible. It is not God that sends us to hell; we make the choice to go to hell when we reject God’s love and we choose evil vs. good. We choose to be eternally separated from God. You’ve tried all the intellectual approaches, Brian. Try going into a Catholic Church and sit or kneel before the Tabernacle and ask God to reveal Himself to you. Remember one thing, if you are wrong and I am right it has eternal consequences. If I am wrong and you are right it just means my life ends at death.
@Brian - Here’s something from Catholic Answers web site which provides the Catholic position on what we have been discussing.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
Amy,
Believe me I have tried lol. I was raised catholic. Baptized, confirmed, always among the brightest as a youngster in my ccd classes and in catholic grade school. I took a great interest in the idea of catholicism, and in being a Christian in general. When I was 14 I began to realize that if there is a god then it is impossible for there to be a hell. And that made me happy. As I grew older and went to college, then to war, then to graduate and doctorate school, I realized that catholicism and Christianity are simply naive systems of faith. Perhaps, unfortunately for me, it did not give me purpose. With all do respect, I sometimes envy that naivete, but cannot bring myself to concede that any one system of faith, in fact, I see the exact opposite. I often quote Abraham Lincoln, “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.”
Let me reiterate: I am not AGAINST religion, I am against anyone boasting that they know the “Truth” as you put it.
Brian: I do not have the scholarly knowledge to refute the things you say. I can only say for myself that, for me, God’s presence is everywhere. His creative powers are clearly present in everyhing and in every living creature. I see God’s creative hand in my cat’s funny antics, as well as when she comes to me for comfort and assurance. I see God in the people with whom I encounter everyday..and the fact that we ARE here on this tiny speck of dust in the middle of unbelievably immense universe proves, to me anyway, that only God could create such majesty.
Brian, all I can say is to quote Jesus (paraphrasing of course, I have NOT read the entire Bible nor any of the other books you mentioned) “In order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you must be like children.” Now, I don’t interpret that as Jesus exhorting us to be childish, but childlike in wonder, awe and simplicity.
In addition to your extensive knowledge of religions and religious texts, have you ever read anything on the Shroud of Turin? Just a suggestion. It is quite mind-boggling from a scientific point of view. At least, it boggled my mind, simple as it is.
I hope you know that I meant no disrespect…I only felt that there was something strange about someone espousing a position that there is no proof of God, yet teaching theology. I’m just a simple person trying to live my Faith and defend it anyway my poor self can. I’m not very effective, but I do try. I leave it to the rest of these good people who are much more learned than I about most subject areas. I must be honest and say that my heart hurts for you. I hope you are not offended by that statement.
I think our main problem with Catholics and Christians, and ALL religion for that matter, is that you are so devout without question.
Um, St. Thomas asked about 10,000 questions if memory serves. Most Catholics I know are full of all sorts of questions about all sorts of things. Are you sure you aren’t indulging in a caricature, Brian? The notion that, say, Josef Ratzinger is averse to dealing with very serious questions suggests that you aren’t really up to speed on the intellectual life of the Church.
Sister Terese Peter,
On the contrary, I believe that being an agnostic is almost essential when I teach religious studies to my students. And I’m sorry, but when I look around and study “real” science, as you like to put, there is no proof of a god. My question to you is how can you teach science to children if you do not believe in evolution or if you do not believe that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and I won’t even get into geological evidence, etc, etc. Yes, ma’am I have read your book. I’ve also read the Qur’an and the Torah. I’ve read the Jeffersonian Bible (my personal favorite). I’ve nearly read all three parts of the Dhamma (Buddhism), and I am just now beginning to comprehend the Hindu texts (Upanishads, Baghavad Gita, and the Vedas). What makes your book right? What makes you right? I’ll tell you—you are right because you think you are right. Millions of years of evolution make much more sense than an all seeing omnipotent space god who is the creator of the universe and all that is in it—and in that universe, which could be infinite, he has chosen this tiny grain of dust to create human life, and someday (if you are a good Christian/Catholic he is going to whisk you away to a magic place of inexplicable paradise. Side note, along with scriptures, please don’t reference Judge Judy…that’s worse.
Brian, I can only speak for myself, but I did question my faith. I stepped away from it for a good long time and I can only say that I was completely and devastingly unhappy, miserable person. Although I kept my Bible I refused to read it, I tried to justify everything with the “common good”. In the end, when I laid my burdens at the cross and reaffirmed my faith, life got easier, life was more enjoyable and I could deal with anything through Christ who strengthens me. This is not to say I never cried again, but I always found peace in scripture, I always found understanding.
And here I thought these comments were talking about the usual dissident “catholic” websites and not anti-Catholics…Oops. I just realize I am being redundant.
Mr. Price,
Thank you. I was hesitant to post that where I did. I am grateful you received it as it is and was meant, sincerely. I appreciate yours, as well.
You know what’s really fun. Get up on a dissident web-site and take a purely Catholic position on abortion, contraception, infallibility etc. In this way you can prepare (using the above as a resource) replys to the often stiff, trite, hateful responses you will get. Favorite targets…NCR…..SNAP…..CTA…...VOF…...
Loads of fun and it helps inform some on those sites that don’t get both sides of the story.
God Bless,
Off topic Staggerizer and have no desire to debate because it’s typical troll stuff….but you you need to be corrected. It’s the Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Rite is one of many within Catholicism.
Karl and IANS:
Your prayers and kindness are much appreciated. Rest assured you are in mine as well.
Pam:
Perhaps everyone (atheist, jew, muslim, protestant etc.) is willing to concede that if the RCC is the truth faith, then it’s neither harmful nor something that would cause one to be anti-Catholic. Much in the same way, perhaps everyone (atheist, jew, muslim, catholic etc.) is willing to concede that if Hinduism is the truth faith…, etc.
The problem is, there are good reasons to think the RCC isn’t the true faith. So, much like you’d probably concede that if Islam was true then..,etc. but believe there are good reasons to think Islam is false, so to many, myself included, believe there are good reasons to think the RCC is false.
“Of course, the presumption is that such people “knew what they were doing.” Common sense and personal experience can tell you that such a presumption can be overturned. Freud has nothing to do with it.”
Dear Dans0622
Yeah, Freud has everything to do with it. This process is easily abused because the investigation is often about the attempt to assess the mental state of a person as it then existed, say, 20 years ago.
Now if the man petitioning for an annulment had his eye on a woman not his wife and she was older, uglier, fatter, then one might think more sympathetically, but that is never the case, is it? The man petitioning for an annulment is always seeking a woman whois younger or prettier/
And the wife petitioning for an annulment is never seeking a man who is older, fatter, balder, poorer than the man she married, is she?
If these scores of thousands were never really married, then nobody was, and the very authenticity of the Sacrament has been called into question
“What purpose would it serve?”
Dear Mr. Price. I must have read past your earlier comments. You make a good point. I agree and I pray your financial situation improves. You’ve got a well-deserved reputation for orthodoxy and zeal
Brian,
That right there says a lot. IF we are, as you say, an intelligent lot and do seem irrational, perhaps it’s because there is Truth to what we say. You say we “blindly” follow our Faith…but there is nothing blind about it. I’ve said many times, that “experience” IS a form of evidence. Granted people believe in many different ways, BUT, that is the way with ALL objective Truths. It is the TRUTH that is OBJECTIVE, not the perception of that Truth. It’s the elephant and the blind man. The elephant does not change. It remains an elephant no matter what the blind men think. Our PERCEPTIONS are SUBJECTIVE. God is objective. How we perceive Him is subjective. God does not change or evolve, but our understanding of Him does. We are not Truth. God is Truth. We change. God doesn’t. Therefore, even though there are dozens of perceptions of God, there is only one God. The flaw is with us, not Him.
What you call blind faith is subjective experience of an objective God. When 3/4 of the world experiences something (even if their perceptions of the experience differ), then it IS rational to accept that what they are perceiving is REAL and OBJECTIVE even is their individual perceptions are not. We don’t blindly believe in God. We personally EXPERIENCE Him. That is our basis for belief. It is more irrational, in my opinion, to discard billions of people’s experiences, because you have not had the same experience.
Of course it is a mystical force. No one here would say otherwise. God exists in the metaphysical realm. He DID exist in the physical realm 2,000 years ago, and still exists here in the Eucharist, but He makes His “home” in the metaphysical world. He exists outside of time and space, and therefore is not normally experienced through time and space. Until you grasp that there is more here than meets the eye, horatio, you will never understand or experience what we do. In the end, it does indeed come down to Faith, but it is not Faith without reason. And it is that very reason that allows us to accept God, but reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, and no one has ever claimed to have experienced the Sky Fairy. But billions upon billions, since the beginning of man, HAVE claimed to experience and know, God.
@Brian - Faith cannot be attributed to “just” an intellectual ascent. Faith is a gift from God, yes God. I know because I have been given that gift. As a cradle Catholic I slipped into being a nominal Catholic in early adulthood. During a particularly difficult time in my life I picked up the Bible and read the Gospels. The was God’s “first grace” to me. I sobbed and I realized for the first time in my life who Jesus was and what He did for me. Nothing was ever the same again for me. I could now see the Hand of God in creation and that was only the beginning of my journey to God. That is grace working in us which God freely gives to us even as undeserving as we all are. My husband was raised a Jew but for most of his life lived as a secular Jew. I suggested he read the Bible. I was sure that the Holy Spirit would do for him what He had done for me. I was right! My husband became Catholic in 1999 and is now also a Deacon! He has never had such joy in his life. God’s grace working in ones life is a powerful and wonderful thing. Faith goes beyond the tangible things although I get a great deal of pleasure in communing with nature. My point is this, if you want the opportunity to believe then you need to let God in. Pray, yes pray and ask God to show you that He exists. Take your time in reading the Gospels. Give Him a chance to show you that He does exist. If you are Catholic, pay a visit to a Catholic Church and just kneel down and ask God for the help to believe. Just maybe the way you see things is wrong, and those of us who believe are right. How will you know unless you try?
Brian: I followed your comment with great interest. You do make some valid points. However, when I got to your P.S., it all sort of fell apart for me. On the one hand you talk about your agnosticism and how no one can PROVE that God exists, etc., and then you contradict yourself (or expose your self?) by asserting that, “I’ve read the Bible literally a hundred times (I am a professor of Theology and English at an esteemed university).” How can you justify teaching THEOLOGY at an “esteemed” university when you clearly believe that God cannot be proven?? That just doesn’t make any sense to me. And, as one of my favorite personality, Judge Judy always says, “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true.” So, there’s something odd about your post and you. Agnosticism and being a professor of theology just doesn’t mix. That is like being a teacher of foreign languages yet speaking only English. Somehow it just doesn’t work.
And, just for the record, God can be proven. Just look around you…study some science—real science. God is present everywhere, but many are blind to Him. I simply cannot believe that one, who questions the existence of God, would read the Bible “a hundred times”. Secondly, if that person truly did read the Bible a hundred times, I would certainly question why he/she would not come away with at least some interior insight into the reality of God. If you truly did what you say you did, then YOU are the one who is closing God out of existence. So, my sense of your post after reading the P.S. is that you completely destroyed your argument in that one, simple P.S.
I was one of the first to comment and I come back to see how many wonderful examples of what yu say we have now in the combox. So convinient to have trolls when your post is about anticatholics and comboxes!
TO ALL:
I think what the “trolls” are looking for is a sense of rationalization. We non-believers love to stir the pot because we think we’re right (or at least on the right track)...just as you do. It’s a way to vent, I think, because we are sick of listening to people saying “God bless America” and “God works in mysterious ways” and “One nation under God.”
The truth of the matter is that there is only one “-ism”...and that is agnosticism. WE WILL NEVER KNOW. I empathize with you all—you need a reason for existence. It’s not easy NOT believing all the time. You think we all look at life and just say “F*** it” but we don’t.
I think our main problem with Catholics and Christians, and ALL religion for that matter, is that you are so devout without question. You all seem like intelligent people, so that is why the academia side of agnosticism (like myself) does not understand how you can blindly follow this kind mystical force—because that’s what it is.
When you quote scripture to rationalize with us it only fuels the flame. You could say something in spite of me and perhaps I would quote the Qur-an…and then wouldn’t you feel the same way? Your book is a book, allbeit, a pretty good book. But Once you get through the “begats” it is merely a pretty good guide for life (for the most part). But it is in no way to be taken literally. I’m sure you all know this…I’m sure most of you read between the lines.
Close your eyes and picture Jesus now…...what does he look like? Flowing hair, nice teeth, big smile??? If there was a Jesus (and I’m almost 100% sure that there was) then he was probably about 4’7”—he was Arab—and he was a Jew. He probably looked a lot like the Afghanis I used to shoot at while serving in the US Army. And JC, if he were alive today, would look at your church, and he would not be very pleased.
I know the pope is not a Nazi. I know Hitler was an asshole. I know your church done a tremendous amount for the people of this world. But what I don’t know—what I don’t KNOW and what YOU DON’T KNOW—is whether or not there is a God. So the only rational prayer I think any of you have left is to pray that there is a God and that you’re right. And when he/she/it proves that they are a real thing and not just a pretend entity made up for the purpose of keeping the crowds fixed upon the straight and narrow, then I will gladly drop to my knees, beg forgiveness, and join the rest of you in the quest for everlasting life.
Sincerely,
BJG
p.s.—in no way am I trying to offend anyone here. I read the idiotic atheistic replys that these morons post everyday and I have been tracking these blogs for about 6 months now, and only recently have I actually decided to write anything. I think the wake of the anniversary of 9/11 has really gotten to me and I feel that if you saw our side then perhaps you would see why it is we think the way that we do. I began writing a book about the history of religion in general and I appreciate any offerings you may have; however, just as you all are, I am also staunch in my views. I only ask that you do not quote scripture when replying to me…I’ve read the Bible literally a hundred times (I am a professor of Theology and English at an esteemed university) and when you copy and paste something that you think is reflective or arousing I simply do not read it. I look forward to debating with many of you and if I use anything you say in my writing I will not do it without your consent, and if you wish, I will reference you in the subtext. Well, mother earth is stirring up a storm so I must go watch the lightning. Good night all…and may the force be with you.
Rover: Yes, what I said about the Inquisition was meant as one of the things we hear so often about the Church to prove that the Church is not the Church, etc. It gets so dizzy-ing!
As a science teacher, and an anti-evolutionist, I have had my fair share of criticism (“are you also a member of the flat-earth society?”) because the majority of Catholics today believe in the very inferior secular-religion of evolution, which, in my opinion requires a greater act of faith than does belief in an Almighty God…but that is for another blog somewhere. My point being is that even though I am a Catholic, I also get funny looks from other Catholics because of my disbelief in evolution. ...Ok, how did I get on THAT subject?? I’m going to bed! :)
you hit them all…everyone on your list ive read in every issues relating to catholics
Carl: The priests in his state are deacons, monks and nuns? Wow.
Another historical error is that the SPANISH Inquisition was NOT characterized by “fanatical devotion to the Pope.”
Joanne: In my experience, they usually generalize the “anti-science” accusation to “Christianity” or simply “religion”. This would come as a surprise to, e.g., Cotton Mather (yes, HIM), who defied public opinion to promote smallpox innoculation.
“Catholic”, “Christian” and “religion” (or “organizedreligion”) seem to be pretty much surrogates for each other among the semi-educated. Or perhaps “Catholic” seems to mean “someone who has the effrontery to actually believe the stuff, and cannot credibly be labeled ‘fundamentalist’.”
Hence, stuff like the non-existent “TheChurch’s condemnation of Darwin”.
Sister Terese Peter:
First part of your post was clear but what about the Inquisition? Didn’t the inquistion happen? Wasn’t it a bad thing? I’m confused. Or are you just bringing up things that portray the church in a bad light?
Granted, no one expects the spanish inquisition.
Rover.
Joanne: Excellent points! The Catholic Church is really responsible for establishing western civilization. Did you know that it was the Benedictine monks who invented the clock? Who do you think translated the languages of the Scriptures onto paper by hand meticulously ensuring that every Word was written exactly as stated? Benedictine monks, again! Why do I know this?? Because I’M a Benedictine! (Not a monk, though! )
Don’t forget about the Inquisition! How the Church tortured and murdered thousands of innocent people (probably 10’s of thousands!) just because the Church didn’t agree with whatever these poor, down-trodden folks were espousing…yeah, right. Now, I hear some anti-Catholics spewing stuff about how Catholic priests in early American history out in California used Native Americans as slaves. The list goes on…
You forgot the accusation that Catholics (and conservatives) are anti-science. That’s because Catholics oppose embryonic stem cell research, for one thing, but also because Catholics are supposed to be ignorant and/or opposed to science.
They bring up Galileo as supposed proof, ignoring the truth that the church’s differences with Galileo were not over his theories but over his disobedience. They conveniently ignore the church’s support of science throughout history, and the argument that reason and faith are not incompatible.
One who didn’t know history and church history would be tempted to believe the slander that the church is determined to send us all back into the dark ages, ignoring the work of the church to preserve learning, save libraries, promote universities and advancing science (Monk Gregor Mendel and many others come to mind, e.g.)
Staggerizer, My assumption came from the culture we live in and the changes I have seen in the Church and societies perception of religion and faith in general. Also because the True Faith is neither harmful nor something that would make one anti-Catholic. Pope Leo XIII had a vision of a conversation between God and Satan and Satan said he could destroy mankinds faith if he was given one hundred years. God gave him the twentieth century. We have been through the ringer and like Peter we have been sifted and we fell. But the Catholic faith established by Christ IS the fullness of truth. Rather than leave the damaged Church we need to fight to restore it to the beauty God gve it.
@Comments - If you are a newcomer then you can’t possibly know how annoying the trolls are. The blogs here are not intended for posting inflammatory comments about the Catholic Church simply because you hate the Catholic Church. I’m sure the trolls can find a soapbox and a captive audience…...just don’t do it here when what you post is totally off topic which it is 99.9% of the time and is the same regurgitated stuff.
Matthew, you forgot the one about the blogger who mentions the shortage of priests. The adversary then immediately posts a link to all the priests in the blogger’s state that have been accused (regardless if they have been cleared or are deacons, nuns, or monks). This has happened to moi.
@comments
I agree and you often see other commenters begging “please don’t feed the trolls!” but it doesn’t seem to do any good. People just can’t resist! It drives me crazy! This is obviously a major pet peeve for me and I apologize for going on and on about it.
One more thing… I think we need to remember that this is a blog not a forum so we really should stay on topic. There are several good Catholic forums where we can go to get and give support and inspiration.
It is simple to me: if you think a comment is from a troll ignore it and don’t engage in conversation.
Recently I started reading here at NCR and at times the commentors and bloggers come across as wanting to inflate their own egos and right about how superior and holy they are compared to the rest of the world. They want a place where they can pat each other on the back and talk about how evil everyone else is. Just an opinion but as a newcomer this is often how the blog posts and comments roll. Why doesn’t anyone ever write about how they are changing their hearts and living out the gospel? It always seems to involve talking about how everyone else is NOT living the gospel. It get’s old
Margaret: Wow…you really know your stuff, don’t you? I wish I were as knowledgeable about these things…Oh well! I guess I’ll just have to rely on you good folks to keep me informed of all the techno-stuff! God bless you!
P.S. I do think that allowing some of the TROLLS (I love this new word!) on here to sharpen our own Catholic “talons” in order to be better armed to defend the truths of our Holy Faith! God bless you!
@Jennifer Fulwiler - You say - It’s time consuming to read every single comment and make a judgement. One blogger doesn’t post any comments until it has been read. Perhaps that would immediately be a deterrent to the trolls. I think rules should be in place for civil dialogue and sticking to the topic at hand. I think it’s pretty easy to tell when the topic is prayer and someone starts talking about absolutely nothing related and just wants to use the blog as a platform for their agenda. I am tired of reading over and over again the same comments posted on every blog on how the Church is to blame for just about everything. Enough already, stick to the topic,don’t respond to the trolls, and insist the bloggers monitor their blogs diligently.
@Jennifer Fulwiler
Thank you for your response. However I am still puzzled.
First of all, in 2011 there is a wealth of free or inexpensive automated tools that hundreds of thousands of bloggers all over the globe are using to easily moderate their comboxes. Nowadays a blogger almost has to go out of his way to set up a blog to permit such extreme laxity in moderation. A simple filter to pick out posts with words likely to be offensive would solve a lot of the problem here. And they already have this partially enabled! Watch how their filtering catches and substitutes when I type “whore of Babylon.” These filters can just as easily delay posting the comment until it had been moderated. Also, it is common for comboxes to have a “flag this post as inappropriate” that other commenters can use, making the blog almost self moderating.
As far as the complexity goes, most bloggers make it very clear upfront that their blog is like their living room and they reserve the right to remove anything that they feel is unwelcome. Once again, this is how bloggers all over the world have been handling this problem for years and years. This policy is what everyone expects when they visit a blog and it looks odd to see that NCR does not work this way.
I’m just trying to figure out why NCR does not handle moderation in a more conventional manner.
@Margaret - “Could you please explain exactly why you allow trolls and off-topic comments to clog up your combox? Do you honestly think this provides additional value to your readers?”
.
I agree that it would be ideal if we could read the comments on Catholic blogs and see only charitable, reasonable discussions, but it’s harder than it seems to make that happen through strict moderation.
.
First of all, it’s time-consuming to read every single comment and make a judgement about its quality, and thus takes up precious resources of either the blogger or the publication hosting the blog.
.
The biggest problem, however, is simply that it gets surprisingly complicated when you start enforcing strict policies. For example, someone might make a fair enough point, but do so in a rude tone. Do you delete it? Then someone else might say something that strikes you as a bad or off-topic point, but to other people it would have been fine. Then you end up with the bloggers’ or editors’ email inboxes clogged with complaints from people who were attempting to leave constructive comments and felt like they were censored unfairly—and, often, the comments that you thought were fine were offensive to others, so you get accused of censoring only ideas that don’t appeal to you.
.
Anyway, I see your point and agree that it would be better to see more civility in internet comboxes, but just wanted to share the perspective that it’s harder than it seems to implement this through moderation.
@Matt Archbold:
You say that: “Yes it’s monitored but I don’t really like to stop conversations short, even if they’re tangential to the point I was making in my original post. I do watch for people going overboard though.”
I just don’t get it. I just cannot see any point in lax moderation.
I do genuinely want to understand your reasoning on this, especially since this policy is so common here at NCR and other Catholic websites.
Could you please explain exactly why you allow trolls and off-topic comments to clog up your combox? Do you honestly think this provides additional value to your readers?
I believe that we should always assume the best possible motives from those around us. However, in this case the only motives I can see for the lax moderation are 1) lack of money to pay moderators, and 2) a desire to encourage acrimonious or pointless debate in order to inflate your website statistics.
I hate coming to this conclusion but I don’t know what else to think. Please explain this to me. Thank you.
Margaret,
Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o
;)
You are so right, Sister Terese. The “Mother” of all Persecutions of the Catholic Church is truly gathering pace. With the Culture of Death being spread all over the world where America has influence; Laws passed for abortion on demand, euthanasia, sex in school curriculum for children from 10 years, provision of contraceptives to them and abortions performed without the knowledge or consent of parents; the poor being forcibly sterilized because they have no right to procreate; the Divine Law of Matrimony trashed by same-sex marriages being given the same rights as authentic Marriages; where the Catholic Church is under unprecedented hostility from world Governments; the sustained virulent attacks from the Protestant Churches; persecution of Catholics in Muslim countries - all these are harbingers of the fiercest persecution the Church has ever experienced in recent centuries. Mercifully we are all called to turn to the Divine Mercy Devotion and beg God to strengthen us all.
@Sister Terese - I have tried to reason and dialogue with the trolls but they are not interested in any of it. Sadly their main objective is to post inflammatory comments about the church and her believers. They hate the Church and have been using the Catholic blogs for their own self-serving interests. I hope the bloggers will do their part to remove their posts and those of us who wish to have meaningful dialogue be permitted to do so in an atmosphere of Christian charity. The National Catholic Register is entitled to have respectful dialogue. EWTN who now owns the National Catholic Register is entitled to not have its reputation tarnished by these trolls who seek to malign the church. All of us who feel this way need to keep reminding the bloggers that we won’t settle for anything less. Speak up and out when one of these trolls posts and insist the bloggers do something about it!
Mary42: I would NEVER give up the fight!! Not as long as the Good Lord keeps breath in me! My point was just that right now is just the beginning of the real persecution of the Church…even as bad as it seems right now, it can and will get much, much worse. HOPEFULLY, I will be either “doing my time” in Purgatory, or will have miraculously made it to Heaven! Even the suffering in Purgatory seems less than what will be going on here. Onward!! We belong to the Warriors of God!
Hey, Sister, do not give up the fight. I am just a few weeks shy of 73 years and I am not about to lay down my fighting Gear. Christ needs us in the Battle Trenches more than ever before. He needs us who have one foot in Heaven or Purgatory as you say.
Mary42: Good point. Thanks for bringing it up. I suppose that would be up to whomever this blog/website belongs. I am pretty new to blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and all the rest that can be gotten via the internet. I still can’t make out the difference between all those entities! Perhaps I never will. But, in any case, it is sad that the TROLLS are all over Catholic websites—but that is part and parcel of the Enemy hard at work. He doesn’t need to have his TROLLS creeping around those with whom he has already won over, but those who refuse his enticements. So be it. It is going to get much, much worse as time goes on. Thankfully, I am entering my “twilight” years, as they say, and hopefully will already be in Purgatory (or Heaven) by the time the more devastating persecution of the Church begins…hopefully. Prayer is so important nowadays. And, it gets me very frustated when I hear good people say, “I don’t know what to say during prayer,” or, “I’ve already asked Him for things…” and on it goes. Our country is teetering on the edge of a precipice. The edge is crumbling fast…
On a serious note, I agree with you Sister Terese Peter. But all the same these TROLLS should be moderated because most of them are really annoying, and they are all over the Catholic Websites. I especially get very hurt when someone dishonours The Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament on a Catholic Website. Would it be asking too much if the Moderators just cut out such irreverent comments?. It is God Himself they are abusing after all.
Actually, the better translation for “judging” is “condemning”. We make judgements all the time but we do not condemn.
Well, I just learned a new “internet” term and I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to use it…so here goes: There seems to be many TROLLS creeping about many Catholic (or conservative) blogs/websites. It seems to me that they purposely set out to antagonize and disrupt decent folks who just want to share their love of the Church, etc. So, maybe it is a good thing to allow the TROLLS to continue (within reason, of course) to give us experience in defending the teachings and truths of the Church for when it will become a matter of life and death—and the way things are going in our country, it could very well come to that. Already the Church is persecuted in covert ways—and not so covert ways today. So, strengthen those muscles folks for the fight of our lives has begun!!
I do my best. If I missed something like that I apologize. I will attempt to be more vigilant.
@Matt Archbold - “Yes it’s monitored but I don’t really like to stop conversations short, even if they’re tangential to the point I was making in my original post. I do watch for people going overboard though” Unless this is something totally new you have adopted I must object to your statement. Not only was I called something so vile that I cannot repeat it, it remained on your blog. Why in heaven’s name would you permit people to post who trash the Catholic Church at every opportunity? They couldn’t care less what the topic is. You have a responsibility to stop that so that your blog as all Catholic blogs remain free of comments posted by people who want nothing more but a platform to spew their hatred for the Catholic Church. If you all band together we can make sure that they have no voice.
Ever think of writing a sequel to the Screwtape letters?
Yes it’s monitored but I don’t really like to stop conversations short, even if they’re tangential to the point I was making in my original post. I do watch for people going overboard though.
Margaret: Who are the moderators for this blog? Is it monitored?
Well of course. “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
“Would your parish allow any of their meetings to be taken over by people droning on about their personal problems or ranting about the Spanish Inquisition?”
I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition!
Between this gem of an article and the one on Bad Catholic blog on How to Report on the Catholic Church http://badcatholicblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-report-on-catholic-church.html I believe you’ve covered the fundamentals that new writers, journalists, and bloggers in the mainstream media will ever need to know to move up in the world of unfounded, who-needs-the-facts reporting on the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps these two pieces could be combined in a quick reference desktop format.
This is as wickedly funny as it is disturbingly true. Thanks for keeping me laughing while keeping it real!
And remember to refer to any Catholic doctrine you dislike as “Vatican policy” or “the Pope’s position”, as though he just came up with it and can change it at whim. The Pope is supreme, right? Especially, refuse to see any difference between ordaining married men and ordaining women.
Be sure to assert that “the Pope’s ban on condoms” has cost millions of lives in Africa. Be as vague as possible about the number and location of these “lives”, as most AIDS deaths are in non-Catholic countries. Ignore any questions on why these unspecified Africans are cowed by the “ban” on condoms while ignoring “the Pope’s ban” on adultery and fornication.
—- Always attribute any statement or position you find objectionable to “The Vatican”. It does not make any difference whether something was said by the Pope or by some bureaucrat somewhere in Rome or some priest being quoted in a newspaper, since They are a hive mind where nobody has a thought that does not have prior approval from the top.
Another benefit of close moderation is to prevent off-topic posters from taking over a thread. People should be able to go to the combox to find a discussion of the main article, not a lot of completely unrelated personal issues.
There are a lot of lonely or angry or obsessed people out there. These unfortunate people seek out a place where their off-topic rants are replied to, and then they just keep coming back and clogging up the combox with their static. Look at the signal to noise ratio here. I would guess that less than half of this discussion is about the original topic of inappropriate comments.
There is a place for everything. Would your parish allow any of their meetings to be taken over by people droning on about their personal problems or ranting about the Spanish Inquisition? I’m sure your parish would direct these people to a more appropriate venue for airing their concerns.
Why can’t NCR provide a place where the lonely, angry, obsessed people can discuss their personal issues or obsessions? That would allow those of us who want to discuss the articles to do so in peace.
Moderators need to prevent off-topic commenters from hijacking the threads.
Will: Two thumbs up!!
Ah, yes…..
Remember to assert that the ONLY reason the Spanish and Portuguese invaded and robbed those peaceful Indians is that The Pope told them to. Otherwise, they would never have succumbed to greed for gold and land the aborigines were sitting on. But be careful to avoid any reference to NORTH America, as someone might point out that the near-extermination of the natives was done by Good Protestants, and all the countries where large Indian and mixed-blood populations survived are Catholic.
Ok…I get the FSM and now the “pastafarians”. Geesh! What else am I missing?? I joined FB (Facebook?) 2 months ago and still have not figured out how to “communicate”. Would you believe that I was a computer programmer/operator back on the old IBM 4192s?? That was a LOOOONG time ago.
Anyway, as far as I know, annulments are not Catholic “divorces”. Receiving and annulment merely means that the Catholic Church recognizes that there was a possibility of sinfulness or deception on the part of one of the spouses at the time the Sacrament of Matrimony (or in some cases, a non-Catholic ceremony)was given. All an annulment says is that in the eyes of the Church, the Sacrament of Matrimony was never received/conferred by/on the two parties due deception or sinfulness and therefore is null and void in the eyes of the Church. An anullment DOES NOT give either party a divorce. Many times, when Catholic married parties turn to anullment to end their marriages, exaggerations, and outright lies are told in order to procure an anullment. In this case, due to the falsehood from the beginning, the anullment does not “take”. Then, unbeknownst to the recipients, they are not anulled and therefore enter into another marriage unlawfully. In that case, their new marriage would be considered sinful. When we decide to lie about anything, we tie ourselves up into a python-like squeeze between grace and sin.
mk,
you write re: atheists “They seem unable to grasp the concept that there is a metaphysical world and a physical world. Science works well in the physical realm, but is useless in the metaphysical one.”
This is exactly my problem. Christians pray for god to intercede in their affairs, the physical world. They pray for healing, their football team, their relationships, safe travels. You give him credit for creating the physical world. But, that necessarily takes him out of the exclusive metaphysical. I hope you can see my confusion.
Everything in the physical world is testable and, more importantly falsifiable. (Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment)
mk:
I couldn’t do justice to the topic through comboxes. I just wanted to show that there is no necessary relationship between being anti-Catholic and being inflammatory etc.
If you’re interested in hearing some of these reasons out maybe we could shoot emails back and forth?
mk,
No beef. Just confusion. So many intelligent true believers (and of course, some not so bright), so little evidence. I’ll just looking for a whiff of evidence.
I post too often with little to say.
Of course I’m a decent fellow (LOL, who wouldn’t say that about themselves).
I fed the flaming troll of Bob, I kind of regret that. I’m gonna cut way back.
Rover.
(the Ro in Rover is for Robert, but I am not THAT Bob)
Ah yes, Bob is back (at least that is who he is right now) because we simply do not know how many alias Bob uses - Bob’s mission is to receive a reward for being the primo Catholic basher on the Catholic blogs.
@I am not Spartacus; “Common sense. Catholics professing marriage vows knew what they were doing. To argue otherwise is to accept Freud as the authority.”
Of course, the presumption is that such people “knew what they were doing.” Common sense and personal experience can tell you that such a presumption can be overturned. Freud has nothing to do with it.
“He might also have looked into two surveys by American canonist William A. Varvaro, showing that during the 1980s the Rota, deliberating on U.S. annulments granted on psychological grounds, reversed over 90 percent of them.”
You should update your statistics. It’s basically 50-50 these days.
“The annulment process IS Catholic Divorce”
The annulment process is not Catholic Divorce. (Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.)
Thanks for your reply.
Oh Mary42,
I ain’t afraid of no disgruntled spouses! Mr. Staggerize actually sounds sincere. I’m more than willing to hear him out. Let’s call it “marriage” counseling…
Oh, My Dear MK, never, ever ask a divorced wife or husband to comment about the spouse they kicked out. They will have nothing good to say about them. The last person to ask about our the Catholic Church is an ex-Seminarian who walked out of the Church. He will have nothing praiseworthy to say about the Her.
Staggerize,
Well then, speak up. Tell us what you issues are. If you truly spent years in the seminary and were raised in an orthodox Catholic Family then I, for one, would be very interested in what you have to say.
Ricky,
This little box that you are “commenting” in? It’s called a Combox. Comment Box.
Sister Terese,
FSM is the acronym for F(lying) S(paghetti) M(onster). (I told you it was oooooooold…so old they’ve reduced it to an acronym). Pastafarians…Pasta? Those who tout the FSM…
Bob,
Good to see you’re back…and with fresh new material too. Not.
Rover,
You seem like a decent fellow. Why don’t you give a real discussion a shot. What is you beef with believers?
“Staggerizer: Catholicism is the gift of God to mankind. There are worlds of spiritual treasures within it. Sadly, what you think is Catholicism really isn’t. It is man’s distortion of Catholicism. Find out first hand about your God. He is awesome and no one or nothing will prevail against His true Church.”
Pam:
I attended Catholic seminary for a few years and was an ardent Catholic apologist myself. It’s a big part of my family as well, my brother will be a priest here in only a few years.
I’ve reluctantly drawn my conclusions about Catholicism only after careful study and consideration. Of course, my mind can change.
Prior to hearing any of my reasoning out, why have you already inferred that my understanding of Catholicism is distorted? To me this implies that you’ll reject objections to Catholicism on a priori grounds.
Thank you for this wonderful Post and I am still reading the Responses thus far. Oh, we have been with two Catholic Haters on the previous post by Mark Shea regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary which spinned into cannibalism of the Eucharist and hinged on Sola Scripture. As of to-day we are at No.562 in responses and the tirade is still going on. You also left out the most popular and vogue Missile. The Catholic Church is the Whore of the Revelation and the Pope is the Beast and the Anti-Christ. That is always thrown with a lot of relish.
Excellent list. You forget one point, though you do allude to homosexuals; If you’re gay, purposely misunderstand the Church and rant about how it is anti-gay. Gloss over the fact that the Church does welcome gays into its fold but maintains that they have to exercise abstinence. Also gloss over the incidental fact that the same principle is applied to normal heterosexual people, viz, that they exercise abstinence outside marriage. Rant and rave incoherently about this. Create as much confusion as possible. A good example of this is the way British comedian Stefen Fry goes on about this in a speech he gave which, for those of you who want to check it out on You Tube, incorporates his quote; “The Catholic Church is NOT a force for good in this world…”
What are comboxes?
Ok, I guess I’m just a little cyber-challenged here…what is FSM, and what are “pastafarians”???
Bob, flaming this site gains nothing. I am an atheist but no one gains by what you are doing. As I said before, think, type, think, read, send. The FSM would NOT be pleased. Ramen. (joke for those non pastafarians out there).
MK resents his god being confused with the FSM. Unfortunately, ‘god’ is such a plastic idea that god USED to be considered real and provable but isn’t today because those who believed it was were wrong. Today we know death isn’t caused by sin (what a stupid idea that is), but has been present on earth for 3.5B years. Thus Christ’s death to expiate sin is, itself, a ridiculous idea. Flying spaghetti monster indeed!
Let’s see. Today the church is more worried about the genetic snot of stem cells while it ignores 440,000 assisted suicides caused by the multibillion dollar cigaret business. Poverty has increased in America and devout Catholics like Santorum tell us how wonderful it is that they’ve thrown all these people off welfare while increasing the amount of taxes that go to billionaires. The reason being homophobic ISN’T hatred is, uh, ummm….ahem…well just cuz it ain’t, OK? And any time you guys want to eliminate the separation of church and state, just look at how many Catholics Perry invited to his recent prayer session….zero. None. Nada. So you guys want to pay your tax dollars to someone who consorts with those who are devout Christians and think the pope is the Anti-Christ, be my guest. I’ll have a good chuck at your expense.
So tell us again, oh wise one, about how all these atheists are screwing things up when you’re doing so well at it without our help
Staggerizer: Catholicism is the gift of God to mankind. There are worlds of spiritual treasures within it. Sadly, what you think is Catholicism really isn’t. It is man’s distortion of Catholicism. Find out first hand about your God. He is awesome and no one or nothing will prevail against His true Church.
Staggerize has shamed us all by being the most charitable combox user so far (though I am curious as to why he thinks the Church is a harmful force). Why are all the sarcastic and caustic comments in this thread being authored by us Catholics? Now if you’ll excuse me I have a log in my eye to attend to.
Sister Terese,
The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” refers to the idea, coined by some atheist, that belief in God is as irrational and delusional as believing in a “Flying Spaghetti Monster”. It is used often, and each time the user throws it out there as if they are the most creative person in the world to come with it. As if we haven’t heard it a thousand times. The other two that get almost as much air play are “Our Little Invisible Friend” and “The Sky Fairy”...
Fr. Barron has some great videos refuting the notion that the God of which we speak is anything at all like a fairy or monster. God is not “a” being, He is being in itself. You’re not going to “prove” Him with blood tests or microscopes. Atheists insist that we should be able to “prove” God using scientific methods…as if. They seem unable to grasp the concept that there is a metaphysical world and a physical world. Science works well in the physical realm, but is useless in the metaphysical one. It’s like trying to weigh something with a ruler, or fix a car engine with sheet music. You use the “tools” meant for the job…I guess they just can’t fathom that science can’t answer every question. Their worlds are very, very small.
Ok, what is the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER??
You forgot to mention how rich the Pope is and how hypocritical he is to live in his own little kingdom while the rest of his sheep [a sarcastic term here for blind followers] serve his every whim.
I am sorry for the financial hardship(s) you face. I will try to remember to pray for you. I
do, intimately, understand financial catastrophe. Amen.
Dear Mr. I Am Not Sparticus:
As apparently has been lost, I indicated I was, and remain, sympathetic. Being a victim of adultery, then ecclesiastical indifference to said adultery, strikes me as a horror. But repeatedly injecting that victimization into unrelated discussions is not helpful in any sense, to himself or others, I should think.
I have a crippling financial nightmare hovering over my head right now, and have had it for months. It got worse today. I’m sure I could find some tangent to this post and/or others and work it in, if I were so inclined. What purpose would it serve?
Do you people think you might take this a discussion elsewhere? It doesn’t particularly relate to the article- and perhaps, some people who read the comments, want to read the comments about the article, without having to skim through comments that are part of a debate that deals with several people’s personal issues and opinions?
I really don’t mean any offense, but I’m just not interested in it. I started to read the comments because I was curious about people’s opinions on the article.
So, please, take this discussion somewhere more appropriate. Such as an article on the Church’s stance on annulments.
Thanks.
Leavening your comments with hints of passive-aggression is not going to make me more inclined to read your comments, Karl.
If you think my unrebutted recitation of facts concerning your posting history, past and recent, “drips of sarcasm,” I can’t help that. You’ll do much better with me and others in general if you don’t attempt to read things into my writing that aren’t there. It’s a good way to evaporate whatever goodwill your plight naturally engenders.
Be sure to use the Bible against Catholics just like the way the fundamentalist protestants (whom you arguable hate more than Catholics) do. Be sure to take the Bible literally and build straw men arguments against Catholics, even though the Catholic teaching on the subject matter is not literal; unless of course it is literal as in the Eucharist. In that case, call it the usual name, e.g. cracker, wafer, cookie, etc.
Amy,
I have been through it all.
I wanted to leave it simply that not everyone who “appears” to be anti-catholic, is.
But, I answered comments/questions and it mushroomed.
There are many people with legitimate, terrible ongoing injustices in which the Catholic Church is intimately involved but who are coldly refused a since audience. This is a fact. It is not anti-catholicism. This is even true when the Church has documentary proof of the evils involved and refuse to deal with it.
Interesting and food for thought.
For example, I do not believe in the Hindu faith but it has never occured to me to go on a Hindu website to tell them that I think they are ........ (stupid, haters, crazy, have imaginary friends and so on).
@Karl - Petition for annulments are submitted to the Tribunal Office in the Diocese where the petitioner resides. Upon completing lengthy forms (by both parities) and submitting statements from witnesses the case is heard. Both parties were given the opportunity to tell their side of the story. In order to be granted an annulment,there needs to be evidence that shows something was lacking in the consent. People do not always realize what consent really means. For instance one party could have an addiction problem and didn’t tell the other party (that would render a marriage null) or the other party was aware of the addiction problem but decided to marry anyway which would indicate the party who consented to marry the person with an addiction problem lacked the maturity to give consent. There are many examples of people who say, “I do” but are clueless what that really means. When you both submitted your statements and any witness statements are reviewed your case is adjudicated by Canon lawyers. Parties are then notified of the decision.
The process of grating annulments smells like the bottom of a monkey’s cage, Is is the new gnosis masquerading as psychiatric sophistication. It is absolutely sickening how the Catholic Church has surrendered to a “profession” that hates it - psychiatry.
We turned over to shrinks the process of drafting guidelines for the admission of candidates for the seminary; we sought the advice of shrinks and paid shrinks to treat predatory pervert priests and trusted those shrinks when they told us it was ok to send Father Fanny Fancier back into active Ministry.
How’d that work-out for your, Catholic Church?
Lord have mercy.
Who needs enemies when we ourselves have abandoned Ecclesiastical Orthopraxis, Tradition, and and cast ourselves into the arms of our enemy?
Dear Mr. Price “I have to admit I increasingly tend to blip over his posts.”
Had what happened to him happened to you, I imagine you’d tend to be a one subject man too. He was spiritually raped and the abuse continues.
His anger towards the Church is understandable. What is not understandable is the non response of his Ordinary and Parish Priest.
His situation is monumental while, simultaneously, not a rarity.
He has not asked me but I would write that the sole consolation is to bring the reality of the situation to the foot of the Cross and to try and leave it there. It is clear the modern church has nothing to offer him and I think his sole solace is to be found in the Traditional orders and Sacraments.
So, has Karl’s wife come home yet?
If she does, may I suggest that she send Karl to his testosteroom until he sees how puffed up he’s become?
Mr Price,
I wonder, since your comments to me drip of sarcasm, if the quote you posted about juvenile arguments and inviting charity was meant sincerely?
You invite the same and I will not return your fire.
Amy,
I like Canon Law because it tends to be succinct. The Church teaches that there must be reasons, which are clear and deliniated, for any separation. It also teaches that when these reasons are not present, a separation is wrong. It also teaches that when, if there ever was a reason to separate, when that reason is gone, the marital union is to be restored.
With that in mind I think you can see what the Church would ask, if it was true to its teaching.
“I do know that virtually even single case of nullification that is bumped-up to the Roma Rota is over-turned…” Actually, no, you don’t know this. Why? Because it is not true.
Yeah it is. See below:
“There is no doubt in my mind that declarations of nullification are, in the vast major of instances, flat out questionable, if not flat out a joke.”
I would like to know upon what you base this certainty of yours: broad, personal experience? Published sentences of ecclesiastical tribunals? Hearsay?”
Common sense. Catholics professing marriage vows knew what they were doing. To argue otherwise is to accept Freud as the authority.
” I would also like to know what a “declaration of nullification” is and where you would find such a thing in any public document of the Church.”
Declaration of nullity. In my haste, I erred
He might also have looked into two surveys by American canonist William A. Varvaro, showing that during the 1980s the Rota, deliberating on U.S. annulments granted on psychological grounds, reversed over 90 percent of them
The annulment process IS Catholic Divorce
Thank you, Mr. Archbold, for this summary of the kind of anti-catholic, atheist and other comments that seem to clutter some comboxes. Now that I am better informed, I will stop wasting time by asking to be notified of follow-up comments and trying to follow the discussions (by the way, the discussion following your article is also quite information, proving, as it does, all the points you had already made!). Lately I have been receiving hundreds of follow-up comments that have turned out to be a detailed and extensive discussion between some very dedicated Protestants and some very patient Catholics. I do think that the discussion can be very useful to learn to express all the arguments needed to clarify the Catholic position, but really I already did know it all. And one thing I could say about Mark Shea: He must be doing something right if he is generating all this heated discussion in your own combox!. Did not Jesus say something somewhere in the Gospel about how the “world” will hate us?
Call me Dr. Pangloss, but I believe honest and challenging debate (not in its juvenile, mangled sense) invites charity and encourages growth! :P
h/t to the Candide reference!
I agree with your statement as a general rule in life. I’m also becoming more convinced that such discussions are extremely difficult on the internet. The medium mangles the message, more often than not.
It’s as if God answered Voltaire’s one prayer, and did so for both sides of the argument.
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
Terrific and humorous article. Thanks Matthew!
Scotty,
The Galileo case is a lot more complex that most people think. The wrong they did was punish the dude for insulting the Pope (who originally supported him) and trying to reinterpret the Bible according to his unproven theories. In general the Church was _on the side_ of science at the time since Galileo’s theory was not proven (and in fact, strictly speaking, is false).
Science is the study of physical truths, religion is the study of spiritual truths. They are not divided but both work together to lead us to Truth. I’ve not read Humani Generis, but it doesn’t look like it’s infringing on science, only saying that you can’t reinterpret the bible. Just from skimming through it even looks like it allows for the possibility of human evolution, but limits the first parents to being only two (not a community as some people try to make it out to be). Since the soul is not something that is measured by science I don’t see the problem with this. I will read it later though.
Apologies for the factual error as to your marriage, Karl.
As to your commenting on other subjects, I have never seen it. I have to concede the mathematical likelihood of your having done so, so I’ll grant that point as well.
However:
It was certainly your only topic during your spell of commenting at The American Catholic.
It is your only topic here.
It remains your only topic in this thread. Which, a fair read would indicate, has nothing to do with the Catholic Church’s practices/policies on marriage.
typo:
*wrong vis a vis the Galileo…
omit “during.”
Lady Cygnus,
I do think the relationship is much more complicated than that. For one, it is only quite recently that the Church has explicitly hinted that it was wrong during vis a vis the Galileo incident (and even then, that admission is rather vague). But Church figures continue to make statements about the physical world based upon what they believe is the content of the faith: for example, Pius XII in Humani Generis. Thomas Aquinas notes in the Summa Theologica that whatever can be properly the object of an empirical science really cannot be the object of faith, since faith regards “things unseen.” I am not sure that the Church always fully recognizes the implications of this division, and to some extent I believe Her ministers sometimes struggle with the idea of science as a means of coming to truth independent of Her authority.
“Alas, far too few atheists have the panache of a Voltaire.”
Call me Dr. Pangloss, but I believe honest and challenging debate (not in its juvenile, mangled sense) invites charity and encourages growth! :P
Mr. Price,
1. No annulment was granted. Our marriage was tried twice in the Rota and withstood both challenges.
2. It is not all I comment on.
3. It is the single point of divergence on issues of substance that I have with the Catholic Church. It is not at all that I hold a different position than the Catholic Church in its teaching. It is that I am morally certain that its practices regarding marriage are very malignant and devastating to all marriages and its tribunalists are mostly corrupted in their views and it is even worse among the clergy and those in marriage counseling for the Church.
I guess I am an anti-Catholic. I really do think Catholicism is a harmful force in our world.
I’m not trying to sound glib, but you sound surprised by this. If you define your position in opposition to something you regard as harmful, by definition you are “anti-[harmful something].” Frankly, you should embrace it. Plenty of people throughout contemporary American history have identified themselves as “anti-Communist” or “anti-abortion,” for example.
I try and dissuade Catholics through honest and polite argumentation.
If more people tried your approach on the internet, I suspect you would not see posts like the one here. Alas, far too few atheists have the panache of a Voltaire. They’d rather turn it into a kind of electronic MMA contest.
For those of you unfamiliar with Karl, he firmly and sincerely holds that his wife was improperly granted an annulment.
I sympathize with him. Unfortuntately, since it is, *quite literally*, the only subject he ever broaches in a comment box, regardless of topic, I have to admit I increasingly tend to blip over his posts.
RE Scotty,
I know of no case where the church is “against science”. In general it’s stance towards science is “love God and do what you will.” Major cases that people pull out would be like Galileo, but the Church was on the side of science since science at that time said he was wrong. Or Embryonic SC research, which kills humans and is thus wrong. In other things they support science (Vatican Observatory and supporting Adult Stem Cell research are two examples).
Although I agree that after getting a few trolls you tend to suspect everyone is a troll. For that reason I try to give people the benefit of the doubt even when they sound like they are just trolling. But if they continue to pull items from the list above or ignore logical and reasoned responses I’m training myself to ignore them. It’s hard, but I can learn.
I guess I am an anti-Catholic. I really do think Catholicism is a harmful force in our world. I try and dissuade Catholics through honest and polite argumentation. I don’t feel I need to use dishonest or fallacious tactics to defeat Catholicism.
Oh, how I love the good old Flying Spaghetti Monster. I wonder if anyone has created fan art? :-P
@ I am not Spartacus; you state: “What has happened to many husbands and wives is a scandal.” Yes, at the hands of one or the other spouse, especially.
“I do know that virtually even single case of nullification that is bumped-up to the Roma Rota is over-turned…” Actually, no, you don’t know this. Why? Because it is not true.
“There is no doubt in my mind that declarations of nullification are, in the vast major of instances, flat out questionable, if not flat out a joke.” I would like to know upon what you base this certainty of yours: broad, personal experience? Published sentences of ecclesiastical tribunals? Hearsay? I would also like to know what a “declaration of nullification” is and where you would find such a thing in any public document of the Church.
Maybe it’s my presbyopic eyesight, but I think you missed that old chestnut, “the whore of Babylon!”
As a Catholic, I’ve noticed that a side effect of these questionable comment practices is that Catholic bloggers have become, as a whole, much less likely to engage in real discourse with people asking real questions - sometimes to the dismay of the commenter. Point being, it is easy to become cynical and dismiss anything remotely sounding like skepticism or any kind of counter argument. But often there are in fact people behind the comments who are genuinely interested. The principle of charity should teach us to take every (intelligible) comment and use it as the beginning of a dialogue.
For example, I am very interested in the relationship between faith and reason, and have a blog http://sicetnonderful.blogspot.com/ devoted to it. But whenever I have commented on a Catholic bloggers’ site questioning if maybe the Church has been wrong in the past in its stance towards science (and perhaps continues to be so in certain areas), my questions are usually dismissed as irrelevant, rebellious, etc. How is this reaction supposed to help my faith, and likewise how is demeaning the questions of certain sorts of nonbelievers supposed to help their understanding of what we believe?
Matt!
How could you possibly forget to mention the Inquisition and the Crusades?
Even Catholics will bring up these events in attempt sway combox arguments. oh, for the love of history I cry :(
You forgot to mention the frequent use of the “slippery slope” argument! You know, something like, “If we allow prayers at commencment ceremonies, then pretty soon the Spanish Inquisition will be running the Justice Department!”
I also love it when they try to trap you by saying: “If Roe v. Wade is wrong, then so is Griswold v. Connecticut, and you don’t think contraception should be illegal, do you?” It usually floors them when you assert that yeah, contraception should probably be illegal too.
Oh, oh, and then there’s the routine about how Catholics DON’T have to be Pro-Life “because polls show that most Catholics are Pro Choice…” as if truth were defined by polls.
Dear karl. If it is the case that your wife sought and received a Nullification of Marriage by some local Tribunal you have my sympathies. What has happened to many husbands and wives is a scandal. I do know that virtually even single case of nullification that is bumped-up to the Roma Rota is over-turned - not that it does you any good.
Lord have Mercy.
There is no doubt in my mind that declarations of nullification are, in the vast major of instances, flat out questionable, if not flat out a joke.
However, your local Ordinary is unlikely to get involved. Heck, your local Ordinary is likely not even aware that since the Sacraments have been, um, “reformed,” he likely does not even realise that the water in the founts is not even Blessed. That is, the vast majority of Churches do not have Holy Water.
Find the closest FSSP Apostolate and immerse yourself in Tradition and the Traditional Mass and Traditional Sacraments.
They are our salvation in this time of Ecclesiastical and Liturgical anomie.
I will pray for you, Karl
Matt: THANKS…oh I so needed this post today! SOOOO true. Funny. Keep it up!
No one in Catholic blogs is as bad as Mark Shea. He is meaner than any atheist. Ever see how he treats pro-life women like Bachman and Palin?
You just can’t make this stuff up. It’s like some of the commenters read the post and said to themselves, “I’m going to prove how stupid you are and how wrong this post is by engaging in the very behavior you’re satirizing.” Amazing.
For crying out loud, people—you’ve just made my point. Look at you! My e-mail is full of this tripe now. I’ll try just one more time.
Stop
Feeding
The
Trolls
(Now I know how Moses felt.)
@Karl - Your comments about Archbishop Chaput are very vague and I don’t understand what you mean by “healing” and “valid marriage”. Can you be more specific?
I “agree” with Richard - you definitely forgot the item “Claim you are reasonable, intellectual and scientific and that those emotional, ignorant, and superstitious Catholics are just that. Do NOT try to offer proof, just scoff at them. If they start listing Catholic scientists and great thinkers or logic reply with item 1, 2 or 5.”
Amy,
All the souls involved in this nightmare need a shepherd willing to see things in the ugliness
of reality and to do, whatever it would take, to end the charade and to require of each a commitment to heal the valid marriage, no matter the cost.
I know at least one soul, very well, who does not see Chaput as being a man, that would walk, himself, in such as the tempest of which I speak and be committed to taking whatever action was necessary to make it clear that a valid marriage must be defended and all efforts to heal it made, even if excommunication was needed to encourage repentace and healing.
This person has personal experience and knowledge of Chaput.
When I read of a bishop who has inserted himself in an extremely ugly circumstance, at the request of a spouse whoseeks a healing of their marriage and I see that bishop take actions to bring the ugliness to an end and move things towards reconciliation, I will knock on his door.
I cannot get more clear.
Regarding the time and expense necessary to moderate comments:
Most moderation can now be done by the blog software itself. For example, filters can be set up to catch posts with “bad” words and send them to moderation before posting. This would take care of comments about the whore of Babylon, antichrist, Nazis, pedophilia, abuse, etc. Also, the software can be set up to allow other commenters to flag posts as abusive and bring them to the attention of the moderators.
In addition, can’t NCR get interns or volunteers to moderate? That’s what everyone else does.
Good grief, it isn’t 1995! These problems were addressed and solved many years ago. The Vatican moves at a glacial rate but that does not mean that
Catholic bloggers must do the same.
And I agree that Mark Shea is in a class by himself. He doesn’t need trolls because he is his own troll, posting articles guaranteed to offend at least 2/3rds of NCR readers. Before I read one of his articles I check the number of comments. If it is sky-high then I know it is one of his deliberately provocative posts and I just don’t read it. Custody of the eyes.
@Beby
“Taking time out to poke fun at a few intellectual stragglers?”
- Those are the only kind of atheists that post here…
“the entirety of religion is based solely on figments of your imagination, right? Right? That one, simple fact is all that’s needed to invalidate most of what any Catholic says about religion.”
- ...and I see that you have decided to join their ranks. Enjoy!
@Karl:
“The Church would be far better of with less men like you, who are verbal abusers and more men like me, who keep after the Church to do its job.”
Karl would like to take this moment to thank God that he is not as other men are, particularly not like that dirty publican over there.
The irony on this thread is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Good post, Matt. Keep it up, I enjoyed it.
@Patrick O’Malley - There you go, changing the topic. Hey, why don’t you mention all the sex abuse in schools, other religions, etc.? Of course not. It’s just the evil Catholic Church that has this problem, right? Wrong!!!!
@Karl -“I am waiting for a bishop or a Pope who is willing to walk, with myself, my wife, her lover”????? What does that mean? You want to see a great leader? Philadelphia has just been blessed with the best of the best in Archbishop Chaput.
Wow…what a stupid post. I hope that all you Catholics can have a good time laughing at the few atheist trolls out there… You do realize that a vast majority of atheists are upstanding, respected members of their community, right? Just like a vast majority of Catholics are upstanding, respected members of their community. Taking time out to poke fun at a few intellectual stragglers? Well…that’s just…pathetic…
All that aside, you do realize that (even without taking into consideration the Catholic stance on abortion, gay marriage, etc.) the entirety of religion is based solely on figments of your imagination, right? Right? That one, simple fact is all that’s needed to invalidate most of what any Catholic says about religion.
Now, if you want to discuss real issues, like humanity and compassion, then I’m sure you’ll have a harder time stirring up trolls.
Patrick O’Malley, the problem begins when someone brings up those points in order to “disprove” a given stance of the Church with which they disagree (say, the sinful nature of homosexual acts, or abortion).
If the actual topic of the post in question is pedophile priests or weak, sinful bishops, then it is relevant and pertinent to the discussion. If not, it’s a ploy designed to move discussion away from the actual topic at hand, or to somehow “prove” that since Catholics sin (gasp!) Catholic doctrine must therefore be inherently false.
Mr. Zummo,
If whatt I understand a mensch to be, having counted among my friends Cohen, Levine, Shapiro, Mokotoff….then, thank you. If, as is typical of many these day, you mean the opposite, then I am sorry.
In spite of everything, Jesus wants forgiveness, especially when the wounds are mortal or nearly. Only then do miracles happen. But, sometimes, these miracles, too, need human cooperation. I just find no miracle workers among the ordained, when that is exactly what the Catholic Church needs. It needs priests(and laity) who will venture out on the water, sometimes in the storms of badly wounded relationships, reminding people of their obligation(on many levels) and being willing to ask the impossible of them, while being willing to use discipline if repentance and forgiveness are refused to be considered and then acted upon.
I am waiting for a bishop or a Pope who is willing to walk, with myself, my wife, her lover and all of our children and their families, now, out in that tempest we have all created to find our way through it, still walking together but as God joined us and with all of our eyes seeking His will.
For two decades, there have been no Popes or bishops with that commitment to the will of God. God awaits their arrival to maturity. I stand ready to walk with such a man.
I love this, especially #6 and #7. So true.
When someone brings up:
1) priests raping thousands of children
2) bishops hiding the truth and moving known pedophiles
3) everyone lying about it
4) ignoring the victims
it might just be because they hate child rapists and pedophile protectors. So does God. Pick a side. You’ll answer for it for eternity.
Fantastic, Matthew. I’ve been on the receiving end of many such comments, especially #12 - the string of curses. In fact, the vitriol, hostility, and outright “hatred” (can I use that word?) that’s directed at the Church does nothing but convince me further of how correct she must be. Why else would there be such an effort to attack her? The Church stands as the one true, moral agent and institution in a world that’s lost its moorings. That provokes some strong negative feelings in those who cannot imagine or support a Church founded by Jesus Christ with the goal of true love and forgiveness. Your guide is a great one. It will come in handy the next time someone emails me a paragraph of offensive swear words directed at me and the Holy Father.
Dear Mr. Wehner. I read ya.
I am finished with Mr Shea on this thread.
Dear Joanna. There are any number of things that you might suggest that I would not be interested in but that does not mean that I will ignore you introducing Mr Shea and his putative praiseworthy behavior.
A few months ago there was a very lengthy exchange in here twixt the Shea’s-the-way gang and me and a few others who objected to his nasty tactics and I wrote then that I would respond when he was cited as a good Catholic apologist.
Look, dear, I know you love him and are a strident devotee but you will have to wake to the reality that others do not share your passion.
Sorry, sister. You do not get to introduce Shea and his putative wonderfulness and then get to castigate others who object and call them thread hijackers.
It was you, not me, not Amy, who hijacked this thread with Shea Praise.
Mark Shea is a human being, with human habits. Some good, some bad. Separate his manner from his points.
No, thank you Karl, for continuing to provide such a sparkling example of what I was talking about. You’re a true mensch.
Please rein it in, folks.
I am not Spartacus, good news! http://spirituallyblindfanatics.blogspot.com is available as a blog URL! Why don’t you go ahead and set it up?
Dear Joanna. You wrote about Mr Shea...he expects commenters to act as though they were sitting in his living room…but he refuses to act like he expects others to act.
IOW, he is a hypocrite.
I am not Spartacus, might I suggest that you get your own blog for that purpose instead of continually hijacking the comboxes of other blogs? You can start a blog for free at www.blogger.com and it is a pretty easy setup.
There is no excuse for any Catholic blog to permit Catholic bashing. Catholic blogs should not be replete with anti Catholic comments and profanity which as I said earlier I experienced. Is this the sort of stuff we want to see on the National Catholic Register?
Moderating takes too much time, Kara? You have got to be kidding? What are these people getting paid for anyway? As for your comment, when someone changes the name of the topic I’ve got to assume it’s deliberate and also takes the time to inject something totally childish as “hahahahahaha!” the red flags go up and I don’t think that I’m wrong in my assessment.
Dear Joanna. You can suggest anything you like but your accusation that I hate Mark Shea is not a suggestion, it is a false accusation. Rather, it is the case that I am a big admirer or Dr E. Michael Jones and Mr. Shea was the one engaged in libelous and hateful actions towards him and I am merely defending him by placing before the public the facts so that the public can judge.
It was you who praised his practice of thinking commentators are sitting in his living room talking with him but he routinely lies and attacks those he refuses to invite into his living room.
That you like him and use the very same nasty tactics he uses is only to be expected.
hahaha, I am not Spartacus, I love the irony! Thanks for the chuckle!
Hah! This is pretty good. I did a similar post a while back, though about pacifism rather than Catholicism. Check it out, if you’re interested (and if NCRegister allows the link): http://divinemeditations.blogspot.com/2009/11/guide-for-those-who-want-to-argue-with.html
Those who routinely praise Mr. Shea are spiritually blind fanatics. As to why he is routinely singled-out for praise by his admirers is literally beyond me.
Not only does he libel, deride, and unjustly attacks others ,he refuses to let them respond to his personal attacks and lies at his site and then he routinely baits them, by name, at his site.
I predict that Mr ComerfordGodBless wil be by shortly to defend Mr. Shea because that is just the way things are and forever shall be et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
I am not Spartacus, might I suggest you get your own blog devoted to your hatred of Mark Shea as opposed to hijacking the comboxes of NCR?
Amy, ah, so you got a warning instead. Well, good for you for staying away. There’s nothing that annoys me more than trolls who don’t realize their own idiocy and keep repeating the offenses until they are banned.
My original comment was not about Mark’s posting style, incidentally, but rather his combox policies. I think it’s possible to abhor the former while seeing the merits of the latter.
Dear Amy. Mr Shea is a quite nasty individual who has a well-known track record of falsely accusing others and then refusing to allow them to respond at his site.
Here is one example, out of many that I could choose:
E-mails between Dr. Jones and Mr. Shea:
From: jones@culturewars.com [jones@culturewars.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:57 AM
To: chez.ami@frontier.com; chez.ami@verizon.net
Cc: sungenis@aol.com; cwbullets@yahoo.com
Subject: Your report on my talk at the geocentrism conference
Dear Mr. Shea,
Your report on my talk at the geocentrism conference was a total fabrication. I did not mention one single item attributed to me. It was all made up.
I have attached a copy of the speech I actually gave and ask you to publish it along with a retraction on you website.
Yours,
E. Michael Jones
From: “Mark Shea” chez.ami@frontier.com
To: jones@culturewars.com
Sent: Tue 16/11/10 09:53
Subject: RE: Your report on my talk at the geocentrism conference
I’ve decided to take the letter from the reader down since I was not there. If you guys put your talks on the web and let me know, I will link them. Also, if you put anything on Youtube and let me know, I will link that. The reader can make up his own mind about your silly junk.
Mark
From: jones@culturewars.com [jones@culturewars.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:28 AM
To: Mark Shea
Cc: cwbullets@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Your report on my talk at the geocentrism conference
Dear Mr. Shea,
Let me get this straight. Not only do you publish a totally fabricated defamatory report of my talk, you then refer to my talk (which you have not read) as “silly junk” and do not offer even the slightest hint that you may have done something wrong and may owe me in justice both an apology and a retraction. If this were the first time this had happened, I would ascribe it to some lapse on your part. But snide and defamatory speech is a habit of mind with you. It is furthermore a bad habit which, unless corrected, will continue to get you into ever deeper trouble, if not legally then certainly spiritually. Contempt for the truth and contempt for the good name of fellow Catholics is no basis for an apostolate in Catholic apologetics.
Since this thought evidently has not occurred to you, let me state plainly then: you owe me in justice an apology and a retraction. Please post it on your website next to the link we will be sending you to my talk.
Has it ever occurred to you that your insufferable behavior causes scandal, especially since you call yourself a Catholic apologist? Your behavior doesn’t rise to the level of common decency, much less to the level of Christian love of neighbor. Don’t drag the Church into further discredit by associating your contempt for the truth and the reputation of fellow Catholics with Catholic apologetics.
Yours,
E. Michael Jones
From: “Mark Shea” chez.ami@frontier.com
To: jones@culturewars.com
Sent: Tue 16/11/10 11:48
Subject: RE: Your report on my talk at the geocentrism conference
As I say, send me a link to your talk and I will put it up. When I do, I will explain that I took the reader’s note down because I was not there and invite the reader to evaluate whatever silly junk you and Sungenis wish to present. I will not post your entire piece on my blog. Don’t be silly.
As to causing scandal, deal with the log in your eye, you and Sungenis.
Mark
http://www.culturewars.com/2011/Newton.htm
That’s right, Amy, I’m a troll. Clearly. Because I found the article humorous and the comments ironic.
None of the other comments I’ve left on the site count.
The fact that I realize that heavy comment moderations takes time, and therefore money, from NCR also makes me a troll. And a bigot, since we’re on the subject.
The fact that I notice that the majority of the bloggers who attract trolls (Jen, Matt&Pat;, Simcha) often stay out of the combox altogether because they have other jobs and other lives to attend to and that each combox would require a full-time moderator to take the measures you suggest even remotely feasible makes me a troll.
You got me. Good job.
And we laugh at the phrase “Nero fiddled while Rome burned”.
The Catholic Church is not recovering brick by brick as Father Z likes to say.
It is gutting itself and destroying souls with its marriage practices.
It is reaping what it continues to sew.
Not an argument, just reality.
Bye.
@Kara H. “Love how many fights are breaking out in the combox… under an article about how crazy commenters can be. hahahahahaha!” I think you need to re-read the subject Kara H. It clearly says “The Anti-Catholic’s Guide to Catholic Comboxes” Now you wouldn’t happen to be one of those trolls we speak about, now would you?
@THERESE60640 - “We do need to keep in mind that “a lie repeated often enough is accepted as truth.” The lies must be addressed for the sake of all of the silent readers.” TOTALLY AGREE! Once again it’s the bloggers themselves who need to be vigilant and control the content of their blog.
Lucy,
Do you abuse those close to you, too? For no apparent reason?
Your rational raises adultery to the level of righteousness, almost sacramental.
Great. Do you teach at the local Catholic School?
How dare you demean marriage to the level of the silliness of imposing simple right or wrong?
Is such a comment as your necessary, much less appropriate or even remotely Catholic?
Love how many fights are breaking out in the combox… under an article about how crazy commenters can be. hahahahahaha!
Hysterical!!
Yeah, so is Karl having a hard time trying to get his wife to believe he is always right, or what??
And we’re off….....................Troll alert!
Great post!!!!
I’m mildly ambivalent about “feeding” the trolls, though I certainly appreciate it when some good soul takes the time to patiently respond and correct their errors.
We do need to keep in mind that “a lie repeated often enough is accepted as truth.” The lies must be addressed for the sake of all of the silent readers.
@ Joanna - Of course you like Mark Shea’s combox. Sorry to disappoint you Joanna but I haven’t been banned by Mr. Shea. I just don’t post there anymore because I don’t like his style and the style of people who post there.
So now we are defining what “good” Catholic blogging is? I thought this article was a good light hearted look that what you encounter in apologetics on the internet. And by weaving in the common basic arguments that you face in apologetics into the satire, that is good Catholic Blogging.
The post wasn’t necessarily about ethics in comment moderation, so why get wrapped around that axle?
Mr. Zummo…...if the shoe fits.
It would not be appropriate in this forum to be specific, naming names. Rather a responsible bishop, none of which I have ever come upon, should deal directly with
cases that can be made, prima facie, when the Catholic Church is, indeed, involved
in heinous acts detrimental to specific marriages, wherein, violation of that sacrament
is openly encouraged, rather than seeking, always, ways to restore marital union.
The Catholic Church DOES ERR and it DOES REFUSE to act as it should. If the issue remains
unresolved, does the evil go away? Does the sin stop doing its damage because it is ignored?
Or are those, like you, GUILTY of cooperation in the sin of adultery because you seem to like to “talk down” such an accusation, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED BY CHURCH PUBLICATIONS? Rather than working to heal such a breach, the Catholic Church has chosen to support open, public adultery from the Pope on down.
If you think this is a rare occurrance, think again.
Rather than being an adult, calling your parish priest and asking him to go to his bishop, to call the bluff of someone like me by requesting that the bishop insinuate himself in an unaddressed injustice in another diocese, even through requesting Papal intervention, you seem to like belittling the innocent party in adultery.
Good for you. Why should you be different than the priests and bishops?
You and your ilk are simply enablers of terrible sin and injustice. You marginalize, when you should be relentlessly asking why such things are not responded to by ordinaries and why are priests and bishops who support open, public adultery are not held to account?
It is comical, in a sad, tragic way when a troll is a Catholic who points out documented wrongdoing repeatedly and is abused or censored(as you seem to prefer) for it.
All you fake Catholics ARE the problem. You are self-righteous children who belittle rather than engage. The solutions are not in comboxes. The solutions are in repentance, forgiveness and in the hard cases….a bishop meeting face to face with all the parties in a dispute and taking action, sometimes even, excommunicating, to heal the brokenness.
I have NEVER met a bishop who cared to dirty his hands with trying to bring about a marital
reconciliation. Not one!!!
So much for leading by example.
I am done with you, Mr. Zummo.
The Church would be far better of with less men like you, who are verbal abusers and more men like me, who keep after the Church to do its job.
Keep doing what you are doing, Mr. Zummo, and you do NOTHING to right any concrete wrongs by facilitating their healing, or change, sir, and see there is much work to do and very few willing to try.
I did not come here to abuse the Church. I came here to try to get it to stop abusing valid marriages.
Thank you.
Amy, I’m assuming you’ve been banned by him? Gee, I wonder why?
Mark Shea’s blog “rules” are an abomination. He himself is guilty of being disrespectful to people. I don’t see this as being a good representation of Catholic blogging.
I like Mark Shea’s combox rules - basically, he says he doesn’t owe anyone a platform and that he expects commenters to act as though they were sitting in his living room. I have a similar policy on my blog—all I ask is that people be courteous and respectful, and I’ll reciprocate.
@Paula J. - Are you going to write one on the guidelines for the anti-Catholic Catholics? And, who might that be, Paula?
Great one Matt. Are you going to write one on the guidelines for the anti-Catholic Catholics? They’re as much fun as the atheists.
If you don’t give the Catholic haters a forum and remove their posts immediately and send them an e-mail to cease and desist they will go away.
Healthy debate or disagreeing is one thing but the trolls and Catholic bashers are not interested in talking about the subject at hand. They will always find a way to interject some sin of the past by the Church or how “we” are attempting to enforce our beliefs on the country and take the discussion in a different direction. It’s always the same rhetoric. Please stop it!!!!
love it!!lol
I politely disagree also, Bonnie. While the Trolls are annoying and sometimes outright obnoxious, without their false accusations these blogs could turn into back patting and a smug attitude of superiority. Personally, I welcome the Trolls. They give me a chance to practice the art of debate, and a chance to ad infinitum state the truth. Sooner or later, someone, somewhere, will “get” it.
I agree with Amy that you have to act quickly or else the comments quickly deteriorate. A good policy is to automatically put into moderation any comment from someone who has never commented on the blog before - most wordpress blogs have this option. If the person is clearly a person with an axe to grind, you can nip any problems in the bud from the get-go by not permitting them to post.
“You [sic] lack of charity”
So true, Karl. If only I accused the Catholic Church of acting in concert with Satan then I’d certainly be a much more charitable person.
The way to control the trolls and the Catholic bashers is to monitor very very carefully all posts! I was called some of the filthiest things by a Catholic basher on your blog Mr. Archbold to which there was no public scolding by you. The post remained there for quite a while until eventually someone probably with the National Register removed it. The buck stops at the bloggers desk and it’s time all Catholic bloggers take seriously this responsibility lest we all find ourselves in the dung heap with our anti-Catholic accusers.
Ok folks !!
Was Karl’s post intended as real or was it a very clever post, subtly summarizing the points of the blog??? Karl?, anybody?, what say you???
Steve
Yay for ad hominem attacks! and long words!
I disagree MK, when you respond to a troll you are giving them what they want and encouraging them to come back. It’s like wrestling with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig loves it. The best strategy is to moderate out the troll comments and ignore any that slip through.
You lack of charity, Mr. Zummo, speaks of how you “adhere” to the Catholicism you misrepresent, the harm you do and your shallow character.
I am sorry for those you influence to be like you.
Agreeing with Phil, but I think the key is strict moderation. None of these offensive remarks should ever be seen on a Catholic blog. There is no upside to allowing brainless hate posts on a Catholic blog. Catholic readers are offended by them and if we were looking for that kind of garbage, there are thousands of secular or protestant blogs where we could find it. Sometimes even here at NCR there are so many hateful and ignorant troll comments that it is difficult to follow the actual discussion. Moderation please!
But Phil, it all depends on what we choose to “feed” them. Maybe something that will stick in their craw? Plus you never know who else is reading our responses. The Troll might not hear a word we say, but the multitude of “lurkers” might.
There’s only one rule on trolls, anti-Catholic or whatever, and unfortunately this rule is broken all the time in these comboxes—much to our chagrin.
Don’t. Feed. The. Trolls.
They are not here for debate or discussion. They are here to p*** you off. They enjoy pushing your buttons and revel in your well-intentioned mistakes. Please, please. I’m begging you with tears in my eyes, follow the first rule of blog commentary. Dominus vobiscum.
LOVE THIS!!!! It is all SOOOO true!
Yes, Matthew you did forget that one. That more people have been in the name of religion then anything. of course by “religion” they mean christiaity and the catholic church.
But this may be more of a face-to-face argument than a combox one.
Oh, oh, oh…and please do be sure to refer to the Eucharist as “The Cracker”.
And mention that more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause! When Stalin, Hitler or Mao are brought up, insist that they are “Catholics in Good Standing”!
Lastly, don’t forget to point out that we have no right to tell you how to behave! (Ignore the fact that in doing so, you are telling us how to behave)
Well, we were once thought of as being “cannibalistic” because we “ate the flesh, and drank the blood.” Really surprised that has not shown up in more “discussions.”
Other oldies is the “Hocus-Pocus” (Hocus Pocus, hocus-pocus, or hokus pokus is a generic term that may be derived from an ancient language and is presently used by magicians, usually the magic words spoken when bringing about some sort of change.) That came directly from the Catholic/Orthodox theology of “Transubstantiation” or the literal words of the Rite, “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.”
The anti-Catholicism is never NEW, (just new and different methods to promulgate), and we (as Americans and Canadians) were “lulled” into the belief that “we are NO different than the rest of the culture.” That truce is over. Like our Grandparents and Great-Grandparents, and ancestors before them, we too, feel the “lashing of hate” and need to strengthen ourselves and our children for the tribulations to come.
This was great! Maybe they will get more creative now.
the saddest thing is that many of our separated brethren don’t believe we are Catholic and for some reason feel entitled to be discourteous, sarcastic and not treat us with any degree of charity. It is truly ironic because if they really believe we are “unsaved” they should do what they can to “get us saved”, which would include following the rules of civility. I have found that it is the Calvinists in particular who feel no need to be charitable and their thinking goes like this. “I know I am saved so I can act any way I want and not lose my salvation, and that poor Catholic is predestined to hell, so what does it matter.” Very sad.
www.crossed-the-tiber.com
Also, don’t forget to call any Catholic woman who adheres to the Church’s teachings brainwashed! After all, it’s not like any one woman could possibly love loud, poop-producing meatsacks like babies enough to have MORE of them.
Don’t forget the charge of misogyny - y’know, like how women are oppressed and all because they can’t be ordained priests.
Matthew, this is right on and you captured the anti-catholic argument right down to the church of the flying spagetti monster. These 12 points are not only in comboxes I hear them everyday in the cubicals.
Oh, you forgot hobbyhorse riders - the guys who make the same vague complaints over and over and over again. Like, say, Karl for instance. Just smile and nod.
Sometimes there have been very serious, very consequential and very immoral actions, which are documented and which have been presented to the Catholic Church at many levels which are ignored and the wrongdoing is supported openly in the Catholic Church at all levels.
These are open wounds that cause great harm, not just to those who suffer the injustice but to those who are aware of the longstanding crimes undertaken by those in authority in the Catholic Church and who see crimes being encouraged.
That such. things are openly allowed, when it is a fact that the entire chain of command up through the Pope has been made aware, is a clear indication of corruption, which is onlyh defended by sychophants who choose not to require their priests and bishops to act properly or cease their support, monitarily and very publically.
When well know Catholic bloggers tolerate the same evils, they are acting in concert with evil and its personification, Satan.
Not all who castigate the Catholic Church do so to do harm, some seek her aid and see her as so blinded to sin, that it must be, in their opinion, brought to the fore.
Mostly, such souls are humiliated in the blogosphere and such will be held to account in each persons particular judgement, but in the meantime, every complaint, particularly those which have scandalous consequences, like public adultery supported even by the bishops and unacted upon in public, as this Pope and his predecessor are certainly guitly of, need to have action taken that addresses the ongoing wrongs and does not simply ignore them or leave the clear impression that they are being ignored and support given to a proven unrepentant sinner who is publically mocking a sacrament and is openly close to the clergy who know well the ongoing public mockery and support it openly.
Great stuff.
But we must not ignore the tired, old tactic of taking bible verses out of context.
I love that one.
“Theocracy”, as if worshipping the state class and expecting them to end all that they deem evil on earth by force isn’t exactly that. Infallible human gods in the UN or Washington rather than a “man in the sky” or a spaghetti monster. So much more based on “reason” and “science”, so much more “moral”.
The hippest, latest slur is to accuse all faithful Christians of wanting to create a Theocracy. Protestant evangelicals have to deal with this after years of accusing Roman Catholics of wanting to install the Pope as the head of the New World Order.
Which segues nicely into the Pope is an illuminati/freemason. This despite the large number of Papal encyclicals against freemasonry.
There are the classics like the Galileo slur or the Inquisition. Or combine the two and have Galileo burned at the stake by the Inquisition.
And then there is the old-school “Pope is the anti-Christ” meme. You’d be surprised how popular this one still is. An oldy but a goody.
Richard, I love how your response displays the same type of combox response this blog posting is about.
Hahahaha oh so true! Of course, you can also throw around the “you believe in a man in the sky” acussation, to prove how stupid catholics are
Anti-Catholic? I’m not anti-anything! I am merely pro-reason, pro-coherency, and pro-all-that-is-rational! You’re nothing but an ignorant, homophobic, pope-worshipping hater! (LOL)
As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one.
~ Anderson’s Law
Love this! I have never laughed so hard at a post.
Wow, so it was YOU posting all those “anonymous” posts! Musta been, because you have nailed them all!
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.