Who Still Thinks the Church Has Any Moral Credibility?

Now that a Catholic group has argued in court that a fetus isn’t a person — a belief that contradicts their own stated beliefs but could help them win a lawsuit — we get another chance to see Catholic hypocrisy in action.

Yesterday, the New York TimesFrank Bruni weighed in on the “convenient morality” of the Church:

… the church has simultaneously reserved the right to behave just like any other institution, leaning on legal technicalities, smearing victims and demonstrating no more compassion than a tobacco company might show…

They do things erratically, that’s for sure. From my extensive reporting on the sexual abuse crisis in the 1990s, I don’t recall any great push to excommunicate priests who forced themselves on kids. But when Sister Margaret McBride, in 2009, was part of a Phoenix hospital’s decision to abort an 11-week-old fetus inside a 27-year-old woman whose life was gravely endangered by the pregnancy, she indeed suffered excommunication (later reversed).

So a fetus matters more than the ravaged psyche of a raped adolescent? And Sister McBride deserved harsher rebuke than a rapist? It’s hard not to conclude that a church run by men shows them more mercy than it does women (or, for that matter, children).

And it’s hard to keep track: just when is the church of this world, and when not? It inserts itself into political debates, trying to shape legislation to its ethics. But it also demands exemption: from taxes, from accountability, from health care directives.

Simply put, the Church has lost its credibility. I know this isn’t exactly news to any of you, but religious leaders still believe they represent moral authority in the world and criticize those of us who don’t believe in God for having no moral compass. Between the rape scandals, the anti-gay bigotry, the anti-condom stance in AIDS-ravaged countries, the fight against women’s health care, and everything 1Flesh stands for, you have to wonder if the Church is capable of doing anything right.

I love this comment on the NYT site:

Bill & Melinda Gates along with Warren Buffet have done more in Africa in ten years than the church accomplished in one hundred years.

(Thanks to Robert for the link!)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • baal

    There are a number of reasons why I’m also an anti-religionist. This post hits many of them. The Church (well churches) also do a good job on the marketing side to advertise their good works side. That effort does give them some good will from the public and $$ donations (RCC & Merman spending on prop 8) gets them some leverage with politicians. Good will and political power can cover a lot of ground that you’d otherwise get from actual moral credibility.

    • roberthughmclean

      “RCC & Merman spending on prop 8″ Is that Ethel Mernan spending?

  • C Peterson

    Bill & Melinda Gates along with Warren Buffet have done
    more in Africa in ten years than the church accomplished in one hundred
    years.

    Actually, I think that’s a pretty stupid remark.
    It’s like saying that good nutrition has done more to improve people’s
    lives than centuries of starvation. Or that education has done more than
    centuries of ignorance.

    In ten years, Bill and Melinda Gates and
    Warren Buffet have done great good in Africa. In more than 1000 years,
    the Catholic church has done mostly only harm there.

    • Helanna

      On the other hand, starvation and ignorance aren’t claiming to be bastions of morality. The Catholic Church is trying to make themselves out to be the heroes, even when they are doing great harm.

      • http://www.facebook.com/cecelia.baines.5 Cecelia Baines

        Precisely! This and in spades!!!

        They ALWAYS thump their chest screaming “WE ARE MORALLY RIGHT AND THE BEST” yet, they then go and do about 1000 horrifying and immoral acts.

        And yes, I am waiting for the federal prosecutors to step in an slap RICO charges on the American side of the Catholic Church. If any one of us, as a group or individually, did just a small iota of the evil shit the American Catholic Church has done, we wouldn’t see the light of day for 50 years as we did our time in a federal pen. BUT, these evil fuckers not only get away with it, they get TAX BREAKS for it!

        Evil evil scumbags.

        • The Godless Monster

          Agreed, 100%.

  • The Godless Monster

    “…you have to wonder if the Church is capable of doing anything right.”

    They seem to have mastered fund raising, brainwashing, child rape and criminal conspiracy. So, yes, I’d say they do some things well.

    • http://www.facebook.com/cecelia.baines.5 Cecelia Baines

      I think you are a douchetool, but damn TGM, WELL SAID!!!!!

      fanned on that one.

      • The Godless Monster

        Thanks Cecelia, love you, too! :-)

        • http://www.facebook.com/cecelia.baines.5 Cecelia Baines

          And we witness the wisdom of Sun Tzu on an atheist page….the enemy of my enemy is my friend….

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

            are you a Catholic, CB?

            if so, let me give you some advice. as a black woman who is living in TX and grew up in the All White kkkountry of David Duke’s first political event. as a gay woman who went to a private school where we were told, in the 80s, that “only mosquitoes and gays can give you AIDS.” as a poor person, who knows, despite several degrees, that it’s not what you know but who you know… and who loves Jesus when they need a job:

            let them go, honey. just stop. stop going, stop giving. stop signing your name to Evil.

            is the RCC your enemy? that’s good. they should be. always. they’ve caused wars, raped a passel of children, harmed women and homosexuals… all in the name of Jesus. who may not have existed. you know me, i’ve studied this crap. professionally. it may be true. according to Science, and Reason, even. and even if he really existed? he would’ve been on our side. you know, with the prostitutes and tax collectors he hung out with.

            the whole catholic belief system is based on wars, lies, closet cases, the list goes on and on…

    • Spanish Inquisitor

      “Well” and “right” are not synonymous, but I still agree with you.

      • The Godless Monster

        Yes, I agonized over my choice of words, but I didn’t think there was a “right” way to rape a child, so I went with the lesser of two evils. :-)

  • Spanish Inquisitor

    The RC Church lost all credibility for me when I was 18, and left the church. Wow. I just realized that was 40 years ago….

    • http://www.facebook.com/cecelia.baines.5 Cecelia Baines

      Yep, I was forced to go to Catholic mass and church school as a kid, and I got booted out left and right until, at age 12 I told the monsigneur to go fuck himself. And then I told the nuns to go fuck themselves too. I got a lot of heat from the parents, but from that point on, I took the punishments and never set another toe in any Catholic entity ever again.

  • Geezer

    Totally support all this, except it seems a big stretch to call a 27-year-old an adolescent. In fact, it seems like that statement came straight from the FauxNews play book: let’s obfuscate the truth in order to push a hot button and make our issue sound more important than it is. We have the facts; we don’t need to use emotional manipulation.

    • Pustulio

      Read it again. “Adolescent” describes the priests’ victims, not the 27-year-old.

      • meekinheritance

        I found it confusing, too, since it is referring to the subject of two-sentences prior, rather than the previous one, and the plurality is wrong, since that subject two sentences prior is the plural “kids”, but it uses the singular, “a raped adolescent”.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

    If Hitler had been a woman advocating for women’s reproductive rights then maybe Hitler would have been excommunicated

  • Dave Mabus

    Spread the WORD

    s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/4979676/1/

    they did not survive Armageddon…

    2 Kings 19

    biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+19&version=NIV

    “That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!”

    youtube.com/v/Fy7FzXLin7o

    i want to go HOME…

    i don’t want to deal with all these little atheist f*ckers anymore….

    Atheism will NO LONGER EXIST after we finish…

    • ortcutt

      It seems like the Montreal Police might need to make a house call again.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Markuze

      • ZenDruid

        Indeed.

      • Dave Mabus

        unfinished business

        • nakedanthropologist

          Took a break from doing your mother? That’s cool – we needed breathers too.

  • Hellsgift2u

    For among them all shall you pick your opinions based on the flaws of the corrupted. Judge not as you do not see the detail of the loving innocent within it. I say to you, all people are capable of evil, and no idol on earth speaks of god if he puts fear and hate in front of love. But flawed as man is, his own views will flush away righteous truth to support a icon. I believe no church is holy. It is supposed to within you, not you within it. People follow the ones who speak boldly in ignorance.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      Re: “For among them all shall you pick your opinions based on the flaws of the corrupted.”

      Those “corrupted” Catholic princes are every bit as Catholic as every other Catholic. They are, therefore, just as representative of Catholicism as other Catholics. They cannot be dismissed as unimportant or insignificant just because it’s convenient for you to dismiss them.

      Re: “Judge not as you do not see the detail of the loving innocent within it.”

      Sorry but I’m free to judge anyone however I want to, and there’s not one thing you can do to stop me. It is true, however, that Christians … which includes yourself, I assume … are NOT permitted to judge anyone (see e.g. Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42, etc.). Since I’m not a Christian, I’m not under that injunction. I have no intention of obeying it.

      Re: “… all people are capable of evil …”

      That may be so. But if it is, this leads one to ask what the value of Christianity … or any other religion … is. That is, if it has no power to make its adherents act any better or more morally than they would without it, then what good is it? By pointing out that Christians are as likely to be evil as non-Christians (a proposition I’d accept as plausible), you’re indicting your own religion as useless and ineffective.

      I’m sure you never intended to do that, but you did. It’s a natural, logical ramification of what you said.

      Re: “I believe no church is holy.”

      Catholics would disagree with you about their Church not being holy. They don’t call the Pope “the Holy Father” for nothing.

      Re: “People follow the ones who speak boldly in ignorance.”

      Yes they do, but that — again — leads to my point above, which is that one must question the value of a religion which has no power to compel its members to behave better than they would without it, and whose leaders are free to be as evil and corrupt as they wish, with no one stepping forward to coerce them to stop being corrupt and evil.

      • Hellsgift2u

        I respect your reply, you do have a right to judge. It is your choice. My choice is to reverse from judging, as i don’t see myself fit to do so. If Christians would do this Like there suppose to, then I would not be labeled as a Hippocrate along with the rest of the trinity followers. My god is of love, and compassion. The dept of my death is when I can see clearly. I view someone like a math solution, how can I make a finial thought of them if I fail to see every step in the problem to do so. My belief is far from others who swear themselves to god. The logicial mind tells me the thought pattern we all share is to test everything. And judge them silently by our morals. If people can except our tiny world for what it really is, you can see that knowledge is nothing compared to the Cosmo of the infinite. Mans stupidly is almost as vast. Even in the pursuit of all following god should know we all fall short of any glory. Mostly due to a proud self. That is why church is failing to grasp anything anymore.

        • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

          Re: “My god is of love, and compassion.”

          Bully for you. But what does this mean for me … or the princes of the Church … or for anyone else? Nothing.

          Re: “Mans stupidly is almost as vast.”

          Yes, I agree. Humanity — as a whole — is one big teeming mass of catastrophic stupidity.

          Re: “Even in the pursuit of all following god should know we all fall short of any glory.”

          But … why must that be the case? If a religion hasn’t the power to help people behave better, what good is it? What value could it have? I’ve asked this already, and you haven’t answered it. Why?

          Re: “Mostly due to a proud self.”

          Again I must ask: If a religion isn’t capable of reducing anyone’s pride, what good is it?

          Re: “That is why church is failing to grasp anything anymore.”

          The problem is not that the princes and lay members of the R.C. Church are “proud” and incapable of grasping anything. The problem is that the religion doesn’t have the power to coerce them to behave any better than they would without it. It doesn’t change them in any meaningful way. It leaves them as they are, but convinces them they’re “godly” and “holy” and that, in turn, only entrenches their bad behavior (because they’re convinced they have a divine license to do as they wish).

          Again, the question I’m forced to come back to, is: Why is Catholicism, or Christianity generally or any other religion, incapable of forcing its adherents to behave better than they would without it? I’ve never been able to get an answer to that question. Do you have an answer?

          • Hellsgift2u

            I’m sorry I failed to answer your reply, but let’s compare us to a lower form of life, a dog for instance. I cannot help the dog if it fears me. I can’t help if it bites my hand with its teeth. We have this this assumption that a normal lifetime of even the most horrible pain is the worst that will happen. A lifetime is a speck in the time we will have. If you haft to command that dog to love you, is that right. We are in exile, a timeout if you will. Y? Because we cannot not stand next to anything pure. So we and our past family are locked in a forever expanding universe bound by the laws. And we are studing the tiniest hint of details. It’s belief that makes things great. Love, emotions, hope. The things that can’t be explained in a world relied on objects. Whose to say there aren’t levels of thinking far above any of ours to store perfect justice.

            • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

              Re: “I’m sorry I failed to answer your reply, but let’s compare us to a lower form of life, a dog for instance.”

              I assume you meant to compare the relationship between us and your God to that between a dog and a human. If so, you’ve failed already. Both humans and the dog are inherently limited creatures, each circumscribed by its own nature; and the nature of each isn’t going to change. More specifically, a human cannot change the nature of a dog so as to make the dog more comfortable. All a human can do is use his/her knowledge of dog-dom to make the best of the situation.

              God, on the other hand, is an omnipotent being, and therefore is in control of human nature. This is where the comparison between dog & human fails. While a human can’t change a dog’s basic nature, God can change ours … any time he wants. Thus, if we are somehow too limited to be able to comprehend him, he can just change us so that we have that capacity. And he can do it at will.

              In the end, comparisons such as the one you offered always fail logically, because of the absolute and unlimited nature of an omnipotent being. There is no real-world analogue to an omnipotent being, because there can never be one. Therefore, analogies intended to explain the relationship between God and humans can never be valid.

              Re: “If you haft to command that dog to love you, is that right.”

              Why would that matter? Why would your omnipotent God care if any of his severely-limited mere-mortal creations loves him or not? What difference could it make to an infinite, omniscient and omnipotent being? You’re imagining he’s a person just like yourself, but an omnipotent God would, by definition, be absolutely nothing like any human being.

              Re: “We are in exile, a timeout if you will. Y? Because we cannot not stand next to anything pure.”

              And who, precisely, is responsible for that? If we somehow don’t have the capability to “stand next to anything pure,” why would that be the case, except if your God has decided we can’t? And if that was the decision he made when he manufactured us, why is this somehow our problem? Why isn’t it God’s? And if it’s a problem he wants fixed, what’s stopping him from fixing it? Who’s getting in his way? What’s he waiting for? What force in the universe could possibly prevent an omnipotent being from doing whatever s/he wants done?

              Re: “So we and our past family are locked in a forever expanding universe bound by the laws. And we are studing the tiniest hint of details.”

              Again, why? What is the point of this scenario? What does your God get out of putting us through it, that he can’t somehow get some other way? And if he can ONLY get it THAT WAY and by no other means, how is that the case? If he’s omnipotent, he will always have infinite means to achieve his goals, whatever they are. He can never be FORCED to do things ONLY in ONE way.

              Re: “It’s belief that makes things great. Love, emotions, hope.”

              So this explains why the princes of the R.C. Church are evil and corrupt?

              Re: “The things that can’t be explained in a world relied on objects.”

              And why can’t they be? Who decided it’s not possible? Was it God? If so, what’s keeping him from changing it, so that these things can be understood more easily? If he values them as much as you suggest, why would he have manufactured us to make it so difficult?

              Re: “Whose to say there aren’t levels of thinking far above any of ours to store perfect justice.”

              Who’s to say there is a “level of thinking far above any of ours”? You’re assuming it exists without any evidence that it does.

              • Hellsgift2u

                The exil of our lives are proof enough for me, you might see the world differently, an with your higher form of intellect you can form opinions. These opinions are against any natural trate. I’m not here to convince you of anything you don’t believe. I just say what I feel is right to say to you. …. He could change the world, but the plans for all would be out of obeying, not following. This life is a small small price to pay for what’s after. And higher levels are put onto those closer to god. My belief is that god lets people live after they face there body after death to see what we unknowly are. Each detail to show you how screwed up we all really are. And then reward whats good after the evil is removed from our hearts. That’s my belief take it or leave it I dc.. The mystery is the point. No pressure. Free will to follow or not. You say proof? I say the feelings you feel and the mind itself are alone enough. Then the odds of a single perfect planet in the entire known universe is mathematical spectacular. Its an exile to no like we can understand.

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  Re: “He could change the world, but the plans for all would be out of obeying, not following.”

                  You must not think very highly of your deity, then. An omnipotent being can never be forced to do only one thing; by definition he always has multiple — infinite, even! — means of getting what he wants. When you say his only other option would be for him to “force” us to accept him, you’re placing limits on his abilities and resources, whereas omnipotent beings can never be hemmed in that way.

                  Re: “Each detail to show you how screwed up we all really are.”

                  If every human being is “screwed up” by nature, why is that the case? Is it because each of us screwed ourselves up? Or is it because your God manufactured us so that we’re inherently “screwed up” from the very beginning? If that’s the case, then our being “screwed up” is not our problem and there is no rational, moral reason why we should be held responsible for it. It’s God’s problem entirely.

                  Re: “The mystery is the point.”

                  Why would “mystery” be “the point”? What’s so important about “mystery”? Why does your deity make a “mystery” of himself, playing mind games with people, manufacturing them in a broken way, then holding them responsible for the breakage, all the while holding himself back so we can never know him except as a “mystery”?

                  Please explain how and why an omnipotent being gets his rocks off pulling this kind of crap. And don’t tell me “it’s a mystery.” I’m not granting you that cop-out. It’s your scenario. Either you can explain it or you can’t. A scenario you cannot or will not explain, is logically inseparable from a scenario that’s not true.

                • Hellsgift2u

                  If you force a dog to eat from your hand and force it to come to you when called. Does that dog go to you cause it wants you or does it just obeying you. He wants us to follow when we see nothing of him but the details he left us. Faith.. My user name is hellsgift2u, I do not hold answers for you, but I’ve see death a lot, and in the dying eyes you can see the fear of death crippling the body. For means I tell you that your life is more than what has been taught. You will fear death when it’s your time to sleep. Cause if I’m wrong my friend, the world just fades beneath me into black nothingness. If your wrong, the clarity of your life and the warnings I bestow you may be haunting. And I say that only out of care. Goodbye

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  Re: “If you force a dog to eat from your hand and force it to come to you when called. Does that dog go to you cause it wants you or does it just obeying you.”

                  Apparently you did not read what I wrote. I explained to you, quite clearly, that your “dog” analogy fails logically. Why are you wasting my time with that?

                  Re: “He wants us to follow when we see nothing of him but the details he left us.”

                  Why would he want that? Please explain his reasoning. And don’t give me the “it’s a mystery” cop-out. It’s YOUR scenario. Take responsibility for it, by explaining it fully. Throwing ridiculous crap at me is insulting to my intelligence.

                  Re: “I do not hold answers for you …”

                  Thank you for admitting that. But having professed you don’t have any answers, take note: You claim to be able to tell me what I’m required to believe; in other words, you’re implying you DO have the answers. So which is it? Do you know what it is I’m mandated to believe? If so, explain it. Fully. Completely. With no “it’s a mystery” or “you need faith” garbage. If I’m not required to believe what you believe, then why are you pushing it on me as though I am?

                  Re: “Cause if I’m wrong my friend, the world just fades beneath me into black nothingness.”

                  A second time you allude to Pascal’s Wager, which also fails the test of logic, as I explained. Once again you waste my time with laughable spew — which I’ve already showed is fallacious — instead of cogent, rational, logical answers that are meaningful.

                  Let me know when you intend to stop wasting my time and insulting my intelligence. I’ve heard all of this apologetic B.S. before; don’t deceive yourself into thinking any of this is original. It’s not. What I’m asking is for you to exhibit the courage to explain your beliefs … fully, without any appeals to ignorance, mystery, or faith. Anything else is unacceptable and useless.

  • Hellsgift2u

    Why speak of wrath, isn’t love the beauty of god? Really judge your actions, for you are not aiming to help anyone in his name.

    • RobMcCune

      Like most atheists(except the pastors who’ve lost their faith), I really don’t want to help anybody in god’s name.

      • Hellsgift2u

        Don’t you see any passion shown to someone beside yourself is in gods name, you know those things called morals? The ability that no other life has.. It’s not the belief that’s bad, just the people trying to lead for themselves.

        • RobMcCune

          Don’t you see any passion shown to someone beside yourself is in gods name

          No, I don’t see that, not in the slightest.

    • Baby_Raptor

      “I have nothing to say to defend these horrible actions but I feel obligated to, so I’m going to deflect and try to shame the person calling out the child rapist assholes.”

  • Dave Mabus

    u little idiots… may God have mercy on your lies and your BS

    • coyotenose

      SOMEbody wants to go to JAY-yail!

      Also, your childish inability to argue is noted.

    • icecreamassassin

      MMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm….troll-poe.

      But I guess it’s possible that you’re serious about this post, in which case, I have to ask, what would the purpose be in god having mercy on lies and BS? Shouldn’t he have mercy on the person lying/BSing by not harming them and, you know, trying to get them to change their ways?

    • nakedanthropologist

      Your “god” only exists in your head, Dave. Now run back to the bathroom and take your meds like a good boy.

    • Question Everything

      Prove it to be a lie, then – I’m willing to listen, assuming you can back up your claim of the ‘lie’. Also, judge not and all that good jazz.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Yeah, we’re going to take a convicted criminal who can’t spell three letter words seriously.

  • coyotenose

    The RCC reminds of me of Wal-Mart, only without the redeeming qualities. See, Wal-Mart does not actually have the lowest prices among similar stores. They are the best at telling people that they have the lowest prices.

    • nakedanthropologist

      C’est vrai. Also, when I go to Wal-Mart, I don’t have to worry about the employees trying to rape kids. Do you think that’s why they get the smiley-face and the RCC gets the gruesome torture symbol? In a way, it is proper advertising – smiley-face for low priced goods versus horrible execution for lifetime guilt and threat of abuse.

  • LesterBallard

    People who don’t have any moral credibility?

  • jose

    Your neighbors over at Patheos Catholic?

  • http://twitter.com/Opinionatedcath Opinionated Catholic

    It really depresses me that the discussion Catholic hospital case that is mentioned here again was dominated by both sides by folks that never smelled a law class and now it seems the Bishops have fallen for it.

    I give a good link that had a good back and forth to why this is pretty absurd

    http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com/2013/02/were-colorado-bishops-wrong-to-reverse.html

    • Dezzydez

      No we understand the situation. The catholic church are hyprocrits that try to force their doctrines on society yet will abandon them for money. Screw women and children as long as the church can save a few bucks.

      • http://twitter.com/Opinionatedcath Opinionated Catholic

        No that is not the situation. There are various policy reasons in the background here as to Tort Law , causation, the ability of a jury to come up with a monetary value ,etc that unborn children have been excluded from these laws.

        What the lawyers were arguing here it ( correctly ) was it was not the legislative intent to give this class of plantiffs this wrongful death claim

        • Dezzydez

          Yes it is. The catholic church tries to force their views about abortion and fetuses on those who do not share their own beliefs. They complain about the contraceptive mandate and cover up child abuse. When it’s easier for them, they hide behind the law to try to save money. If the church truly believed fetuses were babies they would stand by it no matter what. This shows they really do not believe their own crap.

        • RobMcCune

          The church can ask their lawyers not to oppose the fetuses being considered people, which would be consistent with their beliefs, instead they put aside their principals when it’s convenient for them.

        • Baby_Raptor

          The fact that there are tort laws that can be comfortably hidden behind to protect the church’s pocket has nothing-zip, nada, Fuck all-to do with the fact that the church took a view opposing the one they scream from the mountaintops and regularly try to force on everyone else when suddenly that view endangered their wealth.

          We get it. You’re Catholic, and you feel obligated to stick up for your church. Don’t let that blind you to basic facts.

        • http://www.facebook.com/cecelia.baines.5 Cecelia Baines

          You have got to be kidding. How can you even take that position and expect anyone to take any of your foulness seriously? How disgusting of you and the RCC.

          Vile. Evil and without any moral compass what so ever….

          Disgusting.

        • Dez

          Either they stand on the side of the ” unborn” like they have numerous times when a woman is dying or not. Man’s law and money shouldn’t not be a factor if they truly believed.

    • Carmelita Spats

      You don’t need a “law class” to see what’s going on. Moral cowards. If it’s a nine-year-old impregnated rape victim in Brazil, then the RCC (organized crime syndicate) wants her to go through a C-SECTION, but when it comes to saving their twisted, perverted priests, or their filthy money, they change the story. This is the third grader who would have been LEGALLY obligated to birth her attacker’s semen demon had it not been for her mother’s courage along with Brazilian doctors who WON’T be bullied by your cult’s creepy tactics…

      http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

    • indorri

      Reading the responses in this blog, I have to say they are ignorant with respect to the behaviour of the RCC. It’s not even just about abortion: the entire argument they have against gay marriage, for example, is that marriage is a concrete thing that can’t be redefined. Ignoring that Natural Law is idiocy unbounded in the first place, this means they do not, at least as far as it suits their own agenda, hold a static view that legal entities are separate from moral ones: they have wilfully engaged in rhetoric that amounts to saying that there is one authority on moral entities, which they are, and that government merely recognizes those entities. Incongruity between the two is not “separate definitional categories”, it is the government engaging in falsehood.

      Given that this has been the RCCs stance, the charge of hypocrisy still holds. They abandon their principles when it suits them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/cecelia.baines.5 Cecelia Baines

        What principles? The RCC has no principles.

  • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

    Don’t people realize that criticism of the Catholic Church is impermissible? It’s another Holocaust! No less than two princes of the Church have made such a declaration.

  • Baby_Raptor

    This post hits the nail on the head directly for one of the biggest reasons I just cannot believe in God. If there truly was a God out there who loved everyone and was the epitomy of justice, he wouldn’t sit around with his thumb up his ass as his followers committed hundreds of years of atrocities in his name.

    There’s no justice in that, muchless is it the perfect justice. And someone who loves you doesn’t sit around blindly as you’re abused, harmed and humiliated.

  • AntonioPeYangIII

    No wonder the church loves getting preachy about moral relativism. As masters of the art, they hate watching mere amateurs like us get it wrong ;)

  • DougI

    And the Catholic church had slaves in Ireland until 1996 when they were forced to free them. Meanwhile, Europe had abolished slavery generations ago.

  • Houndentenor

    The Catholic Church has abdicated its ability to be taken seriously on moral or ethical issues. If we can’t trust an organization to safeguard children from KNOWN rapists, we can trust them with anything.

  • ABinFL

    These comments are absolutely heartbreaking. They really are. Flawed, sinful human beings doing what flawed, sinful people do…like priests raping young boys. Pastors having affairs and bilking their congregants. Christians depicted as hateful, anti-this and anti-that. The devil loves to confuse people by turning their eyes and their anger toward these sorts of people in order to discredit Jesus Christ. I am not the least bit interesed in forcing anyone to believe what believe. But, I challenge any and all to make a sincere, intellectually honest investigation of the facts based on what the Bible says rather than look to other imperfect human beings. You say you want proof. It is right in front of you. The absurd notion that this planet we live on, this universe and these incredibly designed bodies in which we live are products of chance, an accident or a random “big bang” is comical, yet tragic. If I am wrong, what do I lose? I live 70 or 80 years, breath my last, and my body gets incinerated. If I am right, the non-Christian lives 70 or 80 years, breaths their last, and their soul gets incinerated…eternally, while I go on to heaven. I don’t say this joyfully about the non-Christian. Like I said from the beginning…it is absolutely heartbreaking.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      Re: “Flawed, sinful human beings doing what flawed, sinful people do…like priests raping young boys. Pastors having affairs and bilking their congregants.”

      As I’ve posted in other comments on this page, the idea that a religion’s adherents can’t be expected to behave better than they would without that religion, is actually an indictment of the religion. It means the religion has no power to make people better, which in turn makes it useless.

      It is never wrong to assess the value of a religion by looking at the behavior of its adherents. How else is an outside observer to judge it?

      Re: “The devil loves to confuse people by turning their eyes and their anger toward these sorts of people in order to discredit Jesus Christ.”

      It’s not the devil that’s discrediting your Jesus. It’s your fellow Christians doing it. You can go and blame the devil all you want, but there’s no evidence he’s involved in anything. Christians are doing the things they choose to do.

      Re: “But, I challenge any and all to make a sincere, intellectually honest investigation of the facts based on what the Bible says rather than look to other imperfect human beings.”

      As I said, the value of a religion is best assessed by the behavior of its adherents. Reading things on a page is useless if the people who are supposed to obey those things, refuse to do so, or are incapable of it.

      Re: “The absurd notion that this planet we live on, this universe and these incredibly designed bodies in which we live are products of chance, an accident or a random “big bang” is comical, yet tragic.”

      Your assessment of the Big Bang as “comical” is merely your own subjective value judgement. That you personally dislike the concept doesn’t take away its veracity. It just means you refuse to acknowledge facts.

      Re: “If I am wrong, what do I lose?”

      Aha. You’re alluding, here, to Pascal’s Wager. That’s fallacious, you know … or did you? If you didn’t, well … now you do!

      Re: “I don’t say this joyfully about the non-Christian. Like I said from the beginning…it is absolutely heartbreaking.”

      I can sense your heartbreak from here. How utterly touching. If you think this show of sincerity and concern grants your beliefs any veracity, you’re mistaken.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X