According to Mary E. Hunt at Religion Dispatches, the Catholic Church is cracking down on dissent within the ranks. Slowly and ineffectively, but they’re trying.
Meanwhile, the Church is bleeding money in America, and losing members in Europe. Just recently is was announced that 180,000 Germans left the Church last year, while the Jesuits have agreed to a staggering $166 million payout to settle more than 500 child abuse claims. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.
I’ve been hearing for a decade now that many in the hierarchy are willing to live with a much, much smaller church if only that church would be pure. And by “pure,” they mean “in complete agreement with the conservative wing of the church.” Better to be a rump church, a demographic afterthought, than a church with diverse views.
Mary Hunt considers the future,
Time will tell how this chapter of church history will play out; whether Catholicsm will become a tiny tribe of clerics in brocade and their sycophants repeating Roman mantras, or a big, diverse, crowd in lively conversation and committed solidarity.
She’s hopeful that Catholicism will rebound. I’m doubtful. The only chance that the laity has is to jettison the hierarchy, and what then will define the Church? I suspect that the next decades will see the Church become much poorer, smaller and far less able to project it’s influence in the world.
Sorry, but how is $166,000,000 dollars “staggering” to the church?
It’s a lot of money really. And consider that now that we know how much money they have had to pay out a lot of catholics will say that there is no smoke without fire and not donate.
The church crippled itself out of it’s own money. It should have thrown paedophile priests to the police and distanced itself from them. It’s committed to a doomed path.
Just to clarify, the $166m didn’t come from the Church of Rome. It was paid out by the Oregon Society of Jesus (The Jesuit order that owns Gonzaga University) (and quite possibly with unofficial assistance from Rome). While this is a settlement in a case involving catholic priests raping children it so far appears to be a separate case from the one we’re all thinking of (and in what appears to be the entire point of the payout, any further investigation here is rendered basically impossible).
There has been an interesting recent development in that other story as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/vatican-served-with-court-papers-naming-pope-2-others-in-decades-old-wisconsin-abuse-case/2011/04/12/AFTZWMSD_story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-vatican-served-with-court-papers-in-wis-abuse-case-20110413,0,3040800.story
That money is due from the Pacific Northwest chapter of the Roman Catholic Church’s Jesuits.
These sorts of settlements are bankrupting the Catholic church one piece at a time. Churches are closing, parishes are consolidating. Don’t let the Pope’s gold rings fool you. The church is going down.
Interesting … my parents are both active catholics, but actually all the catholics I know, even ‘more conservative’ ones are nowhere near the ‘line of the church’, but then again, not even all bishops (at least in Europe) are. We had some interesting discussions about exactly this, how catholic the laity actually can be if you don’t care about the hierachy or most (all?) things the hierachy tells you (except at the local level, but there you actually can have a say).
actually the Church has acess to a nearly illimitate sorce of money,w hich are the Italy’s taxes.
I’m not sure on how it works but roughly 8/1000 of the taxes you pay are redirected to the Vatican if you do not specificate an alternative direction. Therefore the Vatican receives an absurd amount of money from the taxes we pay.
The Catholic church already rebounded just fine – it was called the Protestant Reformation.
And all it ultimately did was create another cabal of fundie regressives.
So the Catholic left is voting with its feet, which leaves those who are “My church, right or wrong” and those who are on the right. Well, at least it won’t end up fighting itself anymore, like it did in Franco’s Spain (note to Catholic church- forcing people to be catholic on pain of death only works if the guy you’re backing is immortal, otherwise you end up losing influence when he goes. Which is exactly what happened in Spain. Also, stop making deals with dictators.)
It worked pretty well for them in Ferdinand II’s Spain.
Alright then- immortal, or has heirs who are just as twatty.
I would be satisfied with the catholic church becoming a small, devout fringe tribe that no longer affects politics and misogynist laws. “Poorer, smaller and far less able to project its influence in the world” does it for me!
We know they hate women; but since they probably wouldn’t lose their predilection for young boys, they’d still need watchdog organizations and laws.
My concern is that no matter how small they become, they will still have some influence in politics because they have set themselves up as a country with some sort of divine right to pontificate about worldwide policies. And for some reason, perhaps simply because it’s always been done this way, many people still look to them as a source of moral authority even if they do not necessarily agree with the church. When some contentious issue such as cloning is brought up, for some reason priests and bishops are always sought to give their two cents on the ethics of the issue.
It’s (use apostrophe here) an uphill battle to increase literacy in the country’s children when its (do NOT use apostrophe here) media are making the same errors as the schoolkids!
Peter, I agree with you, but I think you meant papal infallibility.
I disagree with those “liberal” Catholics who think that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is more a community than a top-down authoritarian organization. Historically, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) is what has separated the Holy Roman Catholic Church from other Christian churches such as the Orthodox and the Anglican churches.
So if you do not accept the moral authority of Pope Indulgence, then: No, you are not actually a Catholic, and we would all be better off if you stopped pretending, because you are enabling the impression that Pope Indulgence actually speaks for a large number of people.
I watched an interview with a bishop yesterday evening on TV (in Belgium) – I forget the guy’s name. He publicly admitted to having sexually mis-used two nephews (and possibly also a niece who may have since died – that bit went just a bit too fast for me to catch). With one nephew it was from age 5 to 18 (I think – I was busy trying to not throw up, so maybe I missed some bits). The other was “fairly quick” (approx translation) – less than a year. Less than a year is fairly quick?
He’s staying with a religious order in France, where the interview was held. I don’t understand why the interview wasn’t being held in his jail cell.
His name is Roger Vangheluwe. He still considers himself a priest, because that’s “a vow he took for life”.
Write Hague Criminal Court Prosecutor by May 11 re Crimes Against Humanity of Pope. A prosecutor at The Hague International Criminal Court will soon decide whether to pursue criminal charges against Joseph Ratzinger (otherwise known as the “Pope”) as a German citizen who is complicit in crimes against humanity, especially in light of the epidemic of pedophilia by Catholic priests.
Persons with evidence of crimes committed by the Catholic Church or The Vatican can now write directly to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in charge of this case, Dr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, according to the two German Lawyers who are applying to prosecute Ratzinger, Christian Sailer and Gert Hetzel.
Click here: http://cityofangels11.blogspot.com for more info and address to send your evidence to The Hague Prosecutor – Source: City of Angels Blog by Kay Ebeling.
lol. Who ever filed that … I want what they were smoking.
Pingback: This is Sooooo Unfunny « A Feather Adrift
Interesting, that in the original essay by Mary Hunt, or all the above comments, salvation, that is, leading people to heaven, the true and chief mission of the Church, is never mentioned.
If the Church will be (or is being) split, it will be between those, who seek guidance and grace to get to heaven, i. e. traditiona or orthodox (with small “o)l Catholics, and those, who consider the Church’s mission as ecological activism, social wellbeing and political power, i. e. modernist, liberal Catholics..
On this website it seems everybody belongs to the latter category.
If you are interested in learning about the other concern, there are several websites devoted to the supernatural mission of the Church.
Blueskies
I laughed. hard.
Dear Step 21,
I will pray for you.
And we’ll think for you.
Sandor – Please prove heaven exists.
Bill, Catholics who believe, need no physical proof. Those, who require proof, are not Catholics in my book.
I wrote my comment to Catholics, who still believe.
You just proved my point.
Never been much of a fan of bagpipe music. You do understand what site you’re on? Most of us are atheists, we don’t believe in heaven or hell so the “supernatural” mission of the church is nothing but a source for LOLZ for us. The acts of the church on earth, such as the war on birth control that contribute to the spread of AIDS in Africa or the massive coverup of child rape, are on the other hand something that concern us since it’s affecting real people.
So you’re just another meathead with a boner thinking about how you’re helping god do his work?
There is no supernatural mission of the church. The supernatural element is an afterthought to the true and chief mission of the church (consolidating power in the hands of priests, keeping people fearful and stupid so they keep bringing in their children to be raped by those who are supposed to be leading them to heaven).
Yoav, Thanks for correcting me. I thought the Catholic Remnant was a liberal Catholic site. I am realizing, that the website fails to live up to what I expected. Sorry!
Sunny Day, it seems I got on the wrong list of Catholics. Those who who write God with a small g are not Cathlic Remnant.
As for Nox, the Church’s mission was given by Jesus in Mate, 28:19-20, when he said, “go and teach all nations, baptizing them …” The rest is the “afterthought,” the fault of the human element, and perhaps the work of infiltrators, who set out to destroy the hurch.
To be sure, infiltrators have reached some of the highest spots in the hierarchy.
Ha ha, yes, when the Catholic Church is acting as repulsively as it is, it must be because outsiders are sabotaging it. It couldn’t possibly be the Church establishment’s own fault.
The hierarchy is catholicism. They are inseparable. As you indicated yourself, any belief system which does not include papal infallibility is not catholicism. These are the same guys who made up the religion in the first place. So if you can’t trust the hierarchy how can you trust a religion that rests entirely on their word.
Dear Nox!
One must distinguish between behavior and teaching. Infallibiloity involves doctrine, Even obvious sinner popes, like Alexander VI, can be infallible, when he announces ex cathedra teaching, that occors a few times in a century, as it is defined (wikipedia: “Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he (a) solemnly declares or promulgates (b) to the universal Church (c) a dogmatic teaching on faith (d) as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.”
So, immoral behavior has nothing to do with infallibility.
Normally I have more respect, but that is just flat-out stupid.
Papal infallibility is the doctrine that, for all intents and purposes, states that a fallible asshat who covers for buggering little boys and diddling little girls is nontheless authoratiative on matters of morals and doctrine when he (a) sits in a special chair (b) looks especially constipated (c) writes in badly-pronounced Latin or (d) is standing on one foot. Under those conditions, God guarantees that the asshat won’t make an error.
Cause, you know, it would be really embarrassing to be wrong while sitting on the cool chair.
So, immoral behavior has nothing to do with infallibility.
Wouldn’t it be neat if, during one of these awesome infallibility sessions, God deigned to communicate through the Pope that kids are not sexual playthings for priests and condoms (and other various inventions that save lives in ways the Catholic church has determined is “icky”) are not of Satan?
By the way, Christianity is not based on human word. We beleieve that Christianity is based on divine revelation, which is God’s word.
Bill asked above, “Please prove heaven exists.” I cannot, but Bill cannot prove that heaven does NOT exists. It’s the same with God’s word, or infallibility. I cannot prove that the Pope is infallible, but you cannot prove that he is NOT infallible. So, let’s call it a draw, for now.
I believe he is not, you believe he is not. We shall find out in the after life – if you believe in it.
If there isn’t, I lose nothing, except perhaps I wasted part of my life in believing, But if there IS afterlife, you lost it forever.
You can’t prove that god doesn’t want you to give me all your money. Let’s call it a draw, and you just send me half.
Inability to prove a negative is not ‘a draw’. It’s a dodge. And a limp one at that.
Also, Pascal’s Wager has been massively debunked, and won’t draw much water with this crowd.
Leave that tired out shit at the door.
I wander why I can’t find a list of statements the catholic church consider infallible, I’m sure it can’t be because they’re scared of people having a laughing fit when they find out what BS was declared as infallible over the years.
There is a detailed list, it is called Catechism.
Wikipedia also list some,,noting that ex cathedra statements are extremely rare. From the wikipedia:
“It is not even correct to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.
Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII’s 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church’s magisterium.[20] However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.
Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):
“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.”
The present pope, in office for five years, did not make yet an infallible statement.
You may make fun of this, and laugh at it, but for some hundreds of millions, this is serious matter.
As for me, I sound off with this, apologizing now, that I realized that this site is not what I expected.
You must be a slow learner.
@Sandor Balogh
Since the church can’t even prove Mary ever existed, making claims about who she did or didn’t bang is a lot of hot air. Why don’t the church tell in a clear way what positions that have implication in the real world they consider infallible? But I guess that after having the 6000 year old universe and geocentrism collapse around them they are too scared to commit, this way when the next position is proved to be crap they can backpaddle it.
If you spend the one confirmed life that you have subjugating your will and your reason to a god who turns out not to exist for a reward you never receive, then you have wagered and lost everything.
It is impossible to prove a negative. For example, you cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. Just because you haven’t seen one does not prove their non-existence. Just as me never having seen anything that God has done does not prove his non-existence.
But it is quite easy to prove a positive – just provide some real evidence. So, do you have any real evidence of God?
Cheeze Sammiches.