world youth day
21 Jul 2008
As Resilient as a Cockroach
Catherine James went to WYD and was converted: the Catholic Church is a deluded institution
I went to World Youth Day and I was converted.
I've seen the light. I understand now all that the enlightened ones have been trying to tell me: the Catholic Church is a deluded institution. My friend who told me before I left for Sydney that religion is the root of all evil was right. After spending a week with these mainly Catholic nutters, it couldn't be clearer. Love, compassion, peace, generosity. These people are way out of touch with the real world.
The world really would be better off without the Catholic Church. Problem is, what will get rid of it? It's like a cockroach: it would probably even survive a nuclear bomb. All attempts to weaken it have failed, both externally and internally. Catholics reckon a man from a backwater country village somewhere in the Middle East invented their religion off the foundations of Judaism over 2000 years ago. How the dickens it's still going today beats me. It has had its fair share of corrupt leaders over time and still it has managed to lumber through.
After spending the last few days with this homogenous herd of people - from over 168 nations — I am convinced we must do what we can to save them from this delusion. The affection for their leader — an old, old man who has changed his name to "Blessed" — is based on what can only be viewed as a gross misconception: that he will tell them the truth, even when no one else can or will.
After days and days of singing and dancing, I couldn't believe this persistent cheerfulness was natural. All those late nights and early starts had eventually to wear the pilgrims down. But despite my best efforts to find the hidden stimulants, I had to come to the conclusion that this wild behaviour was not drug-induced. Therefore we have a difficult enemy on our hands. If these delusions are substance-free, then we can only conclude we are fighting the immaterial.
These people believe they are in their right minds, and so clearly, they are insane. Aren't they? How could anyone honestly be enjoying themselves when there was no boozing and no one was getting laid?
Which brings me to another experience which further advanced my realisation that this institution is an oppressive weight on humanity. In one of the official World Youth Day sessions I checked in on, a man spoke about the Catholic Church's advice on sex and love. This guy was mobbed by thousands of young people who couldn't get enough of hearing about it. Three nights in a row he painted a demanding picture of what true love was, and the place was so full the officials had to turn people away.
I mean, what were these young kids thinking? They have more sexual freedom than any generation that has gone before them, and they're pushing down doors to hear a man tell them they won't be satisfied if they just indulge their urge to merge?
The final night in Randwick Racecourse was the pinnacle of this truly bizarre week. And I could only come to one conclusion as to why these people could celebrate so much when they faced a freezing night ahead. They are living in a shell. They have no idea what's going on in the real world. I met people from Nigeria to Brazil, South Africa to the United States — from states as far flung as Texas, California and Washington. I met Lebanese, Israelis, people from the United Arab Emirates, Poland, Germany, France, Argentina, Canada, Italy, Kenya, Britain and Botswana.
These young people went even more crazy when they heard the words of their leader — Benny, they call him. He spoke to them of striving to be better people, bearers of peace and generosity, and not to be afraid of the demands of living an upright life. He told young people they were to be full of hope for the future, and above all to love. To love without seeking human reward. And the herd cheered until they were hoarse.
It's truly a plague on society.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Oh, I get it.
Nicely put.
I had some friends determined to hate everything about it (not just the inconvenience), finding conspiracies everywhere. Apparently people waving flags and singing songs was "nationalistic", even when people from around the world joined in.
On the other hand, my wife was finally convinced she’s no longer Catholic (after 6 years of attending another church) while watching the final mass.
Catherine, you were seeing the happy disciples before they drank the Kool-Aid.
World Youth Day is, at its heart, a marketing project for the church. The Pope, Cardinal Pell and others have acknowledged the church needs to "attract more young people".
So all these delightful activities bear the same relationship to reality as the beautiful people using their fabulous phones in the Telstra/Optus/Vodafone ads and the even more beautiful and appealing people frolicking on the beach in the Coca Cola ads.
Catherine, I agree.
There is no denying what was observed.
No doubt, reading the comments posted on your previous articles, I am guessing that a vocal portion of the new matilda readership will conclude that the behaviour was nothing more than "brainwashing" or a "mob mentality". In my view, such criticisms are feeble as well as unfairly dismissive (that is dismissive without having a rationale basis for being so).
You don’t have to be catholic to recognise that, for all the failings of its members, the catholic church has much that is positive to offer society (ironically, usually through the contriubutions of individual members to the communities in which they live). Again, irrespective of whether you are catholic or not, it can only be a good thing if young idealistic people go out, post-WYD, and try to serve the needs of others with a focus on the one thing we all share, our humanity.
On a personal note I think your articles on WYD were a great contribution to the coverage of this event by newmatilda.
davidg
I don’t really understand your point.
Sure, a certain amount of ‘marketing’ is involved. The Church is obviously trying to communicate a message about what it is and how it is relevant to young people.
However, to suggest that it is all show and not "reality" (ie that it was all artificial or that the message was contrived) is to simply deny what occurred.
I mean all the "delightful activities" actually occurred and involved real people freely choosing to attend. No one was paying people to attend and smile. There wern’t mutliple ‘takes’ to get the image just right. This wasn’t some orchestrated advertising campaign .
In the end real people voted with their feet.
JimmyJ
The church, its employees, its executives and its customers form a vast organisation dedicated to its own prosperity, reinforcing itself at every opportunity. Do cardinals really believe some of the riper tripe that’s shovelled out by the church? Do they believe that a virgin gave birth to a God? Do they believe that she was taken up to heaven? That’s not mentioned anywhere in the bible or any of the ancient texts, as Archbishop Jensen peevishly pointed out in the Herald the other day. Does anyone any longer believe that there’s a grey-bearded old bloke up there licking the point of his pencil and consigning us to eternal hellfire or to eternally playing Andrew Lloyd Webber songs on a harp? If there are church elders who don’t believe this stuff they keep their mouths shut because their jobs, their lifestyle, their power and influence depend upon their parishioners continuing to believe it. Look at the perks, the red shoes, the robes, the people kissing your feet, hanging on your every word. These smug, domineering, deplorably comfortable people couldn’t be much further from the biblical Christ if they worked for Donald Trump in Las Vegas. It’s heartening to see young folk with idealism, but that’s what the Rev Jim Jones’ followers had in the jungle in Guyana, and it’s simultaneously depressing to think of the young folk wasting their idealism on the spiritual equivalent of a vast franchise operation. I get the same feeling of sadness when Muslim girls tell me they feel empowered by their headscarves when they’re just fitting into the misogynistic Islamic male power structure. World Youth Day was like a great big Anthony Robbins Business Seminar, complete with motivational speakers, thrilling spectacles and promises of a better world ahead. How sad.
Jimmy,
I’ll have to differ with you on this. From my perspective it was entirely orchestrated and I think my analogy is valid.
The promise offered by the church is nothing less than eternal life. Specifically, pilgrims to WYD were granted a plenary indulgence - special forgiveness for their sins. People are certainly paying - literally, in cash; personally, in their participation; metaphysically with what the church calls their souls. The people of NSW kicked in $126 million in cash.
The church is probably the most sophisticated and experienced manipulator of people on the planet. Every aspect of this event: the costumes, the words, the rituals, was crafted to evoke powerful emotions.
I certainly agree with your point about the contributions of many individual members of the church and I applaud those who demonstrate their faith in a practical way. And I congratulate the Pope on - finally - saying something to address abuse by some clergy.
But I’m afraid the church will not have my respect until genuine compassion and tolerance is practised and preached broadly and consistently.
WYD was, to me, a spectacular piece of theatre designed to make this deeply reactionary, immensely rich, powerful and secretive institution, headed by a man from whose decisions there is no appeal, look cool and groovy.
Sorry, I ain’t buying it.
Catherine I’m really glad you all had such a great time, and that there was so much goodwill. What a shame that us taxpayers had to foot the bill to the tune of 200 million dollars to make it all possible. Still, I guess the health budget does’nt really need that kind of money.
Thank you Catherine for the article. It gives Newmatilda’s claim of independent journalism a little credibility (after previously reading what I can only describe as pure anti-Catholic diatribe).
BPobjie - you probably don’t get it if you already write articles like this: http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/07/09/dont-mention-crusades
Davidg and peterbest: you are employing a very weak argument against a very powerful one. You claim that the Church is, in the end, just like any other self-promoting and avaricious organization. While there may be outward signs that suggest this, it is only outside observers that know little of the real history or lifestyles of church members that truly believe it. The reality of WYD, as a reflection of the Church’s activity, is that many young people have in the last week dedicated themselves to lives of great sacrifice for intangible goods - goods that everyone understands such as peace, harmony and compassion - as well as goods that not all understand such as faith and hope in God.
It is also a common but highly inaccurate perception that Church leaders lord it over others. The reality of the celibate priesthood, and indeed the lives of all people that take their faith seriously, is never easy. It involves rejecting comforts on this earth for a future promised good. It is something like preparing for a big exam throughout your whole life: difficult but worth the effort now and later.
As G.K Chesterton said, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried". And we are well used to suffering the cries of those that fit into the second category.
Thanks for the articles, and I’m glad you enjoyed yourself.
You originally gave yourself the somewhat noncommital label of "theist." Leaving aside their ability to throw a party, what do you seriously think of the Catholic church now? Is he infallible or not?
No, I think I do get it, gabatronic. Catholics=teh awesum, right?
"It is also a common but highly inaccurate perception that Church leaders lord it over others. The reality of the celibate priesthood, and indeed the lives of all people that take their faith seriously, is never easy. It involves rejecting comforts on this earth for a future promised good. It is something like preparing for a big exam throughout your whole life: difficult but worth the effort now and later."
And here I was thinking Christians considered themselves superior to others. Good thing you shattered that illusion.
Gabatronic: I’m afraid an assertion that my argument is weak and yours is strong doesn’t cut it. I’m prepared to change my view if I see evidence of the outcome of WYD. So let’s have some evidence.
Here’s a little from me:
- Cardinal Pell’s mea culpa after being caught out on a case of priestly abuse. His "badly worded" letter was clearly
- The church’s intractable discrimination against women.
- Its equally intractable opposition to contraception; directly contributing to vast numbers of deaths by AIDS and abortions they claim to oppose.
- Its stupendous and obvious wealth.
I think you could mount an argument that all the above are completely at odds with Jesus’ thoughts on the matter. So I’m not sure the saviour would even recognise the Church of Rome as "Christian".
And, by the way, I spent six years in a church school.
Oops, hit ‘post’ instead of ‘preview’. Cardinal Pell’s letter was clearly…untrue is probably the most polite way I can put it.
I viewed the stations of the cross shown on TV with some friends. They told me that I should be intoning ‘Halleluja’ and NOT "Welease Woger"
Peggylor
Another word for immaterial is spiritual.
All the best with your battle against your BIG BAD enemy Catherine.
Ignorance is bliss.
Wow. Maybe the WYD was OK after all.
Look at all those kids filled with (non sexual) love. It was lovely watching them all sing together.
As a social institution the Catholic Church does some really good work, when they are not fiddling with kiddies.
The pope turned out to be a really nice guy for a German. Where can I get a pair of those kickin’ red shoes.
I think it might be great of some of those sexy young internationals gave it up for Jesus and became nuns or priests.
Give me a break! As people Catholics are neither better nor worse than the general population. The church however is wrong. It is a lie. There is no evidence of a god and these young people are being duped. It is simply not good enough to ignore truth because the lie makes us feel gooey inside.
The argument against religion is not an even battle between philosophies, or a situation of competing truths. Its a choice between truth and bullshit. If the pursuit of truth makes me a hater then cool. Because I really hate bullshit.
Hi Catherine
Regarding the gooey types, I am talking about the secularists who are going soft on WYD because they feel the experience was culturally desirable. Naturally I expect beleivers to support both the church and the week/day.
I think you misunderstood. I agree that the actions of priests are not the reason the Catholic Church in unsupportable. The reason it is unsupportable is that it is a political organisation based on a lie, or series of lies. The standard I am holding them to, along with all other religions is the standard of proof. As a practitioner of faith you of course will not hold this standard.
Your suggestion that there is a case against atheism means that you are one of those that consider this argument to be between two philosophies. I do not. I consider it part of the ongoing struggle between fearful ignorance and the enlightenment provided by actual and demonstrable truth.
Whenever this uncomfortable challenge arises it seems the beleivers fallback position is that the church is a socially positive organisation. Even I can accept that there are positive outcomes for WYD attenders, but that still does nothing to progress the development of a society based on reality as best we can understand it.
A bad atheist is a person who is bad (whatever that means) and right about god. A good Catholic is a person who is good but wrong about god.
"The standard I am holding them to, along with all other religions is the standard of proof."
Well Dr. Dog, would you accept two millenia of Miracles????
There are obviously volumes to support these claims together with hundreds of references for you to check out.
But perhaps you are a Thomas and need to take a personal journey to change your mind. I pray that you do, because what you will find will change you forever.
Even this Pope, for this Church at this time is a miracle in itself.
Benedict may just be able to save it.
EarnestLee, I do hope you’re not being serious about "miracles". There is not a single, properly documented (i.e. multiple independent, disinterested observers presenting objective data) miracle on the books (defining "miracle" as any suspension of any of the normal laws of nature). This is the standard of proof in the real world.
Catherine, I agree it’s inevitable a small number of variously sick individuals in any organisation as large as the church, and I don’t criticise the church for that unavoidable situation. However I do criticise the church for facilitating their abuse by variously covering it up and enabling them to continue to abuse in other parishes. I certainly hold senior members of the church to a higher standard than that. Someone as eminent as Cardinal Pell should not - ever - send a formal church letter to a victim of such abuse that, in his words, was "badly worded". Even giving him the benefit of the doubt on it, this was an appalling lapse of judgement and compassion. Frankly, he should resign from the college of cardinals for that failure. He’s clearly not up to the job.
It should not take years of appalling disclosures of abuse to get an apology from the pope and action from the church authorities. While much of the church’s profound abuse (burnings at the stake, breaking on the wheel etc) is many years in the past, this priestly abuse is recent and was systematically covered up by people who claim the authority to be moral arbiters of others.
I’ve acknowledged there are many fine individuals in the church doing valuable work. They have my admiration and gratitude. However I think the institution is deeply flawed. And, until they decisively work to reverse this, the individuals with the power to change this - the pope and the cardinals - will remain beneath my contempt.
We don’t even need to mount an argument against religion and ‘gods’ in general. The church fails when measured against its own sacred scriptures. It is not compassionate. It is not humble. It does not turn the other cheek. It ignores the injunction to "judge not". It is idolatrous. It is covetous. It does not love its neighbours as itself. It continues to cast stones when it is not (by its own admission) without sin.
Here endeth the lesson!
Thanks davidg for responding much more clearly and calmly than I could to earnestlee. Its a freaking miracle my head didn’t burst reading his post, and you can put that one on the books.
But now I am here I don’t think I can restrain myself.
Two millenia of what?!!? Miracles you say. But you don’t cite appearances by ghost ladies to tripping Spaniards or bleeding eye statues. There is no mention of the box of unspoiled Spam brought over for WYD. No. Your miracle is that a German man has become the head of a human organisation, now.
Christ on a biscuit, earnestlee. I dont know where to start. If God is going to start moving in ways so mysterious that he is indetectable then anything is a miracle.
Didn’t burn my toast this morning. Praise the Lord.
Pretty cold today. Wonder of wonders.
I failed to win even a minor prize in the Ozlotto. Well fuck me, the rapture must have started. (face turns red, spittle flying from fingertips)
Its just life dude. You have an exaggerated idea of the importance of being, earnestlee.
DavidG
In regards to wealth, that is a tired old argument that doesn’t stack up on any analysis. I have no figures or balance sheet for the Catholic church, however, anyone can see the wealth tied up in property, museums & artifacts, etc that form part of the property of the Church. These assets are ‘owned’ not by priests or bishops or even the Pope, but by the 1 billion catholics in the world.
Looking at it logically, if you had been around for 2000 years you probably would have accumulated some wealth too. Most of it in perfectly legitimate manner that befits the needs and aims of the people that make up the Chruch. I also imagine that some of this wealth was gained in ways that do not befit the Church or the values it proclaims. Anyone can come up with invividual examples of inappropriate use or accumulation of wealth - no individual (you, me, or the Pope ) is free of the desire to look after No.1 (we just don’t all act on it). There will always be people, both inside and outside the Church who are corrupted by power and wealth.
The wealth of the Church should be used for the benefit of all people (not just Catholics). The question is not ‘is the Church wealthy?’ but rather ‘how is that wealth used and is it used in a manner that is consistent with the values that it preaches?’.
The real test is whether the majority of the fruit from the tree is good or the majority is rotten. My personal experience of people in the Church has exposed me the good and the bad - nothing riles me more than an misuse of funds for the benefit of a few at the expense of those who need it - but for the most part it is of people (both religous and lay) giving time and money to people and causes in need.
If I had the time and inclination I would respond to the other points you raise. While I understand their origin, I don’t belive they stand up to reasonable analysis anymore than this hoary old chestnut.
DavidG
Quote - "There is not a single, properly documented (i.e. multiple independent, disinterested observers presenting objective data) miracle on the books (defining "miracle" as any suspension of any of the normal laws of nature). This is the standard of proof in the real world."
It’s not personal but I again have to correct what I think is an extraodinarily unqualified statement.
There are plenty of physical phenomena that have been witnessed and documented (by "independent, disinterested observers presenting objective data") and that are inexplicbale by our current state of scientific any of the "normal laws of nature" (your words).
Not all of these are claimed by believer’s of different creeds as ‘miracles’. Some of phenomena these will ultimately be understood by us as we grow in our knowledge of the physical world. Others, I am guessing, will remain unexplained.
The most accessible and tangible examples of this are medical phenomena … there are countless examples of diseases and physical conditions that spontaneously change course in a manner not explicable by medical science.
If we can’t expain it does that make it a miracle?
No … but it doesn’t mean that it is not either.
So JimmyG,
1. If a Catholic was to leave the church then they could reasonably calculate a proportion, say 1 billionth, of the assets and take that with them, is that right?
2. Yes there are bad apples everywhere, but the Catholic church claims a direct line of authority from Jesus Christ through Peter. When there are clear examples of popes having been one of the rottenest of apples what does that say about that authority? What does it say about the organisation that has benefited from their corruption?
In case you are unaware of these papal abuses lets use the provable and minor issue of selling indulgences as an example, but there are many worse behaviours. Did God continue to communicate with these fellows, despite their philandering, incest, warmongering and profiteering? If not where is the line of authority you claim?
3. In terms of medical turnarounds, I challenge you to provide one example and the source of that example for me to research. The example would have to appear in an independant publication and cite not the facts as interpreted but the actual hard data. Even then as you point out there is no proof the hand of God in that ‘miracle’.
But further to miracles can anyone out there who believes in this stuff give me one reason why the same god that you claim showed up for regular visits, flooded the earth for far less sinfulness than we currently experience, spoke directly and seemingly conversationally with your prophets suddenly go all hands-off when it comes to carefully recorded history.
4. Finally, you claim that anything outside our immediate scientific understanding might be a miracle, we just don’t know. For many people that includes the internal combustion engine. The gaps in human knowledge say nothing about the existence of a magic deity that can operate outside the constraints of four dimensional space.
The real test is not the relative rotteness of the fruit. I would contend that in every existing organisation the majority of people abide by the social compact and do what they can to help others. The real test is whether the claims of the church are true. Nothing you have written comes even close to providing an answer.
Some religious instruction from George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Peggylor
Dr Dog
1. My point was solely to highlight that the asserted "wealth" of the Church was not a bad thing (as was claimed above). You will also note the emphasis I placed on the word ‘owned’ - no intention to use it with legal precision.
2. No denial from me regarding evidence of some quite shocking Papal behaviour. Starting with Peter (who did a runner when things got nasty) all the way to Benny - I am sure they all have made their mistakes. I am no theologian but I fail to see how the failings on an individual (even the Pope) means that God, ispo facto, does work in and through the Church. In fact, that the Church is still around after 2000 years despite the failings of its ‘leaders’ and ‘members’ gives me comfort that there is a force at work greater than just the minds and wills of the individuals involved .
3. In terms of medical turn-around a case that is quite famous is Jean-Pierre Bély. Bély is the last officially recognise mircale from Lourdes. Now before you get your knickers in a twist about me giving an example from Lourdes, please note that I do so because Bély was examined by the international medical committee of Lourdes - a body including around numerous experts and heads of European medical services - compromising christians, agnostics and atheists. The committee’s sole purpose is to opine on whether that physical change is "medically inexplicable".
Bély was 36 when in 1972 he started to suffer from neurological problems. Twelve years later he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and a year after that he was confined to a wheelchair. In the late 80’s he visited Lourdes. During that visit, he began to notice feeling returning to his limbs, and a few days later his recovery was complete.
While the requisite majority (2/3, I think) of the committee voted that this was medically inexplicable, some voted against it. All agreed that where previously he had total functional impairment, he was now able to move freely. Where they disagreed was whether the diagnosis of MS was 100% correct. Those who voted against did so on the possiblility (a possibility that I understand has publically acknowledged to be slight by some who voted against it) it was something else and therefore they could not be sure that it was medically inexplicable. This is the highest threshold you can set - ie it is not enough for a panel of experts to say "It is our opinion that this was MS" and now it is gone but to make it medically inexplicable you have to rule out every other potential diagnosis.
What is my point? What does this illustrate? Two things:
First, you ask for an independent journal with the hard data (not just the facts as interpreted). I give you the best case I know of that is not just examination by one scientist or one team (as most articles published in journals are) but, rather a case held up to the scrutiny of a panel of experts whose job it is to pick it apart, a panel comprised of believers and non-believers. I also note that this same panel has rejected all other cases since then.
Second, medical science is not exact. Give me a sample of a lung cancer and I will send it off to 100 lung cancer experts and I guarantee you will receive a wide variety of opinions as to whether it is malignant or benign.
This leads to your next point.
4. I think you have twisted the meaning of my words somewhat. I was simply countering DavidG’s point about ‘miracles’ whether there are unexplained phenomena that don’t conform with our understanding of the laws of nature.
We have an imperfect understanding of nature and "its laws" (which any good scientist knows are only "laws" until proven otherwise).
The fact that a group or minds much smarter than mine got together and decided by majority that Bély’s ‘cure’ was medically inexpcliable is enough for me to acknowledge that there are things at work in the physical world that we don’t understand and that we may never understand. Whether you want to see the hand of God (or not) in those circumstances is up to you.
As you point out, the gaps in our know human knowledge is not proof for the existent of a deity. Equally, acknowledging such gaps means anknowledging that we can never disprove such existence.
I will leave this post with some words from from St Augustine - "Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature".
(PS I am not entirely sure what this means but it sounds profound and I thought a quote from a Father of the Church would make you particularly happy Dr Dog - Have a great day!)
Oops … proofreading has failed me … in particular, point 2 should read "that God, ispo facto, does NOT work in and through the Church."
I think we can all agree humans have a limited understanding of nature and events sometimes occur that are difficult or impossible to explain. People do sometimes spontaneously recover from serious illness, while other people sometimes suddenly fall ill or die. However, this seems to happen equally often to people of any faith or no faith. I’m sure Bely has Breatharian, Hindu or Muslim equivalents, who’d also claim it is a miracle, and they can’t all be right.
Great piece Catherine - viva the cockroaches!
I think the big challenge for young Catholics now is to show the world that we are truly committed to practising the virtues which our Church, our leaders, and our God extol. It’s up to us to convince the world by our actions. That’s no easy task, although it IS quite handy to have the God of the Universe on hand to help out with a bit of His infinite power, wisdom and love, whenever we need it.
To those who insist that the Catholic Church is an evil institution, have a read of this:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_…
It was Benedict’s first public document as Pope. I think it’s a good indicator of how good or evil this man and his Church really are. And when you read it, if you come across an idea or teaching you either don’t understand, or don’t agree with, I would ask you to at least try to find out WHY the Church believes and teaches that particular idea.
Until you have taken the time and effort to look into what the Church actually teaches, it would probably be wise to refrain from launching nonsensical attacks on pseudo-Catholic straw men. For example, from what I’ve read above, it seems clear that very few people know what the Church’s teaching on Papal infallibility actually is. If you care as deeply as your impassioned responses indicate, then I’m sure you’ll observe this common courtesy.
Finally, to those who simply think God is a lie: I dare you to find a Catholic Church, kneel down in a pew, and ask - If there is a God, and if You are present here, please show Yourself to me.
I dare you.
"I think the big challenge for young Catholics now is to show the world that we are truly committed to practising the virtues which our Church, our leaders, and our God extol."
You know, Catholics are much more tolerable when they don’t.
And why on earth do we have to kneel in a pew? Can’t God hear me from my house?
"You know, Catholics are much more tolerable when they don’t."
My mistake, I appear to have misunderstood the nuances of "intolerance" - evil when applied BY practicing Catholics; virtuous when applied TO practicing Catholics.
I stand corrected.
As for kneeling in pews, no one said you have to. I’m just daring you to do it. And why wouldn’t you? I mean, if it’s all hogwash, you have nothing to fear.
So again, I dare you.
T. W. Cannon,
Did it. I went to the local Catholic Church, knelt, asked. Nothing. I don’t know if strange looks from the priest and few parishoners constitutes God showing himself but I was kind of looking for more substantive evidence.
Later I dared God, tempted God, railed at God. Still nothing.
Spoke breifly to Allah, Baal, Buddha. Worked my way through the alphabet of deities.
Had a go at Santa and the Easter Bunny. Still nothing. Tried to communicate with my dead father. Line busy.
Why don’t you go to a pub, have a few. Meet a significant other and have unbridled sex. Move in together in sin. Live a life of simple beauty and earthly ethics. Forget God and the world of magic.
I dare you. I really dare you.
"Live a life of simple beauty and earthly ethics".
Whose beauty? Whose ethics? Dr Dog’s ethics? Or my own? Can I just make them up? Or are there rules? If so, whose rules?
Your simple, beautiful, earthly utopia is an empty, escapist myth. It doesn’t exist. It never has, and it never will. Go to the pub you say. Why? To escape? To numb the meaninglessness? See, if God is not real, then we’re all just matter, randomly fashioned into human form, and destined to disintegrate back into the the rest of the mass of matter in the universe.
Without the supernatural, only the tangible is real, and material interactions have no moral value. If a rock falls and crushes a shell, it doesn’t matter. And if a rock falls and crushes a human it still doesn’t matter. And if a human kills another human it still doesn’t matter, because all three scenarios are just examples of matter interacting.
It also follows that, if there is no God, and we are all just matter, then nothing the Catholic Church does matters either. So why do you care?
I assume that you DO believe in something more than matter, otherwise you wouldn’t feel the need to condemn the Church, to change the system. You sense injustice, and see evil, and you want to change it into justice and goodness. So do I.
Where we differ is that, while I think that humans on their own are nothing more than matter, I believe in an infinite being, the source of all being - the very essence of "being" itself. I believe that that being (who I, and the Catholic Church call God) is the source of life, simplicity, beauty and ethics. I certainly don’t trust myself (or any other human-shaped clumps of matter) to come up with a reliable system of ethics, morals, or happiness, when it is clear that we understand so little about ourselves and the universe we live in!
I believe that God is infinitely more powerful and capable than humans. And since WE can love, I believe that this God also loves. More to the point, I believe that he loves US purely by choice. And that is where the value of human life comes from.
By analogy, it is like the feeling of self-worth, and self-assurance that you get when you meet "that special someone" who loves you, just because you are you. You feel more valuable. Well I believe that when the infinite creator loves us with an infinite love, we actually BECOME valuable.
So if you did go into that Catholic Church and kneel down and talk to God, maybe try again. Try to keep an open mind, and you just might be surprised.
Tim