> The Catholic Church interprets Scripture through the lens of unbroken tradition.
Yeah and also always promoting its own power. So when the Bible explicitly says the bishops should be married men, the Church says actually no we don't like that because it would lessen our power over the bishops so let's make them celibate. Thus making lots of people very unhappy and some commit horrible crimes. How can anyone believe the Church's interpretation is correct is completely beyond me.
> Recently I was attending several catholic weddings and I was taken aback by the level of religious fervor and literal interpretation of the bible there. I was expecting the preaching to be more focused on how to live a good life and be a valuable member of society, but instead it was more about how I will burn eternally for not believing.
Literalism isn’t a big thing in Catholicism, but you can run into it and, what sounds to be more the issue here, there are definitely some (IME, a small minority, but they are quite noticeable) Catholic priests who love to use events where they are likely to get non-regular churchgoers in the congregaton as an opportunity to try to deploy a fear hammer to get people back to Church.
>
First of all, I am glad to hear that you want to talk about the difficult cases because it means that you are okay with Catholic teaching in non-rape cases.
No, it very much does not. The fact that your failed to comprehend this is telling.
For clarity: the Catholic Church routinely abuses human rights. Sometimes this is a direct result of proclamations from the Pope and thus a core part of the religion (eg use of contraception); sometimes this is because of the structure of the church (eg routine physical and emotional abuse of looked after children; transfering child-abusing priests from one area to a different area).
Parent claimed that following the teachings of the Catholic church made them less cruel. This is a weird position to hold considering the very great harm the Catholic church has perpetuated, even in recent years.
> The coverup of pedophiles by the Christian church is also absolutely sickening.
I think you mean the Catholic church? There is no single Christian church. Not to say that didn't/doesn't happen in other denominations, but it seems to mostly be a Catholic problem. I've heard about it happening with the Mormons too, now that I think about it.
> The Catholic Church also held orgies in its sacred halls
You were lied to, my friend.
> enabled and hid a variety of pedophiles
Individuals did that, and that's very sad and damaging.
> and led a variety of violent conflicts for selfish gains
Read up on the Crusades (and Spanish Inquisition) from a Catholic perspective. It's not as cut and dry as people make it.
> The issue with specific religions is it holds specific beliefs as a pre requisite,
That's fine, as long as the beliefs are true.
> so it’s hard to just jump in amidst large bodies of diverse opinions
Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism. That's why I'm here. It is the only belief system fully compatible with intellectual integrity. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing when he said that anyone who actually looked into Islam would see clearly that it is utterly absurd and full of contradictions.
> It's like the whole thing with Catholic priests being pedophiles. Non-Catholic priests aren't forced to marry, and yet they are far less likely to become pedophiles.
While in many respects the response of the Catholic heirarchy to sexual abuse of minors by priests was beyond appalling and inexcusable, the incidence of such abuse (or accusations of such abuse) from every comparison I've seen was similar to other religions groups, schools, and youth organizations like scouting.
> It’s also worth pointing out that child abuse happens in a lot of non-religious settings too. The Catholic Church has a problem, but in no way should we understand child sexual abuse as a uniquely catholic issue.
...that's of course fair - but the Catholic church is to my knowledge the only one that does it on such a systemic level and gathered so much experience over time in controlling information flows, silencing victims and protecting the abusers.
> members of religion X should try religion Y is a very interesting one
Now I can not tell if you are serious. There is pretty bad history with forced conversions. Also in most monotheistic religions it is the worse possible offense to worship other gods.
> It would be much nicer if religious people would only use religion to measure those who are part of it, not those who are outside.
Only speaking for Catholicism here, but the fact that official Catholic doctrine touches so heavily on so many areas of life, making objective and universal claims about human nature, means that Catholicism can't help but make assertions about people who aren't Catholic or even Christian. This tends to deeply piss off a lot of people, even when no individual Catholic is actually applying those principles to specific non-Christian individuals. In other words, many people tend to not it when religions have anything to say about people who aren't in that religion.
> The Catholic Church is interesting counterpoint. Their religious teaching still openly draws upon tradition, institutional church authority and individuals like the Pope.
IIRC this was their main contention against the Protestant reformation. They believed that just pointing at scripture without some practice of custom and tradition to ensure you're properly interpreting it in a sensible way would lead people to folly and extremism/fundamentalism.
Granted it's sort of a pick your poison deal. You either get the fundamentalism of hardline scripturalists or you get the corruption that comes with a hierarchical institution that requires people to offloading some of their critical thinking. Or you can blend them together and get the worst of both worlds by creating something that looks like the more noxious elements of the American Evangelical movement.
> So what if it's not unique to Catholicism? I was asking specifically what the misconceptions are. You've redirected.
As someone who left Catholicism for Wicca and then eventually gave up on religion in general, I think it's valid to point out that these flaws are not unique to Catholicism.
I would say that in pointing at all those things it has done wrong, you are implicitly saying that that these traits are unusual — but we're all a bunch of monkeys, it's really hard to get us to be nice to each other, and it's really easy for Machiavellian sadists to rise to power in every institution.
> I am not a Catholic scholar, but as far as homosexual sex goes, they can't. It's in the Bible, and literally set in stone as being an abomination to God as far as all of the Abrahamic religions are concerned.
Lots of things are in the Bible. Catholics are not Biblical literalists; I mean, that's a big part of what the reformation was about. If the Church of England can square this particular circle, Catholicism probably can, too.
> I left the Catholic church in my teens and was angry for the experiences I'd had.
I know of too many Catholics who say the same. Not growing up Catholic, it's hard to relate. Their stories often involve excessively strict dogma or scriptural interpretation that denies or vilifies innocent human nature. E.g., taking your girlfriend to mass to hear an incendiary anti-abortion sermon, then losing said girlfriend due to that mass, then later ending your relationship with the church out of frustration.
Funny you say that, given how one of the cornerstones of Catholicism is forced conversion of children.
reply