Notre Dame can go fk itself!
April 30, 2009 at 6:51 pm 64 comments
If a man who orders a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, hurt the poor and sick in this country, stole money from our treasury (Halliburton), and even went against the pope himself when he said not to invade Iraq… well if that person is still considered a good Christian, then count me out!
Jenkins has been criticized by dozens of bishops for inviting Obama because of the president’s support of abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research.
via The Associated Press: Notre Dame won’t give top honor amid Obama protest.
Entry filed under: Politics, Religulous. Tags: catholic, notre dame, obama.
64 Comments Add your own
Leave a reply to mathgeneration Cancel reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
MathGeneRation's Weblog 
1.
David | May 1, 2009 at 4:24 pm
What war killed “hundreds of thousands of Iraqis”? Proof please? And who do you think started it? Who hurt the poor and sick? How? What government official from the US would you expect to listen to the “pope himself”?
It’s not for you, me, or anyone else to judge a person’s heart. If he commits sin, you can call him on it.
Even if we take your premise that the war killed “hundreds of thousands of Iraqis” at face value, what is that to the millions of abortions in this country alone every year? Who are we to play God, create embryos, which de facto are human, use them for some sort of test tube experiment that so far has been unproductive, especially when there is an alternative in adult stem cells?
Prove your allegations. I can prove mine. If this Catholic University refuses to give an honorary degree in law to a man who goes against the very fundamentals of our Catholic faith, that’s great-it’s about time they got a back bone.
2.
mathgeneration | May 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm
The proof in the number of Iraqi deaths comes with a simple Google search. But let me ask you this. There have been about 5,000 US deaths in Iraq. Surely there are more Iraqi deaths. Is 10,000 too small? How about 100,000? What number of deaths, of INNOCENT women and children, is too big a number for you?
I find it interesting that if an Iraqi woman wanted to abort her child the religious right would be up in arms, but if she gives birth and a US bomb gets dropped on them, killing them both, woman and young child, then this “collateral damage” is ok…
I don’t know anyone who is pro-Abortion. Nobody is forcing abortion on anyone. Having a choice is different that actually doing it. God is pro-choice. In theology they call this free will.
3.
David | May 4, 2009 at 9:40 am
While all death due to war is bad, and war is bad, your numbers are way skewed. It’s more like 50,000, based on news reports. Yes, still too many. Of course, by comparison to what the deposed and dead former Iraqi leader Hussein did to his own citizens, about 3000 killed a month according to Human Rights Watch, Iraq is on the positive side of the curve now, statistically speaking.
Regarding abortion, if you are ok with keeping abortion clinics open, then you are pro-abortion. That’s just how it is. And abortion is killing the most innocent of society-those who have no say, period.
The way you say “I don’t know anyone who’s pro-abortion.” I say the same about war. Nobody is pro-war. Difference is, given the human condition, sometimes war is necessary. Abortion is never necessary.
4.
cancerwarrior | May 3, 2009 at 3:31 pm
David, the human embryos that you so dearly defend would have been killed either way. They were created for in vitro fertilization, once the couple got pregnant and had their healthy baby they were faced with a choice (if they didn’t go through all their fertilized eggs) either to keep them frozen for another baby down the road or dispose of them. Maintaining these frozen embryos is expensive so most couples opt to throw them out. Their health practitioner might have even advised them to do so since non-frozen embryos have a higher probability of survival and retention in the uterus. These embryos that are being thrown out every year would have had another chance at prolonging life if they would’ve been donated to stem cell research. These pluripotent cells are capable of becoming ANY human tissue (unlike the adult counterpart), a process we’re yet to fully understand because the research has been limited. However, even with the limited resources we’ve been able to tap into the world of in vitro tissue generation that can potentially lead us to treating Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, so I find it hard to believe that these studies have been “unproductive” as you say. If you need a couple of review articles on the current status of stem cell research to fully appreciate our work and progress so far let me know! I certainly don’t want ignorance to be the reason why people hate science.
5.
David | May 4, 2009 at 9:43 am
They wouldn’t have been killed either way had they not been created.
Regarding embryonic stem cell research, there has been no advancement in any cure from embryonic stem cells, while adult stem cells have produced clear results. As a matter of fact, many doctors are afraid of embryonic stem cells because once injected, they have no control of them. They are more likely to produce tumors than to cure anything. Thanks, I’m very aware of stem cell research. I have my Mother and a friend with Parkinson’s, my grandmother died of it. Thanks.
6.
cancerwarrior | May 4, 2009 at 11:18 am
You’re right, these embryos would’ve have been killed if they weren’t created for a loving couple to form a family. But the fact is these embryos ARE being created and they ARE being disposed of every day in US of A. Unless you want to make in vitro fertilization illegal there is no stopping this massive embryonic massacre.
I’m sorry your grandmother died of Parkinson’s, I wouldn’t wish this disease or any other degenerative disease on anyone. Which is the reason why I’m fighting back. I’m getting my Ph.D. in Cancer Biology and Pharmacology/Toxicology to make drugs that will stop or keep cancer at bay. I’m not just talking about fighting these diseases, I’m at the forefront working on it! If you were aware of the stem cell research that is going on in this country you would know that the only adult stem cells we are working with are for bone-marrow transplantation, this procedure gives patients a last resort treatment and is currently at a 60% 5-year survival rate post-surgery. Now, studies are showing that these transplantations may introduce gastric cancer in these patients http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5701/1568. If we were to develop a way to give these patients stem cells which haven’t had the mutations and shortened telomeres that adult stem cells have we might not have this problem. I guess we’ll have to see if we can conduct these experiments…
7.
David | May 5, 2009 at 9:05 am
You kinda made my point. I think the mom in SoCal who had eight children also makes my point. Let God make the decision who gets to have children. Let those who can’t fulfill their parental yearnings by adopting children who sorely need a home.
I suggest you look at http://adultstemcellawareness.wordpress.com/ and see what they’re working on too. I’m all for research, and for making life liveable for all. We have to understand that, when an embryo is formed, it is a human with a soul, and treat it with the respect it deserves.
8.
David | May 5, 2009 at 9:07 am
By the way, I do respect you for your work. I guess, as long as we’re not creating embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells, so be it. But I don’t think the government ever outlawed embryonic stem cell research. They just didn’t fund it. It’s probably better quality research if the government’s not involved…
9.
cancerwarrior | May 5, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about “it’s probably better quality research if the government’s not involved” wtf?! Who do you think is doing most of the cancer drug development that is being bought by pharmaceutical companies? Who do you think is doing the basic research that fuels today’s academic textbooks? How do you think we even got to the cell, molecular and microbiology knowledge base we have today?? Besides, you wouldn’t want a world run solely on private funded research. First of all because most people don’t care about science and the little they do care about is purely for selfish reasons such as vanity and money. Second, if it wasn’t funded by the government they can’t regulate it. This is how the government tries to regulate GMO’s, embryonic stem cell research, and other ethically sensitive research. But now big companies are trying to get into these sensitive subjects to tap into a marketable product such as Monsanto. Clearly, you don’t know your academic science. It’s frustrating to know that there are some people like you who go around and bash on science, a subject they don’t even know about.
10.
David | May 5, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Dude, I’m not bashing science. Government, yes. Real science, no. Our government is a mess, and I don’t know if they could legislate their way out of a paper bag. Science, done properly, with God in front of and behind it, I applaud. Regarding private concern for science, you are admitting that, if it wasn’t for government, science wouldn’t be funded, so now I know where you are coming from. If science was run with God in mind, we wouldn’t need too much in the way of regulation. There was no omniscient government before the 1700’s, where did our learning come from? Where did our science come from? The Catholic Church, that’s where.
11.
mathgeneration | May 6, 2009 at 1:03 pm
My only question here is for David. How do you know that once conception happens a soul is there? Has it ever been proved, or is that just a theory? Seriously. Where are you getting your information from, and don’t just say “God” or “some white dudes in robes in Rome said so.”
And you must also know that most of our science actually comes from the Muslims. During the Dark Ages, when the Church was ruling with fear, and messages of fire and brimstone, the scientific advancement went to the Muslims who created things like algebra.
Then after the Renaissance, science came back to Europe, but not because of the Church, but rather those that were standing up against the Church.
The Church doesn’t always have the courage to do what is right. Just look at what Pope Pius did during WWII and his pacts with the Nazis. For reals, look at it. If the pope did it, it must be worth looking into. And of course it affected the current pope who was a former member of the Nazi youth, but that’s a whole different story….
12.
David | May 6, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Soul is a phylosophical idea, so as much as anything in phylosophy can be proven, yes. See this for detail: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm
I suggest you stick to science instead of history. If your science is as bad as your history, we’re in danger. Proven fact: The Dark Ages were brought on by the near constant barbarian invasions from the beginning of the 5th century, into the Mediterranean region. Fact: The Catholic Church did everything it could to reverse the effects of the barbarians. The destruction would have been worse had not the Catholic Church been there, because everyone non-clerical was involved in fighting. The invasion of the barbarians and the intermingling with the learned Mediterraneans diluted the ability to make progress. Meanwhile, Muslims at home were sitting pretty with universities and scientists exploring away. Once Europe became a more peaceful place, science, and learning were restored by…the Catholic Church. It was the monasteries the kept knowlege current during the Dark and Middle Ages, in fact most scientists of the Middle Ages were priests and monks. And it continued into and past the Renaissance. You really should stick to science.
The Church ALWAYS does what is right, morally. What pacts with the Nazis??? Oh, you mean the treaties between the current government of Germany and the Catholic Church that simply allowed Catholic priests to practice Catholicism? A concordat is nothing more than a treaty, just like treaties between the US and former USSR. We didn’t agree with each other, and none of our joint treaties stated that we agreed. We agreed to co-exist. Getting back to WWII, after signing said treaties, the Pope and Church SAVED about 700,000 Jews by hiding them from Nazis and Fascists in Italy. This is documented. Ratzinger’s involvement in the Nazis is obscure. He was 14 years old in 41, probably conscripted because of family status. What do you think they allowed a 14 year old boy to do? Kill Jews? Go write that other story.
Again, I think you should stick to science, and stop reading Dan Brown novels. Your history lessons need some work.
13.
mathgeneration | May 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm
That still doesn’t make what I said false. I wasn’t blaming the Church for the Dark Ages. I’m just saying that this wasn’t the time of enlightenment for Catholics either.
Are you saying that the Inquisition was right, morally? And if so, why not continue it to this day?
14.
David | May 6, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Like any institution, the Inquisition (there were three you know…) had abuses. But in general, it was absolutely moral. Why do you think otherwise?
15.
mathgeneration | May 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm
So what you are saying is that abuses are moral?
16.
David | May 6, 2009 at 5:10 pm
No, they’re not, but it’s not the church that did abuses, it’s individuals. Again, I ask, why do you think the Inquisition was otherwise?
17.
mathgeneration | May 6, 2009 at 5:16 pm
The problem of course is that when the Church does good, then it’s the Church, and when the Church does bad, it’s the people. Even though it was the pope that was supporting divine right, and that Native Americans didn’t have souls (at first), and the Crusades, and the Inquisition… but the Church itself did nothing bad…
all it takes for evil to exist is for the good man to do nothing.
18.
David | May 7, 2009 at 9:45 am
Answer me this: How many of Jesus’ apostles were sinners??? All of them. The Church is holy because of Christ, not because it’s people are holy. They’re not, they’re all sinful people, just like you and me. Individuals can do things in the name of Christ and be wrong. That doesn’t make the Church wrong. The Church is a body. The Church does nothing bad, the Church teaches what Christ taught, handed down to his apostles, who passed it down to their successors. The Crusades were justifiable as an idea-to save the holy land and those living in it from the danger imposed by the Muslims. The Inquisition was justifiable-it protected the Church from heresy, and protected the state as well.
I wish you could state plainly why you think the Inquisition was wrong, and now that you’ve brought it up, why the Crusades were wrong.
Your ideas about the Catholic Church are way off base. You think you know about it, but what you know is what’s been put out today by people with an agenda against the Church. Pius XII was not a Jew hater, Benedict XVI was not a Nazi lover, the Inquisition in its time was beneficial, and so were the Crusades. You look at these things through modern eyes, as one who could not possibly stand up and fight for what you believe in. I have shown you things with blurry rose-colored lenses cleaned and focussed sharply. Evil will exist in the world until Christ returns, it was brought into the world when Eve listened to the serpent. Yes we need to fight evil, but the Church is not the evil you should be fighting.
19.
mathgeneration | May 7, 2009 at 10:04 am
You did not answer my simple question. Should the Inquisition still be going on today, to protect the Church, and the world from heresy?
Surely there are more threats to its survival today. Maybe open up a Gitmo bay for all who question it? I know there are some sects, such as Opus Dei or the Legion of Christ, that would like to do so.
Have you seen the torture instruments of the Inquisition. There is no way any use of them can be justified as the Christian thing to do. What would Jesus do? Certainly not what the Church allowed during the Inquisition!
20.
David | May 7, 2009 at 11:41 am
It’s a different world today. Back then there was only one religion, and it was integrated with the governments of the time. Today, in Christianity, there is no intertwining of faith and secular. Back then, to protect the state, you also had to protect the church.
You really throw around buzzwords like you know what they mean. You know nothing of Opus Dei or Legion of Christ.
Regarding torture, you’ve been reading Edgar Allen Poe again, haven’t you…The purpose of the Inquisition was to draw heretics back to God, not to punish them. In contrast with other tribunals throughout Europe at the time, they appear as almost enlightened. Torture was seldom used, never more than once, and never a danger to life or limb. Only if the accused seemed already virtually convicted of heresy by manifold and certain proofs. Certain objective studies carried out by recent scholars have argued that torture was practically unknown in the medieval inquisitorial process. Less than a 1% rate of death sentence. Study the times. Certainly we can look back in horror, but at the time, it was considered humane. The Inquisition’s purpose, to bring the strays back to God, certainly is moral and if needed should be employed today.
21.
mathgeneration | May 7, 2009 at 11:46 am
First of all I’m not just throwing buzzwords around. I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’ve been a Catholic my whole life and still attend mass, though not regularly. But I’m not afraid of being critical of it, science, politicians, or anything.
So surely you know the Legion of Christ is as I describe, and you also know about its leader who the Vatican had to protect. No conspiracy here, no DaVinci Code, just stuff I knew before that book even came out.
For one, there wasn’t just one religion. At this time there was already the Orthodox split. And of course there all the other religions around the world, such as the Hindus and Muslims, and of course the Jews.
Jesus was a Jew. Fact. The Inquisition tortured many Jews. Would Jesus have approved? Seriously. Do you really think Jesus would have approved the torture under the Inquisition?
22.
David | May 7, 2009 at 12:09 pm
If you’re a Catholic and don’t attend mass regularly, you’re not a very good Catholic. Catholic in name only. Regarding the Legion of Christ, it’s founder has been found to be out of communion with the Church, so right now, the entire congregation of priests is sort of in flux. I don’t know what you’re describing about them.
There was only one Christian religion. There is still only one Christian religion. The Catholic Church. All others are fallen away.
You are wrong to say the Inquisition tortured Jews. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.
I don’t know if Jesus would have approved. I do know that the accounts of torture and death are greatly exaggerated. I also know it was a different time and culture then. You’re looking at it through today’s eyes.
23.
mathgeneration | May 7, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I never claimed to be a good Catholic. I would argue that no one really is. Do you go to confession on the first Saturday of every month? Perhaps you do, but I’m sure there is something that you are supposed to do that you don’t, thus making you a Catholic in name only.
I’m not here to attack the church. I just don’t think it is perfect. You ask for proof, proof, and more proof, but then you go and believe anything they say, without proof. Or the proof is that you have to have faith, and just believe what they tell you to believe. That is fine, but that is not the way I want to lead my life.
Just as science and history requires proof, so does religion. Up until the Nicean council, the Trinity was not a required belief to be a good Catholic, or even the divinity of Christ. There have been married popes, popes with children, former Nazi popes (fact). Church doctrine has changed from earth centric to heliocentric, from a hell of fire and brimstone to a psychological state, from penances that can be bought for money to a few Hail Marys, some priest can be married, but most can’t. Only male altar servers to allowing girls. And the official Church doctrine is also that the Big Bang and Evolution are accepted. So maybe they aren’t “theories” any more since the church as accepted them.
We can continue arguing, but I just want to make it clear that my purpose is not to attack the church. I do think it’s hypocritical to judge someone solely on one opinion (pro-choice). If I vote pro-choice, and then go to confession, that sin should be forgotten forever. But yet the human Catholics refuse to let it go, even though got has. They want to deny communion to Kerry even after he went to confession. I think that is hypocritical and those cardinals, bishops, and priests that wanted to enforce that surely don’t understand the power of confession, and the power of God’s forgiveness!
24.
David | May 7, 2009 at 3:21 pm
On your first point you are right. We are all human. Point is we keep trying. There’s no rule to go to confession monthly. The requirement is yearly. But that’s a matter of discipline, how often you go. To be Catholic you have to believe all that the Church teaches, which means you have to believe what Christ taught.
The Church itself, the Body of Christ, is perfect. It consists of all imperfect people. I’ve said that all along.
I asked for the basis for your statements about the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc., because they are totally unfounded.
You may have been a Catholic all your life, but I will tell you that the most knowlegeable Catholics are converts. I’m one of those, but I learn more from the converts. The Church has believed the Trinity since the day the Church was born. Trinity got defined at Nicaea. Christ’s divinity was always known. Show me where to read this fiction? Also, name a pope who was married when he became pope. There is no doctrine that says a pope or priest has to be celibate. That’s a discipline. There is no doctrine regarding whether the earth or the sun is central to the solar system. Fire and brimstone is one way to see hell, but the doctrine of hell is that it is an internal turning away from God. Always has been. You really don’t know your faith, I don’t care how long you’ve been a Catholic. You cannot pay to absolve your sins, now or ever before. There is no official church doctrine on evolution or the big bang. The Church is not in the business of approving scientific theory. They only say that we’re allowed to believe them as long as you don’t leave God out of the equation.
It is not hypocritical to hate someone’s sin, no matter how long ago it was. If they’re not sorry, and have not repented, they’re still in it. If Obama wants to reverse his tune and be pro-life, then we can talk about giving him a break. Remember Paul persecuted Christians, in fact, stoned Stephen, but changed his tune and brought Christ to the world.
There’s a step you’re missing. If you vote pro-choice, go to confession, and don’t vote pro-choice again, you are forgiven. If a guy is banging his secretary, going to confession every month, but continues to do it, he is not forgiven. He has to stop, be sorry, confess, do penance, then he’s forgiven.
Kerry continues to support abortion rights. If he stops supporting abortion rights, and works on the other side, then he’ll get some respect and forgiveness. The woman behind Roe v. Wade, Jane Roe, repented for what she did and now fights against abortion rights. She is forgiven.
Regarding your Catholicism, I’m not, believe me, trying to show off or say I’m better than you. I’m not. I want to lead people to see the truth of the Church, not the lies spread throughout history about the Church. It was founded by Christ, and built on sinful men. It will always be run by sinful men. The holiness of the Church comes from Christ.
25.
mathgeneration | May 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm
With all due respect, you need to learn some more Catholic church history. To find out these historical truths to prove it, prove it, prove it, can be done with simple searches. A married pope is easy to find.
The difference between you and me is that you are starting with the TRUTH that the church can have no wrong. So no matter what happens, it is human’s fault, not the churches.
I don’t think anything on this earth is perfect, including the church. The Church has done good, and it has done bad.
It also takes a while for teachings from the Vatican to make their way down to the laity. For example, evolution is already accepted by the Church, but many lay people, and priests, don’t know about his yet. It’s hard work to keep track of the latest papers and developments.
The church continues to evolve even today.
26.
David | May 8, 2009 at 8:55 am
Which pope(s) were married when they were pope? I know many were married prior to becoming priests, or bishops. Which ones had a wife while they were pope?
And how is that wrong, if one was married? Having children while professing celibacy is indeed a problem, but this is a problem with the person, not with the Church or with the office he holds.
I know that the Church is run by sinful men, have stated that over and over, ad nauseum. But the faith that Jesus taught, which is ultimately what the Church is, is inerrant, without fault. Anyone who does anything that conflicts with Church doctrine, is by default, doing so without authority. So if the Pope preaches a Crusade to drive Muslims out of Jerusalem, sends an army, and while they’re on the march, they kill people on the outskirts of Constantinople, they aren’t doing so in the name of the Church, and they are acting on their own authority. Just like the soldier that decreed the massacre in Viet Nam, he was not acting under authority of the government.
You keep confusing doctrine with science. Doctrine is that which MUST be believed to be a Catholic. Such as Mary’s perpetual virginity, her assumption, her immaculate conception, the Eucharist, the Trinity and so on. These are things which were true since the institution of the Church. There is NO doctrine that says we must to believe in evolution. None, zip, zero, nada. The church says there is nothing wrong with believing in evolution, as long as you keep God as the prime mover, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
In doctrine, the Church cannot change, because the truth cannot change. There is only one truth, that which Jesus taught us. The Holy Spirit keeps the Church on track regarding doctrine and dogma. Outside of the realm of faith, anything can change when we gain new understanding. But theology and religion are best kept apart, as Galileo proved.
27.
David | May 11, 2009 at 8:46 am
Because you can’t back your statements up? Medical belief is that human life begins when an egg is fertilized by a sperm. Look up in medical textbooks, this is what is taught to doctors. So science recognizes when human life begins, but you don’t want to. I suggest you take your own advice…
Getting back to the original topic, for a supposedly Catholic university to invite a person to speak who has such ant-Catholic views is wrong. If you’re Catholic, you obey your Church. If you don’t obey, you’re…like you.
28.
Why pro-life politics is hypocritical « MathGeneRation’s Weblog | May 10, 2009 at 2:34 pm
[…] So, referring back to my original post on this subject: https://mathgeneration.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/notre-dame-can-go-fk-itself/ […]
29.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 10:11 am
Any non-Catholic holds anti-Catholic views. If not, they would be Catholics themselves.
I’m just saying that we pick on Obama based on ONE issue, and yet other politicians get away with murder and yet are considered heroes of the Christian right because of that same ONE issue.
But you are right. I don’t obey my church. I have no problem admitting so. Some things are good, some things are bad (like moving priests around that are molesting kids, but as long as you don’t become pro-choice you are still Catholic). But that’s another topic of discussion
30.
David | May 11, 2009 at 11:02 am
I personally don’t hold any national politician in the “hero” category, because of what it takes for them to get to a point where I might know their name. All politicians have skeletons in their closets. The only question is to size.
You raise the point of priests and their sexual problems, few though they were. At the time of the problem, the accepted way of treating the issue was…psychological. This was true in secular society, and the Church took their cue from secular society. Priests are ordained for life-they never cease to be priests, even when they “quit” and get married. Ordination is an indellible mark on their soul. Today, the Church has corrected its problem of priestly sexual problems.
Hindsight is always 20/20, dude. You can always look back at any event and see how it should have been done better. The point is, is it that way now? By your logic, we shouldn’t be going into ‘space’ now because we blew up a few people trying to get there. By your logic, we should just cease to exist as a country because we allowed slavery. Of course, you must remember, at the time, slavery was accepted in most modern countries.
I do notice that, anytime you threw out some ‘everybody knows’ item about the Church you grew up in and supposedly know, you were proven wrong. Mostly what I’m trying to do is get you to see that you’re wrong, not for it’s own sake, but so that you quit disparaging the Church. At least get some facts, and research them and make sure they are fact before slinging mud.
31.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 11:57 am
The main difference is that governments and bodies of knowledge evolve. They are allowed to be wrong. The Church isn’t. It’s either infallible or it isn’t.
You say that ANYTIME I make an argument I am proven wrong. You haven’t proved me wrong in anything. Facts.
1) The Church once held a earth-centric stance.
2) The Church now holds a heliocentric stance.
3) The Inquisition was real and Church sanctioned.
4) So were the Crusades.
5) There have been popes that have been married while in office.
6) The current Pope was a member of the Hitler youth.
7) The Church did not accept evolution originally.
8) They now do
9) They didn’t accept the big bang
10) They now do
11) They didn’t know if the Native Americans have souls
12) They now do
13) They said that IVF children would not have souls
14) They know now that they do.
15) In the early Church it was not REQUIRED to believe in the Trinity
16) The divinity of Christ
17) Immaculate Conception
18) The Church used to allow you to buy indulgences
19) Hell is an official doctrine that used to be a physical place with fire and brimstone.
20) It is now a psychological state of mind.
21) To be a good Catholic one must go to confession once a month, usually on the first Saturday
22) Those who don’t are bad Catholics
I can go on, but I still haven’t been proven wrong.
You still haven’t proven that the Church is always right. You just start with that assumption. You may quote some Jesus quote to Peter, but that doesn’t imply ex cathedra or anything. There are huge leaps of faith you take, but that’s what faith is all about.
However, the points I make above are facts.
32.
David | May 11, 2009 at 1:37 pm
When it comes to Church History and what the Church requires for us to believe, you certainly haven’t been right about anything!
You have made statements about the Crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo, Naziism, Popes being married, Popes aiding Nazis, all of which are wrong and have been proven wrong. When I ask you to prove your point you can’t. Show me where the Church stated these things? If you don’t know, you should dive deeper and find out.
Regarding helio vs. solar centric, the Church held that the Bible is true, which it is. The Church does not state dogmatically what we are to believe about this topic. So, you are wrong.
#3 and #4, so what???
#5 name one (you haven’t yet). Even if you do find one, so what?
#6 again, so what?
#7 The Church does not dogmatically state what we are to believe about evolution. So, again, you are wrong.
#9 (For a numbers guy you don’t know how to count!), there is no dogmatic requirement to believe the big bang.
#11 Show me in Church documentation where they stated that Native Americans didn’t have souls? You haven’t yet. Same with #13, I can’t find it and neither can you.
#15 Belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit has been a requirement from the first Pentecost. That they didn’t yet have a name for it doesn’t matter. Wrong again.
#16 Belief in the Divinity of Christ is rule #2.
#17 Considering that this doctrine is explained in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, how can you say that? Dogmatically defined in 1858, but held since the foundation of the church.
#18 You and Luther are wrong. I’ve proven that. Show me, in Church documents, where indulgences could be bought. How much was an indulgence?
#19 There is no document that holds that hell is a physical place.
#21 This is and never was a dogma or doctrine, but a discipline. You should go to confession once a month. No requirement.
So you’re right about 30% of the time. That grade fails. If you’re truly interested in bashing the Church, find something that’s true about it to bash. I’m not saying people in the Church, even in the name of the Church, haven’t done things wrong. I’ve stated time and again, that the Church is holy (AND PERFECT) in spite of the humanity that runs it, not because of it. The first people associated with Jesus, his specially chosen, were all sinners. But his Church is perfect. I never said the Church is always right, especially about things that aren’t about faith, like evolution. That’s not the Church’s business. Christ provided the Holy Spirit to guide the Church on earth to be without error IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS. Popes and the Magisterium cannot teach error ON FAITH AND MORALS. If you think ex cathedra suggests that the Pope knows everything, then I’ll ask him to place a bet for me on the next lottery jackpot.
You should really know your subject before you badmouth it. Your “facts” are mostly myths and misconceptions. If you want to bash (specifically) the priests who committed sex abuse with young boys, I’m right with you. In fact, I advocate for those victims. Criticize the way the hierarchy handled the situation, sure. They had a bad situation, tried to handle it in house, failed, and it blew up. And people suffered. Now the Church suffers for it. So be it.
33.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm
It’s not about where the Church stated these, it’s about history. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to go into it here, but I’m sure if you expand your reading sources beyond christian apologetics and just read about the history of western civilization you will see the the Church is like any other institution. It has good things about it, and it has bad things about it.
I’m not here to bash it. But we are not going to get anywhere in our discussions since I don’t have the time right now to prove everything. Maybe when I finish my dissertation I can, but some basic library reading on history will elucidate what I am saying. The knowledge is there, but you have to read non-religious books. And non-religious does not mean anti-religious.
34.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 11:58 am
And I’m not slinging mud. I can accept that nothing is perfect, not even the Church. That is fine with me.
That is not fine to some. Humility is important.
35.
David | May 11, 2009 at 3:53 pm
It is ABSOLUTELY about what the Church collectively states. Bishop Bill, or Cardinal Chuck or Father Jim can speak to the public, and if they don’t speak in complete agreement with Church teaching, they speak in error. When the Pope speaks on faith and morals, or the Magisterium speaks on faith and morals, it is without error, when that’s the intention of the body. And neither one exercises their charism of infallibility very often. Regarding western history, without the Catholic Church there would be no Western History. The Church preserved Europe from total disintegration from the Mongols, Visigoths, and so on, consolidated and strengthened Europe with the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire. Were mistakes made? Certainly. We are a human Church. We sin, we fight, lie, cheat and steal. People do all kinds of things in the name of their religion. Sometimes the pope or bishop even blesses someone for such and such a task, and they pervert the task or botch it big time. That’s not what the pope sanctioned them for. So is it the Pope’s fault that King Sam strayed from the task at hand?
The Catholic Church is responsible for the advance of western civilization from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance in the areas of science, medicine, education, law, religion, government, and many others.
You brought up hot-button buzzwords like Inquisition and Crusades, and Galileo without knowing either the intent or the reality of what happened. I can tell you that I saw all these things from nearly the same perspective you do, because I wasn’t a Catholic for 45 years of my life. I saw the same fallacies you do and bashed the church maybe worse than you do regarding such things as anullment, divorce, contraception, and quite a number of other things. But I was shown how right the Church has been all along. Not perfect, but damn sight better than any other institution that’s had 2000 years to work on it.
The problem with “non-religious” or anti-religious books on subject of the Catholic Church is that so much of the time they do not give an honest rendering of what the Church actually says. Even many people who claim to be Catholics all their life (not just you) do not really know what the Church teaches. My challenge is to take the negatives you have about the Church, look at them carefully through the Church’s eyes and see what I’m trying to show you. Some resources-my blog, and http://www.catholicscomehome.org . There’s plenty of good, reliable info out there. Find it.
One final example using a topic I brought up. Did you know that many priests in this country today will refuse to wear their collar for fear of being spit on or ostracized because of what a few bad priests did? That’s absolutely unfair. I go out of my way to show priests what an honor they have to serve the Lord, the same way I take care of firemen and police (even though there’s bad cops and firemen out there).
The one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch. You identify the bad apple and remove it, and the bunch will be fine.
36.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I suppose my background is different. I grew up super Catholic and almost became a priest. I have read the Catechism, the Bible twice, the Doctors of the Church, and more. I know what I’m talking about when I talk about the Church.
To study history it is important to be objective, and that’s hard to do when one’s faith may be challenged. So instead people resort to pure apologetics.
The benefit of the Church depends on who you are. If you were a Native American when the ships first came over, the Church wasn’t always Christian. Sometimes respecting God’s life and God’s children is more important than converting at the sword’s edge. But that’s just my opinion.
37.
David | May 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Marin Luther was a priest and misunderstood his own Church. Wanted to see it his way, not God’s way. Now there are 35,000 ways to see God. History is seldom objective. You have to look from both sides. I know the Inquisition has been overblown by history. In fact, many times people ran TO the Inquisition because they feared the punishment of the state. The Crusades were preached and sent out to protect Christians. It required seasoned soldiers to do this. They sometimes lost sight of their main objective. They sometimes went overboard. This was not the Church’s doing, it was the individual general (or king or leader).
None of this takes away from the mission of the Church.
No honest history could deny that many Native Americans died as a result of imprisonment, torture or overwork by European soldiers or colonizers.
Converting native peoples to Catholicism was, however, one reason that Ferdinand and Isabella backed Columbus politically and financially. It is simply not true to say that the Catholic Church never protested the mistreatment of native peoples.
In 1537, Pope Paul III wrote Sublimis Deus, an encyclical affirming that Native Americans were humans and, therefore, could not be enslaved. That text appears in Documents of American Catholic History, edited by the late Msgr. John Tracy Ellis.
One of the most outspoken critics of Spanish enslavement was Bartolome de las Casas, a Dominican priest. His story is told very effectively by Gustavo Gutiérrez in Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ (Orbis, 1993).
There are few clean hands, Catholic or Protestant, regarding the treatment of Native Americans. Catholic missionaries baptized many Native Americans because they genuinely wanted to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with these human beings.
Keep in mind that most of American history is Protestant. They shut out Catholics. You say that when the first ships came over the Church wasn’t always Christian, well, it was, with few exceptions, not even Catholic.
38.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 4:26 pm
To me America is more than the US.
The first ships to hit America where filled with Catholics and it was these people that went to Mexico City.
It’s a weird paradox. You have the new Catholics taking over the place, killing people, converting them, burning down their temples and enslaving the masses, but then you also have the Catholic priests advocating for a more humane treatment.
Good and bad, yin and yang. Can’t have one without the other. It was, after all, God who created Satan
39.
David | May 11, 2009 at 4:36 pm
See? You have Catholics (people who professed Catholic faith-but what else was there??) who were sent by their countries to conquer in the name of the country. The priests went along as missionaries to bring Christ to the natives and convert them. Soldiers did the conquering, Catholics provided the refuge.
God created Satan, but did not create him evil…Satan made the decision of free will to be disobedient to God.
All I’m saying, since we’ve gotten more civil about this, is to please don’t paint with such a broad brush. It’s not bad to question, or doubt, but sincerely ask to be shown or to seek what’s right. I was initially offended by your title of the post. But you know what? The Church in general is sorta telling Notre Dame exactly to do just that…just more civil language…:D
40.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I think the airplanes flying over Notre Dame with human fetuses is not civil, and I think judging Obama based on just that ONE issue is unfair, especially when pro-life politicians had the power to outlaw abortion once and for all.
If God created everything, and nothing could exist without God, then surely God must have created evil, no? If God did not create evil, then there’s another creator out there creating things.
41.
David | May 11, 2009 at 5:00 pm
There are radicals on the left and the right. I don’t know what you’re talking about, but any violence in the name of this subject is counterproductive.
Personally, I don’t like anything that Obama has done, and when it came to voting in the election, I vote my morality of equal protection for all humans before anything like economy. And he’s messed that up, too.
The truth is that there have been some bad choices in recent years for Supreme Court justices, and others blocked by the pro-abort lobby, so our pols have done what they could. Fewer abortions is better than more.
Again, the Church is not flying airplanes anywhere, and neither is any organization the Church recognizes.
God didn’t create evil, he did create free will. Love is not true love without the ability to turn away from it. Love without free will is slavery. Evil is turning away from God, an act of free will.
42.
cancerwarrior | May 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm
It’s been interesting to follow your comments about how you don’t like Obama’s leadership and applaud Notre Dame for denying his entrance to their campus when there have been countless men appointed by God himself (not the popular vote) that have done some pretty horrendous things compared to being pro-choice.
Examples:
Abraham slept with his mistress, had a baby with her (his first born) and turned his back on both of them once his wife had a baby of her own. And by “turned his back on them” I mean sending them into the desert without food or water, pretty much a death trap.
King David committed treason to get to his throne and killed his 10,000 people. His countrymen even made a song for him to proclaim this in the city streets! He not only coveted another man’s wife and committed adultery but he also murdered her husband.
So maybe it’s safe to say that Notre Dame wouldn’t let Father Abraham and King David in their campus too….right?
43.
David | May 12, 2009 at 9:48 am
Abraham did what God told him to do, and God protected Ishmael and Hagar. David was chosen by God to ascend to the throne after Saul had turned away from God. When David sinned against Uriah and Bathsheba, he was chastened by God and God punished David’s house, almost eliminating it totally.
If Obama was to turn away from his pro-abortion stance, like Abraham turned away from his sin of not trusting God fully, and as David turned away and repented of his sin, Obama would surely be welcomed.
Every man is a sinner, cancerwarrior. None have not sinned but Jesus, and by God’s grace, Mary. The point is to stop it.
44.
cancerwarrior | May 12, 2009 at 10:30 am
So if every man is a sinner and we can’t stop it, why hold it against people for being what they naturally are….sinners. If you want a leader that can NEVER sinned or is constantly repenting of their sins we’ll never have a leader!
My point is that even when GOD HIMSELF appoints men for leadership they fail to be the men they’re supposed to be or to be “sin-free”. Yet when humans appoint a man who has done nothing wrong except to say that he will allow women to take an important choice in their life you brand him as SINNER. If this is your criteria for a sinful leader then King David’s son, also called the wisest king of Israel, Solomon would fall into this category. He also gave a choice to two women to keep their child or not. He held the sword himself to split the child in half and give each half to both women. So if he gave that CHOICE to these women is he pro-choice or pro-life?
45.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 5:03 pm
If God is everywhere, then how do you truly turn away from Him?
46.
David | May 11, 2009 at 5:04 pm
By denying his love.
47.
mathgeneration | May 11, 2009 at 5:07 pm
So the existence of evil is dependent on consciousness and our ability to do things like deny one’s love?
48.
David | May 12, 2009 at 9:53 am
If you truly don’t know that it’s evil to commit murder, and you do so, you have not sinned against God. If you don’t have the capacity mentally to know that something is wrong, and you do it, you haven’t sinned.
You said you were considering becoming a priest? One of the fundamentals is what is necessary for a person to commit a mortal sin…grave matter, full knowledge of the sinner, deliberate consent. All three must be present for it to be a mortal sin.
49.
David | May 12, 2009 at 11:43 am
Cancerwarrior,
I don’t hold it against anyone that they are a sinner. My constant prayer is “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” What I expect from a leader is to have the highest moral values, and wisdom to lead correctly. Sorry to say, none of the candidates in the past election fit that bill, none has for at least 25 years.
Obama has done plenty wrong. You can commit sin many ways, not just by doing the dirty deed.
1. Counsel: Giving advice or direction to the evil-doer; Obama-guilty
2. Command: Ordering or inducing another to commit sin; Obama-guilty
3. Consent: approving of the sin, before or after its act; Obama-guilty
4. Provocation: Inciting or urging one to commit sin; Obama-guilty
5. Praise or flattery: Inciting or urging one to commit sin by praise; Obama-guilty
6. Concealment: helping one to commit sin by offering to conceal the crime;
7. Partnership: Sharing the fruits of another’s sin; Obama-guilty
8. Silence: Not speaking out when we should, or not acting to prevent sin when obliged; Obama-guilty
9. Defending evil: Attempting to justify the evil actions of others. Obama-guilty.
Good news, though! I pray for him every day that he will turn away from his sinfulness. I pray for him as much as I do for me in my sinfulness.
50.
mathgeneration | May 12, 2009 at 2:06 pm
So if Obama became pro-life then Notre Dame would welcome him? That’s it… just that ONE action?
We are ALL guilty of the 9 points above. Including the Pope. You are basically trying to prove we are all sinners. But that doesn’t mean you can’t invite a man to hear him talk. It’s a TALK for God’s sake!
51.
David | May 12, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I don’t need to prove that we are all sinners.
As for Notre Dame, they are already welcoming him. Wide open arms and balloons, flowers, etc. Students and alumni are a different story, and if he became pro-life by, for starters, appointing a pro-life Supreme Court justice and maybe reversing his Mexico City stance, I am sure many would change their tune.
You seem to think this is one issue. It’s one issue-life. That’s one ALL_ENCOMPASSING issue. By the way, I’m not guilty of all 9. 2, which makes me guilty anyway, but not all 9. Have you really counselled someone to commit a sin? Provoked? Wow!
52.
mathgeneration | May 12, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Look at how pro-life the Bible is
What the Bible says about life
53.
mathgeneration | May 12, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Sinners are the most in need of counseling. Remember that Jesus used to hang out with the prostitutes? Remember he let Mary wash his feet? That is counseling, and they all felt better afterwards. Wow!
54.
David | May 12, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Gotta explain everything to you, don’t I…Counselling someone to commit sins…you’ve done that?
You expect anyone who says “Get more out of your prayer life…use a beer bong” to be taken seriously?
The Bible never said don’t kill. The commandment says don’t MURDER. Murder is killing needlessly.
Jesus did not “hang out” with prostitutes. He didn’t refuse to associate with them. Counselling someone usually involves talking to them. How does letting someone wash your feet constitute counselling???
55.
mathgeneration | May 12, 2009 at 3:28 pm
You don’t have to explain everything. Here’s your exact quote:
“Counsel: Giving advice or direction to the evil-doer;”
nowhere did you say “… to commit the sin”
56.
David | May 12, 2009 at 5:09 pm
For someone who says he’s smart, you’re not very bright…context, my man.
57.
mathgeneration | May 12, 2009 at 3:29 pm
As for the beer pong thing… you will notice right away it’s parody and they are not taking that non-Christian religion seriously… sorry if you do.
58.
cancerwarrior | May 13, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Perhaps I missed it but I think the Bible says that if you sin once that’s it. You’re considered a sinner and you’re doomed to eternal hell. If you are guilty of even one of the 9 sins on your list you are branded for life. On that note you are on the same level as Obama and the rest of the 6.7 million inhabitants of our tiny planet. So why point the finger and judge if even you’re not perfect? Doesn’t the Bible have something to say about these things?? Holy shit it does! “Judge not, that you be not judged.” Matt 7:1
And I know you’re going to say something along the lines that we all sin but we have to repent and try not to do it again. But sadly we do. That is our nature. No matter what you say “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God” Romans 3:23 And if there is an ever present and eternal revolving door of sinning and repenting that keeps us from being perfect…why even try to point out others sins and say that your fine when you’re far from it.
59.
David | May 13, 2009 at 2:44 pm
What’s different is that I can confess my sins and be completely forgiven. I haven’t judged anyone. That’s management’s job, I’m in sales. But telling someone when they’re wrong is not judging them. It’s not enough to repent. You have to confess.
60.
mathgeneration | May 13, 2009 at 2:50 pm
are you claiming that you are without sin since your last confession? Even Mother Theresa had to go daily!
The bible also says something about pointing out a splinter in someone’s eyes, yet having a log in your own.
We don’t need to go around calling Obama a sinner. We are ALL sinners. They say that those that criticize are in most need of criticism…
61.
David | May 13, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I confess my sins every day at mass, and am aware of my own faults.
Whether we call out Obama for his wrongs (like he does with the previous administration even though, *gasp* all the top Democrats were in approval!) does not diminish or augment our own. It’s never wrong to show someone their error.
I’m so glad you didn’t become a priest!
62.
mathgeneration | May 13, 2009 at 3:18 pm
No one is gladder than I am!
63.
mathgeneration | May 13, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I know you will find a way to defend this, but the Pope just got caught in a lie today.
He said today he was never, never, never a member of the Hitler Youth, even though HE HIMSELF admitted so…
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090512_popes_nazi_ties_questioned_again/
64.
David | May 14, 2009 at 11:00 am
You really need to learn to read. From your own link, “A Vatican spokesman said…”
The Pope didn’t say it. You need to watch when you point fingers at people. You have four more pointed back at yourself…