Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All religions prey on the poor.

They entice them to join by providing "community," and then they brainwash them.

It's sick.

Why not offer to help - w/o bringing in a god and some doctrine? But the goal is to increase numbers, and they'll do it in any way possible. Catholic church is one of the largest religions, by the way. Christians (the global term) make up about 1/3 of all religions.

I'm so tired of bad logic and sweeping generalizations that are wrong when you examine them (I'm Episcopalian, BTW).

You admit yourself that religions offer something to the poor, community. They also offer a fellowship for faith, which you discount completely. Neither of these are quantifiable, i.e. you can't put a $$$ figure on them, and you use this to say they are basically "worthless." That's bad logic.

Plus, most religions, especially the Catholic Church, do ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOOD for the poor. You simply can't deny this (although you try to ignore it, but that amounts to a lie by ommission).

Yes - but if you continued to read my post (or - more importantly - understand it), I said that HELP can be offered w/o luring people into a faith.

You can't see that?

So - in order to HELP the poor - they must first embrace religion. "Here's a bible. Come to this service. Join our youth group. Oh - no birth control! Keep having kids b/c Jesus loves babies!"

It's not completely SELFLESS. It's selfish. Kind, selfless people who want to give back don't force their faith on others.

You're just too stupid to see that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All religions prey on the poor.

They entice them to join by providing "community," and then they brainwash them.

It's sick.

Why not offer to help - w/o bringing in a god and some doctrine? But the goal is to increase numbers, and they'll do it in any way possible. Catholic church is one of the largest religions, by the way. Christians (the global term) make up about 1/3 of all religions.

I'm so tired of bad logic and sweeping generalizations that are wrong when you examine them (I'm Episcopalian, BTW).

You admit yourself that religions offer something to the poor, community. They also offer a fellowship for faith, which you discount completely. Neither of these are quantifiable, i.e. you can't put a $$$ figure on them, and you use this to say they are basically "worthless." That's bad logic.

Plus, most religions, especially the Catholic Church, do ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOOD for the poor. You simply can't deny this (although you try to ignore it, but that amounts to a lie by ommission).

Anonymous wrote:

All religions prey on the poor.

They entice them to join by providing "community," and then they brainwash them.

It's sick.

Why not offer to help - w/o bringing in a god and some doctrine? But the goal is to increase numbers, and they'll do it in any way possible. Catholic church is one of the largest religions, by the way. Christians (the global term) make up about 1/3 of all religions.

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely -- letting them know is essential. And keeping up the church because some of what is does is good, does not hold water

The same could be said of slavery.


Loyal Catholics could move right back into the churches once the Vatican cleaned up its act. It's not like other religions are lined up to buy them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
..... I can't think of many organizations that have lobbied as long, as aggressively, or as consistently on poverty issues as Catholic Charities. Withholding all money basically starves these organizations of their funding, which in turn would literally starve lots of the poorest among us. So, if you are going to refuse to donate to the church, give that money instead to a local food or homeless shelter in your area, because the charity is desperately needed.

Catholic charities are causing problems, not solving them.
They have a monopoly on a lot of health clinics in third world countries and especially South America, and if the clinics were to hand out contraceptives, they are closed. People in poor countries need access to contraceptives. Catholic church is preventing access to this through their policy

Anonymous wrote:
..... I can't think of many organizations that have lobbied as long, as aggressively, or as consistently on poverty issues as Catholic Charities. Withholding all money basically starves these organizations of their funding, which in turn would literally starve lots of the poorest among us. So, if you are going to refuse to donate to the church, give that money instead to a local food or homeless shelter in your area, because the charity is desperately needed.

Anonymous wrote:I fully agree that Catholics should shout it from the highest rooftops, and advocate with and their churches, regarding sexual abuse. I would not however advise that Catholics withhold all funding from the church. The church uses funding for parish activities, 99% of which has absolutely nothing to do with the abhorrent sexual abuses. Why not try to become part of the solution by becoming active with in your church, while also supporting, financially and with your time, the churches beneficial activities? Do we really want the conduct of people who went against the core teachings of the church, abuse to children, or covered it up, to be the cause of the collapse of the entire church? Instead, get involved, become part of your parishes actions to influence the larger organization, and practice your religion in a way that you feel is appropriate. I hope your church advocate fixing the issues of sexual abuse, and move on with its core mission.

If you do decide not to fund your church, but still too attended, please let you were parish know why you are doing so. It doesn't send a message unless the church knows people aren't funding their activities due to the abuse, as opposed to not funding the church for other reasons or due to simple neglect. In short, I don't see how withholding money from weekly collections inspires the church to address abuse when it has no idea why you and others may not be contributing funds. If you are going to speak with your pocketbook, make sure your message is heard!

Anonymous wrote:I fully agree that Catholics should shout it from the highest rooftops, and advocate with and their churches, regarding sexual abuse. I would not however advise that Catholics withhold all funding from the church. The church uses funding for parish activities, 99% of which has absolutely nothing to do with the abhorrent sexual abuses. Why not try to become part of the solution by becoming active with in your church, while also supporting, financially and with your time, the churches beneficial activities? Do we really want the conduct of people who went against the core teachings of the church, abuse to children, or covered it up, to be the cause of the collapse of the entire church? Instead, get involved, become part of your parishes actions to influence the larger organization, and practice your religion in a way that you feel is appropriate. I hope your church advocate fixing the issues of sexual abuse, and move on with its core mission.

If you do decide not to fund your church, but still too attended, please let you were parish know why you are doing so. It doesn't send a message unless the church knows people aren't funding their activities due to the abuse, as opposed to not funding the church for other reasons or due to simple neglect. In short, I don't see how withholding money from weekly collections inspires the church to address abuse when it has no idea why you and others may not be contributing funds. If you are going to speak with your pocketbook, make sure your message is heard!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the part about dealing with the abusers. But in the last paragraph, the UN has no place telling the church where to stand on homosexual acts, abortion, and contraception. Otherwise I would think the UN might want to look into certain things forbidden/allowed by Islamic countries.

Yeah, they wouldn't even go there.

+1000 Exactly.

What a morally bankrupt institution the UN has become. And no, I'm not Catholic.

if you think the UN is morally bankrupt, I can't imagine what you think the Catholic church is.

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely -- letting them know is essential. And keeping up the church because some of what is DONE is good, does not hold water

The same could be said of slavery.


Loyal Catholics could move right back into the churches once the Vatican cleaned up its act. It's not like other religions are lined up to buy them.