Need a good Catholic response

[untruestory]

I’m in a discussion group where we discuss and debate religious issues. I’m not well studied. I’d like if I could get a response to some arguments I was challenged with. I’m especially ignorant on how to respond to the accusations against our current Pope. Maybe somebody could link to some condensed material about it. (I don’t have the time or energy for a whole book)
Thanks in advance. Here’s a snippet from the argument I received:

…I said religion and politics which sometimes work hand in glove. You would recognize those 2 forces have killed more people than anything else. Much of the Nazi party were catholic and Hitler was certainly a Christian as it said on every Nazi’s belt “Gott mit uns” translation “god with us.” The Catholic church had a national day of prayer on Hitler’s birthday until recent and supported the “final solution” that tortured and murdered millions of Jews.

I didn’t boycott religion because of child rape although the aftermath which I’ll get into is worth abandonment alone. It won’t get tired because it was systematic and I know isn’t exclusive to Catholics. You imply I was making child molestation conditional on priesthood which I didn’t. I will say if you’re going to wear the cloth you’d better hold yourself to a higher standard especially when you claim to have God on your side. I’m sorry I expect more out of them if they’re going to claim to have divine right.

Ratzinger the current pope in 2003 was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith: and his job to deal with the “child scandal.” His 1st act was to write a letter to Catholic Bishops ordering them on pain of excommunication not to talk to the police or anyone else. “Investigations should be handled in the most secretive way restrained by perpetual silence.” The Mexican founder of the Legion of Christ Marcial Marciel was protected from his own catalog of abuses. Ratzinger: “One cannot put on trial so close a friend of the pope.” When the allegations could no longer be denied Marcial was sentenced to a life of prayer and penance by Ratzinger. His grace the whole affair and the cases in Boston as causing suffering for the church and for me personally. He also said the answer would be to stop homosexuals from entering the church. This is disgraceful. What about the children? There’s nothing more wicked than raping a child and they get brought up because it matters. These children have to live the rest of their lives not trusting the church leaders and may be the reason they become atheists. I can’t respect anyone’s position who doesn’t denounce these atrocities and the perpetrators.

I really want to have another go at this and drive the point home. The child abuse (that’s the term used for raping orphans) is not tired or old. When the head of the Catholic church who’s to be the vicar of Christ on earth prefer to cover this up and simply move the guilty to the Vatican or sentence them to a life of prayer…when he wines about how this brings pain on the church and himself…I’m to take this fellow primate serious? I want you to visualize those adults in holy orders touching and inserting those children and visualize the tears of those children and how this was repeated on them, and the gratified disgusting look on the faces of the guilty. Imagine those children having no one to turn to and the helpless feeling you’d have wishing it would stop. And Ratzinger more concerned about how the church would be viewed and even more ego maniac and self-serving, he makes himself a victim in this. This is the lowest form of human and he leads your church. Anyone else doing this to children have a future in a prison cell and it’s their turn to enjoy the business end of rape. One of the rapists if Ratzinger dies soon enough will get to vote- in the next pope. A nun delivers harsher punishment if you’re caught talking in class.

 

[fermat]

There isn’t a response, not to this kind of mind set. Your best hope is to ask to discuss one single part of the message, like, ‘Much of the Nazi party were catholic’. How does they know that? What is their source? Challenge them on it. Then you have opportunity point out the fact that just because a Catholic does something wrong, it does not mean the Catholic church is bad. The Church is a hospital sinners, not a museum for saints.

As for the war section, WWII killed more people that in any war in history, something north of 50 million. It was not a religious war. Either was WWI. Neither was Vietnam. Neither was Korea, the gulf wars, etc. The argument that religion kills people is completely absurd.

 

[RPRPsych]

You might want to ask them to have a look at this:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html

And if Hitler or his associates were practising Catholics in good standing, then I’m the King of Spain and the Pope.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Also, you could point out a fallacy in the very basis of his argument (namely that nazi’s killed more people than any other regime in history)

Ten most evil dictators in history, by kill count

20th century’s deadliest dictators

That alone shows that he did not put in the proper time to develop a well grounded argument, and instead focused on buzz topics (Nazis and the child abuse scandals) in order to draw on the sympathies of the judges / other members. (This is a tactic that is commonly used during the election season because it make people act on emotion rather than well-grounded logic)

As stated, the person likely has absolutely no idea about the religious makeup of the Nazi party. Here is an atheist’s take on it, so they can’t say that there was any sort of religious bias in the findings since it was likely geared to try to harm religion as a whole:
Religious affiliation and support of Nazi Germany

While it is true that there were “Catholics” who supported the Nazi party, it is also true that there are currently “Catholics” that support homosexual “marriage” and contraceptive techniques. These people are Catholic in name only. I could call myself a Muslim, but that doesn’t make me one. Catholics who did support the Nazi party either didn’t understand the Nazi party, or didn’t understand church teaching. The Vatican was openly against the Nazi party and worked diligently to aide the Jews and other peopel who were affected. This concept of the Vatican supporting tehe Nazis is a modern attempt to debunk the church and has no factual basis.

Here are some links about that:
The Bishops Vs the Nazis
The Church, the Nazis and the Facts
how Pope Pius XII Protected Jews

Your friend’s arguments are based on emotional issues rather than logic, and are also based on errant “Facts” that have been purported by uneducated individuals bent on harming the church.

As for the issue with the Abuse scandal, I very much doubt Pope Benedict forbade the priests form talking to the cops. Instead, he encouraged that the matter be handled in house, which has pretty much always been the Church’s way. Any group would do the same, be it a religious organization or a business. The initial reaction is to protect the body as a whole, so it was a logical decision to try to handle it and avoid scandal. It may have been a bad decision, and it may have bit us in the butt, but it was still a logical one.

Also your friends attempts to “Drive the point home” are also nothing more than an appeal to emotion, rather than an argument on sound reasoning. It’s very effective, admittedly, but it still has very little to do with the argument against religion. Every order has people who would abuse it. We are a church of sinners, we have always been a church of sinners and we will always be a church of sinners. If we weren’t then there would be no reason for the church to exist because there would be no need for redemption. Those priests abused their power, and they will suffer the consequences; but their actions do not detract from the truth of the church’s teachings.

 

[Ignatius]

I’m in a discussion group where we discuss and debate religious issues. I’m not well studied. I’d like if I could get a response to some arguments I was challenged with. I’m especially ignorant on how to respond to the accusations against our current Pope. Maybe somebody could link to some condensed material about it. (I don’t have the time or energy for a whole book)
Thanks in advance. Here’s a snippet from the argument I received:

…I said religion and politics which sometimes work hand in glove. You would recognize those 2 forces have killed more people than anything else. Much of the Nazi party were catholic and Hitler was certainly a Christian as it said on every Nazi’s belt “Gott mit uns” translation “god with us.” The Catholic church had a national day of prayer on Hitler’s birthday until recent and supported the “final solution” that tortured and murdered millions of Jews.

I didn’t boycott religion because of child rape although the aftermath which I’ll get into is worth abandonment alone. It won’t get tired because it was systematic and I know isn’t exclusive to Catholics. You imply I was making child molestation conditional on priesthood which I didn’t. I will say if you’re going to wear the cloth you’d better hold yourself to a higher standard especially when you claim to have God on your side. I’m sorry I expect more out of them if they’re going to claim to have divine right.

Ratzinger the current pope in 2003 was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith: and his job to deal with the “child scandal.” His 1st act was to write a letter to Catholic Bishops ordering them on pain of excommunication not to talk to the police or anyone else. “Investigations should be handled in the most secretive way restrained by perpetual silence.” The Mexican founder of the Legion of Christ Marcial Marciel was protected from his own catalog of abuses. Ratzinger: “One cannot put on trial so close a friend of the pope.” When the allegations could no longer be denied Marcial was sentenced to a life of prayer and penance by Ratzinger. His grace the whole affair and the cases in Boston as causing suffering for the church and for me personally. He also said the answer would be to stop homosexuals from entering the church. This is disgraceful. What about the children? There’s nothing more wicked than raping a child and they get brought up because it matters. These children have to live the rest of their lives not trusting the church leaders and may be the reason they become atheists. I can’t respect anyone’s position who doesn’t denounce these atrocities and the perpetrators.

I really want to have another go at this and drive the point home. The child abuse (that’s the term used for raping orphans) is not tired or old. When the head of the Catholic church who’s to be the vicar of Christ on earth prefer to cover this up and simply move the guilty to the Vatican or sentence them to a life of prayer…when he wines about how this brings pain on the church and himself…I’m to take this fellow primate serious? I want you to visualize those adults in holy orders touching and inserting those children and visualize the tears of those children and how this was repeated on them, and the gratified disgusting look on the faces of the guilty. Imagine those children having no one to turn to and the helpless feeling you’d have wishing it would stop. And Ratzinger more concerned about how the church would be viewed and even more ego maniac and self-serving, he makes himself a victim in this. This is the lowest form of human and he leads your church. Anyone else doing this to children have a future in a prison cell and it’s their turn to enjoy the business end of rape. One of the rapists if Ratzinger dies soon enough will get to vote- in the next pope. A nun delivers harsher punishment if you’re caught talking in class.

The best response would be the Truth. That is all a load of garbage. If they think what they are saying is true, then they need ot provide primary source evidence of each of these accusations. (Primary source evidence is not an anti-catholic screed from some website, it is a substantiated, peer reviewed and authenticated proof.)

 

[anruari]

Remember one point on the suggestion that priests should be Excommunicated if they report sexual abuse to the police:
This (if it is a valid quote) will refer to admissions of child abuse made within the sacrament of confession.

The seal on the sacrament of confession is absolute. If a priest (or anyone who accidently hears what is said in the confessional) reveals anything about what they heard in a manner that could identify the confessor, or harm them in any way they are automatically excommunicated, and their reunion with the Church is reserved to the Holy See itself.

Many priests in History have been Martyred for refusing to break the seal of Confession.

This seal does not apply to information gained outside the confessional.

A priest may encourage a penitent to deal with this type of issue outside that seal, but cannot force them.

There are currently a number of countries including Ireland which are trying to pass laws to force priests to break this seal. We will soon see priests prosecuted and jailed for protecting the sacrament of confession.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’m in a discussion group where we discuss and debate religious issues. I’m not well studied. I’d like if I could get a response to some arguments I was challenged with. I’m especially ignorant on how to respond to the accusations against our current Pope. Maybe somebody could link to some condensed material about it. (I don’t have the time or energy for a whole book)
Thanks in advance.

I’ll be happy to give it a shot.

…religion and politics which sometimes work hand in glove. You would recognize those 2 forces have killed more people than anything else.

An important thing I learned as a history student is that the vast majority of wars throughout the world were fought over economics (i.e., neither religion nor politics). In terms of killings which happen in society, abortion and criminal activity would account for much more death than religion and politics.

Moreover, even though certain people like to say, “More wars have been fought because of religion than anything else”, I have yet to see someone do the math and prove this. But even if a particular nation claims that it is waging war because of a religious motive, you can almost always look deeper and find an economic benefit that it being sought (such as resources, ideal locations for industrial sights, access to seaports, etc.). It’s just that the leaders know that many soldiers are better motivated to risk their lives for a proclaimed religious cause than a perceived economic payoff.

Much of the Nazi party were catholic…

And where is the evidence of this? Quite frankly, seeing as Germany is the birthplace of the Protestant Reformation I find it hard to believe that “much of” any political or military group of Germans in modern times has been significantly Catholic. In terms of those who were, they committed Nazi atrocities in spite of their Catholic Faith, not because of it.

…and Hitler was certainly a Christian…

No, Hitler was not “certainly” a Christian. He was, however, certainly a murdering lunatic. Christianity had nothing to do with his crazed motives (other than looking for Christian relics in an attempt to procure supernatural power).

…as it said on every Nazi’s belt “Gott mit uns” translation “god with us.”

Once again, many leaders know that proclaiming a religious cause is a often a better motivator for people than what the real reason is. After all, the Nazis no doubt thought that “God with us” made a better slogan than, “Let’s risk our lives to conquer the world for our homicidal, megalomaniacal dictator!”

The Catholic church had a national day of prayer on Hitler’s birthday until recent…

In recent times, many Christians observed a day of prayer on April 20, and as far as I know, no Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox Christian claimed that it was in honor of Hitler (which is what this person’s criticism is implying). The Catholic Church chooses dates for special prayer themes based upon her own calendar, and coincidences will occur with certain historical events, even dire ones. What exactly is the alternative? Should the Catholic Church research every significant date in the lives of every murdering despot in history in order to make sure that a day of prayer would not coincide with any of them? If Catholics did that, we would not have any days of prayer!

…and supported the “final solution” that tortured and murdered millions of Jews.

Absolute hogwash! Where is the evidence of this? It seems that this person’s sense of historical research amounts to reading wild conspiracy theories and blatant anti-Catholic revisionist historical rhetoric. Next he’ll be saying that the Catholic Church runs the Illuminati and is scheming with extraterrestrials to colonize the earth.

I didn’t boycott religion because of child rape although the aftermath which I’ll get into is worth abandonment alone.

Boycotting or abandoning a religion because of child rape is not a rational reason unless the religion in question was actually teaching people to commit child rape. In other words, there is a difference between certain Catholics committing such atrocities despite the Church’s teachings that such crimes are mortal sins, and a church that promotes crimes against children (such as those cults where having “child brides” is officially sanctioned and encouraged).

It won’t get tired because it was systematic and I know isn’t exclusive to Catholics.

As a side comment, nor is it exclusive to any religion, denomination, company or organization. As to the “systematic” comment, I’ll address that in my response to this…

You imply I was making child molestation conditional on priesthood which I didn’t. I will say if you’re going to wear the cloth you’d better hold yourself to a higher standard especially when you claim to have God on your side. I’m sorry I expect more out of them if they’re going to claim to have divine right.

And the Catholic Church agrees with this. One should expect more from the clergy in view of the fact that they are clergy. But the crimes that a certain group of priests committed in certain countries, and the manner that a certain group of bishops initially dealt with the crimes, does not suddenly become the “systematic” policy of the entire Catholic Church.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Ratzinger the current pope in 2003 was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith: and his job to deal with the “child scandal.” His 1st act was to write a letter to Catholic Bishops ordering them on pain of excommunication not to talk to the police or anyone else. “Investigations should be handled in the most secretive way restrained by perpetual silence.”

This person is referring to a letter allegedly sent by the Vatican to bishops in 2001, which a reporter for The Guardian claimed to have procured (and consequently made public). As far as I know, the Vatican has not yet given an official response to it, other than to say that, as a policy, the Vatican does not make public statements regarding confidential letters. I have read an English translation of the purported document and it was constructed in the complex language of Canon Law (i.e., it was written under the expectation that the reader was well versed in the Church’s “legalize” language). The reporter in question was therefore giving his personal interpretation of the document’s “legalize.”

For example, the reporter said that the document states that investigations should be “retrained by perpetual silence.” But the document does not actually state this. Rather, it says, “Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret”. Even though this does, indeed, refer to confidentiality, Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza commented on pontifical secrecy by stating that it is applied to tribunal procedures and not to specific crimes committed by the clergy. He also reminded people that the 2002 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (which was approved by the Vatican) requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.

The Mexican founder of the Legion of Christ Marcial Marciel was protected from his own catalog of abuses. Ratzinger: “One cannot put on trial so close a friend of the pope.” When the allegations could no longer be denied Marcial was sentenced to a life of prayer and penance by Ratzinger.

Consider my comments on this from a previous thread.

His grace the whole affair and the cases in Boston as causing suffering for the church and for me personally. He also said the answer would be to stop homosexuals from entering the church.

First of all, I’m not sure what “His grace the whole affair…” is supposed to mean.

Secondly, I know of no prohibition against “homosexuals from entering the church.” The question, rather, is whether or not a homosexual should be considered as a candidate for the priesthood. It may be beneficial to read this article by Fr. Robin Ryan, CP.

This is disgraceful. What about the children?..

The pope has personally met with victims of abuse by members of the clergy. Moreover, I fail to see this person’s line of reasoning. Certain priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies victimized children. As a result, the Vatican stated (in order to help protect future children) that men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies should not be admitted to the ordained ministry. Exactly how is this policy “disgraceful”?

There’s nothing more wicked than raping a child and they get brought up because it matters. These children have to live the rest of their lives not trusting the church leaders and may be the reason they become atheists.

And the Church agrees. But the Church also brings this up! Is this person somehow unaware of the The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People which formulates the U.S. bishop’s guidelines for the reconciliation, healing, accountability, and prevention of future acts of abuse?

I can’t respect anyone’s position who doesn’t denounce these atrocities and the perpetrators.

Neither can I. But the pope and the Church has denounced “these atrocities and the perpetrators”, so what is the basis of this criticism?

I really want to have another go at this and drive the point home. The child abuse (that’s the term used for raping orphans) is not tired or old…

As to the rest of this person’s statement, I can understand his concern for children and his disgust for the heinous crimes committed by certain members of the clergy. But he seems to think he knows what is in the heart and mind of Pope Benedict, and then pronounces judgment accordingly. He condemns the Church for what he perceives to be a lack of the practice of proper judicial process, so where is the proper judicial process that justifies his accusations against the pope?

 

[St_Francis]

Overall, the Catholic Church has certain teachings. Should we judge the Church by those who *defy *Her teachings? Of course not. We should judge the Church by those who *follow *her teachings. Who are those who exemplify her teachings? The saints, which recognized or not. Look at the martyrs, look at St Maximilian Kolbe, who volunteered to die in the place of another prisoner. Look at Mother Teresa, who picked up dying homeless people on the streets of Calcutta and carried them herself to a place of refuge.

 

[1ke]

I’m in a discussion group where we discuss and debate religious issues. I’m not well studied. I’d like if I could get a response to some arguments I was challenged with. I’m especially ignorant on how to respond to the accusations against our current Pope. Maybe somebody could link to some condensed material about it. (I don’t have the time or energy for a whole book)

I would suggest not joining a debate group if you are not well versed in these subjects. Take time out, STUDY, and THEN join a discussion group.

 

[Mumbles140]

Once again, many leaders know that proclaiming a religious cause is a often a better motivator for people than what the real reason is. After all, the Nazis no doubt thought that “God with us” made a better slogan than, “Let’s risk our lives to conquer the world for our homicidal, megalomaniacal dictator!”

Though Hollywood is far from being the best source of information, there is a foreign film titled “Joyeux Noel”, about the 1914 Christmas Day Armistice between French, Scottish, and German troops in WWI. It took true stories from several locations along the front and portrayed them beautifully. I feel the movie did much to preserve the integrity of the history involved, and so that is why I bring this up. The belts of the German soldiers in WWI also said “Gott mitt uns”. I believe, then, that this is part of the military uniform of Germany, and not simply some Nazi slogan.

In fact, a quick search showed that the use of the phrase in Germany on military equipment and seals dates back to the 1800’s. So yes, this does nothing to prove Hitler was a Christian, as he was only using the supplies already in existence for his soldiers.

 

[JRKH]

I would suggest not joining a debate group if you are not well versed in these subjects. Take time out, STUDY, and THEN join a discussion group.

I have to agree with this.
I would also suggest not participating in groups that would allow such wild mixed up and unsubstantiated arguments to be put forward for any sort of serious discussion.

Peace
James

 

[EricFilmer]

In fact, a quick search showed that the use of the phrase in Germany on military equipment and seals dates back to the 1800’s. So yes, this does nothing to prove Hitler was a Christian, as he was only using the supplies already in existence for his soldiers.

Thanks for checking on this in more detail. The actual facts are, indeed, good to know, and I’ll bring this up the next time I see this particular topic come around.

 

[Mumbles140]

Thanks for checking on this in more detail. The actual facts are, indeed, good to know, and I’ll bring this up the next time I see this particular topic come around.

Glad to help - I was worried about responding, though, because your response was excellent in addressing the OP’s concerns, but I thought distancing “Gott mit uns” further from the Nazis couldn’t hurt!

 

[untruestory]

Great responses. Thanks guys!

I understand how no representation is often better than poor representation. I’ve been studying my faith since I became Catholic a few years ago and did my homework on Christianity in general before I became Catholic so I have a decent understanding and I know how to make a point. If a person isn’t a student of anti-Catholicism I can hold my ground. Maybe I’m wrong but these objections aren’t something ordinary people come up with right?

When I was discerning becoming Catholic I tried to disprove the Catholic Church but it was on a different level: Historical proofs of Jesus, what did early Christians believe, and how do we know the bible is true - were things that mattered to me and all this other stuff I just don’t get why people would study it. It just doesn’t seem relative to the fundamental questions of how, what, or why we believe anything.

There’s SO MUCH to learn and know about our faith on the level of understanding and living it that it seems like a misuse of time to be reading books on disproving radicals and conspiracy theorists. Clearly there’s a need for such experts but how much are we really called to know?

I mean, we’re all called to defend our faith right? That doesn’t mean we all need to be apologists does it? The group started because there were disagreements happening on fb so we decided to create a group so that we’d have a more appropriate place to disagree. Most of the people in the small group are sincerely there to learn and disagree on a more open-minded level.

I’ve been forced to search and research to defend such points and though I feel like I’ve come up with good defenses on almost every point I am spending more time than I want dealing with ridiculous points rather than ones that matter but I think he’s running low on the garbage since he’s been going back to old arguments a lot and not dealing with the explanations provided.

I look forward to getting past the bogus topics because I think the group has potential for some good dialogue and I think there’s a couple people there that are really open to learning and broadening each others understanding. We have quite the group including the “spirituality” type, my friend a Catholic youth minister with a degree in theology, a former protestant preacher and even a Buddhist monk!

Thanks again guys! I’m sure I’ll be back again and if anyone has any general advice PM me!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Though Hollywood is far from being the best source of information, there is a foreign film titled “Joyeux Noel”, about the 1914 Christmas Day Armistice between French, Scottish, and German troops in WWI.

This event is also cronicled in the folk song, “Christmas in the Trenches,” written by John McCutcheon. Here is a YouTube video of John giving a brief introduction and then performing the song.

FWIW, a number of officers got into hot water over the incident, for consorting with the enemy. I guess war doesn’t get a Christmas holiday.

FWIW, Pope Benedict-15 had asked for a Christmas truce on Dec. 7. The diplomats rejected the request. Maybe the troops did not?

 

[Mumbles140]

This event is also cronicled in the folk song, “Christmas in the Trenches,” written by John McCutcheon. Here is a YouTube video of John giving a brief introduction and then performing the song.

FWIW, a number of officers got into hot water over the incident, for consorting with the enemy. I guess war doesn’t get a Christmas holiday.

Yes, in Joyeux Noel, they do highlight the trouble each officer faces from his superiors as a result.