Once A Sacred Cow, Always A Sacred Cow

And I suppose at the end of this article you will encourage Jews to drop their claim to being the "chosen ones"...??

feuar browless pyrotherium interisland cageling thiophenic tellurist secondly
http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/ >Top Drawer Soccer
http://www.hpo.ukgo.com/

As a former Catholic, I can assure you that there is one group that is madder at Benedict than Jews and Protestants -- that is liberal Catholics. Liberal Catholics have been aware of the oppressive Ratzinger/Benedict for years and have been forced to either abide in some ways with that oppressiveness or go elsewhere for spiritual sustenance. Jews and Protestants can be angry but, ultimately, the Pope has no control over their lives.

Is everyone done children? Good. Now we can go on to more important issues.

Duckphup,

if it were not for the last line, I would have wondered why you would even answer such illiterate drivel, lol!

OK... here's the setup...

Finder wrote:

"This is what it comes down to. So there are no questions to ask about what I say."

"Any thing short of that is dead wrong!"

"And anyone who does not believe that well I hate to say it but your looking at a pretty bad eternity."

"I don't give a rip how many books you've read because I've haven't even read all of this one and I know the truth."

********

That was the set-up. Now... here's the punch-line:

"I am an open minded guy..."

*****************

LOL... what a hoot.

Finder... 'open-minded' means that one is willing to consider alternative possibilities. That implies 'intellectual honesty'.

Intellectual honesty means that one is willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions.

Sorry, Bubba... YOU LOSE on ALL counts.

Now, here's the SAD part... that is pretty much TYPICAL of the religiose mind.

Why do you insist on this forum page? It's pointless! All refuse to move. Why do we visit this site? to debate the topic? No! All of these forums boil down to whether or not God exists and or the divinity of Christ Jesus.

You come here and gain nothing by coming here. You argue for nothing. It doesn't change the truth. Why debate with all your citations and so-called education? This is what it comes down to. So there are no questions to ask about what I say.

The One, who tells Moses "I Am who I Am" He is God
He created this universe and everything in it in SIX days
His Son, Jesus of Nazereth is God in the flesh came to die for our sins so we may spend eternity with Him in Heaven

Any thing short of that is dead wrong!

And anyone who does not believe that well I hate to say it but your looking at a pretty bad eternity.

I don't give a rip how many books you've read because I've haven't even read all of this one and I know the truth.

I love you guys even though I don't know you but it's time for tough love.

I am an open minded guy but I'm not trying to be so open minded that my brain falls out. There comes a time to say these two words you all have on your tongues.

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

Thanks Jihadist; have a good flight, it's been a pleasure meeting you.

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit:)

Thanks for that link. Now I understand what E Favorite meant by Christian Humanism. I'm still here, still waiting for the flight to take off.

Christian Humanism sounds like Buddhism where Buddha is regarded as a teacher and there is no belief in God or the supernatural. Just as Jesus is regarded as a teacher by the link you provided.

Is this half-way measure by those who want to be part of organised faith, quasi-religious entity, but don't believe in God and yet, balked at being called atheists?

Is this a measure to ensure Christians who have doubts about the divinity of Christ and the Trinity do remain within the fold of Christianity?

Will the New Church of Christian Humanists be eligible to register as a religious entity and get tax exemptions and qualify for funding under faith-based initiatives?

Whatever it is, Christian Humanism is still "organised" with its own tenets and principles of beliefs. Should be very interesting to see how it develop over the years, with its own music and rites too I suppose.

I am going to miss the essays and threads in On Faith in the next few weeks. It is getting to be very interesting.

Bye and best regards as always.

J

PS - Your "Tenets of Atheism" in response to my jocular one weeks ago in another On Faith thread is the only post I copied in On Faith. Love it.

Just for interest's sake:

http://christianhumanist.net/default.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

Jihadist – cannot respond in too much depth – both lack of time and lack of knowledge. That said – I think marxism/communism is totalitarian government, which cannot support humanism. In my opinion, democratic government is needed for humanism to work.

Regarding the Latin mass – yes, I’m sure it will be a growth industry for the church. If times get tough, maybe I can make a few bucks teaching the Latin mass (kidding) – I can still do it.

I think Doctors without Borders is a secular organization. I think the doctors’ motives for doing good is immaterial, as long as they know medicine and don’t try to proselytize their religion.

I don’t think my definition of “Christian Humanist” is new. It could be that some of these terms are so little used or talked about that people have developed their own meaning for them (like atheist vs. agnostic – which is often just a preference in terms but not a difference in meaning).

I would say Mother Theresa was a Christian who was living her Christian ideals – many of which overlap with humanism. But assuming she believed in the supernatural like all good Christians (especially nuns), then she was not, by definition, a humanist.

A Muslim who still believes in Allah, etc. (supernatural things) is a Muslim believer, irrespective of his/her beliefs about Jesus or any other religion’s god. A Muslim who dropped belief in the supernatural might become a Muslim humanist or a Christian humanist, depending on which “teacher” they followed. Or they might just become a humanist, not choosing to favor any one religious teacher’s philosophy. I consider myself a humanist now – no supernatural beliefs. Jesus is fine, but I don’t feel any special affiliation. My interest in Christian humanism would be for the traditional aspects (music, ritual) that I like and am used to.

Mary Cunningham, what does it mean to you, to be a Christian? I cannot see anything very Christlike in you. In saying that, I am not trying to be personally insulting, as I assume you may take it that way. To say that any one individual person is not very Christ-like is not a particularly mean thing to say, I think. I am just struck by your generally hostile and sarcastic demeanor, while trying to defend Christianity. You seem much more involved with the political and institutional aspects of church religion than with seeking to pursue a Christ-like life. That's all.

Oddly enough, Voltaire was a deist (unless Wikipedia is completely on crack, which is, of course, entirely possible)

" Jacques Berlinerblau is writing about it on his blog"

Oh joy. After his last post . . .

Mary,

your chain of reasoning is pretty adventurous. Let me reduce it to the consequences it has on me personally: I strongly believe I was born free (I even once had the illusion the US was, at least described itself as the land of the free). But now I have to learn that this silly attitude of mine leads straight to terrorism. I sure have to get used to my new role as a potential terrorist.

You seem to be completely unable to use your intellect and your education on any different path that deviates from your predefined Christian concepts. Your historical sequence is the old post hoc - propter hoc error, an error I thought was below your intellectual ability. As if historical events and their sequence were always monocausal simplicities!

The original sin is the ring through the nose of the cattle: Any power greedy authority uses it and has always used it for suppression. "Redemption" is available only through faith, and faith only through the church(es), especially yours.

Dan S.

The atheism I write of is intimately linked with the totalitarian movements I listed:
Jacobinism,
Communism,
Nazism.

Jacobinism is important (and unhappily you wrote you are not particularly knowledgeable here) because it was the template of the later two movements—remember I wrote Lenin particularly studied the French Revolution.

The intellectual world view of the Jacobins was derived from the Enlightenment ideal, mostly of Rousseau: “Man born free, but everywhere in chains.” This stands in direct opposition to *Christian* world view of man “born bad” (original sin) and redeemed only by God himself. For the *philosophes * what enchained man were institutions, remove or change them and man would be free. Thus Enlightenment atheism—the atheism of Voltaire and Rousseau—stands in direct opposition to Christian beliefs. Since the philosophes were French the Church was thus one of the main obstacles to the ‘freedom’ of man...add to their philosophic bent a visceral anti-clericism and voila! we have the ideology of the Jacobin movement.

The atheism posted here is more of less the same as that originally conceived of by Voltaire, (one wit even posts under the his characters).

Assuming you accept this, you can see why this virulent brand of atheism for me is so very disturbing.

For we know where it led—to totalitarianism and terror. Jacques Berlinerblau is writing about it on his blog, so I’ll post this there as well. Maybe we can discuss it further, assuming the above is clear enough & that you agree.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham

PS I won't discuss it here on the Jacoby...just as my own (OK feeble) protest about the virulence of her anti-Catholic bigotry.

E Favorite

Interesting points you made. Would love to give a longer response, but going off to there and there again.

Am throwing some ramdom points for you to have fun in thrashing. This much we can agree to -Humanism is, fundamentally, systems of beliefs that concentrates on common human needs that seek rational, not divine, ways of solving them. Secularism is fundamentally focussed on non-religious and non-spiritual matters.

Is Marxism/Communism really humanism and secularism gone awry in their rational and non-divine inspired way of solving human needs? It got that part about "religion is the opiate of the masses" right for secular humanists/atheists. But not on human nature, self-interest and self-preservation.

Secular humanism is a rather recent cooption (less than 100 years) by atheists to describe their philosophy and/or values. As you know, it is really sourced from Christianity and subsequently Enlightenment thoughts and values. Secular humanism is the end result, the "souless" and "dry" one some believers think, of all that mind-wringing on the nature of God, if there is a God, why we are here, why can't I get pasta cooked al dente.

Would love to go into how the Greek philosophers influenced the classical Muslim thinkers like Ibn Rushd, who influenced Jewish and Christian thinkers like Moses Maimondes and Thomas Aquinas (on God), who led to the Enlightment, and on to humanism and secular humanism (sans God), again as "end" result and a sort of premature "resolution" of all that mind-wringing on what is God's and what is man's domain, and who and what is God anyway?

Addressing poverty, environmental degration, fostering economic growth etc certainly does not call for divine interventions or theological discourse, except perhaps for charity.

I believe in the the multiplication of fishes and loaves to feed the hungry hordes. Say, to find better ways to develop genetically enhanced and better yielding wheat, more acreage for wheat, and better production methods for processing flour and baking bread. Voila! It's a miracle! Of modern science and technology in the multiplication of loaves. And we figured it all out with no help from God. It would be pleased eh?

Most of the solutions on personal and state's needs and interests are addressed by non-faith-based methods, but laced with faith flavoured purposes for added motivations and incentives if one has nothing to lose or nothing to go on. See the enterprise of Scientologists for example.

Economics, sociology, demographics etc. are non-religious based knowledge and methodology used for secular and religious pursuit of specific objectives. The methodology may be secular, but the objective may not necessarily be so.

Which raises the questions of the economics of having Mass in Latin from teaching it, making books available in it and who really benefits from the encouragement of using Latin in Mass.

Apart from specific reasons as stated by the Vatican, what are really its opportunity cost, its cost benefit analysis, its needs analysis?

You: "Because they also believe in the supernatural, which is a no-no for humanists and a must for christianity (at least you have to SAY you believe in it)."

What about, say, Christians who happen to be doctors, but gave up profitable private practices to join Doctors Without Borders not only because some may think they are doing the Lord's work, but also because of the humanisitic impulse in their personal beliefs as opposed to instutionalised dogmas and tenets of their faith as stipulated by their organised religion?

Personal belief can be seperated from and different from the organised religion one is adherent to. Unless one get excommunicated or is being called a heretic. But one can always start a new sect or church and ask for state help under faith-based initiatives and get tax exemptions.

A Catholic who remains devout in going to Mass and in believing in the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, but does not agree with the Pope on abortion or using Latin in Mass is still a Catholic. And can we say, s/he is a Catholic freethinker?

You : "A Christian humanist would be a person who respects the teachings of Jesus, but does not believe he was the son of God."

Is this a new defination of a Christian humanist you are giving that I have yet to come across?

It is contrary to the dogma of Christian faith, no? as the divinity of Christ is very important for the Pope and many Christians as a tenet of faith.

And so, as Muslims believe in and respect the teachings of Jesus, but don't believe he was the son of God, are Muslims, in fact, Christian humanists by your defination?

Is Mother Teresa not a Christian humanist for helping the lepers of Calcutta regardless of Christian, Hindu or Muslim? Is Desmond Tutu not a Christian humanist for pursuing peace?

You : " I might be a Christian humanist, if I had the chance. Get rid of the supernatural and the feigning of belief in it, keep the music and ritual (in some form) and I'll take a real close look at it."

Blaming the church for no chance? Want to rejoin the Catholic Church? To my mind it is the Cadillac of Christian denominations for all the formality, the stateliness, the regalness of its rites.

Must be all those non firstborn sons of European aristocracies who join the church as they have no chance of inheriting their father's lands and titles who put the pomp and pegeantry into its rites. And to give themselves addresses such as Your Eminence, Your Grace etc as Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals etc to be called by the lay believers.

I don't know about you, but Mahalia Jackson and black gospel really rocks and is very uplifting. I listen to that music wihout having to join a Baptist church.

All the best. I'm off to pillage and plunder again as a barbarian at your gates.

"why can't believers call themselves secular humanists too, if they are all for seperation of church and state, and are involved in political and social activities focussed on human rights advocacy and protection?"

Because they also believe in the supernatural, which is a no-no for humanists and a must for christianity (at least you have to SAY you believe in it). A Christian humanist would be a person who respects the teachings of Jesus, but does not believe he was the son of God.

I might be a Christian humanist, if I had the chance. Get rid of the supernatural and the feigning of belief in it, keep the music and ritual (in some form) and I'll take a real close look at it.

The "spiritual atheist" thing is an idea I like to throw out when the discussion gets to the "atheists are cold calculating rationalists with no human emotion" stage.

"Secular Humanist" is a more accurate description of mt ethical stance; and yes, Jihadist, it's not very different from Catholic or Muslim (or other religiously inspired) humanism. Like the kind that shines through in many of your comments.

Regards

A Hermit

Maurie Beck:

Sorry but I respectfully disagree. Gardasil has not had near enough testing. Merck is buying off the govt. to make tons of money by exploiting our fears. We have no idea what the potential side effects may be. To foist this unproven drug onto our girls through the schools under the guise of a vaccine is asinine and unethical.

How many other drugs were rushed to the marketplace only to be taken off of the shelf because of side effects over the past 10-15 years? You may be surprised.

Our govt. is in their pocket and vice/versa.

Jihadist wrote: "Now, how shall I describe myself. A Secular Muslim? A Humanist Muslim? A Secular Humanist Muslim? A Temporal Muslim? A Pragmatic Muslim? A Spiritual Muslim? A Pious Muslim? A Devout Muslim? Oh, but wait, I am also a woman, a mother, a wife, a banker. Darn."

"There are two kinds of people in this world... those who put people into categories, and those who don't." ~ Unknown

Jihadist - Now, how shall I describe myself. A Secular Muslim? A Humanist Muslim? A Secular Humanist Muslim? A Temporal Muslim? A Pragmatic Muslim? A Spiritual Muslim? A Pious Muslim? A Devout Muslim? Oh, but wait, I am also a woman, a mother, a wife, a banker. Darn.

Dear Jihadist,

From the time I've met your acquaintance, I'd say your list is not only too short and simple, but lacks your actual depth.

Gerry

Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are better and more honest descriptions to describe those who subscribe to non-belief in subtle variations and shades.

"Spiritual atheist"?

I can go along with that, although some atheists stated that Buddhism is most attractive to them as a form of and manisfestation of spiritualism minus belief in God.

One is never sure when atheists say they are spiritual as to whether they mean they practice meditation. Or that they subscribe to Buddhist ethics and values. Or that they live by the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights and related human rights conventions ranging from political rights to rights of migrant workers. Or all of it. Believers live by those too.

And while we are at it, why not Humanist Catholics to describe Catholics with humane and humanitarian concerns, and Secular Catholics for those who support the seperation of church and state? Or even Secular Humanist Catholics?

"Secular humanism" has a very attractive ring of high sounding intent and purpose of an atheist into social activism for the good of all mankind. So, why can't believers call themselves secular humanists too, if they are all for seperation of church and state, and are involved in political and social activities focussed on human rights advocacy and protection?

"Spiritual atheism" sounds like an atheist who is a vegetarian, meditate to new age music, wears clothes and shoes made from no animals, listen to folk music, reads Omar Khayyam in his/her spare time, and is a tree-hugger. If so, why would anyone object?

Just say that atheists also do seek personal peace and security in their life too. That they live their life like everyone else. That they have different political aligments, taste in food, arts, clothes and sports. That they can be homophobic, racist and sexist too. But that they just have no belief in God and organised religion.

I'd rather call an atheist into saving the environment an environmentalist. An atheist into heavy metal music a metalhead. An atheist into fine food a gourmet or a gourmand, depending on how he eats and why.

Now, how shall I describe myself. A Secular Muslim? A Humanist Muslim? A Secular Humanist Muslim? A Temporal Muslim? A Pragmatic Muslim? A Spiritual Muslim? A Pious Muslim? A Devout Muslim? Oh, but wait, I am also a woman, a mother, a wife, a banker. Darn.

CWS - Even in it's ads it merely says the Gardasil MAY prevent SOME (emphasis mine)kinds of viruses that may lead to some types of cervical cancer... That is hardly a "cure".

If it stops 10% of cervical cancers, it is worth it.

"Spirituality" in other languages (German, French, Spanish e.g.) is by no means identical to "religiousness" of any brand, as seems to be the prevalent meaning in American usage.

So I join you wholeheartedly with the label "spiritual atheist": A person with awe and infinite respect and wonder to the miracles of life and nature, with a thirst for knowledge and wisdom, with an insatiable curiosity, and above all: without the (understandable) wish to reduce the unknown, maybe unknowable to simple manageable, even trivial human dimensions, as religions were obliged to invent for want of more valid, maybe more complex explanations of life and nature.

One more thought on the "science = atheism = communism" trope being pushed by a few commenters; one of the major causes of all those deaths under Communism was the great Chinese famine, which came about in large part because of Mao's embrace of the Stalinist doctrine of Lysenkoism, which was a rejection of what's often referred to as "Darwinian" evolutionary theory.

Just because such movements called their ideas scientific doesn't make it so. North Korea, after all, calls itself a "Democratic" republic...I don't buy that one either...

Regards

A Hermit

Good points made by Dan S re: the religion of the French Revolution. Were there atheists involved? No doubt. Was it a movement inspired by atheism? Not at all.

It's probably worth pointing out that the other great Revolution of the Enlightenment took place in America, and was no less of a utopian dream than the French revolt. That one's had it's high and low points too (sadly we're in the middle of one of the lows right now) but on the whole it's done more good than harm, as I see it. To trace a straight line from the Enlightenment to the Khmer Rouge, as our friend Ms. Cunningham tries to do, is laughable. History, like life, is just a wee bit more complicated, I think.

Regards

A Hermit

PS. I'm with you on the "religion is eeeeevil" crowd; Harris is a little too hysterical on the subject for my liking, and Hitchens is, well Hitchens. 'Nuff said...

Limbo of the innocents (unbaptized babies who still have original sin) is not dogma. It is a matter still up for debate.

Hey MonkeyBoy!

"The Roman Catholic Church believes the dogma is supported by scripture (e.g. her being greeted by Angel Gabriel as "full of Grace"), as well as either directly or indirectly by the writings of many of the Church Fathers, and often calls Mary the Blessed Virgin (Luke 1:48). Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, she needed to be completely free of sin for her fiat."

Ms. Cunningham, I've rather lost track of your argument. Perhaps you could restate it, or reference some previous comment?

Certainly Communism is an ideology that includes atheism (as we've seen, Nazism didn't, and I'm mostly skipping over Jacobinism out of general ignorance, although I don't know if anything involving a "Cult of the Supreme Being" could be reasonably counted as atheism, and wikipedia (in an article at least partly cribbed from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica) claims (correctly or not, I dunno) that they were "foes of both the Church and of atheism,"), and also was involved in many terrible deeds throughout the 20th C.

Where things become confusing is whether this can be reasonably attributed to *atheism* (which, after all, is merely the lack of belief in deities), or if the proper level of analysis is *Communism* (at least in its various 20th C. forms).

You seem to argue that atheism inherently propelled various utopian movements into slaughter: without an afterlife, attempts were made to create heaven here on earth, which ultimately turned out to require killing countless folks who got in the way. It's an interesting idea to consider. Of course, for quite a few centuries in Europe, Christian societies became quite obsessed with, one might put it, creating a purified Christendom; the importance of ensuring people would get to heaven (in the afterlife) often justified various terrible things being done to living people, so we seem maybe to find that under certain circumstances people will find ways to justify deeply horrible deeds as the sadly necessary cost of making a better world.

While I'm not a big fan of 'religion is Eeeeevil!' thinking, one *might* make the argument that in *these specific* circumstances*, specific religious ideas and developments are 'closer', more connected to the corresponding atrocities than atheism - since, as Duckphup points out, those atrocities weren't in any sense being carried out in the name of a lack of belief in deities; rather, out of specific ideologies. But I dunno.

Anyway, taking little steps, can we agree that the various atheisms one *actually* finds today aren't actually utopian revolutionary movements that subordinate individuals and human interests to the state/race/other supposedly transcendent goal(if anything, quite the opposite, with most folks probably being more or less humanistic)?

(btw, if you are set on debating some calculus of depravity, don't forget to factor in both population size and technology (both mechanical and social). We've become very efficient at causing suffering and death (and have many people to do so with) - even the Rwandan genocide utilized modern communications (radio broadcasts), as they carried out an often very low-tech horror. But really, perhaps it would be better to skip this particular game?

Mary,

You got owned!

"Nazism was certainly totalitarian [here we completely agree - ds] and had its own pagan creed . . ."

Er . . . so, you're disagreeing with your own 8:22 post? (pagan =/= atheist; they're different things, y'know!)

Wikipedia has a section on religion in Nazi theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion
- of perhaps special interest is this paragraph (see also the rest)

"Volkism was inherently hostile toward atheism: freethinkers clashed frequently with Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” This forthright hostility was far more straightforward than the Nazis’ complex, often contradictory stance toward traditional Christian faith."

And - um, what's with the frog obsession?

MC, (replace the salutatory address to your convenience)

first, I didn't call you "stupid", but I resent people calling others stupid. (Unless .. well, skip it, or refer to Einstein)

Second: Of course I agree Nazism was totalitarian, whatever the fine semantic distinctions may mean. I never doubted it.

Third: The aryan follies of the Nazis were racist, not religious. And I am even aware of the fact that Aryan is an Indian attribute, thanks for the information. My point was not the racist part but the atheist part of Nazism, since I differ with the assumption that Nazism was based on atheism. Since you are so well-versed in debates, you might stick to the topic.

Fourth, you don't have to believe my simple report of what I experienced as a boy, but there is very little possibility of "slanting" my memory, for whatever it is worth. I didn't even claim to conclude any additional "truth" out of these simple statements, leaving it up to you or anybody else to make whatever you want out of it.

Fifth, in order to embellish our conversation, you are implicitly calling me a liar, since you allege I made up ("slanted") these memories to prove something on which you seem to disagree. The little stories about Hitler youth and church are part of my biography. I couldn't possibly make them up, and they certainly can't be thrown into a bag where traffic accidents witnesses belong. They continued for several years in my childhood.

Sixth, we were discussing the fact that Hitler got along well with religious institutions. Gestapo etc. is a completely different chapter.

I find myself vulnerable to misunderstanding, as if I was defending something, only while trying to stick to an issue. But I certainly learned a new facet of debating culture, thanks.

Mary, (or do you prefer Ms. Cunningham? Miss? Mrs? Just let me know and I'll stick to whichever you prefer) instead of parsing my comments looking for something to interpret as an insult so you can justify continuing your own childish behaviour why don't you go back and try reading for comprehension this time?

I'm well aware of the differences between totalitarian, authoritarian, Fascist, Nazi, Communist etc. All of which is irrelevant here. Are the victims of Jasenovac any less dead because their killers were Ustase fascist authoritarians and not Nazi fascist totalitarians or Khmer Rouge Communist totalitarians? Do the victims sent to the camps by Italian Fascists and French Vichy collaborators not count because those regimes weren't fully totalitarian? Are those killed by Pinochet and the other South American military dictators less dead than Castro's victims?

I realize your goal of demonizing those who don't share your faith is made more difficult if you take an honest approach to history instead of cherry picking the numbers and re-categorizing inconvenient associations, but that doesn't get you the truth, Ms. Cunningham. It makes you either a liar or a fool.

I'll go over this again for you:

My goal is not to play a numbers game with you (although I'm not going to let your misinformation go unchallenged); I thought I made it pretty clear what I think about the value of all that. You are playing a cheap rhetorical game in an attempt to discredit those who don't share your religious beliefs by making them share the blame for crimes committed in the name of ideologies which none of us here embrace. This is dishonest, ignorant and bound to get the kind of angry reaction you can use to paint yourself as the victim of incivility.

Only someone who is incapable of a rational defense of her own position would resort to such lowbrow, dishonest, childish tactics. Instead of complaining about the mote of condescension in my comments you would do well to remove the plank of hubris from your own. You're really not as smart or as well informed as you seem to think you are, and your persistent use of the "body count" game is proof of that fact.

If you want an intelligent, adult conversation I'm willing, but you really will have to grow up a little first.

Regards

A Hermit

PS, I'm not in the least bit French (not that there's anything wrong with it!); my lineage is Dutch Mennonite. You remember; the kind of people your Church used to burn at the stake for heresy...;-)

Gerry,

Nazism was certainly totalitarian and had its own pagan creed:in the place of God, the worship of the state as embodied in a particular race. (A race they made up too--the Aryan, which was Indian, not German, but that's another story). As you noted, Hitler formed accords with churches, granted, whilst simultaneously creating his *own* parallel institutions, the Gestapo for the police, Hitler Youth for schools, his own publicity machine, &tc.

May I note your debating technique would improve if you would resist the impulse to call your opponent "stupid" and direct them to "brush up on history".

Also, commanding someone to "Try your logic and reason, if your faith permits it!" is not a good way to begin a reasonable discussion. It's called an anchoring bias. If I were a normal person, I would get angry, and that would colour everything I read of you work afterwards. It's rhetoric, really, isn't it? And here you are...citing logic! Pot and kettle, eh?

As well, the argument that "I was around then; hence, my view is true" is also weak. Hindsight is notorious in slanting "what really happened."

But I am in the Jacoby forum and the lady herself is fairly prejudiced.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham
(sometimes sign myself as MC)

PS, Darling sweet Kermit, my green-toed Hermit, how does telling someone with whom you disagree to "take a deep breath", followed by the exhortation to "grow up" advance the cause of Reason, a cause you cite incessantly?

XXXXXXX and a hug too,
Mary C.

Ah Hermit, you conceited little frog! All that condescension--all that y'see Mary, you're confused, Mary, you're ignorant, Mary--and here I asked you not to do so, and I was courteous too, wasn't I? I asked nicely,didn't I? But you wouldn't, would you, my little Kermit, 'mon vieux', 'mon ami'?

Now I asked you for a few definitions and instead I get fuzzy thinking plus some ad homs...not good, mon vieux, not good. Plus your with all your condescensions, you miss the argument.

Ah well.

But I started with *Totalitarian*: look it up, mon vieux, my 'petite grenouille', my ardent atheist.

Anyway, since you seem not to be able to I'll define totalitarianism--total control by the state of all facets of the lives of its citizens.

Now, if you agree with that definition you can see (and you don't even have to bring in your friend! you can do it all by yourself, 'mon vieux', mon petite grenouille)that whilst Nazi Germany *was* totalitarian, fascist Italy was not. Nor--by any stretch of the word--was Rwanda. But don't take my word, my little friend, take Robert O Paxton's, I think it's called "The Anatomy of Fascism".

All my faux conceits--aping your style darling froggie---have tired me out. However, should my sweet friend, my darling Hermit the Kermit, my sweet froggie prince, wish to debate-- say,as one intelligent person to another--despite the fact the latter is female *and* Catholic, (Oh! I know it is hard, little Kermit) perhaps someday, someday, someday soon...when we agree definitions I can show you some before and after population figures of the Jacobite, Bolshevik and Nazi terrors.

Until then, goodnight sweet frog.

XXXXXXX
Your friend,
Mary C.

To MC:

Strange how a person in possession of her wits can implicitly connect atheism with the idea of an "utopian ideology". A-theism is the logical, "semantic" opposite, the absence of religious ideology of whatever brand. The fact that people start utopian political ideologies has nothing to do whatsoever with atheism. They can start such ideology with or without atheism. There is no causal connection. Try your logic and reason, if your faith permits it!

And before calling everybody stupid and uninformed, you might brush up your 20th century history a little bit as well: Hitler never tried to abolish churches, he even invented a new brand: "Deutsche Christen". And he established the "Reichskonkordat", a treaty with Pope Pius XII. And in most of his speeches he mentioned "Providence", aka god, to pander to the religious.

Never mind what he personally believed (there seems to be a huge difference between his 1920, more religious years after WWI and towards the Christianity hating time at the end of the war).

I was a German youngster at that time: On Saturday afternoon everybody (including the later Pope) regularly went to the mandatory (like school) Hitler youth activities (a sort of Nazi boy scouts, organized very appealingly to youngsters, Goebbels knew his business!), and on Sunday morning we went equally regularly to church, singing, praying, learning bible texts, performing crib plays for Christmas (our pastor also knew his business.).

I hope nobody alleges I am defending Hitler, gosh, but his crimes are not based on atheism, an all-too-comfortable illusion which does not win truth by constant repetition by people who want additional ammunition for their atheist-bashing. Hitler even legitimized the Holocaust relating to Luther, who was in favor of extinguishing the Jews (just google Luther, who wasn't far away as to this point from catholicism).

My liberating path to atheism afterwards was founded on science and history studies, on my profession as an artist and on my reflecting on religion and its absurdities itself, not by any "evil" ideology planted into me.

Oh, just for the record Mary, I am not a fan of Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens because they do the same thing you do when they saddle all believers with the worst excesses of religion, so yes I know atheists do it too. Doesn't mean you and I have to play that silly game...

Regards

A Hermit

Mary's dishonesty (or perhaps its just ignorance) is immediately revealed as she attempts to saddle atheists with Hitler's Holocaust.

No Mary, no one with a lick of knowledge about the era would agree with your simple minded assertion that Nazism was a) and ideology rooted in atheism or b)not Fascist!

Did you follow the link I gave you to the history of Jasenovac, Mary? The camp run by the Nazi's Croation allies, and their clerical servants? The program of forced conversions?

One can argue about how sincere Hitler was about his religion, but there's no question he used religion to inspire his movement and unite people behind him.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm

How "Christian" the Nazi movement was is another matter of debate, but it certainly wasn't an "atheist ideology" Mary; he had his Gestapo close down secularist groups, but he made deals with the Churches, both Catholic and Protestant.

And as for your Jacobins, yes they were a nasty bunch, but frankly when one compares the extent of their terror to the democides unleashed in the religious wars of the 17th century they were amateurs. The Thirty Years War was responsible for killing off almost a third of the population of Central Europe, Mary. Look it up sometime.

In any case, you've completely missed the point, haven't you? I'm surprised that someone who tries so hard to sound like an educated woman could fail to understand, but I'll try and spell it out a little more plainly for you.The numbers are irrelevant. Any ideology, pursued to an extreme, can be used to justify evil. That's why I (like most of the atheists I'm familiar with) don't attach myself to any particular ideology. I prefer to do my own thinking, thank you.

The point here,Mary, is that it is wrong to use the crimes of Communists to question the morality of all atheists, which you frequently do in this forum. It's even worse when you throw in the crimes of the Nazis and their Fascist allies, who were in most cases sympathetic to, if not actively allied with, the religious establishment. (again, look it up; think Franco's Spanish Falangists, Hungary's "Arrow Cross" party, Romania's "Iron Guard", France's Vichy collaborators...)

But back to the point; I don't think the fact that Rwanda's genocide was carried out by Catholics, abetted in some cases by clergy and even by nuns, reflects on the morality of all Catholics everywhere. Why would you think the Jacobins should be the yardstick by which atheists should be judged 200 years after the Terror? I make no excuses for their crimes, and have no sympathy for their political excesses.

In short, you need to do a little growing up, Mary dear. Take a deep breath, think about how you feel when some mindless bigot condemns you because of the behaviour of some other Catholic and then ask yourself if you really want to be like them.

Regards

A Hermit

Mary Cunningham -

Regarding another era - English colonialism of America. Would you agree that the English were avowedly Christian? and that the colonists they were trying to subdue were also largely Christian?

I wonder what you think about the role of Christianity during the US Revolution compared to atheism in the eras you mention.

Actually should back up, before we start trading statistics.

We would have to agree that the following three totalitarian ideologies were avowedly athist:

Jacobinism (the Terror 1792-1794)
Communism
Nazism (not fascism)

I have confidence that the atheism of the last two stemmed from the atheism of the first. But if atheists will agree a common definition of totalitarianism awa factors with which to judge whether a regime was admittedly atheist we might be able to discuss.

It will certainly be preferable to enduring more anti-Catholic cant.

Mary Cunningham wrote: "I most certainly *do* want to get into a body count with you. If you believe, as I do, that totalitarian states, animated as they were by atheist, utopian ideologies, used terror as an integral part of their governing and, as a result,killed more far *of their own people* than other states. They were, in fact, killing machines."

**************

The key word there is 'ideology'. There are certainly 'utopian' ideologies. But there is absolutely NO SUCH THING as an 'atheist ideology'. An atheist is just someone who is not stupid and gullible enough to think that the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering, marauding goat-herders represents some king of holy cosmic 'truth' pertaining to fundamental nature of existence and reality.

Admittedly, some atheists are bad people... just like some Christians, jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc., are bad people. But nobody has ever carried out mass murder in the name of 'rational skepticism'... they carry out mass murder and genocide in the name of various 'ideologies'... and those ideologies can be religious, political, social. But there are no 'atheist beliefs'... there is no 'atheist dogma'... there is no 'atheist doctrine'. The only thing that defines 'atheists' is the fact that they do not believe in dieties... ANY dieties. The word 'atheist' is, in itself, unnecessary. The point that you are making is no more valid than if you were making the claim that these totalitarian regimes non-believers in astrology... or Odin... or Zeus, and thus, azeusism was a motivating factor in genocide.

"I contend that we are both atheists.  I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts

"With or without it (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things... that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg, Freethought Today, April, 2000

Dear Hermit,

Oh ho! Hermit. I most certainly *do* want to get into a body count with you. If you believe, as I do, that totalitarian states, animated as they were by atheist, utopian ideologies, used terror as an integral part of their governing and, as a result,killed more far *of their own people* than other states. They were, in fact, killing machines.

I will take the body count before and during the French terror and a similar body count before and during the Bolshevik terror. I’ll even limit the Bolshevik terror to five years: 1917-1923.

Later, ‘mon ami’ (I am feeling very French today, in honour of the Jacobins and the first utopian terror.)

(But thank you for not condescending with a Y’see, Mary, &tc. &tc.)

Later.

the subject, about the pope demanding the re-installation of some tradition. JESUS rebuked the jewish pharisees because they were to concerned with the traditions of man rather than the worship of GOD. there seems to be a close relation between these two cases. we don't need to go speak latin to worship GOD, we don't even have to go to church to worship GOD.

they're is nothing wrong with the jewish faith. as long as they seek atonement for they're sins in a manner that is pleasing to GOD, i have no problem. i just wish that they would accept JESUS because he has atoned for all sins.

the jewish community is not to blame for the crucifixion of JESUS all of mankind is. the pope is just as guilty for JESUS's crucifixion as me or any other human who had walked or is walking this planet.

lastly, the pope is not infalable, GOD is. the pope is a simple man of flesh and is sinful in nature. the only infalable person to ever walk this planet was and is GOD in flesh CHRIST JESUS of nazareth son of mary.

i've said my do

IDuckphup, Anon,

I do not agree with Papal's views. But I must side with him on Gardasil.

Even in it's ads it merely says the Gardasil MAY prevent SOME (emphasis mine)kinds of viruses that may lead to some types of cervical cancer.

That is hardly a "cure".

This drug has most definately NOT been tested enough. We have no idea of the possible long-term or even short term side effects of this "vaccine".

The government in Texas and elsewhere is exploiting fears of parents to line the pockets of Merck.

It is disgusting.

Duckphup,

Ya don't get it. I'm not interested in getting the drug companies to sponsor our schools. Merck wants to get Gardisil integrated as part of a federal program which means you could NEVER sue Merck for long term adverse effects of this drug. And did you know that it has never been tested 5-10 years out, who knows its long term affects? Do the politicians? Does Merck? No. And yet they are salivating at the chance to inject our kids with it. No body knows and yet its supposedly a slam dunk. Are they kidding us?

I'm much more worried about her getting killed in a car accident. I'm more worried about her getting assaulted. The list is practically endless.

While we're at it, why is it you think that vaccinating does not send a mixed message of encouragement to sex to children in a world swirling with STDs?

PAPAL wrote: "My daughter is 8 times more likely to die in a car crash every single year of her teenage years than to die of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix."

Hmmm... 8 times, huh? Satistics show that 80% of women end up getting infected with the cancer-causing palpilloma viruses that Gardisil protects against, in their lifetime. Now, admittedly, only a small percentage of those infections result in cancer... and the drug does not provide protection against ALL cervical cancer-causing viruses... just against the the viruses that are the MAJOR cause of cervical cancer.

So... lets see... you say your daughter is 8 times more likely to die in a car crash... statistics show that 80% of females end up with the cervical cancer causing viral infections that the drug prevents... HEY... I'll bet you could easily increase those odds from 8 - to - 1 to... oh, I don't know... maybe 1,000 - to - 1? 10,000 - to - 1? 100,000 - to - 1? Waddya think?

Nah... never mind... forget it. 8 - to - 1 is good enough. Gotta keep that deterrent effect viable. And you're happy... so long as she never gets her hands on any condoms.

(Remember... before you go postal... YOU'RE the one who brought your daughter into this... not me. I didn't even know you HAD a daughter.)

Dan S:

Huh? did Mr. Duckphup actually have a question in there or was it 30 questions?

I suggest a hard look at what we are selling our kids. I'm not going to do anything to give my daughter the impression that I approve of sexual intercourse before marriage, because I love her. Do I need to go further and give a comprehensive answer about all the things I would or wouldn't teach her to a little bomb thrower like Duckpup? Has he earned it by engaging in a respectful discourse?

While we are at it Dan why should I bother with someone like you who agrees with his methods.

I didn't take years of medical classes to hop on the latest trend coming from big Pharma. You want to vaccinate your daughter, I'm not stopping you, but I don't see enough risk to justify the mixed message I'd be sending my loved ones. I've seen this big money game before.

"Yes, indeed, the Latin rite does include prayers for the conversion of the Jews - and the rest of humanity, too. We believe that in doing so, we are praying for their best interests. I have friends praying for my conversion away from Catholicism to other Christian denominations. While I believe they're erroneous, I do not take offense at that, believing that they are only wishing me well. Such paranoia on the part of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others is symptomatic of our hyper-sensitve era . . ."

Yes, well . . . the last 15-odd centuries of Christians 'wishing us well' has, oddly enough, resulted in some wariness and rather bad memories; one might want to try to understand such responses in this context. If you're not familiar with that history, perhaps start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anti-Semitism#Persecution_of_Jews_in_the_Middle_Ages

So, Papal, that's basically a "yes" to Duckphup's question, eh?

What a surprise.

DuckPhup,

Actually guy, with my medical training I know the actual risk of developing cervical cancer is very low as not all HPV will predispose... so I don't fall for the latest political battle of the day. Like you apparently do.

Apparently you think girls are hopeless wores who will get railed either way, catch HPV by 6th grade so why not just tell them you don't believe they can hold out for something better and give them some drug. Way to be a parent.

I'm sure I don't want to make Merck any more money or play the sicko game of contributing to the sexualization of children.

My daughter is 8 times more likely to die in a car crash every single year of her teenage years than to die of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Gardisil does not even protect against all types of cervical cancer.

Hurry up, you should attend a Merck rally with Nancy Pelosi.

To all of you christians, catholics, theists, or whoever whining about Ms. Jacoby's editorial:

1. Jacoby's criticism is not censurship or "totalitarian," it is, uh, criticism. It is sort of the cornerstone of debate. To claim that her criticism is a form of censurship exposes you as insecure.

2. Some of you have questioned Jacoby's criticism on the grounds of her being an atheist. You seem to be saying something to the effect of "butt out." The problem is, you catholics and many other christians insist on a nihilist doctrine where your sect alone is saved and given eternal bliss while everyone else burns in hell. Perhaps you are the ones who need to "butt out."

3. Others of you have said something to the effect of how pathetic secularism and humanism are. You of course go into no details. Take your best shot. I will be on this message board periodically to debate you. Tell me about why secularism and/or humanism are so "pathetic" in your own words.

Papal wrote: "That's all I'm about. No theocracy just a battle of ideas. If democratically we ban killing of developing babies, then I'll be happy. If democratically we keep condoms out of schools but in the drugstore for customers, I'll be happy."

Here's a thought... if condoms were available to teenagers (many of whom come under the powerful... and entirely natural... chemical influence of their hormones), perhaps demand for abortions would go down.

Something occurs to me, based upon your remarks: I'll bet you're one of those 'enlightened' thinkers who has decided that the new Gardasil vaccine, which prevents cervical cancer, should not be made available to teenagers because you find that the threat of an early and horrific death is an excellent way for people to discourage their teenage daughters from having premarital sex. Huh? C'mon... fess up.

And you'd be all for denying health-related foreign aid money to AIDS-ridden third-word countries, if it was a part of their plan to use any of that money for condoms... right?

Presuming, for a moment, that my conjectures are correct... exactly how many unnecessary deaths do you think such policies are DIRECTLY responsible for? How many abortions? How many orphans? So far? Into the future? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

I'd say such policies, if you endorsed them, would make you a death-merchant... same as if you were handing out guns and ammo. All in the name of... what?... love?... morality?... god?

But, hey... you'll be happy.

Dear Maurie:

Is this about the Catholic Church's lobbying efforts on contraception 40 years ago in CT?

I don't think you need to worry about me legislating away contraception. I'll just say its wrong. Tell why its wrong and how far ethically backwards we have gone sexually as a society as a result of the contraceptive mentality. I'll converse with those who only see license and never morality and try to offer them something better than the sexual sewer we live in.

That's all I'm about. No theocracy just a battle of ideas. If democratically we ban killing of developing babies, then I'll be happy. If democratically we keep condoms out of schools but in the drugstore for customers, I'll be happy.

Doug Marlette, a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist, novelist, and playwright died recently. Below is an article from the On Faith website about him and his cartoons, many involving religion and free speech.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2540

Papal wrote, "You have absolutely no evidence to back up Maurie Beck saying, 'Sticking your nose where it doesn't belong makes a bigger impact'."

Free speech, or the loss of it, is the biggest potential impact when religion and their believers stick their nose into other peoples' business. That is basically the reason for a secular government. In effect, it is a grand bargain so that people with very disparate views can believe what they want and live how they want without fear of government intrusion based on ideology. This does not mean that religious views cannot be presented in the public sphere (i.e. free speech to all), just that those views cannot be forced down peoples' throats or in any way institutionalized.

Dear Papal,

If you don't like this form of government, then you can try to change it. But I warn you, such a change will result in a second civil war. In addition, if such a change did happen and Southern Baptists or some other evangelical group came to power, you might not be so happy. They consider Papists (their term for Catholics) only a step above Jews and in need of saving.

Papal - You have absolutely no evidence to back up that last line, whereas I have demonstrable evidence that the cumulative sexual ethics of individuals enormously impact

Your medieval view of sex is so distorting to human sexuality and human relationships that it is terribly hurtful. At its worst it creates obsessive compulsive sexual monsters. That is my view.

Which brings us to the main point I was making; for me to force my sexual views on you or for you to force yours on me would be beyond rude. It is none of your business, period.

you are a hateful and ignorant bigot

Papal,

I hope you understand what Maurie Beck has been getting at.

It was Catholic Church lobbying that promoted the Connecticut law banning conteraceptives, even for married couples, that was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 1960's.

Moslem states in the Middle Ages had the right idea: Moslem prohibitions such as not eating pork and not drinking alcohol did not apply to non-Moslem communities within the Moslem state. Non-Moslems did not have to observe those Moslem prohibitions.

It would be nice if the 21st Century Catholic Church would catch up with that medieval Moslem wisdom, and be satisfied with trying to impose its sexual and other prohibitions only on its members, while letting everyone else decide for themselves how to behave in those areas.

Gerry:

That should have been written IS NOT an immoral act. Sorry.

Papal - "The Church decree's that the marital act of an elderly couple that is physiologically incapable of child birth is immoral."

Really? I was Catholic for a long time and never heard that one. Maybe the priests didn't think it was worth the energy telling old folks not to have sex now that they'd completed their procreative job for the church.

Can you show me that decree?

Papal,

what a bliss that the nonsense you and your church spread doesn't have the slightest impact on my life. I can easily imagine people like you to hold the burning torch to the stake, to preserve what your ilk thinks is "moral": Complete perversion of the concept of morality.

Maurie:

... But it is none of your business how other people live their own lives. You say a society's sexual ethics make a huge impact on that society. Sticking your nose where it doesn't belong makes a bigger impact.

You have absolutely no evidence to back up that last line, whereas I have demonstrable evidence that the cumulative sexual ethics of individuals enormously impact, parenting, poverty, progress and health. Usually the most defenseless (children) bear the brunt of the poor sexual ethics of adults.

Gerry:

I don't decree anything. The Church decree's that the marital act of an elderly couple that is physiologically incapable of child birth is immoral. The Church says that the marital act should be open to new life.

Again, the important point:

There is no religion in the Spirit State aka Heaven. The Gate is open to anyone of good standing with or without the assistance of B16 and/or Latin Masses.

I am so happy I am not a Christian: I and my spouse are way beyond the age of procreation, but we deeply enjoy each others' joy. Papal's decree about procreative and unitive purpose is destructive to love and peace. I don't harm nor am I telling a lie to my spouse. What a perversion of the facts, the bliss and beauty of life. It is the moral police that evolves in all religious fanatics, because they feel their power over others weakening, and rightfully so. There cannot be a "god's" plan to prevent sexual love between loving (for a very long time!) people. It is an anti-human misconception, preferring death of millions of people over freedom and health, based on the projection of their own stupidity on a non-existent illusion. What a church! To the detriment of mankind, that always was the church's attitude. To this day, they have a department for exorcism in Rome.

Of course, clever preachers with a certain amount of operational intelligence can always concoct halfway stringent-sounding statements within the scope of their attitude. Outside that scope they mean simply nothing. In my student days, we used to play games about who can come up with the most preposterous philosophy and stay stringent within this philosophy. We came always very close to religious "truths".

Papal - I don't know what it means to be hung up on sex. As I stated, a society's sexual ethics make a huge impact in so many key areas of society.

I can see you don't get it. I don't care what you do with your own life. That is your business. But it is none of your business how other people live their own lives. You say a society's sexual ethics make a huge impact on that society. Sticking your nose where it doesn't belong makes a bigger impact.

P.s. Don't go raising objections like protecting children from child molesters. Those are asymmetrical power relationships and we have laws for those abuses. But between consenting adults the law assumes people can make their own decisions and those should be respected, regardless of whether those decisions end up in the best interest of the interacting parties or not. Otherwise, you have government intrusion, which assumes that people must be protected from themselves. Totalitarian utopianism from all sides of the political spectrum may likely follow.

We may all agree that marital infidelity (i.e. adultery) is probably a poor choice. But it happens to such a wide degree (and to even the most pious among us) that criminalizing it would be as foolish as Prohibition was in the 1920's. This is what I mean by utopianism. In trying to create a perfect society we would end up with religious police enforcing a social conduct that was so entangling that freedom would be impossible.

Dear Maurie Beck:

I don't know what it means to be hung up on sex. As I stated, a society's sexual ethics make a huge impact in so many key areas of society, so the Catholic Church in its pastoral role, should take a clear stand on sexual ethics.

I have been able to piece together your objections to Catholic teaching as primarily about a prohibition on condoms. This is certainly a fact but it is one prohibitive piece of a much larger positive message on sexual love.

The Church believes that one cannot separate the procreative and unitive purpose of the marital act. To do so, prevents God's plan for new life and tells a lie about love to the spouse. It does harm to the spouse. Its kind of like saying I unite with you but only if you agree not to bear me children. It is a conditional love, not an unconditional love. Catholic marriage is to reflect and unconditional love.

I take it you don't understand this or think this is a "hang up." I assume this is why you don't understand why the Church wouldn't put its stamp on handing condoms out to Africans, and in your view, preventing the spread of a devastating disease?

I think Terry brings up a good point in separating the preoccupations of an authoritarian hierarchy with the faith of the people.

speed123 - There are higher divorce rates in Christian groups because there are higher marriage rates within this group.

You misunderstand what a rate is. It is the first derivative of the functional relationship between divorces and marriages.

A rate is a special kind of ratio, indicating a relationship between two measurements with different units, such as miles to gallons. A unit rate is a rate that is simplified so it has a denominator of 1. This type of rate is frequently used when referring to statistics.

In this case we are discussing the number of divorces per marriage between different groups of people. By describing the relationship this way, we have a ratio that is true irrespective of the total numbers involved. For example, let’s say that in a population of 100,000 Ubangi’s, 90% marry (i.e. 90,000 married people, or 45,000 marriages). It turns out, that out of the 45,000 marriages, there are only 450 divorces. Dividing 450/45,000 = 0.01. There is 1/100 of a divorce for each marriage, or a 1% divorce rate. Now lets look at another group who we will call the Palomi’s. The Palomi’s also have a population of 100,000, but only 30% marry (i.e. 30,000 married people or 15,000 marriages). Out of 15,000 marriages, only 150 get divorced. The Palomi’s have fewer overall divorces than the Ubangi’s which is similar to your point about Christians getting married at a higher rate. However, if we do the math, we see that 15/15,000 = 0.01 or a divorce rate of 1%, which is identical to the Ubangi’s. This will hold true, no matter the initial population size. Let’s say the Palomi’s only had a population of 2,000. Thirty percent marry, meaning 600 married people and 300 marriages. There are a total of 3 divorces and a divorce rate of 1%.

So, when statistics show that Christians get divorced at a higher rate, that rate takes into account the higher overall marriage rate. We might therefore infer that Christians are more prone to divorce, overall than non Christians. However, there are other factors that affect divorce rates as well, such as the denomination, how often people go to church, socioeconomic background, what part of the country the people are from, etc. For example, that highest divorce rates among Christians are among southern Baptists (29%) and the lowest is among Catholics and Lutherans (21%). This latter rate is identical to the rate among atheists and agnostics.

You may ask, how do we get a reliable rate, given all these other factors (see above and others not listed)? We use statistical methods that partition or ascribe parts of the overall variation in rates to different factors, including interactions among the factors (e.g. denomination and socioeconomic background). You may then quote Mark Twain, “That there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Perhaps, but the mathematical theory underlying statistics is very strong. The problem arises when people use statistics uncritically. In looking at the data on divorce rates in the U.S., most studies come to the same conclusions and they don’t leave out other contributing factors that would result in erroneous conclusions. These rates of divorce/marriage have remained surprisingly stable for a long time, which adds further support to the general conclusion.

speed123 - Some great anti Catholic stereotypes/propaganda you threw in there at the end.

Again, you misunderstand. I was talking about Vatican policy with regards to condom use or sex, not ALL CATHOLICS. I know a hell of a lot of Catholics that aren’t hung up on sex and have no problem using condoms or getting their children to use condoms. However, they are practicing Catholics and derive a great benefit from believing in Jesus Christ and going to mass. It is a place of calm for them. They don’t try to convert me, nor I them. We have discussions about religion and belief and we tend to make the same sort of judgments about right and wrong (i.e. moral values). I don’t tell them they are delusional and they don’t tell me I’m going to hell. In fact, they don’t think I’m going to hell regardless, because Jesus Christ is a God of love and Mercy and why would He send me, a very good person, to such a terrible place just because I don’t believe in Him.

I would never disparage your belief in Jesus Christ. You are obviously very passionate about it and it provides meaning to your life. However, I find fault with some of the Catholic Hierarchies’ beliefs and policies. Of course I attack those beliefs. When you state some belief that I find foolish I say so. But I am not disparaging your Catholicism generally, or you specifically.

It is true that the number three comes up in many if not all religions - for example, George Gurdjeiff maintained that the numbers 3 and 7 were the essential numbers in all material formations,, up to and including the Absolute - the essence of all phenomena requires the positive, negative, and neutral elements.

The Jewish Kabbalah (a great work) employs the number 3 as representing and describing the first manifestation of both the spiritual and material universes.. Kether is the First & One, the solitary Point and the first emanation from the Ain Soph - the Eternal Unimanifest...from this ONE comes Chokmah and Binah...with all other manifestations to follow according to the density of each material sphere (we're near the bottom with Malkuth). Clearly this is not very different from the Trinity, except for the fact that the Godhead is never manifest in Kabbalah......and is eternally beyond knowing.
Buddhism also has triads, including the essential manifestations of a Buddha, including the physical, spiritual, and Ultimate primary manifestation as Dharmakaya (in this spiritual vision the one and only true reality - without form, qualities, or characteristics of any kind). But as the Buddhists say, these are all just concepts and feeble attempts to describe the indescribable - the goal is to experience Dharmakaya directly, thus seeing one's essential nature first-hand and being transformed in the process. This work is exceedingly difficult, requires spiritually guided meditation and contemplative practice for an indefinite (lifetimes) period of time.

So yes, the number 3 is very big in all religious visions and revelations - I do think the ultimate metaphysics of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions is lost in the historical development of an administrative hierarchy and over-attention to the paramount importance of clerical authority.

In my opinion real spiritual authority is obscure and hard to find - even if you happen to be looking for it.

Nice job on the Trinity explanation Viejita.

I can understand why sometimes it can be hard to understand the Trinity doctrine. I guess a good way of explaning it is analogical. Take for example the concept of time. Time exists in three parts: past, present, and future. Each is not the other. But each shares the same nature: time. So too with space which is height, width, and depth. Matter is solid, liquid, and gas. You live in the trinity of trinities. If certain things in life can be three seperate things but only one then understanding how God is this way too should be understandable, right?

Susan Jacoby was raised Catholic. She talks about it in an earlier “On Faith” essay - link and excerpt below:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/01/memories_of_a_skeptical_girlho.html

“Memories of a Skeptical Girlhood
Catholic school was my formative religious experience. In parochial school, at least two hours out of each day were devoted to Mass or religious instruction. [Etc.]”

NOW is it OK that she criticizes Catholicism?

Terry wrote
"Truly speaking, who can comprehend what's really said here - and who can comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity?? If there's a Catholic here that would like to enlighten us on the esoteric truth of the Trinity, I'd certainly like to hear it."

The doctrine of the Trinity is not specific to Catholicism but is common to most Christian sects. First of all, it's officially a mystery, so by definition no full explanation is possible. But here is a partial explanation.
We break up our description of G-d into the three "persons" who perform what we consider to be the three major functions of the deity. They are the Father, who is recognizable as the G-d of the Old Testament; the Son, who is Jesus Christ who walked among us in human form and who still exists as the part of G-d that best understands the challenges of being human; and the Holy Spirit, who is in my opinion the biggest mystery of all but who could be described as the spirit of G-d's love in the world.
There is no bright dividing line between where one person of the Trinity ends and the others begin, since they are all part of the same being.

I'll let someone better versed in scripture and theology pick it up there if this isn't enough. BTW before you jump all over the mystery part, a mystery is something that can be understood but not necessarily articulated in human language.

DuckPhup - that being the case, we have no time to lose as you say.....the Buddhists believe that it's both rare to be born human, and an earned privilage based on karma. They also maintain that without a direct perception of your ultimate nature (which equates to Ultimate Reality) you will continue in perpetual ego-centric pursuits that have captured and held all of us in thrall for endless ages - this is a deep realization for those that have experienced the 'Awakening of the Faith' and the truth of this dharma...or doctrine, if you will.

The Buddha recommended that nothing should ever be taken on faith alone......one must pursue the truth until until it arrives first-hand - this is salvation, or freedom from perpetual re-incarnation as a karma-bound sentient being. Admittedly, this is the very long view....and seemingly in utter contrast to the rapid passage of a single lifetime.....if you research very early Christianity you will find the doctrine of re-incarnation present, since all religions morph from earlier religions. This was declared heretical early on, because of precisely the reasons you mention....overcoming potentially inherent laziness in the practice of religion when according to the new (Christian)religion salvation was at hand - either you believe in the 'here and now' of redemption by proxy or suffer eternal damnation. That's alot of pressure, and fear always wins a ton of converts.......unfortunately it obviates real knowledge and passivly places your salvation in the hands of a 'savior' and in fact a human manifestation of the one and only Creator God that has mysteriously sacrificed his life so that you may enjoy an eternal spiritual reward without any particular effort, other than believing that it's true. Truly speaking, who can comprehend what's really said here - and who can comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity?? If there's a Catholic here that would like to enlighten us on the esoteric truth of the Trinity, I'd certainly like to hear it. No cutting and pasting allowed. Your word only....

If humans could overcome fear we'd avoid endless mistakes and the unpredictable end results of emotion-laden irrational decisions. We'd even stop following leaders that take us down roads of perdition and failure. I'll resist even mentioning current political realities - but you get my point I'm sure.

Just give Pope Benny the Papal States back and he'll calm down and stop insulting the other Christian churches (err, sorry, the other Christian non-churches).

It's a matter of pride with him, just as it was for Pius IX, who assuaged his amour-propre over the loss of the Papal States by having himself declared Infallible.

(A lawyer's advice: never accept an intangible good in place of tangible property.)

Why are these Popes so concerned with temporal things like the lost, never-forgotten, and lamented Papal States?

Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. Attorney General may soon be out of a job. Pope Benny should hire him to review clemency appeals from those sentenced to death in the restored Papal States. He did a good job for Bush when he was Governor of Texas -everybody was executed, even the innocent ones.

Question: Will Benny flow with modern times and replace the former Papal Hangman with a lab technician to insert the IV tube?

Based on his retrograde decision on the Latin Mass, he'll probably revert to a stake, kindling and matches.

Heaven help us.

I believe that Jacoby is Jewish, not atheist.........go figure.

She is able to spew here anti Catholic hate yet if someone points to the faults of Jewish leaders or the Jewish state Israel - which discriminates against all non-Jews on various levels - then they are an "anti-semite"

I guess discrimination is only acceptable against some groups and, as Orwell stated, we are all created equal, but some of us are more equal than others (at least in the propaganda the US press puts out)

I wonder what the faith is of the family who owns the Washington Post is?

Terry wrote: "Don Juan says, it's always over your left shoulder and it's gaining."

Don Juan ALSO said that awareness of our own mortality can give all of our actions power, provided we treat each decision and action as if it will be the last thing that we do on this earth... and that the 'illusion' of immortality weakens us, by making us think that we have unlimited time when, in reality, we hardly have any time at all.

Religion is one ingredient in the human soup - it's just amazing how many cooks you can get in one kitchen!!

I think I like Jacob's post best of all (admittedly mistakes in interpretation could be made here & hat's off to your religion but it sounds alot like an adaptation of the Urantia Book) - you can't die because you were never born....everybody just has an immense amount of time on their hands (all eternity) so why not do religion as a special interest project. After all, if there was no religion there would be no atheists....so we are all beholden to one another without end.

Do consider this seriously - if you were never
'created' in the first place, what's all the commotion about? Yes, lots of people have been rotten to the core forever, but to suppose that an eternally existing consciousness (each one of us) can be 'saved' or 'delivered' could just be dead wrong....now, now - don't get all religious and start quoting the bible at this point.

Religion is a serious hobby - I've been having at it as an academic interest for about 40 earth years...... I'm no closer to the truth than when I started, but at least I know what I don't know. I'm not absolutely sure the Pope knows whereof he speaks either, but then I left Catholicism nearly 50 years ago.......I would sooner listen to what the Dalai Lama has to say.

Really, there's nothing wrong with Paganism or Atheism, or Monotheism for that matter.....water seeks (and finds) it's own level.

How anyone could imagine that they would find the one true religion in a single lifetime is baffling to me.....it really defies common sense by any standard we usually appy to these matters. A lifetime is over literally in moments after it's conception - if viewed in the cosmic scheme of things.

Admit it, all you one-lifetimers.....you don't have a clue as to what you're facing as you approach that final breath - as Don Juan says, it's always over your left shoulder and it's gaining.

Ms. Jacoby does the truth an amazing disservice. However, one has to expect such screed from the Washington Post, which is celebrated (and yes, mocked) for its disdain for anything authentically Christian.

Let's make something very clear. Pope Benedict, in liberalizing the usage of the Tridentine Rite, in no way restricts the usage of the newer Novus Ordo Rite. Catholics are now free to attend one or the other. So what's the problem with that? Are Ms. Jacoby and others suggesting that those who prefer the older rite to be disregarded?

Yes, indeed, the Latin rite does include prayers for the conversion of the Jews - and the rest of humanity, too. We believe that in doing so, we are praying for their best interests. I have friends praying for my conversion away from Catholicism to other Christian denominations. While I believe they're erroneous, I do not take offense at that, believing that they are only wishing me well. Such paranoia on the part of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others is symptomatic of our hyper-sensitve era, where wishing another human being "Merry Christmas" can lead to lawsuits. Jewish friends of mine have wished me "Happy Hannuka" (I know it's not spelled properly). So what?? They merely are being gracious, and I graciously accept it. By the way, where does the Wiesenthal Center get off telling the Pope what to include in Catholic ceremonies? Does that mean we are now free to rearrange their Yom Kippur services? After all, fair is fair!

I read some of the comments, and someone asked why we'd want to use a dead language. That's a fair question. One reason is precisely because it is dead. That is, the meanings of the words won't change over time, as they would in a language that is currently in common usage. I remember my missals from many years ago. The Latin was on one side of the page, and the English on the other. There was never a problem understanding what was going on. Now, yes, it did require paying attention and not dozing off, but that is true no matter what rite is being used. By the way, I've got to imagine that in other denominational services, that much sleeping occurs; this is not a uniquely Latin Mass problem!

In her last paragraph, Ms. Jacoby urges that no one pay attention to the Pope. She refers to him in language that would have gotten her fired from the Post had she used that same language to describe a leader of another religion. She doesn't even try to hide her anti-Catholic bigotry - yes, let's call it what it is! Could this be why the Post is experiencing drops in its circulation? If the Post keeps publishing such hate speech, it will continue its descent into non-relevance. Carry on!

Triciae,

I am not into this Latin mass discussion. For me, you can drink some dead man's blood and eat his flesh in any given language. I am proud to be an atheist, never was a catholic, and detest the superstitious brainwashing to which you obviously were exposed, and I understand the well-known fury of futile attempts of proselytizing. The fact that so many people were converted by the "powerful symbol" is a sad consequence of totalitarian "thought police" ("Gesinnung" it was under Nazism) pervading the catholic centuries, similar to the Islamist moral police in Saudi Arabia and other religiously terrorized countries.

Your rant against Susan had a funny effect on me: At first, before getting repulsive, it came across as bordering on entertainment, at times I found myself asking if it was meant ironically to describe the rage and embarrassment of a child caught stealing candy.

As a non US, non English mother tongue poster, I learned a wonderful list of insults, which I memorized to use at a given occasion:

dimwit
git (dimwit git, a pleonasm)
two braincells misfire
ridiculous
unintelligible to you
bigotry
utter stupidity
ignorant
pernicious (a beautiful one!)
pathetic
credulous
conformist
twit
dusty canards,

and the best: Edwards!!

Your numbers argument (ha, so many have been converted!) can be used against you: 90% of Germans were adherent to the Nazi party at least in its beginnings: They didn't know better! Goebbels and Goering were at least as efficient in political brainwashing PR as B16 and his predecessors were in religious brainwashing PR! And the quarrel about a Latin version of something nobody really understands, to symbolize that there is nothing to understand (it has to be faith, not understanding!), has an amusing touch. The beliefs of a big number of idiots doesn't add up to wisdom.

Your rant tells a lot about you, very little about the topic and nothing about Susan (she even can easily take your loss of control as an affirmation of her stance!)

Mary Cunningham:

Most of the atheists I know have the same objections to Marxist ideology that they have to religion; that it it is dogmatic, discourages free thought and expression, substitutes conformity to a rigid doctrine for critical thinking, etc.

In fact, a professor of mine, educated in Moscow, used to argue that the reason Communism was so successful first in Russia was because of the Russian tradition of submission to religious authority. In Dr, Vitkin's words "they just substituted one set of saints for another."

The terror in France was a reaction to the callous disregard for human life demonstrated by the nobility and their clerical allies; it is dishonest of you to revile that reaction, awful as it may have been, while ignoring the precedent excesses of the Catholic Monarchy.

And if you want to play "body count" let's not leave out all the victims of Christian European colonialism; we can start the ten to fifteen million deaths in the Congo under the rule of the good Christian, capitalist Leopold II of Belgium. His methods (like cutting off the hands of dissidents) continue to be used by people like Charles Taylor (another "Christian" leader), and let's not forget that the worst genocide since the Nazis was carried out in Rwanda, "the most Christian country in Africa," and that the victims and perpetrators alike were overwhelmingly Catholic.

It is dishonest, ignorant and a cheap rhetorical trick to saddle atheists in this forum with Stalin's crimes, just as it would be dishonest, ignorant and a cheap rhetorical trick for me to ask you to apologize for King Leopold, or to accuse you of sharing the moral values of a Charles Taylor or the Catholic operators of Jasenovac death camp in Yugoslavia in WWII...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Jasenovac.html

You don't want to start a game of "Body Count" with me, Ms Cunningham. I think it's a stupid, hateful game, but I won't back away from it if you decide to go that route, and you'll lose.

Regards

A Hermit

DuckPhup:

Barf away!!! Even good but barfing atheists are welcomed in Heaven.

This would be absolutely hilarious... if it wasn't so appallingly pathetic.

My only criticism of Ms. Jacoby is that she is too respectful in her criticism of religious 'thinking'... although I use that word loosely.

Reading these comments, I can see that what we have here are various factions who are in fundamental agreement with the core belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced to eat from a magical tree by an infinitely sadistic being, disguised as a talking snake with legs... etc... and arguing vehemently over trivial and irrelevant details... and agreeing that there is something fundamentally and terribly WRONG with those of us who are NOT sufficiently stupid and gullible to swallow such ridiculous codswallop.

“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” ~ Robert Anton Wilson

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

Next, we have some who declare that 'atheism' (NOT being stupid and gullible enough to swallow such ridiculous codswallop) is responsible for the Holocaust, killing fields of Cambodia, Soviet pogroms, etc. Excuse me? NONE of these atrocities were conducted in the name of 'rational skepticism'... they were conducted in the name of dogmatic, doctrinal belief systems that were just as insane as religion... they just happened to be political, rather than religious. There is NO SUCH THING as atheist 'beliefs', or atheist 'doctrines'. Atheists are simply disinclined to accept the idea that the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and peripatetic goat herders represent the holy cosmic 'truth' of fundamental issues pertaining to existence and reality... or similar codified, institutionalized, prepackaged delusions... incorporated... with franchises.

Anyway... most of you people make me sick. I think I'm going to go throw up now.

PS How appropriate to thank the French for their legacy of atheist, utopian terror on Bastille Day! Today is the day it all began.....

The dilemma within the atheist creeds was this: it was possible to achieve a perfect state on earth rather than in the afterlife, you just had to kill a lot of non-so-perfect people to do so. The first atheist state--the French Terror--between 1792-1794 killed proportionately as many *of its own people* as did Pol Pot. Lenin studied this and drew a conclusion: the French Revolution failed because they did not kill enough people.

Read John Gray;s "Black Mass"
John Gray's "Straw Dogs"
Michael Burleigh "Sacred Causes"
Niall Ferguson "The War of the World"

for what the twentieth century did with the atheist ideology first practiced by the French.

And all atheists like Jacoby and her accolytes do is wallow around in the Spanish Inquisition and spout anti-Catholic cant.

Pitiful.

Anon. anon, you're so condescending..

It's Mary, this, and oh no Mary, that.

And I know exactly what I'm saying. While scientific knowledge is cumulative and powerful humanity is still the same old predatory, violent animal it always was.

Anyway, hindsight is a powerful bias. If the Nazis had prevailed Nazism--and Social Darwinism--would have been hailed as 'scientific'. The Nazis themselves thought it was the wave of the future.

Same with Marx. As an analyst of capitalism he was extremely astute. As a futurologist, somewhat lacking. His communism was a utopian dream where the working class would triumph and the state and religion would melt away. (And I know my Hegel and dialectic materialism quite well, thank you very much.)

Who are you,anyway, anon? Why not use your first name & then I can condescend to you.

PS - Maurie,

Some great anti Catholic stereotypes/propaganda you threw in there at the end....what a liberal hypocrite you are.

Wrong on both Maurie and I find this bending of the fact in the liberal script very interesting. Context is important unless you are simply trying to push propaganda.

1. Divorce

There are higher divorce rates in Christian groups because there are higher marriage rates within this group. High rate of marriage = automatic higher numbers of divorces. It is all about context when comparing the numbers from group to group.

2. As for condom effectiveness in preventing HIV - nothing is a sure bet. Liberals say that condoms are the holy grail yet fail to acknowledge that just because you hand out condoms or promote their use it does NOT mean that people will you them.

Condom use is at the prerogative of the male in most developing countries (or even in the US) and the majority of males will NOT use them no matter how many classes you teach.

Faithful marriages and abstinence outside of marriage are not a form of control - it is good health policy and more effective than promoting "safe sex" with a form of contraceptive that men will not use.

Have you spent time in Africa or Latin America?

Below is an article on a recent study which proves this point - time to open your eyes!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070712/hl_nm/hiv_prevention_dc

The women were re-evaluated and counseled about risk reduction and "condom negotiation" during quarterly follow-up visits for up to 24 months.

Despite those efforts, HIV infection rates were high in both groups, the investigators report in an early online issue of The Lancet medical journal. The infection rate was the equivalent of 4.1 cases per 100 women per year in the intervention group and 3.9 cases per 100 woman-years in the control group.

Papal - Yes, the benefits to society would show up in marriage, lower divorce rates, less family dissolution, less infidelity, more two parent child rearing, more child birth, less poverty, less disease, and less suffering both physical and emotional. The Catholic Church gets this.

Then why are true believing Christians not only not immune to the problems you cite above, but are more often prone to them. And how has the Catholic Church been so resistant the to use of condoms to reduce the spread of HIV in Africa and elsewhere, when that has been shown to be a very effective method for slowing the transmission rate. The Church claims their position is based on moral doctrine while HIV rolls on. Finally, you are way too hung up on sex.

Sex 70s style

Dear Maurie Beck:

Stripping away all the silliness and excess of the 60s and 70s and some claim that we as a society were given the gift of sexual freedom. We Catholics state that this is not authentic freedom but rather license. Authentic freedom is not about doing what you lust for but being free to choose the moral good. Sexual Freedom is being able to choose what we ought to do for each other as children of a loving God. It is not about lusting for a person as an object but as loving them as a whole person in the dignity and security of marriage. That is how the Catholic Church approaches sexual ethics.

Imagine if we were freer to choose the good, rather than more imprisoned by objectification of others. Yes, the benefits to society would show up in marriage, lower divorce rates, less family dissolution, less infidelity, more two parent child rearing, more child birth, less poverty, less disease, and less suffering both physical and emotional. The Catholic Church gets this.

The truth is that Christ loved us and never turned his back on us. Christ's love was true and we could not be separated from it, no matter what we did. He loved us as whole people, he never lusted for us or treated us as objects. Ever.

The Catholic Church knows that you were meant to be loved, deeply and permanently because you are God's child. It simply states its beliefs confidently and lovingly because they are just.

Ms. Jacoby is free to rant and rave about killing babies in the name of freedom but we know this is simply license to do what she wants, not what she ought.

A HERMIT, are you there?

Eric S

Nobody is forcing you to attend a Tridentine Mass, and I'm sorry that you come from a long line of dim-witted gits who fell asleep during mass, and did not read at least the translation in the missal. To attack the return of the mass is ridiculous: nobody is forcing you to attend. Go with your little friends, sit on the floor and sing Kumbaya and Gosdspell songs until your two braincells misfire.

The Tridentine Mass, as unintelligible as it is to you and yours, has served the Catholic Church well: Millions converted and attended it faithfully for almost two millenia. Many people had a special devotion to it, and has been part of the reason why the Church is the largest Christian denomination.

As to your accusations that the people who attend it think that the Jews killed Christ, and that the Tridentine Mass has driven people to start pogroms: your bigotry and utter stupidity are showing!

There's not enough space anywhere to straighten out the dimwitted, ignorant and pernicious statements that you made in your essay, but the Pope, like every other religious leader, believes that the documents that describe his religion are true. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" ...i suppose that you'll find that Jesus was also intolerant, won't you?

To paraphrase you: No one should pay the slightest attention to any pronouncements from you, who are this pathetic, credulous, conformist twit, who serves up old, dusty canards as her opinion, and uses bigotry to scare people of a symbol that has been universally proven to be a beacon for good all over the world.

Oh, I heard that John Edwards'campaign has two positions open for people with your opinions!

Maurie Beck -

thanks, this really nails it: "Perhaps those trying to associate everything evil with atheism are actually feeling a little guilty over the excesses of the Christian past."

Peter Jackson - We are in a very permissive period of history and think of it as being very progressive and as a great advance of freedom and essential to the progress of society. To some extent this is true and necessary… But are we ourselves building excesses and errors that will create troubles?

Perhaps. What a lot of people don’t understand (e.g. Bill Bennett, the whole Christian Right) is that with innovation you get excesses. It is the nature of the beast. For example, Picasso was a very prolific painter and artist. Was all of his work of equal quality? No. He was an itinerant doodler, playing with always playing with new ideas. Many of his doodles now sell for over a million dollars. If you asked him what he thought of his own work, I’m sure he would tell disparage much of it. However, his doodles got him to the stuff of genius.

Many folks decry the excesses of the 1960’s and 70’s. However, it was an incredible time of innovation. Civil rights, the environment, technological, moral (Morals are what the religious types focus on, but I’m talking here not only of “loose morals” but overall tolerance.). There were a flood of new ideas from that time period coming out of many very different sectors of society. Many of those ideas were crazy. Some were crazy good and some were crazy bad. That is what you get from innovation. However, innovative periods often provoke a backlash, but not necessarily because of all those new ideas, but because those ideas make the world change so quickly that people often feel unmoored from their traditional way of life.

jackosucks - How does the Latin mass in any way affect public policy?

It doesn't. From reading my earlier post, you know I was responding to something else entirely. I don't give a damn about the Latin mass. In fact, I'm surprised Jacoby even wrote a response to this week's question or comment.

Many people on this thread are identifying atheism with various instances of barbarism (e.g. Nazism and the Holocaust, Stalinism, Pol Pot, etc.). For example, Papal writes, “However, with atheism any evil is possible as all atheism is a denial.”

You folks are playing fast and loose with the facts and have mistakenly conflated cause and effect. Or maybe I should not be so generous and I should say you have purposely conflated atheism with barbarism to make you point that atheists are capable and responsible for all atrocities. Enough. Hitler did not use atheism to justify killing Jews. He hated Jews, irrespective of atheism, because he thought they contaminated the master race. Stalin did not promote atheism in the Ukrainian genocide or sending his enemies to the gulags. He was only interested in consolidating power. Who knows what Pol Pot was up to?

You all know damn well you are prevaricating to suit your purposes. All the atheists I know would no more try to impose atheism on anyone than gourmands would impose vegetarianism on themselves.

Perhaps those trying to associate everything evil with atheism are actually feeling a little guilty over the excesses of the Christian past. I’m sure most Christians now would be just as horrified as any other citizen if some of their brethren thought about reinstituting auto-de-fe. The zeitgeist of modern Christians is light years away from such a worldview.

So, I’ll stop bashing all you believers if you stop tarring and feathering nonbelievers with everything vile in this world.

Bob,

Paul was not a Jew; That's new. Paul in his testimony in his trial claimed that he was a pharisee: 'Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." Acts 23:6
Maybe you owe Ms Jacoby an apology!

Maurie,

How does the Latin mass in any way affect public policy?

Is the pope forcing Latin to be used in all public settings? Nope.

This INTERNAL aspect of the church in which Jacoby is sticking her nose and big mouth...

Would anyone condem Judaism for using Hebrew in traditional ceremonies. Nope

Jacoby is just tryin to get a rise out of people by raising petty issues in order to divide people....as she usually does.

No substance, but lots of hypocricy and hot air.....this is exactly what the problem with political and religious dialogue is today.

Get lost Jacoby! And Sharpton, and Foxman and all those who promote and profit of of false divisions and controversy.

You are a cancer to society....

Susan Jacoby does not encourage understanding or dialogue between faiths, she is in the business of division and controversy.

She should be removed from the Washington Post panel if there is a shread of integrity in the editors or in the purpose of this forum and I will be writing a note to them to that effect.

Dear Papal,

You assert that Susan Jacoby promotes a worldview where there is either faith or reason and never the twain shall meet. I think you misunderstand her. She speaks out against religious believers who, in fact, have that worldview. I don’t think she has that worldview at all. However, she is rather strident with those religious people who do have such a worldview. Many fundamentalists (e.g. evangelical Protestants, Pentecostals, orthodox Jews, orthodox Catholics, Islamic fundamentalists, Hindu fundamentalists, etc.) believe that God is testing them and tempting them with everything the modern world has to offer and they have to make a choice; put their faith in God or suffer eternal damnation. Not much of a choice there.

And yes, she does believe that many of the faithful stand in the way of progress. She doesn’t have a problem necessarily with people of faith, only with the insertion of their specific morality into the public sphere.

I’m sure there are many areas where you and I have very similar moral sensibilities. You may think they come from God, whereas I’ve seen evidence that suggests there is an historical evolutionary component to it that is then mediated by our social environment. Regardless of where our morals come from, we share many similar feelings of moral awareness. However, I’m sure some of our moral sensibilities are highly divergent. For example, the idea that we are born in sin (i.e. Original sin) is abhorrent to me, especially the compulsive obsession with sex. I think sex is part of being human and is often good, whether it is in or out of marriage and whether it is casual or part of a more intense relationship. I would never impose my view of sex on you in terms of public policy. But many religious Christians would do just that. In fact, many religious Christians justify the imposition of their moral ken on others because of the idea, expressed in Joshua 7, that an individual’s sinful act (i.e. Achan the thief) can ruin a whole society (Thank you David Plotz).

I believe that is what Susan Jacoby is most concerned about.

Susan Jacoby:

I am just getting caught up here. Please excuse me if I am a little late with my reply.

I refer to your post on 7/12 at 3:46 pm. I sure hope I am not one of those "certain Catholics" to whom you refer. But surely you could not have expected a lukewarm reaction to your attack on Catholicism.

Since we are recommending books, you might want to read "Salvation is from the Jews" by Roy H. Schoeman who is himself a Jew who believes that Catholicism is the fullness of Judaism. Then perhaps you will understand that there are many Jews who are converting to Catholicism because they have found out that the Messiah is the Lord Jesus Christ and that He subsists in the Catholic Church. There is also a Hebrew Catholics web site by the way.

Why the panic Susan? If the Latin Mass is the domain of a "tiny minority of theological right-wingers" what is there to fear?

If you don't like the Latin Mass, don't go. And try doing your homework. There is no prayer for the Jews in the 1962 Missal. Oh, and one more: Paul, who was not one of the 12 Apostles but was personally selected by God to carry forth the Word, was not Jewish. So much for your theory that if literally followed only Jews could be priests.

How did you get your job anyway? Doesn't seem like the Religion section is the place for bigots, intolerance and hate speech.

Why the panic Susan? If the Latin Mass is the domain of a "tiny minority of theological right-wingers" what is there to fear?

If you don't like the Latin Mass, don't go. And try doing your homework. There is no prayer for the Jews in the 1962 Missal. Oh, and one more: Paul, who was not one of the 12 Apostles but was personally selected by God to carry forth the Word, was not Jewish. So much for your theory that if literally followed only Jews could be priests.

How did you get your job anyway? Doesn't seem like the Religion section is the place for bigots, intolerance and hate speech.

Ms Jacoby's essay doesn't clear the bar into adult thought or discussion. It is a sneer. Why on earth should it appear in a publication of this stature?

Forgiveness is an essential part of Christianity, Daniel.

Do you believe in forgiveness?

It is no longer the Middle Ages and there might, just might, have been changes in the world and in the Catholic Church even if it still uses Latin as an option for prayer.

"I'm just saying that atheists have used their ideology to justify violence too."

Well, certainly, and I would mostly agree with the basic point you're making. One quibble, though. I don't know of any state atrocities justified by _atheism_ itself ('I'm going to kill you in the name of non-belief in deities' isn't terribly convincing). The various Communist states justified their crimes in the the name of Communist ideology (which certainly _incorporates_ atheism, but which took on at least some of the trappings of religion, for some the same reasons that various rulers throughout history have claimed to be supported by/actually *be* gods, have cultivated cult-like devotion, etc.) Nazism also justified its crimes through Nazi ideology, which basically bears no resemblance either to 'baseline' atheism or any sort of humanist philosophy, and had all sorts of mystical woo-woo absurdity going on - would have been quite funny, really, was it not for the whole totalitarian/mass slaughter/genocide/etc. aspect.

The political abuses of religion (and vice versa) are also complicated, as you point out - really, it's a question of what ideological beliefs and practices (religious or not) can most easily be used to commit & justify evil.

MC, you're quite confused. First off, you're conflating dialectical materialism (which is really just standing in for Marxist ideology in general, or more simply Teh Commies!) with what materialism (or naturalism) means in science or philosophy - as wikipedia puts it:

"Many modern philosophers of science . . . use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_materialism

Just because marxists claimed their ideology was 'scientific' doesn't mean you should believe that.

However, I'm unfamilar with the term "scientific human[ism]" which sounds like a mix-up of scientific materialism and secular humanism, and can only point out that neither of these imagines that humans are "eminently perfectible".

Additionally, Mary, Social Darwinism isn't scientific - rather, it was an ideology - developed and epoused by people who were almost always not scientists, with an exception or two - half-understood actual science (early evolutionary biology) to form an ideological justification for social inequality, imperialism, and racism. The modern equivalent would be the Bell Curve book, or some of the cruder appeals to biology to justify regressive sexual sterotypes ('Science says girls can't do math!)

Maybe someone out there who knows more about this Catholic doctrine can fill us in:

In former times, when the Catholic church controlled all aspects of life, people could be punished for heresy, that is, wrong thinking.

One would wonder how can one think wrong? One merely thinks as one thinks.

In those days the Catholic authorities could punish and even torture people for heresy. To be precisely correct, the Catholic authorities often did not do the actual torturing, but instructed the puppet civil authorities to do their torturing for them.

And they had a theological argument for torturing heretics. And it was because a person who was "right with God" would not be a heretic, and the fact of hersey indicated some sort of demonic corruption, and the punishment was designed to drive out the demonic corruption so that orthodox thoughts could return to the heretic.

There is somewhere among the millions of pages of Catholic legalism, some doctrine that explains this. Does anyone know about it, or if it has a fancy Latin name?

Examining the past now and then is essential if you want to understand the present. It allows you to see the present in a different light. We get so used to the present that we do not question it, do not think about it.
We are in a very permissive period of history and think of it as being very progressive and as a great advance of freedom and essential to the progress of society. To some extent this is true and necessary. We must shed the excesses and errors of the past. But are we ourselves building excesses and errors that will create troubles? This is where history can be helpful to help us understand.
There have been a number of such permissive periods in history. One is Italy in the 1200’s. Saints Francis and Dominic were helpful in clearing out the excesses and errors of that period.
Let us examine some current aspects of American society
In science and business America is a great nation. But as a human society America is in serious decay.
Lack of self-discipline, responsibility and truthfulness is destroying American society and therefore the nation.
SOMEONE ELSE is always to blame for every single fault, large and small.
Truth is compromised by diverting the topic and ignoring the lack of truth.
You cannot have freedom without self-discipline, responsibility and without truthfulness to others, to the nation and to your inner self.
American society continues its rapid movement in this direction.
Again, FREEDOM IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT REASONABLE SELF_DISCIPLINE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND TRUTHFULNESS.
Yet we keep pushing freedoms in everything to the point of permissiveness, even licentiousness, including violence, sex, corruption and lax treatment for criminals.
Yet at the same time we all refuse responsibility – everything is someone else's fault.
Yet at the same time we ignore lies, promises, and corruption.
And at the same time we keep demanding less and less self-discipline less and less responsibility and less and less truthfulness.
Politicians need to set an example for the people.
Science and intellect are great for discovering and talking but there is ‘no doing’, no action in these areas. We need religion for more self-discipline, responsibility, and truthfulness.
The only action now is concerning more sex, violence, lies, corruption etc. and they will never create a great nation.

Monkey boy asked about such Catholic things as:

the immaculate conception,
inculpable ignorance, and
limbo.

I would also add "trans-substantiantion."

There are many more of these legalistic concepts in Catholicism. None of my Catholic friends who have attended Catholic shcools and church all of their lives know anything about any of these things. I am the one who explains it to them, if they want to know, I, a non-Catholic.

As I said in a previous post, I find Catholic theology to be truly ovewhelming in its legalistic zeal to cover all possible speculative religious and metaphysical contingencies. But, alas, that is what it is: speculation.

In fact, it is the nature of all religeous inquirey that it is speculative. From Medeival times and earlier, if some sort of contradiction or troublesome point of argument loomed before the theologians, they simply speculated their way out of it, with invented theology.

That is a trend that continues today in the Catholic Church, and it is one of the most troubling characteristics of Catholicism to me.

For example, the Pope has called gay people "intrinsically disordered." I am sure that there are mountains of Catholic writing on just what "intrinsically disordered" means. But when you get right down to it, it is just an excuse to take a superior attitude towards people that you don't like and disagree with and to mistreat them accordingly.

Catholic theology is so immensely complex, that they actually do need a clergy well-educated in this complex theology, to explain it to everybody else, because most Catholics, at least the ones I know, don't seem to know very much about it.

Here is the prayer:

“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.” The following prayer is this: “Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.”

Wow, did Hitler write this one up? TOTALLY "antisemitic"!!!!!!!!

Speed123

You are such a bitter person. Why? I believe that you are the one who called me an idiot a few weeks ago.

This is Christian? This is a Christian example? To me, you have a troubled heart, or at least, a childish attitude.

Yesterday, I made an inquirey to you, which you glibbly dismissed. I said the problwm with atheism is not in the ateists; it is inside of you, in your mind and your heart.

So what if Protestants don't believe in the supremecy of the Catholic Church? So what if atheists don't believe in God? Why are you so twisted up inside over this?

Christopher Hitchens's book is "God is Not Great." I do not agree with him completely, but I think he is saying a few things that need to be said.

If Christopher Hitchens, or someone like him would say "God is not great," does that hurt God? No! It does not. Would any statement that any man would say against God actually hurt God? No. The spoken and written words of man do not hurt God.

Do they hurt you? They sure seem to. Why?

Why is it so galling to you, that people exist in the world who believe and think differently than you? You are not really arguing so much as trying to hurt people's feelings.

And even if you would say that the other person has started it, and that you are only reacting, then I would say again to you, what is Christian about that?

That bit of history was not standing alone....it also was in a post where the sins of the Christians and other groups were also pointed out.

Are the Jewish people exempt from criticism?

I don't think so.

These prayers that have everyone so worked up are nothing compared to the Rabbinic laws found in the Talmud or some verses found in the Koran.

This is antisemitism:

"What about the Jews and the peoples that have destroyed and tehn celebrated the event in the OT...or the horrible oppresion caused by the Jewish state on the Palestinians?"

Or - simple people give simple answers...

simple monkeys need simple answers...

Suddenly it's all clear to me.

To paraphrase Anon and others: "Roman Catholicism is complicated, but its mojo is superior to all others! But I'm not a bigot for thinking so; YOU'RE a bigot for asking for an explanation! I can't explain it. Go see a priest."

Thanks, folks. That pretty much sums up what I've learned here.

"States kill"

Exactly and officially recognized atheist states have killed human beings in the last hundred years than the history of all other modern states combined.

PS - no one is denying the benefits of science; however, no one is denying your own brand of fanaticism either, monkeyboy...

Monkeyboy:

The Immaculate Conception question was answered by MC a while back.

Hey, glad to see that Roman Catholics can be just as condescending as any other group of people! Have enough respect for a participant in these discussions to use his chosen handle.

Immaculate conception refers to the conception of the mother of Christ in her own mother's womb free of original sin. As a baptized Episcopalian give me credit for knowing that much.

And as for atheists killing, again you people entirely miss the point. States kill--the US, an apparently Christian nation, has killed in the name of political expediency. Likewise for Israel, the Roman Empire, and Albania. There is no "atheist doctrine" that says killing is A-Okay. There is no "scientific humanist" doctrine that says likewise. If you've heard of one, please forward the link to me.

And as for science and rationality benefiting humankind, are you guys dense enough to tell me that you know nothing about the age of enlightenment, or the scientific revolution? That the names Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes make your minds blank?

Does science and rationality mean Nazism and communism to you, and not incredible developments in techology, medicine, engineering, etc.? Because if you critique science and rational thought, feel free to give up your cars, your comfortable homes, your adequate caloric intake of food and beverage, your health care, your adequate clothing, the notion of democracy and the pursuit of happiness and lead the life you'd be leading if the renaissance and the reformation never happened.

Sorry to chime in here, but I've been reading this all afternoon...

Anon sez:
"It's complicated.....if you want simple, stick with another faith."

LOL-that's rich!

It's complicated.....if you want simple, stick with another faith.

If you are contemplating conversion (I can't think of another reason why you would want so many explanations) go see a priest.

Listen folks, I have to go.

Bonum certatem certavi.
Cursum consumavi.
Fidem servavi.

(And all that.)

VDO, speed123, Anon, etc.--

Really, my requests have been simple from the beginning. Explain the origins of Roman Catholic dogma and beliefs.

That's the nut of what I'm after! Let me make this as straightforward as possible:

1. Sit down and tell me from where the notion of the immaculate conception originated--who came up with the idea? How did it work its way into Roman Catholic beliefs?

2. Sit down and tell me from where the notion of inculpable ignorance originated--who came up with the idea? How did it work its way into Roman Catholic beliefs?

3. Sit down and tell me from where the notion of limbo originated and how it has changed over the years--who came up with the idea? How did it work its way into Roman Catholic beliefs?

It shouldn't be too hard if those things are among the foundations of your faith.

Really, when I've had these discussions with fundamentalists, at least they can point to chapter and verse in the Bible and say, "Here is where our belief on Subject X originates."

Unlike scientific humanists who believe man is eminently perfectable--and they'll kill you if you don't get perfected-- Catholics believe (from the time of St Augustine of Hippo) that humans are fallen and prone to sin and violence (original sin).

The Immaculate Conception merely holds that Mary, as the mother of God, was innocent, was free from this original sin that besets the rest of humankind.

A modest conception when you think of it.

Last one.

"I'm just saying that atheists have used their ideology to justify violence too."

Exactly.

Monkey,

As for killing in the name of political expediency, the will to power and use of violence is a means to an ends for the atheist communist utopia.

The stated objective of Trotsky et al was the elevations of man to the higher plain of science and rationality - and the utopian society.

To achieve these ends, starvation, mass murder etc were employed and, therefore, millions die not because of political expediency but for humanist utopian dreams (nightmares).

Forgot to add environmental disaster to one of the 'benefits' of communism.

But thank you scientific materialism. Thank you so much.

Monkeychild:

Re: science and rationality dragged humanity out of the Middle Ages into the light of....

The light of what? MC..you tell me

The light of communism--and don't blame the Russians for being 'backward' while the communist ideology was 'pure'. The ideology was tried in countries as different as Czech. (a democracy) to Castro's Cuba to North Korea to Pol Pot's Cambodia to the Shining Path guerillas in Peru. The result was always the same: show trials, terror and massive numbers killed.

20th c. MC, 20th c...plenty of science there.

And how about Nazism?

Based on Social Darwinism! That's scientific. And rational (I guess). And survival of the fittest. That's logical. Tautological, but logical.

Oh thank you, science and reason! Thank you for communism and nazism. Thank you so much.

Y'know, I'd take Torquemada and the Inquisition over the Gestapo and Bormann anyday. The Spaniards killed--wait for it!--3,000 over 300 years. How many did Borman kill? And Nazism was 'reasonable'.

Oh thank you, science and reason! Thank you for communism and nazism. Thank you so much.

Monkeyboy:

Please. I was respecting you for at least having the guts to take on all comers, but now you are hiding behind denial.

Allow me to quote:

"Do they believe in the immaculate conception? Great. Now show me somewhere in the Bible where it clearly says so."

"By humbly requesting some sort of biblical support to back the church's claims on things such as the immaculate conception, I have hatred flowing through my heart?"

Now, I will be happy to answer your question on the basis of Truth if you first answer mine. What is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

Viejita,

Yup, I am about done here too, and I think you do a much better job ;) have a great weekend, as well.

MonkeyMan,

Interesting, well I have learned something new today, thanks for that.

You still rub me the wrong way though and while we have made great progress through science - that is not all there is to it and - in fact - people are recorded in polls to be less happy today than they were 50 or 100 years ago.

Ah, the progress paradox.

PS - you are setting up your own straw men (clerics) to knock down (or set aflame - however you do it)

Perhaps we can all take it down a level...and in any case it is vacation time for me!

VDO--

You know, your response was crass. The "closest" I will get to understanding what you said?

Methinks your high opinion of your communication skill and low opinion of my intelligence are both exaggerations.

>> Sorry, but only a loon would write that atheism is responsible for the holocaust and the cold war.

Wow - you missed the whole point. I said PEOPLE are responsible for those things, just like PEOPLE are responsible for all violence, including the Crusades, Terrorism, etc. I'm just saying that atheists have used their ideology to justify violence too.

"No one can sanely deny that centuries ago, the church and the state were often bound so tightly that there was little practical difference between the two."

This is no longer the case, thank God; the reformation and various revolutions were a blessing for true Catholic doctrine and spirituality.

If anything, it is the power of the state that corrupts religion not the other way around.

Only if we could keep the evangelicals protestants and hawk zionists away from our government!

No war with Iran!

Speed123
Good luck. Talking to Monkeyboy about doctrine is sort of like, well, talking to you about Israel. I'm hoping he is as well-meaning as you turned out to be.
Monkeyboy, as a reading teacher I would urge you to follow your own advice. As I just tried to explain, we Catholics believe lots of stuff that is not spelled out in the Bible. I've got students waiting that actually want to learn something, otherwise I'd launch into the significance of Mary and which parts of her story are essential Catholic beliefs.
As if you really care.

Anon--

See my responses. I never said that the Bible is the sole basis of truth, but as long as you broached the subject, what do you think the bases of truth are?

Monkeyboy
That may be the closest you will get to understanding what I said. I think we really are speaking po-raznomu yazyki: en idiomas distintas, if you will. I think Anon 2:31 may be speaking too harshly, but he or she has a point.

This thread is pretty crowded. It's hard to keep scrolling down so far. Speed123 & Mary Cunningham (and Ann O. if you're there) take over for me here, I gotta go to work.

speed123--

You told me not to expect a response, but you have graced me with one! The hatred that you claim flows through my heart boils with joy!

Come on, speed123. Pay attention to what I write, not to what you wish I'd written. I realize that attacking strawmen is an obsession for some people, but ease up a bit. It doesn't become you.

You claimed that atheistic communists killed millions in the name of science and rationality. Did I dispute that a communist state killed millions? Not at all. I said that the state killed millions in the name of political expediency, not in the name of science and rationality.

Science and rationality, my friend, is what dragged humankind out of the cesspool of the middle ages and into a period of unparalleled human health and well being. Read Bacon and Descartes. Learn a little.

And I never said a thing about the virgin birth. My questions were regarding the immaculate conception. You do understand the difference between the two, don't you? I ask in seriousness; your response indicates that perhaps you don't.

Really, please, bone up on your reading comprehension skills.

Monkeyboy:

I am glad you were only joking about the "idol worship" thing since "words have meaning" and all.

By the way do you even know what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is since you have thrown that in the mix just for argument sake? You say you are not intolerant, but you imply that if something cannot be directly referenced in the Bible, it is not arguable. Interesting. So now the Bible is the sole basis of Truth? Hmmm. That is Fundamentalism again. And you say you are a lapsed Christian. I think you still have plenty of that old time religion in you. The fact that you have expended so much energy here attacking Catholics speaks for itself. Please reread your own posts. They come across as angry and vitriolic. I hear Jack Chick not Mahatma Gandhi.

I hope it is not your intention to sound that way.

VDO--

Thank you for the courtesy of a response.

So based on your explanation, my understanding is that a significant portion of Roman Catholic beliefs is based on the opinions--perhaps you'd argue "inspired opinions," but they are opinions nevertheless--of Roman Catholic theologians who congregated to hash out the issue, and not tied necessarily to any particular biblical referent.

That's fine. I'm not a biblical literalist by any means, but what concerns me is the presence of political and social influences on developing these concepts and beliefs and dogma. No one can sanely deny that centuries ago, the church and the state were often bound so tightly that there was little practical difference between the two.

What I extrapolate from your answer, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that no matter if a particular Roman Catholic belief was determined ten years ago or ten centuries ago, a Roman Catholic has faith that somehow, the men who determined the belief to be valid were doing the will of God--that for example the immaculate conception, though not mentioned in the Bible, was a truth revealed to theologians after the fact.

MonkeyMan again:

"And if you think that atheistic communists killed millions in the name of science and rationality and not, for example, in the name of Stalinist political expediency, perhaps you are the one who requires therapy."

You want facts, MonkeyMan, it is a fact that Soviet Russian was officially an atheist state.

I love how you provide nuance and shades of gray when defending other ideologies (i.e. - explaining away the expediency of 100 million killed in atheist communist regimes and NOT just the one started by Stalin) yet when it comes to attacking Catholics you are a black and white and historical absolutist who uses stereotypes to condemn the all Catholics as a monolithic entity.

There is abuse in all institutions and it is at the same level, if not higher, in Protestant, Jewish, Public Schools etc.

This is not about the Church or its belief in Mary the Virgin - it is about your bigotry.

As for a quote from the NT, here you go from Matthew 18:

"This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they came to live together she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit"

PS - where did I say a thing in my response that resembles antisemitism? Can I not question the OT or the Israeli government policies? And, since you know my faith, what is yours?

Just to weigh in (way in?)on the *really* bitter debate here, the original/main usage is "toe the line." There seem to be various accounts of where the phrase comes from; http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-toe2.htm says:
"Toe the line is actually the survivor of a set of phrases that were common in the nineteenth century; others were toe the mark, toe the scratch, toe the crack, or toe the trig. In every case, the image was that of men lining up with the tips of their toes touching some line. They might be on parade, or preparing to undertake some task, or in readiness for a race or fight. The earliest recorded form is dated 1813, in a book by Hector Bull-Us (a pseudonym, you will not be surprised to hear, in this case of James Kirke Paulding) with the title The Diverting History of John Bull and Brother Jonathan. This already had the modern figurative sense of conforming to the usual standards or rules: “He began to think it was high time to toe the mark”. Many early examples are from the British Navy, which is where it may have originated."

What's interesting about the occasional shift to "tow the line" is that it gives a little glimpse into one of the ways language changes. "Toe the line" has pretty much become a dead metaphor, as a result, it's open to being colonized by "tow", not just because it sounds the same (in that case, the choice would presumably be random, if people didn't know/remember the exact spelling), but because there's that semantic overlap that the brain snatches up, searching for order and sense (- oh! *tow* the line - like helping pull something along! -etc.) even as it subtly changes the meaning.

On other matters, while it's good to hear that anti-semitic language will not be reintroduced into the liturgy, the hints of anti-semitism in some of the comments (at least incomprehension and dislike) is kinda disturbing.

But Monkeyboy,
No one ever said the rationale behind those beliefs was "biblical." I may get myself in trouble for saying this, and I don't have time to stick around and justify it, but Catholics do not idolize scripture. It is one of many human ingredients to the tradition we follow.
I'm weak on 20th century history, but the explanation of Pius' acts (or lack thereof) may be that he was wrong. He was human and therefore capable of making mistakes. After all, he was carrying on for Peter, who denied Christ three times.
That's what I was talking about. You set up the terms of the discussion and then claim you've won when we give answers outside those parameters. If I said you could only convince me by speaking Russian and you answered me in Spanish, would your answer be incorrect, or would I just be having trouble understanding it?

VDO--

Then please, by all means provide the biblical rationale for belief in the immaculate conception, for the concept of limbo, and so forth. And, if you please, an historically verifiable explanation of Pius' silence during WW II when millions were being slaughtered by the Nazis.

Anon--

To clarify--way back in my first comment I did make a tongue-in-cheek reference to idol worship. However, it was not intended to be taken seriously, which is why I followed it with the subsequent paragraph refering to the direction in which many commenters apparently want to see our society head.

speed123--

Thanks for the ad hominem attack but you have still not addressed my request for an explanation as to how I'm ignorant or bigoted, though from your last comment, it sounds like you are a not-so-closeted anti-Semite.

How's that working out for you?

So I'm engaging in an irrational attack on Roman Catholics by ... citing facts regarding pedophilia in the church and asking for biblical references to support Roman Catholic theology? By humbly requesting some sort of biblical support to back the church's claims on things such as the immaculate conception, I have hatred flowing through my heart?

You've got to be kidding me.

And if you think that atheistic communists killed millions in the name of science and rationality and not, for example, in the name of Stalinist political expediency, perhaps you are the one who requires therapy. Just sayin'.

What is clear from the comments of speed123 and others is that our nation, perhaps our world, is being dragged into a period of unenlightenment, a sort of anti-intellectualism that thrives on arrogance and ignorance. A simple request for the biblical foundation of a particular belief is met with accusations of bigotry. Facts that cannot be ignored are misshapen to fit the mold of inherited religious beliefs.

Dave, the Arabs are not the only ones at fault in the situation - but that is for another on faith quesitons entirely.

That is an odd way to interpret what I said.

Monkeyboy
It isn't that we can't provide a rationale, it's just that you reject the ones we provide. Don't accuse Catholics of narrow-mindedness until you've pulled the plank out of your own eye.

Dave is right....the Jews are perfect - ha!

"What about the Jews and the peoples that have destroyed and tehn celebrated the event in the OT...or the horrible oppresion caused by the Jewish state on the Palestinians?"

The first was over three thousand years ago. Muslims and Christians approve it.

The second is a modern myth. Arabs have done plenty to oppress Jews. The people in Israel are defending themselves from that.

Time to see out therapy, MonkeyMan....

You claim to be a truth seeker and point out the flaws of Catholics - however, no group is perfect and Catholic do not claim to be perfect (the last pope acknowledged many of these past sins).

What about the Jews and the peoples that have destroyed and tehn celebrated the event in the OT...or the horrible oppresion caused by the Jewish state on the Palestinians?

Or the Protestants and their involvment in recent wars or in the development of this nation...?

Or the atheist communists who killed 100 million in the last hundred years in the name of science and rationality and the perfect rational man...

Yours is an irrational hatred of the roman catholic people and you use stereotypes of the entire community (pedophelia, ignorance to the scriptures, support for fascism, timidity etc etc etc) to support your irrational attack on a particular people.

Seek a shrink (since I am sure you follow the lessons of Freud) and figure out the hate that is flowing through your heart.

No Catholic has to answer to you, buddy, and it is obvious that you definition of bigot fits you to a T: "utterly intolerant of any creed...."

Dont expect a response but feel free to keep seething your bile on this board....people see you for what you are.

Daniel--

I'm with you. What seems to irk most apparently Roman Catholic commenters on this thread is that they cannot provide any sort of rational or biblical jusification for their beliefs when called upon to do so. Do they believe in the immaculate conception? Great. Now show me somewhere in the Bible where it clearly says so. Or perhaps they believe that God whispers in their ears in ways he has chosen not to speak to other denominations?

Likewise they don't understand that if they celebrate the church as an historical institution, they need to account for the ways it has manipulated societies and its believers in addition to the good that they claim it has done. Have Roman Catholics and their church done good things over the centuries. Sure. But that doesn't get them off the hook for the bad things they've done.

Instead of brooding on these things and formulating rational answers, they do little more than call folks like me "bigots," say that we don't understand Roman Catholic theology, and claim that the church is supreme simply because they say it is.

"Because for centuries, the Catholic Church was the supremely dominating influence in Europe. And now the implications of the former political Empire of Catholicism still reverberate, even now, unto the present day."

Protestants acquired great power starting five hundred years ago.

In the last two hundred years:

Britain has been Anglican.
France has been filled with people who are indifferent to religion.
Most of Northern Europe has been Protestant.
Russia was Orthodox, then atheist, then back to Orthodox.
Japan has been Buddhist and Shinto.
China was Buddhist then atheist.
The US has been predominantly Protestant.

The problems of the 20th and 21st Century are sufficient. It makes no sense to be still upset about what happened before the 18th Century.

Anon--

I'm bigoted because I "BELIEVE" I am right and Roman Catholics are wrong? Grabbing the nearest dictionary (the Random House College Dictionary, for those keeping score at home) I find that "bigoted" is defined as "utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or race that differs from one's own." I challenge you to find anything I've written above that fits that definition.

Words have meanings, as I'm sure you'll agree. You can't go about changing the definition of words to fit your particular desires. By your use of the word, I'm also a bigot because I believe that evolution provides a better and more testable explanation for the development of life on earth than does intelligent design.

And nowhere in my comments have I accused Roman Catholics of idol worship. Perhaps you can show me where I have?

Furious *Northern Irish* Protestant sectarians...remember Northern Ireland was the locked in a bitter civil war for twenty years, a war from which it is slowly emerging.

Can Catholics really be as obtuse as they appear here? Why do all we non-Catholics take such an interest in the Catholic Church?

Because for centuries, the Catholic Church was the supremely dominating influence in Europe. And now the implications of the former political Empire of Catholicism still reverberate, even now, unto the present day.

So is that so hard to understand? And I don't think my somewhat negative feelings about the historical Catholic Church makes me necessarily, anti-Catholic, nor do I think I am bigotted against Catholics.

Folks,

Sincere Catholics cannot fail to be troubled by the level of animosity shown by Ms Jacoby and her ardent atheist colleagues. Unfortunately, the presence of Catholics in her Forum merely causes the creation of a happy hunting ground for Catholics and engenders the worst kind of anti-Catholic calumny and hatred. Usually in the UK, the presence of such virulence signals that furious sectarian Protestants have joined the party.

But that is not the case here, although the language is every bit as intemperate.

Still, the best thing Catholics can do at this point is withdraw. Ms Jacoby thrives on controversy and her WaPo editors encourage it. I believe all of you have defended our ancient faith well...and against unwarranted slander, but it is time to leave.

Bonum certatem certavus.
Cursum consumavus.
Fidem servavus.

(We have founght the good fight. We have finished the course. We have kept our faith.)

Oops, make that "there was no A&E".

Monkeyboy:

I am sorry. I missed that question to speed123. I am sure speed can answer for him/herself, but since you asked again...

You are bigoted because you BELIEVE you are right and the Catholics are wrong. I am okay with that (see my post).

However, you are also ignorant about the Catholic faith. You BELIEVE Catholics engage in "idol worship." Where did you learn that? That sounds like Protestant Fundamentalist fiction to me. I have heard about that type of anti-Catholic slander before. What are those comics called? Jack Chick?

By the way, there are a number Anonymouses out there. I have only answered you.

Papal,

Again as many of us with at least twelve years of Catholic education/propaganda, you suffer from the three B's, i.e. bred, born and brainwashed in the Roman/Latin Church and are kept that way by old, celibate, white, European males like JPII and B16.

Again, open your mind to reality and read some of the historical Jesus books of the contemporary NT scholars. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Much of what they have found and concluded (different analyses, same results) is being taught at many major Catholic universities (e.g. Catholic U and Notre Dame). For example, there was no physical resurrection, there was A&E, and no original sin/limbo and therefore Baptism is now only an initiation into our Faith of Catholic reality.

Why is it a surprise that the Pope as head of a church is asserting the church's belief that they are the one true church. It has always been the Catholic churches position and if you just go sit in on a mass you will hear it stated as such. And as for the supposedly anti semitic statements. Don't most people truly committed to their faith pray for the conversion of others. Look at all the missionaries around the world. They may be helping people build schools and hospitals and such, but their goal is conversion to their faith. Everyday I see Jews for Jesus, or Mormans or some other denomination passing out pamphlets and campaining to get people to see the "truth" and convert to their particular denomination. Why is there a problem when the Catholic church openly participates in the same behavior?

Concerned Christian:

My Catholic Theology is sound. Your claims of heavenly child abuse suggest your Catholicism never reached past 6th grade and the natural hunger for adult understanding (and questioning of )the tenents and mystery of your faith was met by not by scholarly Catholic intellectuals but by the humanists like Crossan. Why liberate yourself, why not simply put down new roots and grow in the faith?

You can thank the likes of Crossan from liberating you from 6th grade Catholicism, but also you can thank him for forever closing your mind to grown- up hard core intellectual Catholicism.

Imagine if instead of taking your legitimate questions and grievances to Crossan you took the hand of Carol Wojtyla? You'd have grown as a Catholic instead.

Peace

Catholic School Student,

Like many of us, you suffer from the three B's i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed into the Roman/Latin Church and being kept that way by old, "celibate", white European males.

And watch your Back, you never know where a Muslim "gator" terrorist might be lurking.

Catholic School Student,

Like many of us, you suffer from the three B's i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed by old, "celibate", white European males.

And watch your Back, you never know where a Muslim "gator" terrorist might be lurking.

Gators vs. Concerned the Christian Now Liberated (from reason).

Gators are definitely illiterate, but Concerned the Christian makes you read a lot of crap to come to that inevitable conclusion.

Barbara,
The intent of the article was simply to "call out" B16 on his decision to reinstate Latin Mass, despite antisemetic sentiments still in the mass.

As for abortion...I just don't know where this came up.

It isn't that Latin mass wouldn't be entertaining enough, but how will people worship God in an essentially dead language? Especially in the United States? If you look back into the Catholic church's rich history, you will find that one of the main reasons churches became so inundated with art was to help people understand their faith. Art--a language everyone could understand.

Barbara, it is impossible for most people to discard the Catholics as a sect full of hate and racism. The work the Catholic church in the United States has done to combat poverty is really phenomenal and worthy of praise.

Please remember to attack the idea, not the person next time!

Papal,

It is obvious from your name that you like many of us were bred, born and brainwashed in the Catholic Church's Roman/Latin Church. I recommend a heavy dose of reality by reading some of the books about the historic Jesus. The books written by three of the On Faith scholars, i.e. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen would be a great place to start.

For example, Professor Crossan's "take" on Catholic atonement theology is an excellent conclusion and worthy of your consideration:

From his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices (commits filicide??, my addition) his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

B16 also suffers from his breeding, birth and brainwashing in orthodox Catholicism and can't even make a clear escape from the significant stupid concept of limbo because he knows full well that if limbo goes so goes original sin, one of the dogmas and guilt trips of orthodox Catholicism.

Yes, and I'm so glad that Pius XII spoke out and strongly condemned Nazi genocide during WW II, or that all popes have supported the use of contraceptives as a means of decreasing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and thereby reducing the level of human suffering in the world.

Oh, wait. They didn't. My bad.

Susan Jacoby's ignorant diatribe against the Latin Mass and the Catholic Church amounts to a bunch of irrelevant foolishness. The Pope never said what you claim.

So what if the Pope is giving local parishioners the option of holding Mass in Latin? It is a total lie to say that the Latin Mass or anything in the Catholic Church is somehow against the Jews. It is inherently un-Christian and un-Catholic to be against the Jews in any way.

You are just using this as yet another excuse to promote your bigoted anti-Catholic views along with your real agenda - abortion on demand, with no restrictions, paid for at taxpayer expense. Your problem with the Catholic Church is really about its opposition to abortion and what you perceive to be its stance against "reproductive freedom."

Despite all of its flaws and mistakes over the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church is the mightiest defender of human life on the face of the Earth.

I can't wait for your next column, which is probably going to be some kind of attack on Mother Teresa for being a "bigoted, intolerant radical anti-choice extremist."

Shame on you. You make me ill. You are completely ignorant of Catholic teachings and you just spread lies in order to promote your ridiculous political agenda. I am sorry that the traditional Mass is not entertaining enough for you. Maybe you can form your own Church of Starbucks, or Church of Crate and Barrel, or Church of Oprah and Dr. Phil, and you can submit all of your "truths" to a popular vote, and have a big laser light show.

Your column is a gross distortion and a complete lie.

Atheistic humanism was at the heart of communism and Nazism. It was the idea that the individual would give up a belief in God and recognize that the ultimate goal was human progress. The state was the new vehicle for progress. That was Hitler and that was Mr. "religion is the opiate of the masses.".

Of course when human beings deny the only moral truth which is God and start bowing at the alter of humanism, any action that supports progress eventually can be rationalized over time. Sure they all started with respect for the individual citizen and wonderful language as most people were religious, but of course there was no foundation for the dignity of the individual. Within short order any horrendous action against the individual could be rationalized as a means to the glorious end. This was the case with all the atheistic humanist movements of the 20th century such as Nazism, communism, Japanese imperialism, ect.

In a world with no windows, no doors and no skylights, men will eventually start turning on one another.

Phil says,

We Catholics aren't even saying you're going to Hell--we're just saying that there is a difference between our church and yours.

Yeah and the pope is saying that I am not part of the "true" church because I am not catholic. He said I cannot recieve salvation because I do not recognize papal authority. Hmmmm....I think I'll listen to the bible when the Lord says that He is the way and the truth and the light. Not, "Poop Benny"!

Phil, you need to read the Bible man. Listen to God, not man.

Phil:

"I'm sorry, but atheism causes just as much division as religion. The contempt that comes from people like Susan Jacoby is just one example. If we are going to blame Catholicism for the Spanish Inquisition and Islam for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, we better remember that atheism is responsible for the French Revolution, the Holocaust, and the Cold War."

Phil, I agree only in so far as religious movements can turn ugly, as members think they are united with Christ but really are sold something else by the likes of a dictator type. And yes I agree, humanistic atheism has been worse.

If one were to adhere to Christianity and truly be close to Christ, you'd have far less possibility for sin and evil. However, with atheism any evil is possible as all atheism is is a denial.

It was once said by a philosopher that "when men think they are in a room with no windows or doors they will eventually turn on themselves."

Let the atheists sneer. They are simply jealous of something we have and we should pray for them.

'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.'

This Pope has made a lie out of that saying.

This Pope is on record for creating a more ideologically pure set of members - if the church membership shrinks, so be it. Whatever is left is pure - and God chosen.

How small this Pope's God is.......

Reading comments written by the defenders of the Roman Catholic faith has given me a strange new respect for Christian fundamentalists in America. At least they make the attempt to find some biblical justification or citation that supports their arguments, as opposed to relying on the latest, greatest opinions of theologians.

If the pope had one iota of common sense he would have concentrated on bringing morality and high ethical standards back into Christian life.

As in women in veils and men dressed like gentlemen going to church to worship not to show off.

Instead he goes ahead and does the one thing he should have avoided doing.

And I'm not even talking about the Latin things bothering Jewish leaders here!

But then again the pope also thinks the religion he leads is the one true religion.

Such backward thinking from the leader of the flock who claims to represent GOD on earth.

Pathetic!

Maurie Beck:

I'm sorry you don't have the gift of faith. I can tell you I strongly believe in God and I hope Christ will find an opening in your heart some day (and will keep me faithful too.)

The problem with Susan Jacoby is that she comes across as having an agenda that says that faith and reason/science are at war with each other and of course the faithful stand in the way of human progress. Sounds about right, no?

Benedict has been saying (long before it was fashionable) that this is not so, but this lie persists especially among the educated. These people (excluding me) think that reason is all you need and that reason can protect them from the masses and help them live a fulfilling life.

Sadly we all will pay in this life or the next for this belief system.

Sorry, but only a loon would write that atheism is responsible for the holocaust and the cold war.

Mike L. - One thing I really do take exception with Ms. Jacoby is her mocking of the Immaculate Conception... Other species have been able to reproduce without the opposite gender... And, God being God, would her not be able to do it?

I think you've been reading too many science articles lately. As with too much masturbation, you'll go blind if you're not careful.

Parthenogenesis is a novel explanation for the Immaculate Conception. Granted, you certainly have an imagination. Unfortunately, there are a number of facts that argue against it. If Jesus was a girl, you might be on firmer ground. The only individuals who reproduce parthenogenically are females who's unfertilized eggs produce exact clones of themselves (i.e. all parthenogenic offspring are female). Secondly, facultative (i.e. not obligatory, contingent on the environment) parthenogenesis usually only occurs when there are a shortage of males. This was not the case with Mother Mary. Therefore, the more likely explanation was that the local goatherd knocked her up and she blamed it on God. From Joseph's point of view, I'm not sure who I'd rather be cuckolded by, god or the goatherd.

"Apparently, Benedict wishes to add to the dissension that religion is already sowing in the world. No one should pay the slightest attention to any pronouncements from this pathetic representative of a credulous, conformist past that preceded the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment and the separation of church and state in the West."

I'm sorry, but atheism causes just as much division as religion. The contempt that comes from people like Susan Jacoby is just one example. If we are going to blame Catholicism for the Spanish Inquisition and Islam for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, we better remember that atheism is responsible for the French Revolution, the Holocaust, and the Cold War.

The fact is that PEOPLE use their differences as an excuse for violence. Religion is one such difference, but not the only one. The fact of the matter is that wars have been blamed on just about anything. The real reason is that people have a natural tendency toward violence.

In the mean time, I feel that Ms. Jacoby's comments are often very degrading toward religious people. I understand that she is not religious, and I respect her decision not to be so. That said, I don't feel the need to berate people who are not religious, call their beliefs "silly," and pretend that I am smarter and wiser than those people. Yes, I realize that some Christians are that way. That's why people hate those Christians. I appreciate a healthy debate on religious dogma, but that is not what Ms. Jacoby is doing here.

Further, it should be explained that the concept of Papal Infallibility is one of the most misunderstood parts of Catholic dogma, and is REGULARLY misrepresented. It has certainly been misrepresented here. When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, He said: "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). This is, of course, only possible by contemplation of the scriptures and through the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the Pope is infallible under certain conditions because Jesus gave Peter this right.

So, in some way or another, all Christians believe in a concept similar to papal infallibility. It may be that you believe strictly that the Pope is infallible, or it may be that you believe that each individual person makes the decision of what is bound and loosed based on his/her own beliefs. Catholics believe that the Church is responsible for this, and the head of the Church is the Pope. Thus, naturally, the Pope has the power of binding and loosening.

In the mean time, as a Catholic, I think it is very important that the Church does not start drastically changing its position to fit the desires of the masses. We don't need another watered-down church that tries to include everyone. The Catholic Church has its teachings and it sticks with them unless it is clear that they are wrong. Political pressure shouldn't be a factor in how Christ's Church is governed.

Despite the fact that some people on this forum apparently think that the Catholic Church is like a dying automobile, the Church remains the single largest religion in the world. Perhaps not all Catholics accept everything in the doctrine, and some people would not consider them Catholic, but nonetheless, it is a very large church. It is also the largest single sect in America (though the combined Protestant churches are larger). Surveys say that about half of self-described Catholics in the United States are at Church on a given Sunday, which is about 11% of the population.

Finally, I really don't understand why people take such offense whenever the Catholic Church makes some decree that is in disagreement with their (non-Catholic) church. If you don't believe that the Catholic Church is the only true church, maybe that's because you're not Catholic. I've been told some Protestants believe I will go to Hell because I pray to Saints (in addition to God). That seems a little bit more drastic than the Catholic Church saying that Protestant churches are not part of the true Church, and nobody is making a big deal about that (and yes, it's a major U.S. religion that considers itself mainstream).

That said, I don't care that those people believe what they do, because I don't believe they are correct. I suppose I will care if I'm in Hell, but that isn't exactly my point. My point is that if you believe your church is a true church, and you don't believe the Pope has any authority, why do you care what he thinks? We Catholics aren't even saying you're going to Hell--we're just saying that there is a difference between our church and yours.

Anon--

Your claim that belief in a religion necessarily means that the believer thinks his is the only true system of worship would be pretty tough to prove, I think, as is your claim that constantly concerning oneself with another person's religion suggests insecurity.

Anyway, that doesn't address the question I addressed to speed123, the answer to which I am still awaiting.

I believe this whole discussion began with the papal decree that the Tridentine (Latin) Mass may be used more freely. Somehow it developed into a pro-Jew, anti-Jew diatribe.
I grew up with the Latin Mass, was an altar boy. After almost 40 years of the venacular, I can still recite the response in Latin. Don't know what they mean? They mean the same in any language. When the change was made my brother remarked that he would miss the old Mass because you could walk into any Catholic Church in the world and hear the same Mass.
I embraced the New Mass, was one of the first lectors in my parish, began guitar Masses with my brother, but somewhere over the years the Mass lost its solemnity and turned into more of a show. I will agree with Ms. Jacoby that bad folk songs prevail and the verses are interminable. There used to be a choir to sing most of the songs, now he whole congregation must sing along with the choir. Changes were made in the gospels and epistles for no good reason. Before, Jesus was born in a stable because "there was no room for them at the inn." Now it's "they could not find shelter at the place where travelers stay." Wouldn't that be an inn? My daughter and I get a kick out of singing "The First Nowell."
Is the Church dumbing down the liturgy?
Pre-Vatican II, the Phila. archdiocese would ordain anywhere between 30 and 60 priests. This year there were just two, neither for the diocese. I am sure it is the same elsewhere. I wonder if too much openess has taken the specialness out of the religious life. You saw a Roman collar or a nun's habit and you gave the wearer a modicum of respect. You knew that these people gave up their life for God's service. Now, they look pretty much the same as everybody else, too much like the folks next door. A vocation used to be considered special. Now we look at those who wish to serve and ask, "Why?"
I guess my point is that there should be a little more ritual in the Church and the Mass and the Latin Mass does that. Why ritual? Why not? Jesus was an observant Jew. The Last Supper was a celebration of the Passover. Do I favor a complete return to pre-Vatican II. No. I believe with John XXIII's opening a window to let some air in. JPII closed that window almost all the way with his do as I say attitude. But there should be a balance between the old and the new.
One thing I really do take exception with Ms. Jacoby is her mocking of the Immaculate Conception. Believe it or not, do not mock it. If God did want his Son to be born of woman, then picking a virgin would be the way to go. Other species have been able to reproduce without the opposite gender. So, with the billions of females that have existed from the beginning of time, could there not be one who conceived without sex? And, God being God, would her not be able to do it? Believe or disbelieve, but do not ridicule.

Dear selective criticism,

Ms. Jacoby is as withering in her criticism of Judaism as she is of any other religion. I believe she is a cultural Jew. Like many self-respecting Jews I know, she is a non-believer and is sadly consigned to the toasty regions where the weather is not so hot (ha ha), but the company is good.

Papal - A person who knows Christ is Lord and refuses or rejects eternal life in communion with him is in danger.

Dang, no inculpable ignorance for me. I guess that's why I'm a god-fearing atheist; if I'm wrong (Pascal's wager), it's gonna get hot.

Terry:

I'm not sure you are sincere in your desire for a satisfactory answer to you theological questions but I will not prejudge you and offer one:

1.) Limbo was never a matter of doctrine. It was a theological construct that tried to reconcile OS and an infant that had not been baptized. It was taught as you accurately point out. It was not doctrine. I guess that's the honest answer. I could say more.

2) I have no idea where you think inculpable ignorance leads to purgatory... have you heard of "baptism by grace." The Church holds that you could be born ignorant and still know Christ but not by name. That's baptism by grace.

3) Your theory of consignment is based on a false understanding of how you'd get eternal life or what is know as hell (life without God). Its not a matter of luck but of choice.

Terry you really have much to learn about Catholic theology.

"You can get away with the most extraordinary offences to morality and truth if you just call yourself reverend." Christopher Hitchens

Monkeyboy:

Hello! BELIEF in a religion is bigotry. It says I know this is the only true system of worshipping God. Constantly concerning yourself with the affairs of others' religions suggests insecurity rather than open-mindedness.

"You can get away with the most extraordinary offences to morality and truth if you just call yourself reverend." Christopher Hitchens

speed123,

Explain to me how I'm ignorant and bigoted.

Good grief. After reading this pathetic dribbling piece, I get worse at the end.

Some journalist needs to learn to read for herself. It isn't hard to find Catholic stuff. vatican.va, y'know?

Some of her readers need to call their doctors for a hefty dose of prozac and think about getting a life.

Ms. Jacoby, who I presume might be Jewish, would do
well to examine her own tradition's scripture/liturgies.
For instance, regarding violence against "idolaters" or
assorted "kingdoms"...I invite you to peruse part of this week's Torah reading (which according to orthodox Jewish tradition, is chanted on shabbat)....make sure you see the part of how to slaughter and acquire booty.

Chapter 31
1. The Lord spoke to Moses saying, 2. "Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites; afterwards you will be gathered to your people." 3. So Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm from among you men for the army, that they can be against Midian, and carry out the revenge of the Lord against Midian. 4. A thousand for each tribe, a thousand for each tribe, from all the tribes of Israel you shall send into the army." 5. From the thousands of Israel one thousand was given over for each tribe, twelve thousand armed for battle. 6. Moses sent them the thousand from each tribe to the army, them along with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the kohen to the army, with the sacred utensils and the trumpets for sounding in his possession. 7. They mounted an attack against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. 8. And they killed the Midianite kings upon their slain: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, and Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9. The children of Israel took the Midianite women and their small children captive, and they plundered all their beasts, livestock, and all their possessions. 10. They set fire to all their residential cities and their castles. 11. They took all the booty and all the plunder of man and beast. 12. They brought the captives, the plunder, and the booty to Moses and to Eleazar the kohen and to the entire community of Israel in the camp, in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
2nd, Portion
Chapter 31
13. Moses, Eleazar the kohen, and all princes of the community went out to meet them, outside the camp. 14. Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had returned from the campaign of war. 15. Moses said to them, "Did you allow all the females to live? 16. They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17. So now kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man you shall kill. 18. And all the young girls who have no experience of intimate relations with a man, you may keep alive for yourselves. 19. And you, encamp outside the camp for seven days; whoever killed a person or who touched a corpse shall cleanse himself on the third and seventh day, both you and your captives. 20. All garments, leather articles, any goat product, and every wooden article shall undergo purification." 21. Eleazar the kohen said to the soldiers returning from battle, "This is the statute that the Lord commanded Moses. 22. Only the gold, the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin, and the lead 23. whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then it will be clean; it must, however, [also] be cleansed with sprinkling water, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through water. 24. You shall wash your garments on the seventh day and become [ritually] clean; afterwards, you may enter the camp." 25. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 26. "Take a count of the plunder of the captive people and animals, you, together with Eleazar the kohen and the paternal leaders of the community. 27. And you shall divide the plunder equally between the warriors who went out to battle and the entire congregation. 28. And you shall levy a tax for the Lord from the soldiers who went out to battle: one soul out of every five hundred, from the people, from the cattle, from the donkeys, and from the sheep. 29. You shall take from their half and give it to Eleazar the kohen as a gift to the Lord. 30. From the half belonging to the children of Israel you shall take one part out of fifty of the people, of the cattle, of the donkeys, of the sheep, and of all animals, and you shall give them to the Levites, the guardians of the Mishkan of the Lord." 31. Moses and Eleazar the kohen did as the Lord had commanded Moses. 32. The plunder, which was in addition to the spoils that the army had spoiled, consisted of six hundred and seventy five thousand sheep. 33. Seventy two thousand cattle. 34. Sixty one thousand donkeys. 35. As for the people, of the women who had no experience of intimate relations with a man, all souls were thirty two thousand. 36. The half that was the portion of those who went out to battle: the number of sheep was three hundred and thirty seven thousand, five hundred. 37. The tax to the Lord from the sheep was six hundred and seventy five. 38. Thirty six thousand cattle, of which the tax to the Lord was seventy two. 39. Thirty thousand and five hundred donkeys, of which the tax to the Lord was sixty one. 40. Sixteen thousand people, of which the tax to the Lord was thirty two people. 41. Moses gave the tax which was a gift to the Lord, to Eleazar the kohen, as the Lord had commanded Moses. 42. And from the half allotted to the children of Israel, which Moses had divided from the men who had gone into the army. 43. The community's half [consisted of] three hundred and thirty seven thousand, five hundred sheep. 44. Thirty six thousand cattle. 45. Thirty thousand five hundred donkeys. 46. And sixteen thousand people. 47. Moses took one part out of fifty from the half of the children of Israel, the people and the animals, and gave them to the Levites, the guardians of the Lord's sanctuary. 48. The officers appointed over the army's thousands, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, approached Moses. 49. They said to Moses, "Your servants counted the soldiers who were in our charge, and not one man was missing from us. 50. We therefore wish to bring an offering for the Lord. Any man who found a gold article, be it an anklet, a bracelet, a ring, an earring, or a body ornament, to atone for our souls before the Lord. 51. Moses and Eleazar the kohen took all the gold articles from them. 52. The total of the gift of gold which they dedicated to the Lord [amounted to] sixteen thousand, seven hundred and fifty shekels; this was from the commanders of the thousands and the commanders of the hundreds. 53. The soldiers had seized spoils for themselves. 54. Moses and Eleazar the kohen took the gold from the commanders of the thousands and hundreds and brought it to the Tent of Meeting, as a remembrance for the children of Israel before the Lord.

This is an amazing thread: Susan Jacoby posts a preposterous piece lambasting the Pope for saying, doing and believing all sorts of horrible things that, in fact, he did NOT say or do and does not believe.

There are repeated corrections in the comments (unnecessary for anyone who -- unlike Ms. Jacoby -- took the trouble to read what the Pope actually wrote), but those are ignored by half the commentators, who prefer to express their outrage at the Pope for "antisemitic language in the Tridentine Mass" and "saying that non-Catholics will go to hell." All of this gibberish is a product of the very troubled fantasy world of the fanatical secularist mind. Apparently anger makes one stupid.

If you know how to READ (beyond blog posts and journalism), try it once in a while.

"Bright," indeed.

Those who know don't argue. Those who argue don't know

(Kind of simplifies things.)

Those who know don't argue. Those who argue don't know

(Kind of simplifies things.)

for those of you aghast at this development, don't expect any improvement in herr ratzinger's successor. his electors are, if anything, more reactionary than he is, something that will not change for the first half of this century, if ever. it is as if the american electoral college were limited to members of that dwindling school of our president's admirers. in short, it is hermetically sealed against contrary or progressive thought.

Monkeyboy,

Forget anti-semitism talked about by the sensational and histrionic Ms. Jacoby; the ant-Catholics on this board, like your ignorant and bigoted self, put them to shame.

End of story.

Papal,

But a Catholic who changes his religion has inculpable ignorance? There are a lot of people in this category. Are they all going to Hell?

Protestants who have studied the basic foundations and theologies of contemporary religion to include Catholicism but then decide to keep his or her beliefs have inculable ignorance. Are they going to Hell?

The world's population in general has access to the Internet and thereby access to Catholic Church theology and doctrine (e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html and the Catholic Catechism, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm). If after reading said documents, the readers decide not to join the Catholic Church do they still have inculable ignorance? Are the going to Hell??

According to B16, yes they are!!!!!!

Terry--you beat me to the punch!

Papal:

Inculpable ignorance? Who determines who is inculpably ignorant and who isn't?

I mean, if God determines a person's inculpable ignorance, please point to the chapter and verse in the bible in which Jesus lays this out clearly and concisely. If the pope or a group of Roman Catholic theologians determines inculpable ignorance, well, who are they to decide what collection of circumstances--e.g., born in a remote Chinese village--qualifies a person?

The "doctrine" of inculpable ignorance reminds me of the fact that earlier this year the Roman Catholic church changed gears and decided that perhaps infants who died before being baptized really didn't go to limbo, but might be in heaven after all. Shrewd decision by Roman Catholic theologians to ensure that their religion can be more easily marketed in undeveloped nations that have high infant mortality rates.

Sad, really, to see the defenders of the Roman Catholic faith put up such weak arguments for their beliefs, and then turn around and claim that people who dare argue with them, or dare challenge their hypocrisy, are bigots. Such declarations of victimhood by an institution that, for example, does harbor pedophiles and controls untold riches while millions starve makes me sick to my stomach.

Hello everyone and May Gode Love You!

I'd like to thank John R. for the detailed and accurate posting that he presented in response to this article. It was exactly what was needed to inform the poor souls who innocently rely on ill-informed bigots like Ms. Jacoby to present them with facts or reasonable opinions. A reasonable opinion is one that although not agreed upon by all, has a factual basis that can be undisputably verified. Ms. Jacoby failed the people by deceptively criticizing/attacking the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict, and the Church's teachings. This article was deceptive in that Ms. Jacoby used anti-Catholic propaganda and debateable facts, which are a common journalist ploy to sway public opinion. What was ironic about this article, was that people who responded to it that I didn't even agree with came across as a more intellectual source of content to support Ms. Jacoby's article than she did. I can't comment on any of her previous work or contributions to "On Faith," as this is my very first time ever to the site, but if this slip shod standard of contribution is the standard norm, then I humbly suggest that "On Faith" reconsider who it selects to be a "Panelist." John R, whoever he is, stated the complete facts of the Catholic Faith and not his worldly opinion. Ms. Jacoby is an anti-Catholic bigot who lives in the double-standard mentality of bashing the Catholic Church, but don't even hint any criticism of Judaism or else then, you're anti-Semitic. For the efforts of Ms. Jacoby and all of the other dishonest Panelists who might grace God's children with evil relativist lies, distortions, and blatant attacks against their beliefs in future articles:

Vade Retro Satana!
Nunquam Suade Mihi Vana.
Sunt Mala Quae Libas:
Ipse Venena Bibas.

In English:

Begone, Satan!
Suggest not vain things to me.
Evil is the cup thou offerest;
Drink thou thine own poison.

I ask all to join me in prayers for Ms. Jacoby and for all Catholics to add her and all those that subscribe to her hatred to their Rosary intentions. Thank you and May God Love You!

Papal - so where are all those 'inculpably ignorant' folks going after their demise??

According to your theology that leaves Purgatory -

In my day, unbaptized infants went to Limbo for all eternity, but lo and behold, the church stance on that has now changed with a little fancy footwork...how do you get rid of that original sin anyway?? Apparently eternal condemnnation (without the presence of God forever) was seen as too severe for the modern mentality.

By your religious standards we're all going to Purgatory anyway to burn off a little venial sin - do make sure that's all you've got to burn off.

Your metaphysics is severly underweight... please consider that your beliefs will be altogether secondary to your cumulative actions when that day of reckoning comes. Your religious arrogance is something that might even get you an extra month in Purgatory.

It's equally amazing to me that avowed Christians get one lifetime from start to finish to achieve eternal salvation....no wonder John Calvin came up with his doctrine of pre-destination for a select few right-thinking believers. He got it right from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Here's the theory - a soul is created by God, incarnated in human form, either gets the Christian message of salvation or not, and all depending on good luck, bad luck, or no luck at all, is consigned to ...... what???? In all my years I've never gotten a satisfactory answer, and yet that is THE bottom line for Christians of every description, whether Catholic or Protestant (not too sure about the Protestants either).

Letting the prayers about the Jews remain in the Tridentine rite is a problem that needs fixing. Otherwise, I am not sure what the fuss is about. The Catholic Church already has several approved rites for the Mass in addition to the current Roman rite. Why is making the Tridentine rite more easily available for those who find it rewarding such a sore spot? Why is one more rite a problem when there are already several? Does everyone have to do exactly the same? One of the strengths of the Catholic Church is that is can encompass a variety of tastes and traditions under its umbrella without schism.

Episcopalian:

1) A billion chinese are not going to hell for not being Catholic because they have what is know in Catholic theology as "inculpable ignorance."

2) A rebellious teenager without a fully developed conscious or emotional problems would be deemed "inculpably ignorant."

3) A buddhist in the mountains of Nepal would be "inculpably ignorant."

4) An atheist brainwashed by hippie parents and mocking religious people at Starbucks is "inculpably ignorant."

5) Susan Jacob--> inculpable ignorance, i hope. Still Christ deeply wants her.

A person who knows Christ is Lord and refuses or rejects eternal life in communion with him is in danger.

Susan:

"The pope is considered infallible when speaking about faith and morals. "

You are just factually wrong.

While that is ONE of the conditions needed if a pope chooses to invoke infallibility it doesn't mean that a pope that pronounces on Faith or morals is speaking infallibly, anymore than me typing this post means I'm using a Mac.

Okay, Anon, give us your sources for your claim that there is more documented abuse by Protestant and Jewish clergy so that we, too, may share your enlightenment.

Someone else can cite chapter and verse on this, but didn't Jesus summarize his teaching by saying love God with all your heart and love your fellow humans as yourself? Doesn't this provide an alternative and competing vision to the claim that one must believe in Jesus to be saved?
One post in this forum said the Catholic church didn't oppress Jews, only people who claimed to be Catholics did. People who claimed to be Catholics and controlled the Church for hundreds of years and supported tying large numbers of Jews and others to crosses and burning them alive. Christians who protested could easily get themselves treated in the same way. It's fair to say the Church itself was virulently diseased.

Some great bigotry there, basebob - perhaps we will pray for you as well...

PS - there is more documented abuse by Protestant and Jewish clergy than there is Catholic...the media just loves to bash this particular church...

Great post BK!

Again, here is the exact "anti-semitic" prayer recited once a year:

“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.” The following prayer is this: “Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.”

This is much to do about nothing!

Isn't the desire to go back to the Latin mass just a way to try and make all the gibberish sound more mysterious and therfore, seemingly from God? Listening to a mass in English just doesn't have the voodoo punch as using a dead language unknown to its listeners.

Should anybody really care what an institution of child-molesters proposes to do about their ancient myths?

BK,

Thank you for speaking forth with reason. So far as I understand the situation - the re-acceptance of the Latin mass - you have summarized the pope's pronunciation very well. It is NOT a replacement, it is an option. And the anti-Semitic stuff is gone.

Alas, the fanatics overrunning this site will not agree! But we must persist with reason - and love.

Thanks, and God bless.

You people are scary.

Do you really believe that God would consign over a billion, say, Chinese to eternal damnation because of an accident of their birth - being born to, say, Buddihst parents in an isolated Buddhist village and indoctrinated that it is the true religion? The vast majority of people are the religion of their parents - either because they were brainwashed in youth or because the familiar is comfortable. It is ludicrous to think that those born to Catholic parents (or not sufficiently brainwashed by their parent's religion to convert to Catholocism in later life) constitute some special divine subset of humans, and the rest of the few billions on earth are just soulless dogs doomed to eternal damnation. Who could believe in such a cruel God?

In the same vein you really believe God would consign to eternal damnation a teen or young adult who has rebelliously rejected their parent's religion but does not yet have the maturity to have developed their own belief structure? Or is there a special dispensation if they were going to become Catholic but they just hadn't realized or accepted it yet?

Further, the whole Reformation thing was because the Roman church had become so corrupt. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And finally, do those of you who quote scripture believe Jesus actually said each and every one of those words exactly as written (like, a scribe followed him around with a wagonload of papyrus scrolls and took dictation)? Have you all read it in the original language so there are no changes in nuance in translation?

If you have that much time on your hands to obsess about such things, please use some of it to come read to my mother in the nursing home.

Congratulations Susan!! Excellent job of laying it on the line. You must be doing something right because by my calculations you currently (and frequently) have the highest response rate of any of our religion experts and commentators -this in spite of all the complaining, whining, and catcalls. It seems to me people of any religious faith need to tolerate an examination of those beliefs they hold so near and dear - something I greatly admire about Gnostics (those early disagreeable Christians that didn't make the cut - but despite hellfire and brimstone are still here)- they seek real knowledge and first-hand experience of the divine. They are quite unwilling to accept the Ultimate Truth on faith alone. To the Gnostic, salvation and redemption comes through real knowledge and a direct apprehension of the Holy Spirit, rather than by following second-hand doctrines generated by the (often) self-appointed clergy.....what in fact do you really know if you don't know it through direct experience? Belief and faith should take you to real knowledge founded on experience at some point - that process was expunged in the early church by clerics and the early Church Fathers who above all needed obedient followers rather than independent thinkers to populate their developing church. It's interesting to note that the great mystics and Catholic saints of the past, such as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Theresa of Avila were very careful in their commentary never to offend the powers that be, knowing full well the punishment for offending the sitting Pope in any doctrinal dispute. In more modern times we see the same restrictions applying to the great Jesuit biologist, social scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was muzzled for years by the Church in what he could and could not publish regarding evolutionary theory. I believe to a lesser degree the modern contemplative and reknowned Catholic author and philosopher Thomas Merton felt similar prohibitions when comparing Catholicism to Buddhism - on the other hand, we need more of Thomas Merton and de Chardin and less of Irenaeus and Athanasias.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own set of beliefs and religion, sure, but no one should be free from having those beliefs or that religion critiqued by outsiders.

If certain mindsets or behaviors are promoted by Roman Catholics and their leaders, I have every right to critique those mindsets and behaviors because how Roman Catholics, or Mormons, or Muslims, or atheists, interact in society has an impact on my life. What I see from many comments on this thread is that Roman Catholics think that they should be able to believe whatever they wish--or perhaps, whatever the pope tells them--and not have to justify those beliefs in any way. That sort of intellectual laziness is a prelude to bigotry.

I am always fascinated by the fact that Protestants and Jews seem to have a love-hate relationship with the Catholic Church. On the one hand you mock our beliefs and traditions and the authority of the pope. On the other hand you all grudgingly long for respect from the old "ramshackle vehicle." I know of many Protestant sects that base their entire reason for being on the fact that they are not what the Catholics are. So why on earth do you care what we Catholics think of you? Give it a rest.

Ms. Jacoby,

It's always refreshing reading your articles. You are a sane voice of reason in a land hijacked by superstitious fanatics.

Goodness what a rant.

I never understood why the Catholic church permitted the state's language into its liturgy when the state banished the church and prayer from its rituals.

I thought we learned from Poland that the church is the only institution other than the media that the people have when government intentionally disregards the will of the people. We are now in month number nine of a clear majority of people supporting immediate withdrawal from Iraq despite the consequences. Still there is no peace.

This "article" and the attendant comments is a very sad but representative example of the secular mindset of "if it feels good, do it". Why anyone would waste their time (including me to my regret) of reading this stuff is beyond comprehension. A self-fulfilling, "you pat my back and I'll pat yours" is most appropriate for this screed.

What a waste of newspaper space if the "news" of newspaper is still relevant.

This "article" and the attendant comments is a very sad but representative example of the secular mindset of "if it feels good, do it". Why anyone would waste their time (including me to my regret) of reading this stuff is beyond comprehension. A self-fulfilling, "you pat my back and I'll pat yours" is most appropriate for this screed.

What a waste of newspaper space if the "news" of newspaper is still relevant.

These posts are the best argument (literally) to convince any person with functioning heart and mind that we MUST preserve the separation of church from state.

Back to the topic!!!!!

Vatican II put Latin in its
proper place, a historic "no longer functional" language of the Roman Slave Empire.

B16 appears to be short on funds and is appealing to the likes of Opus Dei and US Catholic "AARPeers" for support by "going Latin" again. Maybe Pontius will make another appearance!!!!

Much venom I sense in this one...

Agnostic-ish.

I concur

I just have to say, I love reading these opinion pieces and the ensuing barrage of comments. I find that I learn a lot about all different religions, as well as some nuggets of history. So I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for posting, first of all. :)

I also think everyone is entitled to their own faiths and opinions. I don't think debating it is a waste of time (as some others identifying themselves as agnostic would), because as I said above, I learn something new everytime I read these columns and posts. Everything you all had to say above has value.

About this topic, I say: If the Pope wants to make changes or underline Catholics' 'means to salvation,' then by all means, he should do it. He is the Pope. So if Catholic is your thing, good for you. If you're not Catholic and you don't care for what goes on in Vatican City, then keep, well, not being Catholic. Who cares if he doesn't like other religions, or doesn't think they're real churches? The important thing is, what do YOU think about your own church and your own faith?

I really think we can all co-exist together, without having to tear each other apart over right vs. wrong. Right and wrong mean different things to different people. Whatever religion you are, keep practicing it as you or your church deem fit. If you don't belong to a church, be it because you just don't believe or just don't like church, just keep on keeping on. Everybody has to find their own peace, their own truth, their own way.

The ultimate authority? The decider? The truth? It's all you - It isn't just floating around the universe somewhere. YOU decide what religion/spirituality/church means and is (or isn't) to YOU. :)

What the Pope does is an issue for Catholics. As a Jew, my belief is if there actually was a person named Jesus, he was just another Jew that was crucified by the dictators of time. Lots of people have been murdered and he is just another one. And I could care less what the Pope says, so long as he does not endorse killing Jews as his institution did previously and as the Islamists currently do now. As a Jew, I am very pleased that our theology is not dogmatic, no matter how many orthodox rabbi's try to make it that way; they are merely engaged in secular political institutions just as is the Pope. Good religious belief is confined to directly the believer to do good deeds; anything outside of that is secular politics and is not religion. All this being said, outside of Catholics, why should anyone care what the Pope tells his group to do, so long as it is confined to internalized beliefs and not violent actions as are being demanded by the Islamists.

i told you before, i dont edit comments - they are free flowing as in any debate. dont like it - dont read it. when you see my name just pass it by -

Frank Collins:

Your misinformation is exceeded only by your misspellings. And by the way, ever hear of the shift key? Most educated people capitalize proper nouns and the first letters of sentences.

Jiminy crickets, folks. There appears to be a tremendous amount of anti-catholic and anti-christian (let alone just plain anti-religious) sentiment out there. I won't be inflammatory and call it bigotry, but I will say it's obvious people have a problem with the Roman Catholic Church. And I dare say that my little posting on this blog won't change that.

But my understanding is that Pope Benedict didn't do quite what Ms. Jacoby is charging him with -- return to a form of the mass that denigrates Jews. There's an alternative viewpoint, for those willing to listen, by Father Richard John Neuhaus in his July 9, 2007 post on www.firstthings.com. He says it much better than I can, so I urge you to look at his full post. But in short, John XXIII and Paul VI changed the wording used in the various forms of the mass to eliminate the denigratory language that had been used previously. Benedict simply reaffirms that those REVISED forms can be said in Latin without getting special permission from the local Roman Catholic bishop (as was thought to be required previously). This is what the prayer on Good Friday will sound like, the one that apparently has everyone in a ruckus -- “Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.” The following prayer is this: “Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.”

OK, so maybe some people will be offended by the implication that faithful jews aren't already at the the fullness of redemption. But honestly, that formulation seems pretty darn respectful. So I fail to see the dastardly evil here.

Let's all just dial it back a little bit, shall we?

Simon - For the record, and despite the cartoon histories shopped around by people whose only knowledge of the Church is the Galileo trial, an "Earth-centered solar system" has never been Catholic doctrine. Neither was there a time when people believe the Earth flat.

You are correct that Catholic doctrine did not describe an "Earth-centered solar system"; it was an earth-centered universe, though that universe was only vaguely described and had nothing to do with the modern concept of the universe. If I'm not mistaken, there was no concept of a solar system until Copernicus, although there were attempts by Islamic philosophers to resolve observations that were not concordant with the geocentric universe of Catholic dogma.

If you are not a Roman Catholic - Butt out.

Dan,

As for Hitchens, I could care less about his one sided critique of religion (very similar to Jacobys critique of Catholics).

That being said, I will point out anti-religious propaganda when I see it.

It is a best-seller and people are easy to mislead to extremes.

In her opening paragraphs, Susan Jacoby begs to have her argument taken as an irrelevancy as she denies the eistence of truth. If the idea of truth is off the table, then so is the Catholic religion. She should have stopped there. She shot a squirrel with a howitzer. There is nothing left to discuss.

Daniel,

To say "tow the line" makes no sense. The "line" isn't towed. What is at the END of the line is what gets towed. One would tow WITH the line.

The saying is "toe the line", as was shown by Anon. above.

"It is a religion that is used to and expects entitlement and special privilege, and then reacts very harshly, when it is denied."

Nice stereotype, Daniel, thanks for that contribution. Where exactly do Catholics get special privilege? As a Catholic male, I find it to be quite the opposite and am constantly judged on my faith upon first impression. (esp here in the States)

Catholics believe certain teachings and, as a non catholic, you really have the option not to pay the slightest attention - unless of course you want to go on attack like Jacob. But as a Protestant, why even care? You guys are doing your own thing.

Anyone have the new FireFox browser? It highlights all spelling errors in any text on automatically - great for the spelling challenged!

the catholic church did not have a horrendous history with jews. many who claimed to be catholic had a horrendous history with jews.
remember - the first catholic was a jew, his name was jesus. the next catholic who became the first pope was a jew. all of the first catholics were jews. it was only aftr paul that the "dogs that fed on the scraps at the masters table" were allowed to become catholics.
there is nothing wrong with catholics wanting jews to be part of what the catholics feel is their chosen religion and follow the jewish messiah. notice it is not accompanied with the assertion that if they dont they should be killed? every religion thinks it is the best religion and wants everyone to join. the problem is when they start demanding that others join, or kill them if they dont, or if the leave.
the catholic church has grown in the last 2,000 years, and non dogmatic practices have been discarded by an enlightened church.
you appear to not understand the unifying factor in having the celebration of the mass in a single common language. its a good idea for catholics.
and yes jews were to blame for the trial of jesus. what do you think happened - one armed lesbian eskimos showed up and pressed charges? but those who did it are long dead and those that are alive now had nothing to do with it. and neither are the romans who actually killed christ. and we dont blame romans now for what was done then.
and catholics had a missal and knew every word of what was being said. a life of hearing latin and seeing their own language on the opposite page made them bilingual.
now on the infallible stuff. around 1850 the pope decided that he should be infalliable and no one was powerful enough to tell him he wasn't. the infallible pope is not dogma.
no, what lead to pogroms were fullish and evil people who thought that killing their fellow human beings, in contravention of the teaching of christ, lead to pogroms. those that did it were just as evil then as they would be if they did it today. they were just as evil as a hitler, even though they did not kill as many. and keep in mind that you must separate "european" christians from catholics. russia had its own church, as did the greeks. there were lutherans, protestants, the church of england, baptists, etc. all of those took great pleasure in making sure no one thought they were catholic. the catholic church did not contol them, as it barely controls the rank and file catholics. and im sure glad the catholic church has gotten out of the science business. other christian groups would do well to get out of that business too. religion makes poor science, except in a general manner.
the jews can practice their religion how ever they want and christians how they want. its not the business of the jews to decide how christians practice - as long as christians do not start to pretend that killing jews would be proper.
the prayers are not anti jewish - cahtolics want jews to be their brothers. which some christians say that once jesus was here the jews no longer were able to enter the kingdom of god, catholics believe that if the jews continue to live by the law that god gave them, paradise is open to them.
and once again - JEWS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE KILLING OF CHRIST, AS WELL AS THE ROMANS - BUT THOSE WHO WERE INVOLVED ARE ALL DEAD NOW!
it was catholics who began the interfaith programs that are now common.
now we are on women priests? no pope has allowed it but you want to pretend its benedict that is at fault? he must be a lot older than he looks. are you going to blame him personally for a prolife stance as anti woman?
and your going to blame him for saying catholics are the one true church? every religion says that. what do you expect him to say? how about this "listen we are not the true church any church will do, hell you dont need a church, being a good nazi or member of the kkk is just as good as anything." come on woman, get your act together. i dont blame any religion for saying they are the best and true path. and he does have a point. in the begining there were only catholics and they had one pope, peter. everything else is a branch of that tree as far as christians are concerned.
well he is the head of a christian church - he probably thinks that people who deny the divinity of christ to be lost in the woods. what do you expect? that is in the christian bible as something that christ said. are christians supposed to let all other religion have a red pen and put a line through the parts they dont like?
here is a blast from the past - this is not islam - dont want to be catholic and have to listen to this pope - THEN DONT BE CATHOLIC! no one will stop you, kill you, or quit doing business with you.
and here is just one fact from good old martin luther. do you know why luther got recognition from the german princes? well up to his time the pope forbad lending money at interest. remember that part about if you take a mans cloak for payment of a debt you must give it back by evening? well only non catholics were in the money lending business. when questioned luther said that he did not care one bit about usury and at the same time you got the german princes accepting the lutherian religion - you had the great german banking houses being established, which spread to the dutch, and others. money effected the way catholics did things and in conformity with that process - we now call it "follow the money" luther started running to it. henry the 8th did it - he needed money and took over all the great estates of cathoics.
even the inquisition was about the money - as the king and queen of spain needed money and they used the inquisition, which they controlled, to steal it from "heritics".
but you comment of separation of church and state - right on. the first amendment preculded the establishment of a state religion - most of which were branches of christians - but it did not preclude religion. its freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. and please dont tell me about that wall of separation stuff. if they founding fathers wanted that in the constitution they would have put it in. the private writings of one of 54 people hardly make it the only view.
but the use of the latin mass for catholics - its a great idea for catholics.

So let me get this straight--"The "sacred" words of the old mass were part of what led the good folks of European Christendom to conduct pogroms against Jews during Holy Week" but "the chief effect of the vernacular was to interrupt the Sunday-morning naps of Catholics who has grown accustomed to not understanding a word of what the priest was saying."

Right.

I was going to do a point-by-point on this but it's not worth the time. Oh, and BTW, most Christians don't think truth is based on a popular vote.

This is what happens when your ideology drives your analysis and you cobble together a bunch of anti-religious talking points.

And that postscript is factually incorrect. But then I'm sure that Ms. Jacoby didn't actually READ the pronouncement, but rather relied on the inaccurate reports of lazy, ill-informed journalists.

Depressing. And I'm not even a Catholic.

Susan, you're a boob. Calling the Pope "pathetic" and such...

He is perhaps one of the world's most learned theologians and his writings show a thoughtfulness not seen anywhere else in our culture. I'm sure you get your theology from the latest, trendy books to hit Barnes & Nobles or the articles in the Post's Style section. How sad.

I'm sure your worship, if you do worship, would include trans-gender Bible texts and verses, (if not an actual trans-gender pastor) removal of any Christological references and sappy, rock/pop music instead of the great hymns of the faith.

By the way, Jesus said "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life". Not, A Way, A Truth, A Life....that's gotta really hurt your notion that there are many paths to God. The Jews need to be converted lest their souls be damned.

What I find both perplexing and humorous are those who post comments about having faith in the spiritual truth of Catholicism (or any religion for that matter). To have faith in a spiritual truth is antithetical. If religious teachings were to be held as "truth," then you would not need faith to believe in those teachings, they would would simply be true. Worshiping a deity requires one to believe in something without any actual physical proof; hence to have faith in what is essentially the unknown. If one requires religious teachings to be in fact true, then you no longer have faith. I have always wondered that if you do not question those teachings, then how can you have faith? And that is the true irony of fundamentalists in any religion, they have no faith because they believe every word, every piece of religious dogma to be true.

I am a lapsed Christian who prays daily for the conversion of Roman Catholics. Soon, perhaps, they will leave behind their idol worship of an institution that has obstructed human development like no other.

Seriously, all this traditionalist talk by Roman Catholics demonstrates that the devil is still very much with us, even if only metaphorically. How's about we all go back to the Dark Ages, live in mud huts, and eat lice and straw three meals a day? I'm sure there are more than a few defenders of the faith who get excited at the prospect.

To Speed123, if a man says, "God is not great" does that hurt God?

No, it does not.

Does it hurt you? It sure seems to. Why?

The problem with atheism is not in the atheists; it is inside of you, inside of your mind, and your heart.

Let everyone else alone, and try and figure out what is going on inside of you.

Anonymous - Can you be both? And then have free reign to slander religion (Christianity and Islam)under the pretext of secularism while promoting or excluding Judaism from the critique?

Many Jews are secular atheists and don't exclude Judaism from the critique. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is an unmitigated description of degenerate deranged depravity and many of its most virtuous characters would be clinically diagnosed psychotics.

I don't see Ms Jacoby's discussion of Catholic issues as venomous bile. Apparently Catholics just don't comprehend how their religion comes off to others. It is a religion that is used to and expects entitlement and special privilege, and then reacts very harshly, when it is denied.

Ha! Got me there, Andrea ;)

"What is all this drama for? Stop stirring the pot, Jacoby!"

So says the great pot-stirrer, Speed123 ;)

Great post Tim.

Perhaps Jacoby is just trying to $$sell$$ a new book a la Chris Hitchens (It could be called the pope is not great) ha!

What is all this drama for? Stop stirring the pot, Jacoby!

Sheesh...

Fuji,

I'm not on my high horse. Jewish true believers are just as screwed up as zealots in any of the other Abrahamic faiths. As far as the Catholic Church and the Third Reich, read your history (See Constantine's Sword by James Carroll). Most Catholics are not bigoted, but the Vatican is another story. By the way, neither the Latin Mass nor the Chabad-Lubavitch movement concerns me at all.

Fuji, communion is central to Catholic worship but does any institution run by man have the ability to actually deny communion with Christ? I don't think so. Christ communed with sinners, was criticized for doing so and when asked why he associated with sinner explained that part of his mission was to minister to those who were ill as they were the ones in need of care. The church can deny someone to participate in a particular church ritual and if that is done for reason of accountability to the doctrine as it is rightly understood by the institution, then so be it.

Perhaps, any organization should have the ability to establish prudent accountability to their rites and rituals and ask the membership to respect these. In a free country, if you don't like it, then you can easily find a place that will operate the way you want or you can start your own group. But if the group you belong to has adjudicated that you will not participate in some function or ritual because of your stated opposition to that group's doctrine, then this should be respected.

Not to pick on Teddy Kennedy but he makes such a good example ... but if Teddy is not allow communion and really feels that this denies him access to Christ, then he can find many other churches with arms wide open who would be honored to provide him Communion. But if he thinks the Catholic church is the one true church, then he would have to agree with the position of the church and I guess he then would need to listen to the Pope and come out with a stand against abortion. It seems to me you can't have it both ways; i.e. you can not take a position diametrically opposed to the Catholic church, say the church is wrong and fallible and then at the same time say it is the only way to Christ.

Forgetting all the ritual for a moment, Christ through His life on this earth demonstrated that he will commune with us everywhere and at all times. The only thing that blocks this communion is sin. It would seem that accountability is good when and if it convicts us of our sins and in this way it does provide access to communion.

With respect to speaking "ex cathedra":

This is when the Holy Father speaks to the requisite belief of Catholics as the Successor of Peter . . . not comments made during a private conversation or a sermon given during in a mass.

Important distinction!

Anyone can get a very thorough definition and history of Papal Infallibility from Wikipedia.
It's very clear that when the Pope exercises this option based on Apostolic Succession (from Peter forward) he is speaking with the divine authority of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot be disputed on any ruling made Ex Cathedra or 'from the chair' - pertaining to his singular position as the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic church. As pointed out by someone here, the one and only time this special authority was used (soon after 1870) was in declaring the Assumption of Mary (bodily) into heaven as valid and indisputable church doctrine.
One has to ask if these very late developments in dogma were not a serious attempt to establish consistency from start to finish in all other relevant church doctrines. For example, the divinity of Jesus was not by any means an immediate development in the belief structure of the early church but came later on as we see in some but not all of the gospels - Jesus could not in fact logically be divine without both a birth via immaculate conception and a perfect and sinless mother who was capable of the same miraculous bodily ascension as Jesus himself. The rest of the faithful will have to wait a very long time for their own bodily ascension - or the Rapture, as the evangelical protestants like to call it. Now for those that don't accept these Papal and early church council revelations as the 'gospel' truth, they may simply be having a moment of doubt as to the validity of any of these events actually occurring in reality. Believers can truly believe amazing things without a shred of evidence, but lacking first-hand evidence of similar events in real time makes others into disbelievers....all of these events simply defy anything known to anyone currently living in the present-day material world. Ultimately, Christianity has become a religion of the fantastic and other-worldly when you study it's development through history - I can't imagine the early days even remotely resembling what we have today, including what believers are expected to accept as truth based on dogma & the authority of church doctrine, including the presumption of absolute truth connected with Papal Infallibility - it all looks pretty man-made to me.

The best that can be said for Susan Jacoby's stunningly uninformed screed is that it was good for a lot of laughs.

Let's review:

1. According to Jacoby, expanding the existing permission for the use of the 1962 missal is "arrogant." Apparently, an authoritarian refusal to allow it would be more humble.

2. Jacoby bizarrely thinks this all has something to do with Latin and whether or not the priest faces the congregation or instead faces East (as Orthodox Christian and Eastern Catholic priests always do). Both Latin and facing East have always been part of the post-Vatican II Mass. Although the latter is less common, Mass is celebrated in Latin today in dozens of parishes in the DC area. The language has nothing to do with the "Tridentine Mass."

3. What the Pope expanded permission for here is the use of the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII as an "extraordinary" alternative to the standard (1970) Missal. There was no need to "bring back" Latin, or Gregorian Chant, because they have always been officially encouraged by the Church, even though they disappeared in most American parishes during the cultural chaos of the late 1960s/early 1970s.

4. The Missal of Pope John XXIII does NOT contain the words supposedly "offensive to Jews" (i.e., the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jewish people). And in any event, this papal decree does not grant permission to use "Tridentine Mass" on Good Friday.

5. Professional hate-mongers and demagogues like Abraham Foxman could easily have confirmed that their complaints were utterly inapt. But they are in the business of raising money from anti-Christian bigots for their "nonprofit" organizations -- so why let the facts get in the way of such a satisfying, dishonest charge of "antisemitism"?

5. For the record, and despite the cartoon histories shopped around by people whose only knowledge of the Church is the Galileo trial, an "Earth-centered solar system" has never been Catholic doctrine. Neither was there a time when people believe the Earth flat.

6. The dismissal of Catholicism as having "preceded the Renaissance" is, well, novel. While chronologically accurate, it would certainly have been news to all those Renaissance Italian writers, scholars, and artists -- and to the clerical contemporaries -- that the Renaissance marked some sort of break with the Church.

"Many Christians, unfortunately, present themselves here on this forum with a bad attitude towards their fellow man, and with a sour and mean spirit."

Are you kidding???

Did you see the bile included in Jacobys anti-Catholic diatribe up above.

If this was a rant about Jewish traditions or the use of hebrew for their ceremonies (or standing of gentiles in the Talmud - gasp!) she would probably be banned from on faith.

And what started this rant and out cry....a prayer - used once a year - that prays for another group.

If Jews want to pray for Christians once a year, I would be more than happy and would see it as a sign of our common humanity - as opposed to focusing on superiority or division.

There are more non neo-con Jews than neo-con. Their evil has nothing to do with their ethnicity. Anyway, everyone knows Dick Cheney is that heart of that darkness and he's a Methodist, just like our Hapless Leader.

"Is the only requirement for writing about religion being completely ignorant about your subject?"

Thank you, Max, for a question well worth asking.

Jacoby seems unable to seperate her personal venom against the Catholic Church to the extent that she might offer any comments worthy of consideration. To whit: I believe she is yet to respond to the thorough rebuttal offered by John R. Until such point, she should have the common sense,as they say, to stop digging before she gets in too deep.

The quality and kindness of Ms Jacoby's few comments here, unfortunatley, brilliantly outshine most of the comments by my fellow Christians.

Speaking as a Protestant (but not a Born-Again-Christian-Evangelical) I find the legalism of the Catholic Church to be truely dizzying.

Most non-Catholic people find even the concept of infallibility to be arrogant and off-putting, if not down-right obnoxious. Apparently, Catholic people don't get it.

Then when they are criticized for this doctrine that they have invented and proclaimed to the world, they reply by giving all kinds of innumerable and legalistic qualifications, as though we are all scholars of Catholic theology, which even most Catholics are not, and then telling us to but-out, because it's none of our business.

Many Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike, get all wrapped up in the politics of religion and let it spoil their attitudes. Many Christians, unfortunately, present themselves here on this forum with a bad attitude towards their fellow man, and with a sour and mean spirit.

Susan -

I'm not a Catholic, but my understanding is that the contention bewteen you and the vocal Catholics on this board resides in the ex cathedra issue. The two interpretations of infallibility vis a vis the ex cathedra issue seem to be: either(1) infallibility in theological matters only happens when the Pope explicitly states he is speaking ex cathedra or (2)any time the Pope makes a statement about theoligical issues he is de facto speaking ex cathedra and thus he is infallible. Of course, infallible does not mean perfect in all matters, just in arriving at judgments on spiritual issues, judgments that are pro forma consistent with established doctrine.

As a historical note: do any other non-Catholics find amusement that besides the Pope's apostolic antecedents, his office is also directly descended from the Pontifex Maximus of the Roman civic religion? Perhaps I misunderstand the relationship, but didn't Constantine and his successors merely rework existing offices to it in with the new state religion?

I thought Ms. Jacoby was a secular atheist?

Is she Jewish?

Can you be both? And then have free reign to slander religion (Christianity and Islam)under the pretext of secularism while promoting or excluding Judaism from the critique?

Very tricky, Ms Jacoby.

Tow the line is more correct.

Anon,

Well, why didn't you just come out and say you blame the Jews?

Power hungry = secular, capitalist American empire =
Neo Cons

We all know: Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle etc.

Founders: Kristol, Podhertz, Strauss.

(interesting that these are all secular Jewish intellectuals)

The pope was one of the first world leaders to oppose this unjust war.

The pope is considered infallible when speaking about faith and morals. He does not have to be speaking "ex cathedra." When the pope declares that all other Christian churches are inferior to the Roman Catholic church because their "apostolic succession" does not go back to Peter, he is merely restating centuries of Catholic doctrine.

The reader who declared that Pope John XXIII and Benedict have the same position regarding Jews is quite mistaken. To call Catholicism the "greatest gift" Jews could receive is an insult that John would never have been capable of. To call Christianity "completed Judaism" is also an insult to Jews, who--take my word for this--do not consider themselves incomplete. The more I see of these ignorant comments by certain Catholics who have no comprehension of the entire history of Christian religious persecution of Jews, the more I understand why Jewish leaders were so upset about Benedict's emphasis on the Tridentine mass.

I strongly suggest that readers who would like to learn something about this subject--something beyond prejudices rooted in religious certitudes--consult "Constantine's Sword," by James Carroll, who is himself a Roman Catholic. Then perhaps you will understand the centuries of violence that lie behind the odious idea that a Jew must convert to Christianity to be "complete."

Anon,

"amazingly strong secular, material ideology of greed, power and lust"

How d'ya figure? Lust, ok...we are hot. But greedy and powerhungry?

Kevin,

The pope is not the route to salvation; however, the Christian message needs to be organized and coherent to battle the amazingly strong secular, material ideology of greed, power and lust than pervades our "culture." Make no mistake, this is a battle for life and death.

The pope is the leader of the Church that Christ established on earth and the Catholic leader for this battle as it is playing out.

He is no more and no less.

You'll never convert anyone to atheism by informing them all religions are hooey and criticism of their creation stories. Only fundamentalist believe in the literal creation stories of their prospective religions; most folks accept them as allegorical and therefore consistent with mainstream science. I don't think anyone belongs to religion because of its creation myths. Most religious folks are concerned with the generation of morals; showing them that atheists are not amoral goes a long way to convincing folks atheists are ok.

And Joe Smith was a profound swindler, not thinker; he didn't even claim to write the texts upon which he expounded. Jim Jones was just a crazy man.

As a gay man I can't help but delight in Christians turning their vicious intolerance on one another.

Typical bigoted and untruthful attack on Catholicism from the Jewish Ms. Jacoby.

Per the tradition, Ms. Jacoby slips into "secular atheist" mode in these critiques so that the real illogical and emotional root of her hatred remains behind the scene.

You are a bigot, a liar, and a hypocrite, Jacoby!

Instresting comments about the Pope. My bishop was talking about this a week before in a sermon about the Reformation. Martin Luther "sola scripture" comment to the Catholic Bishops. I don't agree with pope about is comments on other churches, since I'm protestant. But I take no joy in dissing their name. The bible says let the wheat grow with the chaff and God will separate and throw into fire. For all the intellectuals on this board, If a man came up to and said how do I get to heaven? There's is only one answer, and that's through Jesus. Not the Pope, my bishop, Falwell, pat robertson or any other religous leader of our time. There two things a man can stand, on a relationship with God and believe in his Word(Bible). There are alot of false teachers out there. But they say a lot of stuff that's not based on scripture, it's a joke. Jesus is the Answer, not the Pope, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, just Jesus. That's what I give people, just Jesus. That's what people need.

I really do not understand how so much time and energy can be spent splitting hairs about the rightness or wrongness of Catholic Doctrine or any religious doctrine for that matter. All religion is based on what ignorant peoples thought a long, long, time ago. Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, "insert your own mixed up hero here," were all profound thinkers and speakers and were all fairly crazy. Humans have always been very susceptible to believing fantastical tales told by good story tellers. You would think that as much as we have learned in the last several hundred years, about the natural processes controlling our world and universe, we could move beyond ancient mythology. Alas, old habits die hard.

As to Heaven/Paradise or whatever you want to call it, the only one that anyone is guaranteed is the one that we are grossly neglecting right now.

John Carter

"That does not mean Catholic doctrine explicitly states that all women are inferior to some men. . ."

I meant that it doesn't state that all women are inferior to all men... The thrust of my argument is that Catholic doctrine holds that, in matters of faith, all women *are* inferior to some men and that's why folks accuse the church of sexism.

Ms. Jacoby once again opens her mouth and removes all doubt that she is a fool. Susan, stick to writing about things you know enough about to comment in a coherent manner.

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

A note -- it would help to understand the deep meaning (and love) behind Pope John XXIII's words to the Jewish observers of Vatican II if we remember that they are in fact a citation from the books of the bible Catholics and Jews hold in common, the Torah:

" 4 Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Please come closer to me.” And they came closer. And he said, “I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. 5 “Now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. 6 “For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are still five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvesting. 7 “God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth, and to keep you alive by a great deliverance. "

Like the biblical Joseph, John XXIII and Benedict XVI agree on the desire to give (not force) the greatest gift they can give to our Jewish brethren.

For the record, the pope is not infallible. This is a common misreading of the council text. Only a pope who speaks ex cathedra is infallible, and he is only infallible at the moment when he is speaking ex cathedra. Hence, Pius IX was infallible, as was Pius XII. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, never spoke ex cathedra, hence they were not infallible. Benedict can become infallible if he decides to define a dogma, which he seemingly has no intentions to do. So, for the time being, he cannot be accurately called infallible.

Religion is a pile of mis-directed man-made baloney.

Fuji -

I appreciate your criticism of Jacoby; she's an outsider and her interpretations of Catholic history and practice may not hew closely to those of Catholics'. Her misinterpretation of what infallibility means seems forgivable; the primary meaning of the word means to be unable to do no wrong. If the doctrine of infallibility has more ins and outs, please, elucidate - I am equally guilty of ignorance on this point.
Ignorance does not necesarilly imply bigotry; bigotry does imply willful ignorance, of which I do not think Susan is guilty.

As for her criticism of Catholicism of sexist; if you define sexism as hierarchical inequalities between male and female, then Catholicism *is* sexist: women cannot be priests, Bishops, Cardinals or Pope. That does not mean Catholic doctrine explicitly states that all women are inferior to some men, just that women are constitutionally unable to hold the most important offices of faith - the offices which largely define the shape of Catholic dogma. At least, that's the way it seems.

What always amuses me are (1) the continual comments that the Church is out-of-date or behind-the-times; and (2) predictions of the Church's immanent demise.

(1) The Church's self-proclaimed purpose is to challenge contemporary culture, in whatever time and place she finds herself. This purpose involves holding ideas and practices that seem to have not yet been tried (and will be thought outlandish or futuristic); or, more commonly, that seem to have been tried and discarded (and will thus be thought outlandish and outmoded). So be it - the Church is old-fashioned. Great. Why does someone outside of the Church care?

(2) The Church's enemies have been predicting her demise for about 1970 years now, give or take. They have, alas, all died disappointed. We have every reason to suppose that we will disappoint those who hate us now, once again. To those who expect or hope to outlive the Church, all I can say, I guess, is "good luck."

Ms. Jacoby wrote: "No one should pay the slightest attention to any pronouncements from this pathetic representative of a credulous, conformist past that preceded the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment and the separation of church and state in the West."

Wrong. No one should pay the slightest attention to any pronouncement from hysterical reporters.

Oh, and by the way, it the Novus Ordo Mass that came out of your beloved Second Vatican Council, Catholics still pray for the conversion of Jews. Here it is:
Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.

Is the only requirement for writing about religion being completely ignorant about your subject?

Keith wrote:

I am now a confirmed Bright, but my partner is catholic. From what I see of catholicism, it is not Christian. Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible, their priests tell them what to believe, they don't work out what is true for themselves. The priests, bishops and saints stand between them and God. They have craven images

***********

Um, actually, Keith, a review of history would show that Catholicism is the proto-christian church ... the first universal Christian church that unified the various congregations throughout the land.

As for not reading the Bible, as St. Bonaventure said in the Middle Ages, "Ignorance of Scripture is the ignorance of Christ." I'm a Catholic, and I belong to several Catholic bible study groups.

And, might I say, it's GRAVEN, not Craven.

Tim -

The accountability I was speaking of is the denial of communion, and it's a new-ish issue. Is not the rite of communion central to Catholic worship? Does the denial of communion to politicians who don't play ball amount to denying said politicians' communion with Christ?

--

There are different kinds of communion, but receiving the Eucharist means doing so without knowledge of mortal sin ... that is, receive the Lord worthily. If you are aware of a sin, clear it up before receiving the Eucharist.

3 Conditions for invoking infallibility:

1) Must be on an issue relating to Faith or morals. (It can't be on the temporal issue of the day. )

2) He must announce that he is speaking in his official capacity as the successor to Peter or "ex cathedra". (Popes make many pronouncements that are NOT considered infallible, but nevertheless should be followed by Catholics. Criticizing the war in Iraq, as this pope has done is not infallible doctrine, It wouldn't qualify. Supporting abortion is morally wrong as the pope has said for Catholics but it isn't an infallible doctrine.)

3) It must be binding on all Catholics.

Some historical facts: Infallibility is a doctrine that has been used in practice only several times in the last 2000 years.

speed123 - Falwell, if you didnt notice was also extremely discrimintory against Catholics in his statements.

At least there was one thing Falwell and I were in agreement on.

speed123 - And, to cap it off, this is a ridiciously ignorant statement: "all the Church did was persecute the Jews down through the ages".

How about the Jewish ghettos throughout Europe? And the forced conversions and auto-de-fe were not persecution?

speed123 - Do we critize your traditions or history such as the Talmud?

Criticize all you want. I do. Practicing Jews are just as delusional as anyone else, especially those that follow the Old Testament (Tanakh) literally, with its megalomaniacal god and Abraham’s family that shows clear signs of heritable organic schizophrenia.

Tim -

The accountability I was speaking of is the denial of communion, and it's a new-ish issue. Is not the rite of communion central to Catholic worship? Does the denial of communion to politicians who don't play ball amount to denying said politicians' communion with Christ?

A theocracy is when one chruch rules the land; the Catholic church strong-arming Catholic elected officials to vote as the Church wants (admittedly mostly moral issues - abortion, war, etc.) is not theocratic.

As for what you say about Muslims, I do believe many want a worldwide, theologically consistent Ummah which follows a strict (though not necesarilly Taliban-esque)interpretation of Shar'ia. But not all. And the same could be said of Christian fundies (some of whom don't want to merely rule the world, but fantasize about the world's end). The problem with pinning down Muslim beliefs and attitudes is that there is no central theological-politcal authority (much like Judaism). Catholicism, however, is essentially submission to a religious hierarchy, at the apex of which is the Pope is is the ultimate mediator between God and Man.

I voted for the only Muslim congressperson and am fully confident he is not about to force Shar'ia on us. His sect doesn't even follow fiqh.

I actually think the most theocratically-inclined religion in America is the mix of the civic religion (religious veneration of the Old Wise Founders, who were merely humans, though quite clever architects) and Christian Fundamentalism. Those folks certainly hold their elected officials accountable in the strongest sense of the word, and their religious hierarchy is dangerously propagandic. Though not religious, I do believe that the Church hierarchy are committed to fulfilling what they believe is Christ's plan. The American Flag Fundies, however, are manipulated by self-serving evangelical preachers. I would love to see a megachurch preacher live like a Fransiscan monk for a monthm let alone take a vow of poverty. Of course, they would never take a vow of silence - it's anathema to their bullhorn Christianity.

Let me set Susan straight - the Orthodox Jews believe that Jesus's father was a Roman Centurion - they don't deny Christ's existence or the miracles He performed - just who His Father is. So they do believe Susan that his body is buried some where Susan.
However, the catholic church is not anti-semetic.
As Albert Einstein said - the catholic church was the one organization in europe that wasn't crowed by the Nazis and stood up to Hitler - if we weren't crowed by the Nazis why would we be crowed by ignorant and silly atheists? (take your pick Susan)
The truth is that Jesus Christ is Lord of heaven and earth and whether you believe it, know it, or refuse to accept it won't alter that truth.

and very reasonable piece, Ms. Jacoby.

The Roman Catholic Church, from the institutional standpoint, has never been anything less than a filthy prostitute, selling herself to any nation that will have her, dragging her bloodstained petticoats across the centuries. Harsh words for ages of harsh deeds and crimes against reason and humanity.

*************
I love how you start off mentioning reason and then launch into a blood-curdling diatribe worthy of a Klansman.

and very reasonable piece, Ms. Jacoby.

The Roman Catholic Church, from the institutional standpoint, has never been anything less than a filthy prostitute, selling herself to any nation that will have her, dragging her bloodstained petticoats across the centuries. Harsh words for ages of harsh deeds and crimes against reason and humanity.

*************
I love how you start off mentioning reason and then launch into a blood-curdling diatribe worthy of a Klansman.

If your not talking about love and acceptance then your not talking about God.

If your not talking about love and acceptance then your not talking about God.

Latin is to Catholicism as Hebrew is to Judaism. The idea of a sacred language is an appealing one to me. A sacred language gives a constant freshness to what is being said. Given that the Catholic mass remains largely the same from day to day, I can't imagine learning a little Latin would tax anyone's brain. Anyway, the Latin mass is an acquired taste. You can appreciate it over time, but it's certainly not necessary. Unfortunately, many Tridentine mass supporters are also right-wingers who believe Vatican II destroyed the Catholic Church and only by abolishing Vatican II can the Church rise again. However, I certainly don't think liberal Catholics should cede the beauty of the Latin mass to these idiots.

Susan wrote:

At the time, the chief effect of the vernacular was to interrupt the Sunday-morning naps of Catholics who has grown accustomed to not understanding a word of what the priest was saying. When the priest (who used to face the altar while he mumbled in Latin) suddenly turned to the congregation and spoke in an understandable language, the faithful actually had to listen.
My father, who did understand Latin, used to snore through the Tridentine mass anyway, because he said it reminded him of high school Latin classes. The vernacular kept him irritably awake.

--0---
I just must take exception to this. This is not the writing of a cool, distanced observer who wants to comment on church action. This is the sneering writing of a non-believer who can't believe that anyone would believe, and if they do profess belief, it must be some superficial, ignorant faith. This is an insult to me and my faith, and personally, I think the WaPo can do much better. Surely there are atheists out there who don't evince such open hostility towards faith.

Fallucination -- my mistake. I understood her to be pagan. Not that there aren't some questions I have about atheism.

If I might address a point you made to anon -- I do believe Susan is showing her bigotry. She misstates what infalliability is (she doesn't define it and then goes on to suggest that Catholics hold the pope to be infalliable, which we don't ... again, she should investigate what infalliability means in Catholicism).

But then she moves on to old bigoted saws -- Catholics are sexist, a bunch of MEN (I noticed she never mentioned the women though several Doctors of the Church are women), and, of course politics. The Bishop of Rome is not acting out of politics as we have in government. It's not "right-wing." It's orthodox and traditional or it's inventive and progressive. That's the balancing act.

Speed,

"Anyway, if you are not a Catholic, why would you possibly care??? The decrees do not pertain to you anyway... "

They do if you take the "one true church" thing personally. But, I'm not Catholic, nor religious...so I'm taking my horse out of this race.

The editorialist has conceded theololical correctness to the Pontiff when, in fact, accurate Catholic theology only underscores her point. The teaching of the bishop of Rome is only held to be infallible when he rules ex cathedra - I believe popes have done so only three times since the Middle Ages - precisely because infallibily implies that such rulings cannot later be modified. However, when all the bishops of the world reach a consensus in teaching - as they did regarding celebrating the mass in the venacular during the Second Vatican Council - Catholics do hold such teaching to be infallible.

The Catholic Church has not flourished for so many centuries because it has labored under a theological system that can be as easily punctured as she would imply. Ironically, "God's Rockweiller" finds himself as theologically incorrect regarding the Latin Mass as he did when he proposed that Catholics should accept anything that John Paul II taught as infallible, an error refered to as Papism.

I would also like to note that European Jewish orgaizations rushed to embrace the new pope when it was disclosed that he had been a member of the Nazi Youth when he was young because he had spearheaded Catholic amends toward Judism during John Paul II's papacy and is responsible for the posture that Catholics should view Jews as their "...spiritual big brothers."

It has been suggested that Benedict would prefer a smaller and more faithful Church. As an American Catholic whose faith must be grounded in something a little bit more substantial than, "...because I said so, young man," I support many of the article's major premises. I expect from the Post, however, that the arguments not be supported by pop theology and religious demogogoury.

Susan:

Benedict speaks the scriptural Truth about Christ's desire for communion with the jews and with all people. We after all are an extension of the jewish experience, being completed by Christ's life, death and resurrection. We worship a Jewish King. "INRI"

On infallibility, you are playing tricks. You are not representing it fairly as doctrine or as it has been used in practice. And you know better as an educated woman. That is lying. But I guess that's okay because the church doesn't agree with your theology or politics.

I think you can't deal reasonably with Catholicism and so you try to trick the casual reader into thinking it is something it is not.

Its fair to ask exactly what contribution are you making to the readership of On Faith?

Basically, the Pope's latest decrees are yet another expression of the basic inollerance built into the fabric of all three "Abrahamic" faiths: the Jews with the "Chosen People" concept, the Christians with the "saved" and "unsaved" and the Muslims with their "believers and unbvelievers."

These are all manifestations of the HerrenVolk idea expressed with such deadly logic through the ages, the idea that only one special set of humans deserves to rule all the others.

As Voiltaire said, "Crush the Infamous Thing."

I love the ignorance and bigotry on this thread....sure brings them all out of the woodwork.

Infallibility was only decleared on ONE pronouncement in the 1800s...what do you not understand?

Anyway, if you are not a Catholic, why would you possibly care??? The decrees do not pertain to you anyway...

I suppose you linger on this issue simply to attack a specific group with ignorant and bigoted statements.

Fuji -

What are the inconsistencies in Susan's atheism? As a self-described non-religious person, I'm curious your criticisms.

Fallucination, Ted Kennedy is a Catholic and I believe he has supported abortion from day 1 and that he still supports abortion and in spite of the new Pope, he will support abortion. This even though the Catholic church has never supported abortion. This Catholic church, and neither do any Christian churches, hold politically elected official ACCOUNTABLE or Kennedy would be toast. I think there is another religion, and you do know who I am talking about, that does hold elected official accountable to religious doctrine. That's called a theocracy and this religion advocates that system for all of us. How much fun would this be - alas no On Faith web site anymore! But we don't want to go there, do we? (Frank, where are you?) I just think accountability is a little strong but yes influence. But this influence is not as strong as the impulse to get elected and stay elected by doing anything and saying anything that will accomplish such.

It do think that what the Pope does seems to effect us all or there would not be such a stir on this question of the Latin Mass. Frankly, it surprises me.

Maurie Beck:

How dare you say it doesn't concern us. Aside from the Vatican being the first government to formally recognize The Third Reich, all the Church did was persecute the Jews down through the ages. Of course, the persecution was understandable, considering that we did drink the blood of Christian babies.

***

Oh for god's sake, get off the high horse, already, Maurie. Talk about your ancient history. You want to talk about abuses? Fine, I gladly admit the RC Church committed atrocities against jews a long time ago. Shall we go back further and look at what the jews did to the cannanites and others? No one is innocent, Maurie. And please -- the Third Reich? Hitler's pope and all that? Lies based on a slander published in a play. Many, and I mean MANY Catholics from the US and Europe fought to free the jews held in concentration camps -- my father among them. So stop it already. The Latin Mass concerns you as much as the Chabad-Lubavitch movement concerns me.

I think the difference between the bigotry us non-religious types decry and that which you, anonymous (different from the one I was joking with, I believe)don't like is that being Catholic is a choice, but being black, female, brown or, *gasp* ethnically Jewish is not. Is it not consistent to consider the adherents of a religion in light of said religion's tenets? I mean, maybe you can call it ignorance of Catholicism, but bigotry is a bit far. I don't think Susan is saying Catholics are worse people than others, but that the choices made by the Church hierarchy are not constructive choices.

Stop with the histrionics, Beck.

Falwell, if you didnt notice was also extremely discrimintory against Catholics in his statements.

And, to cap it off, this is a ridiciously ignorant statement:
"all the Church did was persecute the Jews down through the ages"

Get over yourself, would you? Do we critize your traditions or history such as the Talmud? Nope.

Yes, the Pope is infallible. Vatican I reaffirmed it. Vatican II was silent on it. So, Vatican I's reaffirmation stands. I stand corrected on that.

--

I suspect your understanding of infalliability is as muddied as most people who attack the RC Church because of it. Infalliability does not mean impeccability. It does mean however that when speaking on matters of faith and morals "from the seat of St. Peter" (meaning with the authority of that saint), what the pope says becomes accepted.

How many times has this terrible, awful, and authoritarian abuse of power been wielded in 2,000 years????

Twice. And both pronouncements affirmed long-standing traditions about Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Dear Susan,

How dare you? Are you a Catholic? Are you a Christian? No. So why do you care if we worship in Latin or the vernacular or in some ancient language. Who are you to judge my faith? Did you even read the pronouncement? It means that the old Latin mass is an OPTION. Masses will still be celebrated in the vernacular.

Please, refrain from judging my faith, and I'll refrain from pointing out the delightful inconsistencies and twists of logic in yours.

Ms. Jacoby can rant all she wants, with her secular intolerance, but she should reflect upon the fact that 30% of the U.S. war deaths in Viet Nam were Catholic men, serving their country's misguided ruling class honorably, as many Catholic men and women are dying and being maimed in Iraq. Her Wash Post editorial page could not go to war in Iraq fast enough (thank you, Fred Hiatt, pro abortion like everyone else on Post editorial board), although Popes John Paul and Benedict tried to stop Bush, Cheney and the neocons from their foolish war course. I understand from a source Donny Graham was very close to Cardinal Hickey; I guess Graham is hoping Hickey's prayers save his soul, after his opposition to Church teachings such as the defense of helpless human life (unborn and elderly).

Daniel Giannini - Jewish groups should not interfere with things that should not concern them.

How dare you say it doesn't concern us. Aside from the Vatican being the first government to formally recognize The Third Reich, all the Church did was persecute the Jews down through the ages. Of course, the persecution was understandable, considering that we did drink the blood of Christian babies.

According to Jerry Falwell, I am the Antichrist ("the Antichrist is probably alive today and is a male Jew"), a member of the communist Jewish atheist conspiracy of international bankers, media moguls, and moral relativists. I will lead the forces of reason and secular humanism against Christ's second coming and his flaming sword.

You may ask, what can compete with a flaming sword? A hammer and nails, amico mio. The hammer to beat the sword into a plowshare (damn, there's got to be something more relevant than a plowshare in the twenty-first century), and then to drive the nails into the cross for the second time. This time we (the Jews) will use galvanized annular nails so that Jesus stays stuck to the cross. I've had it with those resurrections.

bigotry against catholics = modern and fashionable for "intellectuals" such as Jacoby, Hitchens, Harris (who all happen to be Jewish)

bigotry against anyone else = hate speech

What hypocrisy!

Tim -

In my haste, I misread you: you did not say it won't affect outsiders. however, I think your contention that it's 'interesting' that outsiders find aspects of Catholic doctrine controversial is addressed by my post. In summary - the Pope's declarations are controversial because they affect outsiders, too.

ps - Ms. Jacoby, you are ignorant on "infalibility"

This was a decree that was only used ONCE in the 1800's and it does not apply to all church policy that is issued by current popes.

Gotta love your bias and bigotry against Catholics while viciously defending your particular group....

Tim -

You think changing matters of doctrine in one of the world's largest faiths (a faith, furthermore, with ONE MAN in charge) doesn't affect outsiders? I think one of the points of Ms. Jacoby's excellent post is that it does indeed affect others. If such changes don't, at least in Catholic - majority communities/countries, affect non-Catholics I'd be surprised. Benedict has, or at least those who work under him and hold him infallible have, indicated that the Church is going to hold elected officials who are Catholic more accountable for views that depart from Benedict's vision of the Church. Will that have no effect on non-Catholics?

Ms. Jacoby -

I know you are atheist....but I can only guess from your writings that you were raised Jewish.

This is not about the Jews! For crying out loud!

I am not catholic, but who are you to critize how others pray and in what language they do so?

Typical atheist, totalitarian thought police....Jacob.

Misuse an idiom? How about coin a new idiom?

Oh, and I totally agree toe can be a verb. It's not in common usage, or in your religious text (I believe most grammatical fundamentalists split it into the testaments of the Dictionary for content, and the Book of Strunk and White for form), but I recall hearing it as a particle and preposition.

I'm a grammatical freethinker, though, and don't take marching orders from some logocentric higher authority.
(/sarcasm)

;-)

I liked a lot of what John R said in his extensive posting in response to Ms. Jacoby's opinions.

Catholics, says John R, believe in religious toleration, not phony religious indifferentism. That is a pretty good statement. Tolerance does not mean that the Pope has to be indifferent and it is best that he lead, which is what he seems to be doing. The Pope is making decisions on church matters and it is interesting how controversial they are to so many who have nothing to do with the church. You must be doing something right, Mr. Pope.

I liked a lot of what John R said in his extensive posting in response to Ms. Jacoby's opinions.

Catholics, says John R, believe in religious toleration, not phony religious indifferentism. That is a pretty good statement. Tolerance does not mean that the Pope has to be indifferent and it is best that he lead, which is what he seems to be doing. The Pope is making decisions on church matters and it is interesting how controversial they are to so many who have nothing to do with the church. You must be doing something right Mr. Pope.

Susan,

Touche! I am foolish for arguin a fool's argument.

Fallucination,

I did not "interpret" that post. I read it, and the other which misused the idiom three times between them.

Whether it is proper or not, your use of "tow" changes what the idiom means. "Toe the line" means to follow convention. "Tow" the line causes one to lead, not follow.

While I certainly can see your preference being effective in certain conversations, in the one from the posts above, it would not.

As far as the dictionary not being the "be-all/end-all", it certainly stopped the "toe is not a verb" assertion dead in its tracks.

That is like saying that one cannot nail two boards together because "nail" is a noun, not a verb.

Just a clarification.

I dislike the rigidly authoritarian manner in which anonymous interprets Daniel's post; the dictionary is not the end-all, be-all of proper language. Merriam Webster isn't the Pope, for gosh sakes. ;-)

Myself, I like tow the line because it reminds me offishing. You know, "Crank up the engine Ernie, we're gonna tow that line something fierce and catch ourselves a marlin!"

Thanks to "Anonymous" for ending this silly argument with--amazing!--a dictionary.

Dictionaries, unlike infallible popes, change as usage changes.

The post that started this exchange, however, was anything but silly, in that the writer originally said that other religions should not be expected to "tote the Judaic line." The idea of there being a "Judaic line"--whether toted, towed, or toed--is classically anti-Semitic. That is why Jewish groups objected so strongly to Pope Benedict's encouragement of a ritual with words that give encouragement to an old, religiously based form of anti-Semitism.

Veritas, shame on you for brainwashing children. Have they been assigned their rakes yet?

Never mind, Daniel. I did it for you.

TOE

verb (used with object) 9. to furnish with a toe or toes.
10. to touch or reach with the toes: The pitcher toed the mound, wound up, and threw a fastball.
11. to kick with the toe.
12. Golf. to strike (the ball) with the toe of the club.
13. Carpentry. a. to drive (a nail) obliquely.
b. to toenail.

–verb (used without object) 14. to stand, walk, etc., with the toes in a specified position: to toe in.
15. to tap with the toe, as in dancing.
—Idioms16. on one's toes, energetic; alert; ready: The spirited competition kept them on their toes.
17. step or tread on (someone's) toes, to offend (a person); encroach on the territory or sphere of responsibility of (another): The new employee stepped on a lot of toes when he suggested reorganizing the office.
18. toe the line. line1 (def. 82).

It would be so nice if people would actually read the documents issued from the Vatican before commenting on them.

The notion that, with the Pope’s Moto Proprio, Catholics might now pray for the conversion of “the perfidious Jews” is nothing a fantasy.

In fact the announcement stresses that there are certain areas where the public liturgy has to follow the more modern form, including when it speaks of the Jews. The Good Friday service did once use the word perfidious, an ugly translation from “perfideles” or half-believer. In earlier times the congregation prayed first for the “fideles”, meaning believers or church, then for the Jewish people and then for the “infidels” or unbelievers. Pope John XXIII removed the deeply troubling word more than 40 years ago. It has not returned.

With this declaration the Pope is not turning back the clock. The vernacular mass is to be the norm. His purpose is to make a space within the Church for the more than one million Catholics who have left the Church for quasi-Catholic churches because of their attachment to the old rite. This is good sense and shows an openness not just to the new, but to the old as well.

Fraser Field
Powell River, B.C.
Canada

Yes, thinking appears to be your problem, try knowing! Look it up.

On your mark (toe the line),

get set...

GO!

I think the word is tow. "Toe" is not a verb.

If the Pope said, "strap on a suicide bomber's vest," then I suppose you would all do that too? (said to devout Catholics who take their marching orders from above, and look down on all the rest of us who have brains)

Daniel Giannini is one of those Christian hypocrites you have all heard tell of, who demands respect, but does not extend respect. He is one of those people who feels that his religion should entitle him to special and preferential treatment, and then he gets all huffy when he does not get it.

"Toe the line" IS the expression. It refers to keeping your toe behind the line before a foot race. If you "toe the line" you are following the accepted convention.

"Sarcasm" is one of those things that works better when you are not in error. I think the word you MAY BE hunting for is "dictionary".

"Toe" is one of those things that you have on your feet. It is a noun, not a verb. I think the word you maybe hunting for is "tow."

the universal language of the mass .

-worship the creator not the creation-.

the mass golden rule is :
mankind is food eater and bathroom goer.
make sure that the god you worship is not human being.

it,s a shame ,in 2007 you still see people who worship the lord jesus and the infallble pope??????both are food eater and bathroom goers.

people please,the truth is one and the delusions are so many .

TOE the line!

"Roman Catholics and Muslims should start expressing their concern at these Jewish groups who think that our great religions should always tote the Judaic line."

Many religions think that other religions should tote line. Many (most?) religions want everyone to believe their version. I think we would be better served to understand that none of us have it totally right quite yet.

It is very apparent that Susan Jacoby is both anti-Catholic and anti-God. We religious people should not have to worry about the thoughts and twisted views from the paganites like her. Jewish groups should not interfere with things that should not concern them. Roman Catholics and Muslims should start expressing their concern at these Jewish groups who think that our great religions should always tote the Judaic line.

The Roman Catholic Church is going through a beautiful transformation. I as a Catholic am amazed and enthralled!

God Bless the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church.

The absolute conviction expressed in a number of comments on this thread--that the Roman Catholic Church is the "one true church" and that all other churches and religions are inferior--speaks for itself about the right-wing fringe elements that Pope Benedict VI is appealing to in his recent decrees and actions.

I would also like to urge a bit more civility here. To make your points, you do not need to question the integrity of and call down the wrath of the Last Judgment on people who disagree with you.

Or perhaps you do. Res ipsa loquitur.

By the way, as Catholics we've never stopped praying for the conversation of Jews, as a matter a fact we pray for everyone's conversion to the truth of Catholicism. And as for our faith dying, I am in a room of 50 young people, within the ages of 15-20 who are and will be staunch defenders of our Catholic Faith, particularly with respects to the Tridentine Extraordinary Rite.

- Corpus Christi Youth Group

Perhaps Ms. Jacoby’s article is stepping outside her realm of knowledge. Apparently John R seems to have a lot of facts. Since it is outside my realm I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

What I have issue with is comments like the one John R made.

“The only thing I have to say about "Non-conformists" is they are self-absorbed people who think the world revolves around them.”

I have to disagree. Non conformist tend to be the types of people who make a difference in the world and move things forward. Religion is one thing that is in need of vital transformation. But that is a larger debate for another time.

I am definitely a non-conformist whose beliefs are on the opposite end of the spectrum from Catholicism. What I am not is self absorbed. I will put my compassion, consideration for others and my spirituality out there with the best of them.

Is the strength of Ms. Jacoby's bile more compounded by her arrogance or her ignorance?

"The Latin mass, also known as the Tridentine mass, is only a symbol," she tells us.

No, it is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the timeless invocation of Christ's words at the Last Supper that Catholics firmly believe and revere to bring to the altar the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Ms. Jacoby complains about "what is wrong with all religions." Clearly, all except HER religion, which is apparently to worship Ms. Jacoby (because, as Bob Dylan says, "You gotta serve somebody.")

If there's no Last Judgment, Ms. Jacoby, you won't know it after you die. But if there is? Try telling it to the Lord. And, at that point, you might be grateful for the Tridentine Mass's prayers for all unbelievers. Catholics pray every day that all may be saved.

Ms. Jacoby has the distinction of writing one of the uglier hit pieces against the Catholic Church I have seen in some time. This would seem to be classic case of knowing just enough big words to get yourself in trouble. Was she just getting in over her head or was she was simply not interested in examining this subject with any intention of offering an objective analysis for the benefit of the reader? Who knows?

What is, in this reader’s opinion, certain is that Jacoby has something of an ax to grind and has been giving the opportunity to do so. What is perhaps most troubling to me while reading “Sacred Cow” is that is lacks the insight I would expect from someone entrusted to offer intelligent commentary . . . a commentary that allows others who have not have the means or opportunity to educate themselves in the particulars of something “news worthy”. What sadness indeed.

Ms. Jacoby, I hope you have the opportunity to reflect upon the disservice you have done your profession and your editors and come to understand your value to others is in helping them understand the subject you have been entrusted to explain . . . without the polemic, flippant use of “artistic license”, and down right abuse of the facts to make your case.

Post Script: I thought to write a more thorough response the this article; however, it would seem Mr. Jacoby met her match (or perhaps more than her match) in the person of Mr. John R. Well done, Sir. I do not believe you will be so fortunate as to expect a reply to your thorough (though pointed) rebuttal of Jacoby’s roving ad hominum attacks on the Catholic Church. I can not help but wonder what her Father would think of her naked attack upon the Church.

One should note in Ms. Jacoby's postscript that when quoting the pope on the status of non-Catholic separated communities, she selectively adds a couple of "not"s not present in the original; a quote including context (from the response to the fourth question in http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html, distributed 29 June 2007, and which itself quotes Unitatis redintegratio) reads "It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation". Jacoby claims that the Pope asserts "other Christian denominations do not have the 'means of salvation' because they cannot trace their origins back to the twelve apostles", but he says no such thing.

"B16 is trying to re-establish himself as the sole leader of the Roman (Latin) Church."

Pope Benedict IS the head of The Church. He cannot "try" to "re-establish" himself as something he has never been BEFORE...duh!

I suppose I can TRY to reinsert my head into my @$$, but until I become you it won't have been there before to make reinsertion possible.

Gators vs. Concerned the Christian Now Liberated (from reason).

Gators are definitely illiterate, but Concerned the Christian makes you read a lot of crap to come to that inevitable conclusion.

Peter says "My hat is off to John R's extensive posting in response to Ms. Jacoby's rant. Misinformation and total unfamiliarity with the basis of the Catholic Church's teachings and doctrines are rampant. Thanks for setting her, and many others like her, straight, John R!"

Yes, I'd say John did a good job of demonstrating what a rigid, authoritarian institution his Church can be...

Ms. Jacoby,

The document about the Catholic Church being the true church and Reformation bodies not being churches in the full sense, but "eccesial communites", is not an opinion of Pope Benedict.

All of the theolgogy is straight from vatican II. Of particular interest is the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)".

Any literate person can see that everything in this latest release from Rome is from the Second Vatican Council. It only appears that the Pope is turning back the reform because the great majority of Americam Catholics and almost all members of the media are completely ignorant of what the Catholic Church(not the Pope, not Rome, not the Vatican)actually teaches.

My hat is off to John R's extensive posting in response to Ms. Jacoby's rant. Misinformation and total unfamiliarity with the basis of the Catholic Church's teachings and doctrines are rampant. Thanks for setting her, and many others like her, straight, John R!

Peter Bartell

Joe Campbell,

LOL!

BGONE,

"Oops! Am I talking out of school, so to speak?"

So to speak, "talking out of school" refers to gossip.

That being said, there is no danger of any talking you do having ANY affiliation with a school, learning, education, scholarship, or intellectualism...so really, don't sweat it.

DISCLAIMER: To those unfamiliar wiht Mr. BGONE, and his unique "school of thought", you may want to check out the link he spams all the threads with. But be warned, it's sad...PAINFULLY sad. I hesitate to promote the site de facto, but it just says so much more about its proponents than even its own "subject matter"

The demographic winter is here.

Aging workforce in the US.
http://www.geocities.com/demographic_crash

Website with good information on the subject.
Welcome.

Have a nice day.

Sincerely,
Solange Miller

You people are all crazy, you can read the truth here at http://www.hoaxbuster...

wait

forget it.

I think people are over reading a technical comment about philosophy.

No Christian denomination has ever stamped out all others. The Arminians and Syrian Christians are still around. They go back to before the Nicene Creed.

Most Christians think that there is one true church whose head is Jesus. The problem is working that out in a world filled with fallible people where politics plays a large role in which organizations prosper.

Oh, what is one to say when Pope Benedict says his is the only way and our church is a phony??

SIEG HEIL!

Hill Kemp

I don't care what anybody says, the Episcopalians are the most fabulous! Mitres and Albs and Chasubles, oh my! Work that stole baby.

Yael, what do you suggest be done to combat Chilianism and Chilianists? How strongly, in your view, ought churches stand up against this heresy? Do you think that this statement by the pope will be enough?

This is in regards to the postscript where the Pope reaffirmed that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church and that other Christian denominations were not a part of the Catholic Church. Oviously, there is a lot more to this story than Protestant denominations not being able to trace their origins back to the 12 disciples.

I think the Pope’s comments were a warning to those churches teaching false doctrine and to other churches who know better and aren’t standing up strongly enough against heresy.

I don’t know if you know this or not, but down through the centuries the Catholic and Protestant Churches occasionally had to stand up again Chilianism and stamp it out. Even though some of the early Church Councils and Church Fathers took action against this teaching, it still would occasionally crop up from time to time. Today, it is a little harder to stamp it out because this false doctrine is all over television and radio.

What is Chilianism? It is the belief of a thousand year kingdom of God on earth. Along with that teaching you will find the secret rapture, tribulation, those that are left behind and the second chance soap opera scenerios. Jesus never taught any of these things.

I believe the word “thousand” is used in four Bible verses in the Old Testament and in six verses in the New Testament. When you go to the original word for thousand in Greek or Hebrew (Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible), it is plain to see that this thousand word does NOT HAVE A LITERAL MEANING. Thousand is no doubt a metaphor for something else; it has some other meaning. There are numerous metaphors all over the Bible and Jesus even used them himself.

Yes, we have unethical so-called Christians making millions off a teaching that is not true. No doubt this is what prompted the Pope to make these comments ... only he should have been a little more forth-coming in what exactly was on his mind other than the 12 apostles.

It's so boring to hear everything discussed in terms of whether something "is good for the Jews". Regarding
problematic scripture/liturgical practices, I happened to be looking at this week's Torah portion (BaMidbar)- and there is a lengthy passage of "God" commanding the Israelites to basically annihilate the inhabitants of some ancient kingdom to the last man, take their wives and children, and destroy the facilities. How do the rabbis rationalize this, in exegetical terms? Is this mythology contextualized for the 21st century? It's interesting/ironic how much some of these readings foreshadow/complement current Israeli policies toward the modern-day Canaanites...

The Roman Catholic church is indeed founded on rocky soil and as usual reflects the philosophy and beliefs of the early founders that managed to land on top - and of course by having the competition/opposition declared 'heretics'. Good way to get crucified, burned at the stake or stoned to death in those early days. Irenaeus was the pre-eminent early church father and his conservative views held sway over gnostics and other disparate groups that were largely unorganized and lacking in any kind of cohesion in those early centuries. Read anything by Elaine Pagels to get a sense of those early days as the Church took shape - on the other hand, protestants are totally indebted to the catholic church for their very existence, so don't go blowing off about your self-evident superior position with sacred truth. The Reformation founders were anything but saintly themselves. On the other hand, Benedict and his kind are probably the reason I quit the church at age 17.....lots of 'divine' authority but no answers to hard questions. I have mixed feelings about the Latin mass because it was the liturgy of my youth (and in fact has been the reason that many conservative Catholics have defected to Eastern Right Catholic churches over the last 30 years or so - they wanted the tradition as it simply had more significance).
Benedict is no uniter, that's for sure - his latest delaration is pretty bizarre...the Catholic church is the only 'true' church of Jesus according to him, and all others are pretenders (meaning false, I assume). Apparently he's not a big fan of the Reformation himself! This is the guy that once called Buddhism mental masturbation - well, better masturbation than thorns, hair shirts and leather scourges!! (maybe he's a secret charter member of Opus Dei). This guy is simply not a religious genius and for certain not a religious scholar - another political apppointee to maintain the status quo...or maybe pilot a little time travel machine back a century or two - good luck with that. I figure most Catholics in the USA will pay him little mind....his job is to canonize new saints in far-off lands thereby securing the continued felicity and fidelity of South America and other previously ignored catholic populations (and also traditionally tending more toward papal supplication and possibly buying more into his infallibility on matters ex cathedra - but like people everywhere, 'do what thou wilt' and seek forgiveness later is the law of the land, whether you love Papa or choose to ignore him.

As for me, I fall more into the school of mental masturbation these days....... the result is inevitable but unpredictable as to when.

The Pope has written some intelligent books. It is quite a while until the next Good Friday service. I prefer to wait to see what happens before seeing disaster almost a year ahead.

This is from a common Protestant version of the Nicene Creed:

"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

Catholic does not mean Roman Catholic.

People have been trying to figure this stuff out since the fourth century.

B16 is trying to re-establish himself as the sole leader of the Roman (Latin) Church. The problem is that when one closely evaluates the scripture that he depends on for this "God-given" role, it falls heavily on the side of embellishments made by scribes trying to "sell" Catholicism to folk accustomed to being led around by the swords of kings, queens and emperors and their "Divine Rights". Enter democracy and education of the masses about 200 years ago and things are now rapidly changing.

More and more priests and men are opting for marriage. Priests who do remain have significant issues with sex. Nuns what few are left are demanding installation in the priesthood.

What do many of the contemporary NT scholars conclude about scriptural approval of said papacy ??

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Catholic theologian Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.”

Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

Catholicism has NOTHING to do with true Christianity. Im sure (NOT...)that our Lord and Savior would have patted Constantine, et al. on the back when they substituted holidays steeped in error over the Holy Days that Jesus, Paul (long after Christs death) and others kept. This fact is encompasses the great deceiving that is mentioned in Rev 12:9. Religious confusion reigns today because of this very fact. All of Israel kept the Holy Days. So were there descendents to do so. Not all of Israel became modern day 'Jews'. There is a New Testament light to all of the Holy Days.

And isnt it interesting how the 4th commandment is not taken seriously by the most all churches. There is a fundamental reason for this error too. It too goes back to the fact of Rev 12:9. Hebrews states that Jesus Christ (the Logos, the word at creation) is the same yesterday, today and forever. Man changes Gods way. Man will have alot to answer for.

Are you trying to tell us the pope is an old scared cow. Cows are females. Oops! Am I talking out of school, so to speak?

Protestants and secularists don't think for themselves either. Secularists simply follow the latest fad like trained cattle, not thinking of the outcome.

I am an Eastern-rite Catholic by choice, and I rejected both secularism and Protestantism because I found they were intellectually and morally bankrupt.
My family is Protestant, and I was raised as a Protestant. Protestantism has next to NOTHING in common with Early Christianity compared with Catholicism.

The Left shows its bankruptcy of arguments when it retreads the old Galileo canard, not to mention the baseless accusation that the pope is a Nazi.

Belonging to the Hitler youth was a requirement of being a German citizen during the Nazi era. There wasn't any way to get of it. The pope said he hated being in the Hitler Youth, not to mention his writings are filled with gushing admiration of the Jews.

He was one of the people, who at Vatican II, concocted the theory that the Jewish covenant was perpetual. Why should Catholics listen to those on the Left who are simply theologically ignorant?

The Left shows its bankruptcy of arguments when it retreads the old Galileo canard, not to mention the baseless accusation that the pope is a Nazi.

Belonging to the Hitler youth was a requirement of being a German citizen during the Nazi era. There wasn't any way to get of it. The pope said he hated being in the Hitler Youth, not to mention his writings are filled with gushing admiration of the Jews.

He was one of the people, who at Vatican II, concocted the theory that the Jewish covenant was perpetual. Why should Catholic listen to those on the Left who are simply theologically ignorant?

Kieth,

I'm not comfortable using Bright as a euphemism for atheist. It's so PC. If you don't like atheism, then how about unbeliever?

Secondly, by saying Catholics aren't Christian because the laity is told how to think by priests, you fail to recognize that many Protestant fundamentalist denominations, although claiming a direct personal relationship with god, are also told what to think in their bible study groups by Pastors and Reverends. I really don't see much difference.

I was brought up Methodist - Grandad was a lay preacher and I can remember being dragged along to the sites where Wesley preached.

I am now a confirmed Bright, but my partner is catholic. From what I see of catholicism, it is not Christian. Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible, their priests tell them what to believe, they don't work out what is true for themselves. The priests, bishops and saints stand between them and God. They have craven images - Jesus on the cross with INRI above his head and statues of his mother. They have pagan rituals involving incense and now they have reintroduced a mass in a pagan language. They are a joke.

All religion is delusional rubbish. If the "faithful" are arguing amongst themselves - catholics hate proddies, protestants hate left footers, Xians hate Muslims, Muslims hate Jews.

Why don't we stand back and let all these loonies just kick seven shades of sh*te out of each other?

Hermit.

LOL

"Hermit you hit the nail on the head! ...So by supporting an atheist does that mean I am out of the theist club?"

Thanks Rob! And welcome to the Dark Side; I'll have one of our Black Helicopters drop off your complimentary toaster oven ...>;-}

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/eac.html

A (diabolical) Hermit

Deicide?

Oh come now!

Now, I've heard everything.

Since when is it a crime to kill God?

I wish the Catholic Church would just finish what should have been done 1000 years ago; kill the Jews. They would even be praised and supported by many other Christian denominations who otherwise consider them hopeless Papists, also in need of saving. Death to the Christ Killers.

It is true that the Jews killed Jesus. I admit it. I know this because, as I stated in earlier posts, I’m part of that communist, Jewish, atheist, conspiracy of international bankers and media tycoons. Like any self-respecting Jew, I am an atheist. And as Jerry Falwell stated before him untimely demise, the Antichrist is now walking the earth and he is a male Jew. I finally figured out who I am. Thank you Jerry.

As for the killing of the Christ, I hate being accused of something without the satisfaction of being guilty. Fortunately, the second coming is at hand. As the Antichrist, I have my hammer and nails ready.

A Hermit said "Our ideas about what's true need constant re-examination. How else do ever learn anything?"

Hermit you hit the nail on the head!

So by supporting an atheist does that mean I am out of the theist club?

The false teachers are the Roman Catholic Church. Any scholar knows that its origins/background is from the Babylonian Mystery Religion. The 'modern' catholic church uses 'christianized' pagan days for holidays. Should not be so, says scripture.

Excellent and very reasonable piece, Ms. Jacoby.

The Roman Catholic Church, from the institutional standpoint, has never been anything less than a filthy prostitute, selling herself to any nation that will have her, dragging her bloodstained petticoats across the centuries. Harsh words for ages of harsh deeds and crimes against reason and humanity.

Centuries of forgery, debauchery, torture, and the completely unwarranted self-deification of the Papal figure--whose office is stained with every manner of historical vice and licentiousness.

This Pope (former head of the Congregation/Inquisition), has been down this road before. Much of his shameful right-wing posturing is a direct reaction to the RC Church's continued obfuscation and inability to take responsibilty for the monumental (and institutionally fostered) obscenities committed by priests against children and the ensuing scandals.

This Pope (a curiously and exceedingly effeminate man; practically a drag queen in full regalia) has chosen to deflect from his Church's continued sins on the world stage by pandering to the fanatics among his consituency. It's the oldest trick in the book. But the RC Church has been turning "tricks" ever since it hitched its wagon to Constantine's imperial skirts in the 4th century and began to assert a jurisdictional "primacy" that did NOT exist in the earliest centuries of the churches, and which is NOT in any way supported by the testimony of early Christian tradition--whether that tradition is preserved in the codex of Scripture or the writings of the earliest Fathers.

Some hope was indeed offered with the very saintly John XXIII and his Vatican II Council, but our former "Youth of Hitler" Pope and his Slavophiliac Polish predescessor have spent many years undoing the reforms of the Council--to no edifying effect for the people. Indeed, the RC Church is bleeding members in Latin America like a stuck-pig, churches across Europe are akin to empty tombs, and dioceses across the globe are on the brink of financial ruin due to payoffs and settlements for the sins committed at the hands of this Babylonian confraternity. yet babylon still blames the Jews and the "world" in general for its own blatant and tawdry "worldliness."

I feel ashamed for truly good, charitable Catholics. Embarrassed for them. But if they haven't the courage to speak out, they get what they deserve--which will be the merited outrage of every other Christian Church, Jewish confraternity, and sentient group of rational humans in the world.

The Catholic Church is not ruled by the body of the curch (its people), but whatever man is seated upon its throne. We must not forget the Inquisitions nor the threats made against those of science who were audacious enough to speak single truths that did not agree with the dogma of Catholicism (Pope Paul V against Galileo). All these years later, we find that Copernican Theory is correct, the earth does revolve around the sun, and yet people still cling to outdated notions by a system that has proven itself flawed many times over.

I was once baptized Catholic as an infant without given a choice. Suffice it to say, I am Catholic no more. I am nothing of any religion, because religions worship men; whereas spirituality is personal, and only there can true faith be found.

THE TRUTH,
The world is flat and created six thousand years ago.

Eric S,

We don't jump on all who are believers...just those who make unfounded and outrageous claims ;)

Eric S,

There are going to be more than a few "christians" that think you and seeker have problems too.

Seeker
As a Catholic, that is exactly my dilemma. Do I give up the rituals that feed my faith, or continue to assent to a view that seems discordant?
BTW why do atheists care what language we pray in? It touches me but also puzzles me that Ms. Jacoby would offer the best informed and most helpful analysis of this question so far. Is it because as a non-believer her head is clear of bias?

Seeker,

Look out, brother, you are about to be jumped on by several atheists who think you are a deluded fantasist and that all you hold sacred is a lie.

I recall Jesus saying "I am the way the truth and the life - no one comes to the Father except by me" I do not recall a footnote saying the "Catholic" as in "Roman" church is your transportation.

The "catholic" church God created is the all encompassing church. The Catholic church is arrogant in thinking it is that church.

Belief in Jesus is not all it takes - if that were true, Satan would be saved, he's a believer. It takes a declared statement that Jesus is your King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Religion is for man, a relationship with God is for everyone else!

Pope Benedict XVI (whose given name is also Joseph) took an arrogant step backward last week with a decree encouraging the use of the pre-Vatican II Latin mass, which includes a prayer that not only longs for the conversion of the Jews but labels Jews a people blind to Christian truth. As Pontius Pilate memorably asked, "What is truth?" That we are even discussing this subject in 2007 is an indicator of the retrograde nature of this pope and his papacy.

>>An arrogant step backward, that's a laugh. The Catholic Church, at Vatican II, never renounced its claim to having the fullness of God's truth. By definition, according to Catholic theology and the Bible, the Jews, by virtue of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah were blind to what they were doing by rejecting him. If the Catholic Church is correct that there is no assurance of salvation outside of its visible communion, although theoretically possible, wouldn't it be uncharitable to let the Jews and others live through eternity in separation from God?

Aren't you basing your opinion on your subjective human feelings, hmm? Spiritual gravity is every bit as real as physical gravity, and what you believe is true doesn't matter.

Jesus himself said in John 3:18-19, addressing the Jews, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." (Sound familiar, considering the 6th century prayer for the conversion of the Jews was based on these passages)

You may adhere to the Masonic religion of religious relativism, but the Catholic Church never has formally embraced your creed. Vatican II's decree on Religious Liberty says: "First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you" (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it." (How hateful, how bigoted, lol)

The Latin mass, also known as the Tridentine mass, is only a symbol. But what a powerful symbol it is! Benedict's lifting of restrictions on celebration of the old mass tells the world that he values the concerns of a tiny minority of theological right-wingers (of whom he happens to be one) within his church over the sensibilities of the vast majority of western Catholics and Jews.

>>Wrong, what it tells the world, especially the Eastern Orthodox churches is that the Roman Church is intent upon reclaiming

>>In the Catholic Church, there aren't any right-wingers or left-wingers. There are only Catholics and heretics who have chosen their own sentimentalities, rather than keeping the Catholic faith. Besides, why should it matter what narcissistic, self-important liberals such as yourself think? St. Paul says in Titus 3:10-11, "10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."

He also says in Hebrews: "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you."

Not to mention, Vatican II taught that Catholics should be obedient to the Pope even when he is NOT speaking ex cathedra.

For those not well versed in the subtleties of mass appeal, the Second Vatican Council (known as Vatican II) largely replaced the Latin mass with the vernacular.

>>Note. You say largely. But Vatican II intended for Latin to "remain the language of the Latin rites."
From Vatican II's decree on the Sacred Liturgy
"Para. 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites...Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them...Para. 101. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office."

I thought you were a good open-minded Liberal, so I guess you are saying that those faithful who want their Masses in Latin shouldn't be tolerated. How intolerant,LOL. Those who want their liturgies in the vernacular won't lose them, but those who want their liturgies in Latin can have them too.

The Radical Traditionalists who reject any Masses in the vernacular aren't coming back. In case you aren't aware, the Eastern-rite Catholic Churches never did away with their use of liturgical languages in their liturgies. Byzantine Catholics still use Slavonic and Greek alongside the vernacular. Armenian Catholics still use Classical Armenian alongside the vernacular. Coptic Catholics still use Coptic. The Maronites still use Syriac, etc. I am sorry if you are so uninformed.

Biblical texts particularly offensive to Jews--texts that blamed Jews for the "crime" of deicide--were stricken from standard missals.

>>The crime of "deicide was never charged in the preconciliar Roman Missals. Vatican II did not completely exonerate the Jewish people for Christ's death because it still placed blame in the hands of the Sanhedrin and the Jewish crowd who called for Christ's death. What it did do, was say the Jews of today DO NOT have any inherited guilt for Christ's crucifixion, and those Jews who didn't participate in agitating the Romans to crucify Jesus were not responsible either. I'm a traditionalist, and I respect, in accord with Nostra Aetatae, all aspects of the Jewish religion that are part of my patrimony as a Catholic.

>>Catholicism is merely completed Judaism, period. From the Catholic perspective, in spite of the diplomatic talk, Judaism is incomplete without faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Maybe the Jews ought to ask the pope to do away with the New Testament and convert to Judaism while they are at it. Catholics believe in religious toleration, not phony religious indifferentism.

>>Should I as a Catholic tell Jews to remove those portions of the Talmud that are offensive to Christian sensibilities? When it comes to my Jewish friends, we shall agree to disagree.

At the time, the chief effect of the vernacular was to interrupt the Sunday-morning naps of Catholics who has grown accustomed to not understanding a word of what the priest was saying. When the priest (who used to face the altar while he mumbled in Latin) suddenly turned to the congregation and spoke in an understandable language, the faithful actually had to listen.

>>We woudn't be having this discussion over the Tridentine Mass had the old liturgy not been replaced with a Protestant-style liturgy without solemnity. (Traditionalists want solemnity and a sense of the sacred, period.) Had the Old rite simply been allowed in the vernacular alongside the Latin, then Benedict XVI's decree never would have happened. The Mass of Paul VI is an ecumenical obstacle with the Orthodox, and Pope Benedict's priority is to end the Schism of 1054, period.

Of course, what is wrong with all religions--but particularly with a religion that claims to have an infallible leader--is the idea that what was once held sacred must remain sacred today. The "sacred" words of the old mass were part of what led the good folks of European Christendom to conduct pogroms against Jews during Holy Week. Perhaps the pope will wish to reconsider reviving the earth-centered theory of the solar system as church doctrine? Sacred then, sacred now.

>>Really, you are committing a red herring here if you think restoring the prayers for the conversion of the Jews will be a return to the bad old days of anti-Jewish pogroms, etc. You really show your ignorance of Catholic doctrine because the Ptolemaic conception of the universe wasn't a Catholic dogma. Not to mention the Pope's infallibility is limited to faith and morals, and matters involving the physics and cosmology are outside the pale. Vatican II's decree on Religious Liberty,which emphatically rejects forced conversions remains in force, as does Nostrae Aetate. The Good Friday prayers must be understood by lay Catholics in the light of Vatican II's teachings, period. Otherwise, they are guilty of heresy.

The B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League called Benedict's move "a body blow to
Catholic-Jewish relations," and the Simon Wiesenthal Center urged Benedict to publicly point out that such phrases are now contrary to the teaching of the church.

>>Why it it that the Orthodox Jews have been silent and only Liberal Jews have been speaking out? Maybe the Jews should cease in their hatred of Catholics for being who we are. Interreligious dialogue doesn't mean religious indifferentism. If I hate Jews, why do I enjoy reading Torah.org and other Orthodox Jewish Web sites for my own spiritual edification?

Benedict certainly could have ordered the excision of those anti-Jewish prayers in his decree, but he did not. Indeed, there were many regrettable aesthetic consequences accompanying the end of the Latin mass--chief among them the substitution of bad folk songs for Gregorian chant at High Mass. Why didn't the pope bring back Gregorian chant without bringing back theological slurs against Jews?

You should address that question to John Paul II, considering he was responsible for bringing back the 1962 Missal in 1984 from disuse. JP2 was the most pro-Jewish pope ever. Perhaps you should read Benedict XVI's writings on the Jews as well because they are very pro-Jewish.

Perhaps Benedict did not anticipate the intensity of Jewish reaction, or perhaps he knows that many of the right-wing Catholics who care deeply about the language in which the mass is celebrated are also people who continue to hold the Jews responsible for killing Christ (though they dare not say it openly).

Don't stereotype. Certainly, there are extremists in the SSPX and among the sedevacantists, who likely will not be drawn back into the Catholic Church by this decree, who hold a blanket view that all Jews are responsible for Christ's death, but that doesn't include those of us Traditionalists who accept Vatican II. The Council wasn't a breach with tradition, it was intended as a recapitulation of Tradition, intended at ending the bunker mentality that followed the French Revolution.

Within the Catholic Church, the groups that have gone to the mat with previous popes over restoration of the Tridentine mass represent the faction that has always wished to reverse all of the liberalizing and democratizing trends set in motion by Pope John and Vatican II.

>>Vatican II never intended for the Church to embrace radicalism, nor private interpretation of divine revelation.

And Benedict is reaching out to those right-wingers. My guess is that the current pope, a canny politician, will have some mollifying words for Jews as well. It will be quite a balancing act. He is not, after all, Pope of the Jews.

Correct, he is not the pope of the Jews, but his writings are very pro-Jewish. Read them sometime. FYI, the Radical Traditionalists hate Benedict XVI, accusing him of being a liberal heretic.

Frankly, I think there is something undignified about Jewish leaders pleading with a pope to say, once again, that there is no such thing as collective Jewish guilt. But I would not be quite so cavalier, I suppose, if I were the head of a Jewish organization and part of my job required me to deal with the fallout from anti-Semitism rooted in centuries of Christian theology.

>>Again Vatican II's teachings on the matter stand, and the Good Friday prayers must be understood today in the light of Vatican II from a catechetical perspective.

But what can you expect from a pope who believes that women cannot become priests because the twelve apostles were all men?

>>There is a greater difference between sex and ethnicity, and maybe you should ask the Orthodox Jews about that, considering the Catholic Church inherited that rule from the Jews.

After all, what was sacred in the past remains sacred and great today. It must be so, because an infallible man has said so.

POSTSCRIPT: Here's a piece of breaking news that further underlines the retrograde nature of this pope and his papacy. In a document released Tuesday, he reaffirms that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church and that other Christian denominations do not have the "means of salvation" because they cannot trace their origins back to the twelve apostles. Because of this so-called defect, Protestant churches "cannot be called `churches' in the proper sense," the document asserts.

>>Vatican II DID not change the Catholic Church's definition that it alone is the One True Church. I was a Protestant, and I converted to Catholicism when I realized that Protestantism had nothing to do with the faith of the Early Church. Only the Orthodox Church can pose an equally compelling claim.

>>As the Second Century Church fathers St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian said, paraphrasing, no apostolic succession, no Church, and no Christianity. The Catholic Church isn't going to change its faith to appease Protestants.
At the same time, the document DOES not exclude them from salvation because by virtue of their baptism, individual Protestants belong to the Catholic Church in an imperfect manner. Try reading St. Cyprian of Carthage from the 3rd century sometime.

If this is what Benedict thinks about other Christians, one can only imagine how he views people who do not accept the divinity of Christ. Now Protestant leaders are just as mad at Benedict as Jewish leaders. Apparently, Benedict wishes to add to the dissension that religion is already sowing in the world. No one should pay the slightest attention to any pronouncements from this pathetic representative of a credulous, conformist past that preceded the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment and the separation of church and state in the West.

>>The Catholic Church isn't going to modify its faith to make people feel better because it claims to be TRUTH. The only thing I have to say about "Non-conformists" is they are self-absorbed people who think the world revolves around them.

"THE TRUTH, is not something that requires "mondernization"..."

That's another way of saying "don't ask questions; don't think for yourself..."

Our ideas about what's true need constant re-examination. How else do ever learn anything?

Regards

A (curious) Hermit

To Daniel's analogy of the Roman Catholic Faith Being That Of A Worn Out Car, Creaking and Clanging Along, etc.... Need I remind you, that THE TRUTH, is not something that requires "mondernization". THE TRUTH, which is the FAITH of the Catholic Church, has remained the constant for over 2000 years. It's not necessary to dress up the truth, unless you are trying to hide something......ehh?

Dear Susan

Many protestant sects villify the Catholic Church, and don't care at all about anything Catholic. In my own denomination, the Methodists, we were educated in the origins of our church, from the Anglican Church, from the Catholic Church. In our church, there is some degree of respect for the Catholic Church, which is sometimes referred to as the "older side of the church." It is sort of like the respect you might have for an eccentric elderly aunt or uncle.

In my view, the Catholic Church staggers on. It continues, as it has now done for a very long time, without nuance or self-criticism, trundling along in its worn-out way, a ramshackle vehicle, dilapidatedly creaking and clanging with age, a curiosity to many, an anguish to many, a comfort to many. It is probably not dying, but just settling down for a very extended but gradual geriatric decline. Some people see the saga of Catholicism as tragic. I find in it, much to be admired and remembered.

Correction: Of course, I meant that the Virgin Mary, under the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was conceived without original SIN--not without "original scene." Although it's true that the original scene is hard to imagine.

Jihadist--

A correction: the dogma of papal infallibility was declared for the first time at the First Vatican Council in the nineteenth century. Pope Pius IX, arguably the most reactionary pope in Roman Catholic history, pushed the dogma through the council over the objections of many bishops.
Until then, the pope had simply been first among equals.

Pio Nono, who also declared, for the first time, the silly dogma of the Immaculate Conception (which states that Mary was conceived without original scene so that she could be pure enough to give birth to the Messiah)was a man who brooked no opposition within the church. Indeed, Benedict seems to belong to another age.

I enjoy reading your comments.

Best regards,

Susan Jacoby

Jesus never said He will establish multiple denominations, so the true church is one. Its either the Catholic church, or one of the thousands of other Christian denominations. Instead of assailing the Pope, try to find the one Church built by Christ. Reexamine your churches. Who knows, maybe the true church is just around New York City. But can that church trace back the connection with the apostles? Protestants are very well aware of the passages in the bible warning about false teachers and doctrines. That should be an incentive to them to reexamine themselves.

A decree encouraging the use of the pre-Vatican II Latin mass? Why would anyone use a dead language?

Yes, the Pope is infallible. Vatican I reaffirmed it. Vatican II was silent on it. So, Vatican I's reaffirmation stands. I stand corrected on that.

And yes, the Pope, as head of the Catholic Church is taken seriously by non-Catholics on what he says and do with regard to people of other faiths.

Non Catholics do miss Pope John Paul II. Non Catholics are still uncertain of Pope Benedict. I can see why the Jewish leaders would want to refer to him on issues pertaining Catholic views on Jews. Or, for that matter, Muslim leaders and Buddhist leaders on Islam and Buddhism.

Necesse est ut multos timeat quem multi timent?