netcrusher88 wrote:Advancing the worldwide criminal organization complicit in more child abuse than any other single entity in history?
When did they become a criminal organization, and when did any single organization become responsible for the acts of a very very small selection of their people?
The Catholic church is responsible for shielding hundreds if not thousands of abusers from prosecution. They are responsible for handling accusations by simply moving priests rather than actually investigating them - even priests which had a history. They're responsible for moving accused priests internationally to avoid legal action.
These are criminal actions. They are actions taken throughout the organization. That makes it a criminal organization, and shielding criminals from so much as investigation while shuffling them around to new positions where they continue to commit the same crime is an action which makes them complicit in the latter.
Clear enough for you?
The most powerful organization fighting against the single cheapest, most effective way to slow the spread of AIDS?
They aren't fighting against condoms, and they don't target condoms specifically. The Church's ban against birth control is the same ban against non-procreative sex. The church itself doesn't try to shut down condom companies, nor do they try and stop non-Catholics from using them.
You could make that argument, but you'd lose it. This may be ostensibly true, but the fact is it's manifested as the Catholic church - the Pope himself, even - lying to prevent condom use. By anyone - the Catholic church has opposed the distribution of condoms claiming it will only exacerbate the problem. That's a fucking lie.
The most important reason why your statement is wrong is that religion is entirely a personal decision, and any single person could use condoms or birth control if they wanted to. If you want to go with the Church's stance on sex, then do it, if you only half-ass it and focus on a single aspect, then you get yourself into trouble.
See above. People are going to have sex whether the Pope likes it or not. The Catholic church has actively tried to prevent them being able to do so (relatively) safely.
The situation becomes even more muddled though as you go into different regions, because like a language, the Catholic Church has regional dialects where the church has blended with local customs over centuries. What most people see as the Catholic Church is actually the Vatican, which could be very different from whatever regional dialect of Catholicism is local to you.
There is some variation at the local level, sure. But the actions of the church organization are the actions of the church organization, and the most offensive doctrines are endemic at all levels.
Mostly, individual Catholics vary. As I said, it baffles me that most of them are Catholics. The Catholic church is pretty damn monolithic.
Catholic charities, Washington, DC, late 2009.St. Paul Elementary School, Massachusetts, May 2010
One of the most powerful and vocal organizations today in the fight against civil rights?
I'm actually interested in this, do you have any examples?
An organization that has shown time and again that it would rather its hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform a procedure that amounts to removing a parasite (abortion of a non-viable fetus), and will deny medical professionals communion (which is, I guess, a big deal if that's your background) if they dare to defy their kill order?
What a load of shit. You want to bring personal choice
into it. The Catholic church as an organization and the Pope as a figurehead have no interest in personal choice on the matter. The Pope has of late made a habit of excommunicating pro-choice politicians, and archbishops the world around of denying them communion which I guess is more or less the same thing.
Oh, and at least one archbishop is on the record saying pro-choice voters shouldn't take communion. I could make an (admittedly weak) argument that's voter fraud.
Found that event I was talking about, by the way: the abortion had by a nine year old girl raped by her stepfather
. Her doctors and mother were excommunicated for the crime of saving her life. So tell me, where did her personal choice
come into that? The Catholic church would rather have killed her, and in their fucked little view of the world condemned those who saved a little girl's life to hell for eternity.
The search lead me to another event I didn't remember, too: the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Margaret_McBride
. In this case, though, not only did they excommunicate a nun who made the only credible decision that saving a life was the ethical choice, they terminated their relationship with the hospital after they refused to agree to not do so again in the future.
Why don't you tell me where any patient's personal choice
factors into those. Even if it did, podbaydoor is right.
And you know - I do condemn the entire organization. If any of these things were isolated incidents, I may not. If any of these were, how did you put it, "regional dialect", I might be less against the church as a whole. But they aren't. Every one of these things is a problem endemic to the entire worldwide Catholic church. Worse, to the church they aren't even problems except insofar as they get criticism for them.
Much less important side note: as a former protestant and as someone who recognizes there are a whole lot of self-styled churches, referring to the Roman Catholic one as the capital-C Church offends me a bit. Does anyone else get that or am I just reading too much into the syntax?