[Godstud]

The world does not make sense without a God.

The world makes even LESS sense if you consider there's this omnipotent and all-merciful god who allows terrible crap to happen all the time.

The problem with the Church is that it seeks to protect the priests who commit these crimes, rather than condemn them and seek out the perpetrators of the crimes, while helping the victims.

If you think this is just limited to the Catholic Church, you're delusional.

The Church, and institutionalized religions are all corrupt.

[Verv]

Godstud, if you accept that there is an immortal soul, and you accept that there is free will, then you accept that evil things occur on Earth, and that these tragedies are not as dramatic as one thinks because there is 'cosmic justice' meted out at the end.

But, this is not the core of what my argument would be about the world not making sense without God. This argument actually just goes back to issues of the organization of matter and the existence of life at all, for one, and, for two, it goes back to arguments concerning ethics. In a world without God, there is simply no morality worth mentioning, and only arguments based off of necessity and something like a 'managerial state' sort of ethical system.

Lastly... Of course, every Church has massive issues with corruption and with people failing to live up to the standards. THis is not only true of religion, but of every institution. Of course, some institutions are more likely to make these mistakes than others...

I do not understand why you (and many other atheists) point these things out. It's like you are blinded to the human condition and had some other kind of expectation for man made institutions. But I guess if you rub shoulders who believe in leftist Utopianism, you could be naïve enough to expect the Church to be a perfect organization.

[Godstud]

I do not understand why you (and many other atheists) point these things out.

Why do you make blanket religious statements and voice your opinion on your beliefs?

It's like you are blinded to the human condition and had some other kind of expectation for man made institutions.

No, but when religions claim to have the moral high ground(and they do), it's up to some of us to bring it back to reality.

I guess if you rub shoulders who believe in leftist Utopianism, you could be naïve enough to expect the Church to be a perfect organization.

I expect an organization that supposed to be based on goodness, charity and mercy, to live up to those values just a wee bit. I guess you don't consider that to be important. I do.

I don't expect perfection, but the Church could act as though it wanted to address the problems, instead of hiding them and hiding the priests from prosecution and justice. You don't have to "believe in leftist Utopianism"(ad hominem?) to think this.

Your "whataboutisms" are pretty weak.

[Verv]

Why do you make blanket religious statements and voice your opinion on your beliefs?

Yes, but I try to make good arguments and do not dwell on hot, bad takes. If I do, point it out, and I will amend myself.

No, but when religions claim to have the moral high ground(and they do), it's up to some of us to bring it back to reality.

But there is not a claim that they are perfect. It's just a series of moral doctrines that they have put out.

You are basically saying that gossiping against the Church is part of your measured & just critique of religion.

I expect an organization that supposed to be based on goodness, charity and mercy, to live up to those values just a wee bit. I guess you don't consider that to be important. I do.

I don't expect perfection, but the Church could act as though it wanted to address the problems, instead of hiding them and hiding the priests from prosecution and justice. You don't have to "believe in leftist Utopianism"(ad hominem?) to think this.

Your "whataboutisms" are pretty weak.

The good news is that the Roman Catholic Church, among other churches, does live up to their claims of charity. The numbers on their charitable efforts in Africa alone are staggering.

You are right that anyone who has guarded their Priests from prosecution is a bad man, and they ought to be held fully accountable.

You would be hard pressed finding a Catholic in good repute that would say the opposite.

You really do squeal a lot when you get poked a little, Godstud.

[Godstud]

You are basically saying that gossiping against the Church is part of your measured & just critique of religion.

Criticizing an institution that prides itself on being a moral pinnacle is what any sane person should do.

It's not "gossip", either. These are facts. The Church hides crimes and ignores the victims of these crimes.

You would be hard pressed finding a Catholic in good repute that would say the opposite.

You do seem to be arguing this point, however.

You really do squeal a lot when you get poked a little, Godstud.

Projecting again? You're the one who got defensive when someone dared to speak out against the Church, or your religion.

[Verv]

I consider it to basically be gossip because so little of this is really concrete. We are talking about "thousands," "decades," "cover-ups," etc., and very little of this ever surfaces as concrete stories. We are always looking at just the tip of the iceberg.

If we talked about "thousands" of molestation cases involving schools and administrators that had routinely covered it up, no doubt a lot of people would want us to start addressing it in real, concrete facts. But, no, when we talk about the Roman Catholci church, it's suddenly fine to just fling mud everywhere and pretend it is all serious as sin.

---

How am I defensive? I am literally laying out logically why this isn't exactly the way people say it is.

And I'll gladly say that lots of Catholic actors need to be in jail because of this.

The Left is always reading too far into what everyone says and coming away with these quick, hot takes that don't actually match up to reality . As if they can fill in the gap of actual content with finger pointing.

Whatever.

If you get some real material to discuss here, we can do that.

Otherwise, we are just tiring our fingers for nothing.

[Quercus Robur]

Obviously while this is not so much a 'Catholic Church' thing as it is a 'Man' thing, the reverence with which we hold the Church, at least culturally, makes the fact that these men have gone so far a really bitter phenomenon to encounter. The Catholic Church obviously needs to abandon much of the notion of what a Priest is and reform itself in response to what we understand about male psychology. If you're gonna have a nice clear 'no sex' rule then you have to do everything you can to weed out psychologically vulnerable individuals, support the clergy to understand psychology in a manner they find acceptable (ie probably not atheist psychologists ) and and obviously use these to have very early interventions.

Also it goes without saying that anyone covering up for this, and there are too many of these people, should share the fate of the people they have covered for.

I think I agree with this (sorry about the quality):
The Role of the Church in the Causation, Treatment and Prevention of the Crisis in the Priesthood
Conrad W. Baars

Repression and Frustration of Man's
Emotional life
Since Sigmund Freud's discovery that
the repression of emotions leads to
serious and disabling psychic illness,
psychia trists in Europe and North
America, if not in other pans of the
world. have reported a steady and
alarming increase in the incidence of
neuroses, A neurosis is an illness of
man's emotional life whit:h develops in a yo ung individual with an in nately
hea lthy and normal predisposition as
the res ult of his early expos ure to mistaken
notions and shortcomings on the
pa rt of parents and educa tors. These
ca usative factors arc twofold . First, a
fa ulty alt itude toward the significance
of the entire emotional li fe for the overall
well -being of the child, adolescent
and adult. Seco nd, fail ure to a ffi rm the
growing child.
The first fac tor, a fa ulty attitude toward
the role of th e emot ions. enhanced
by the livi ng example of pare nts and
educa tors, leads the child to repress fi rst
the outward mani festations of his emotions.
and sooner or later. also the ve ry
emotions th emse lves from the moment
they are aroused. In time he develops
the elinical signs of a re pressive neu ros is
in volving soma, mind and spi ritual life.
In a person with this ki nd of neurosis
the emotions arc not subordinate to direction
by reason and will, but they are
"controlled" instead by one or two emotions
of the ut ility (irascible) appet ite.
This "cont rol" is an unnatural process, a
pathological misdirection, called
repression which preve nts the emotion
involved from ta king its natural course
either toward the sense object as such.
or toward the object insofar as it is reasonable
(prow subsTaI raliolli). The
repressed emotion is doomed to remain
act ive in a state of abnormal tension in
the subconscious unt il such a time -
usually in psychot herapy - that the hypert
rophied emotions of the uti lity appeti
te. fea r or energy, or bot h, have
been taught to concern themselves
solely with their proper objects - obstacles
or danger - which do not include
other emotions.
It should be mentioned that th is particular
inte rpretation of the repressivc
neuroses was lh: vd upcd as early as 19)5
by Professor Dr. William Duynstee of
Nymegen, the Netherla nds, who th us offe
red the Chu rch the opportu nity to
52
refu te Fre ud's theory that the repressi ng
action is exerciscd by the superego
which encompasses the conscience and
the moral norms!
The second factor responsible for an
undevclo ped or partia lly developed
emotional life is the fa ilure on the pan
of parents or educa tors to provide the
chi ld's emot ional li fe with its proper
nourishment. namely unse lfish emotional
love. They may give the child
food for its body, academic and moral
trai ning for its intelligence and cha racter,
even cxpressions of vo litional or
spi ri tual love to tcll the child it is loved.
but unless they give the child a lso emotional
love, it wiU not fee l, litera lly
sense, loved, and wi ll develop what we
have called a frustration neurosis. Th is
illness differs esse nti ally from the
repressive neurosis, and therefo re
rcq ui res a different thera py. but beca use
of a growing existenti al fea r, it also predisposes
to the development of 'a
repressive neurosis. It is for this reason
tlmt both types of neuroses frequently
co-exist in the same person.
Both types of neuroses are extreme
ma nifestations of an underd eveloped or
distorted emotional life with clea rly defined
clinical symptoms. Although their
incidence is enormous, even greater is
the number of people with what may be
ca lled subcl inical forms of a neurosis,
with sympt oms and complai nt s which
do not reach the intensity and scope of
the fu ll-blown neuroses, yet cause much
suffe ring through worry, tension, anxiety,
restlessness, fee lings of inferi ority,
inadequacy. loneliness and depress ion.


....


J. Rectors of seminaries are ad vised
to admit only young men who have
been affirm ed by thei r parent s. A priest
with a verage intelligence coupled with a
mature emotional life is a fa r greater asset
to the Church than one with superior
int elligence and a retarded or neurotically
di sturbed emotional life. In vestigation of the ca ndidate's
background by a knowledgea ble rector
is su perio r to psychological tes ting.
Some un fa vorable home fact o rs: working
mothers of young children; "absent"
fathers; passive, submiss ive fathers and
domineering mothers; cold. ulluffcctionale
parent s; utilitarian attitudes toward
life and famil y, etc.

...

5. Bishops. religio us superior:..
priests, rec tors of seminilrics. vocat io nal
directors. mural theologians should he
fully instructed in the psychology of
normal m'ln. and also have an adequate
working knowledge of neurotic psy·
chopathology. The Church is ad vised
that as the result of the many diverse. if
not o pposi ng views in psychology and
psyc hiatry. it cannot be !'tafely assumed
thul every psychologist or psychiatrist is
properly qualified to teach these impor·
tant subjects. Too Illilny widcly·n:ad
p syc h ia tri ~b and psychologists consider
it the highest degree of maturity 10 h'l ve
no need of God and 10 reject His love in
favor of complete self rel iance.

[Rancid]

But in the societies where religion diminishes, we often see plummeting birth rates, increased mental health issues, substance abuse, etc. Like the postmodern society isn't some paradise, right.

I do not see it even in terms of something "diminishing."

This all already starts from a materialist perspective where everything is to be evaluated in terms of utility to the world. Things should rather be evaluated in terms of their truth values.

The world does not make sense without a God.

Growing pains. Hence why I said, today, we still need religion. I think as society evolves culturally and scientifically. We will start to find "religion" in things that aren't materialistic. Like crossfit....

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Religion is mostly stupid but that's only because most people are stupid. People make everything stupid. Religion itself isn't the problem, some religions are quite enlightened, it's people that are the problem.

Yes people are stupid, without that stupidity there would be no religion.

[Sivad]

Yes people are stupid, without that stupidity there would be no religion.

I don't think there would be organized religion, but there would definitely be religious practices. There is a transpersonal dimension to human existence that runs a lot deeper than personal psychology which needs to be attended to and cultivated. Religion, broadly construed, is what we call that practice of transpersonal cultivation. Myth, symbol, and ceremony are indispensable to human flourishing. We can live without religion but we can't live well without it.

[Verv]

@Quercus Robur, that was a very fantastic post with a great excerpt. I agree with everything there. I would like to also add a few points, and then at the end address @Rancid.

First, there probably is something to do with modern life that is psychologically toxic to both men and women. While it basically affords us with a life far superior to what we had before technologically, there are major issues with the actual mental state we end up in because, more than in other eras, we have been taken away from classical communal & familial structures that had a superior influence on our lives.

We also push people to be things that they aren't in order to conform to the managerial ethics and society that is promoted by the government and businesses. Rei Murasame used to post about how there was this interesting movement in the 19th century to basically behead the traditional family. She would often then obsess with something about cousin marriage that was a bit of a distraction because talk would invariably then move to "inbreeding" and lots of emoticons would follow, but the real poignant aspect to this was only that modern & postmodern existence is structured in a way that is alien to how man lived for millennia.

Perhaps the same could have been said about urban life in the classical era, but let us also remember that the structure of society was still in touch with man how he should be, and the attitudes reflect that.

So many of our modern attitudes are actually empowered by materialist thought structures that, ironically, tend to eschew a more natural structure for man while claiming to speak only to the nature of man. I think a lot of the actual influences in our lives are literally ideological structures that consciously remove God and jettison the spiritual life. This is not just the cause of much suffering, but it is also literally a diabolical scheme.

And this is where we see ideas like Rancid are very common -- the idea that man can live without God, and that religion itself was just like the poor man's psychology & University back when everyone was illiterate. But the spiritual life is real and necessary to people...

It is now dressed up as 'psychology,' and in a weird sense, psychology has harmed religion by actively promoting this idea to people that their psychological needs equate 1:1 with their spiritual needs. But that isn't really the case.

It's an enormous topic. But the long & short of it is that we have both a psyche and a soul, and that addressing spiritual needs is vital to who we are. And what is funny about this is that psychologists & sociologists will simultaneously recognize the necessity of things like "ceremony" and even talk about the benefits of "religion," but they do so in a way where this is like some placebo or just a form of mechanisms that help us, and that there isn't actually a power in it. There's something ironic to that.

Medicine can have a real effect; a conversation with a psychologist can have a real effect; a movie can give someone a eureka moment and a TV show can be like medicine to a person. Art is magical. Music is this profound uplifting force that heals people and is like this profound power that even atheists give lip service to...

But the second that we look at the benefits of religion, religious ceremony, religious behavior, etc., it all has to be dissected, denuded, and explained like some accidental result, and the credit goes to evolutionary psychology and not to religion.

[Rich]

Well, it is men that are doing the raping.

Yes virtually all rapes are done by men. Even when women put on a strap on with men it seems to virtually always be at the request of the men. Men also commit far more violence than women, although violence by women against men can be serious and is not uncommon. However women continue to choose men that are violent, aggressive and bullying. Men are the way they are due to the mate selection choices of women over hundreds of thousands of years.

If a guy tells me that he can't get a girl friend, I always advise him to rape and murder a couple of children. You'll spend the rest of your life in prison, but you'll never want for a girl friend again. Its not just individual women that have failed but feminism. Feminists have time and again chosen anti white hatred over the defence of women. There has been a complete failure of feminists to condemn Black rap(e) culture and all the other misogynistic non White cultures. The failure to condemn Islam and recognise it for the fundamentally misogynistic religion it is has brought feminism to its current pathetic state.

Protestantism is inherently misogynistic, but Catholicism is, worse, Judaism worse still and Islam worst of all. Take the misogyny out of Christianity and its no longer Christianity. Take the misogyny out of Islam and its no longer Islam. Liberal Christianity is just the gate way drug to heathenism.

[Albert]

What this whole thing made me realize:

Jesus once said

"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

When I first read that, my reaction was that of discouragement, I thought how can I ever compete with priest!? I also felt that prospect for the rest of us are dim, very few will go to heaven based on this, but now living a little longer I'm inclined to believe the opposite. It seems great many of us may attain heaven these days.

[skinster]

Honestly, I am willing to have an honest, hard discussion about the facts of this.

I am totally willing to recognize that crime, in general, is very disproportionately caused by men. It's an absolute & total fact. And these sorts of heinous crimes that we read of right here are almost universally committed by men -- upwards of 95%, right? Probably even higher than that...

So, Skinster, I will gladly put my ideology on the cutting board of statistics & expect everything to be assessed in terms of that.

Will you?

Like... Does your ideology account for bad numbers that you don't want to talk about, or are those bad numbers just not supposed to be discussed?

What are you talking about exactly?

[Verv]

@skinster, it'd be data on violent crime, educational attainment, IQ, etc. that would show distinct differences between groups.

[Red_Army]

@skinster he basically wants you to admit that if you think men are bad you must also think browns are bad.

[skinster]

Is that what Verv's trying to say?

Yes, Verv, brown men rape children too. It's not a colour thing, it's just a dude thing, who knew you were so sensitive that I was calling out that sex that does all that raping, like what you see in the OP and what takes place every single day...