Y sorry to intrude on your higher form of talking.
No place for me there.
See it resembles the talk of an insane asylum to me.
It twists the meaning of words,bury,s some deep under the ground so they will not be seen or heard.
Nice of you to remind me its beyond my understanding.
And finally bloke?
As a bush bloke I long ago learned to avoid stepping on the product of the south bound end of a north bound Bull.

Tony Lavis,

Re: Yuyutsu's comment "What I said is that Catholicism is a mixed bag. Some members are religious, others aren't."

I know plenty of "Catholics" who don't go near a church or any meaningful religious practice, save to have their children baptised in the church. Once the children are baptised they are included "in the family of the church" - and therefore, "members".

They are usually baptised by these folks who aren't church attending/religious Catholics partly out of ritual, but often mainly to gain first dibs at entry into Catholic schools.

Friends of mine, who are church attending Catholics, have often regaled me with stories of the church suddenly filling up with "parents" at periodic "Confirmations" and such like. These parents of children at Catholic schools are required to turn up for such events, whereas they usually don't bother.

>>I know plenty of "Catholics" who don't go near a church or any meaningful religious practice, save to have their children baptised in the church.<<

You probably do. But according to Church doctrine those "Catholics" aren't Catholics. Baptism is necessary but not sufficient to make somebody Catholic according to Catholic doctrine.

>>Once the children are baptised they are included "in the family of the church" - and therefore, "members".<<

"Members" they may be but members they ain't: the Church demands a bit more of its members than being splashed with some water as a small child. If that was all it took to be Catholic then I'd be one and I'm not. They are people who have had a Catholic baptism ceremony not Catholics.

Interestingly there is one exception to the rule: the only requirements for the Pope are that he be male and baptized - they don't even specify a Catholic baptism. In practical terms the voting Cardinals elect one of their own. I keep hoping that Benedict XVI will die and the Cardinals will elect Pell so we can ship him off to Rome.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

If you trot up to a Catholic school with your little angel in tow. they will ask you whether the child has been baptised a Catholic on the application form. If your child has been baptised a Catholic, your child will get first dibs for enrollment....ie, the child is taken to be a Catholic even if it hasn't been in a church since the baptism.

Yes, Catholics may be required to do more, but most of them don't do anything and they can still trot off to church and with a minimum of preparation and have their children baptised in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest.

My friends (the church going Catholics) have a large family, most of whom don't go near a church unless it's for a baptism, marriage or something to do with Catholic obligations connected with certain rites overseen through the school.

Church doctrine might say one thing, but the reality is that many "Catholics" ain't religious.

Millions of Catholics pray in Church and at home, do the rosary, sing and play the organ in the church choir, perform charitable actions, teach in church, church-schools and other church groups, raise their children with loving discipline and generally use Catholicism as their religion while ignoring the old man in Rome, his cardinals and their doctrines.

This is like new fresh shoots coming off the trunk of a dead old tree.

It is no wonder that those evangelising for the pseudo-religion of humanism, worshipping its idols such as Science and Evidence, pick on the worst of the worst (eg. the Catholic priesthood and the significant portion of paedophiles within it) in order to denounce, discredit and ultimately criminalise Catholicism, thereby Christianity, thereby religion in general, in order to gain maximum following and power for their own faith in the material and material society.

Isn't it interesting that those atheists take the pope's words and rulings more seriously than the Catholics themselves?

A thought for the day:

If you believe that there is no real spiritual value in religion, then what makes you call a church "religious", but not a football or a golf club whose followers support it no less "religiously"?

Is this really what you think is happening here, Yuyutsu? Or are you just blowing off a little steam?

>>It is no wonder that those evangelising for the pseudo-religion of humanism, worshipping its idols such as Science and Evidence, pick on the worst of the worst (eg. the Catholic priesthood and the significant portion of paedophiles within it) in order to denounce, discredit and ultimately criminalise Catholicism, thereby Christianity, thereby religion in general, in order to gain maximum following and power for their own faith in the material and material society.<<

I see very little evangelizing of humanism here. I do see people expressing concerns about the privileged position of religions in our society, but I don't see any proselytizing for atheism.

I'm surprised you describe humanism as a pseudo-religion, since it has no rules, no procedures, no liturgy, no rituals. Much more like a non-religion, don't you think?

"Worshipping its idols such as Science and Evidence" sounds a little try-hard to me. Why can't you just say "relying for their conclusions on science and evidence".

And the point about "picking on the worst of the worst" is that their individual sins are much like from those of, say, Jimmy Savile, which also involved a serious betrayal of trust. In both cases the hierarchy (church/BBC) was complicit in aiding, abetting and covering up. At least the Director General of the BBC recognized this, and resigned. I doubt we will see the Pope take a similarly principled view.

>>... in order to denounce, discredit and ultimately criminalise Catholicism<<

Unfortunately the very structure of the church is one of its biggest problems - celibacy, "sanctity" of the confessional and all that. These are not criminal activities. But the crimes themselves are perpetrated by individuals - the paedophiles, and those who defend/hide/cover up for them.

>>... in order to gain maximum following and power for their own faith<<

You may call it that if you like.

I'll call it an opportunity after many years of willful blindness, to try to obtain a measure of justice for some very abused and terminally damaged children.