“With or without 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

Surely if religion or church would been essential to your spirituality Jesus would have left such an organisation here on earth in the first place. Instead these organizations with built in hierarchies and rules where developed later.

In my mind worst part of religion is not that you try to convince me about what God wants. But the same time you try to give the same rules to God.

You state that religion is even necessary and doesn’t damage your spiritual self. But if you yourself grow above dogma. Then how can you continue teach it to others?

This is the part of organized religion i don’t understand and i can only come up with negative reasons like power, money…

Please help me to see otherwise.

regards.

Pekka

I also hear people (not just Pete here, but many) say that the church is full of, and run by hypocrites, but what isn’t? The point is that we do our best, and God knows what’s truly in our hearts. If you only trust yourself with your religion, aren’t YOU now the one that fills and runs the You-religion you have just created? Are you saying that you’re the only person in the world who isn’t a hypocrite? Who isn’t judgmental? I doubt that. I think that to be SBNR is just as detrimental as being an atheist, but rather than out right rejecting God, you have determined that you now know the best way to approach faith, and that is down the path of making yourself and your knowledge on a pedestal. What are those other things we put on pedestals? Oh yeah, idols.

Finally, I hear a lot of people say, “It’s between me and God, and as long as I spend time with Him, read my Bible, and do what He wants me to do, I’m in good shape.” I, myself fell for this same argument for a time. But how often DID I actually read my Bible when I was not in church? I can answer that with a solid “never.” And how could I be sure I was doing what God wanted me to do, without verification from other Godly people? God may speak to me individually, but so does Satan (called the “Great Deceiver” in the book of Rev) and he can sound just as convincing if I’m not careful. (If I was the one in the desert when he starts throwing scripture at me about angels catching me when I fall, I probably would have jumped! I’m not going to pretend I have it all together all the time.)

God made us so that we would want to be with other people, and He was fully aware that we are all imperfect. But we had better chances of surviving this rough world together, paired with other hypocrites like ourselves, than to go at it alone.

There is only one good reason to be Catholic – because it’s true.

Once again, I disagree. St. Augustine did have mistresses, but he also didn’t enter the church until he was in his 30s. After that, I believe he was celibate, at least from what I can gather from a quick internet search.

When it comes to the “inheriting the property” issue, the reason why I think we’re talking past each other is the distinction between things owned by the priest and the things owned by the diocese. From my understanding, often during post-Roman Europe, priests often took it upon themselves to purchase the things used during mass, sometimes even building churches themselves with their own money. Over time, this distinction got blurred and nepotism set it, with priests arranging the ordination of sons in a dynastic manner. We should also keep in mind that the fact that celibacy was introduced and argued for in the earliest writings of the Church and biblical documents and became mandatory in the during the early middle ages only applies to the Western branch of the Catholic church. To the day, celibacy is not required of most priests in the Eastern rites.

Regarding infallibility, take the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which is perhaps the clearest infallibly-defined dogma of recent years. This is clearly a matter of faith, directed at the whole church by the pope. This is also a statement of fact – Mary was either assumed into heaven like Enoch and Elijah or she wasn’t. That is a clear-cut right or wrong statement. Now whether it can be shown 2000 years later to be right or wrong is tough to say – I guess we won’t know until we get to heaven, though Rev 12 seems to suggest Mary definitely has a body…

The better question of infallibility concerns not whether a pope can be proven to be right, but if he can be proven to be wrong. Infallibility does not mean that a pope is always going to be completely right (even when the other requirements are fulfilled). Infallibility only guarantees that the pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error to the entire church.

Also, whether or not a pope wanted everything he spoke to be infallible (if that is even a true story) is besides the point, as it does not fulfill the requirements for a statement to be infallible.

With regard to whether there were dioceses in the early church, the term “diocese” did not originate until much later. However, it is clear from Acts, as well as history that certain areas (read: dioceses) were overseen by particular individuals (read: bishops). For instance, after Judas kills himself, in Acts 1, he is replaced by Matthias and Psalm is quoted “And his bishopric let another take.” Additionally, there are historical accounts of very early bishops. In Acts, James is the bishop of Jerusalem. The Patriarch of Antioch was first Peter, St. Evodius (d. 67), and then St. Ignatius (d. 108). St. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. Of course, the unbroken list of the Bishops of Rome can be found at any encylopedia (Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement…)

In a way, it seems kind of odd that we’re arguing about something as small as priestly celibacy. I cannot see why anyone cares about the subject who is not a priest, as it doesn’t affect them in the slightest. In my humble opinion, a celibate priest will always be able to devote himself fully to the church rather than to his family. When loyalties as strong as those are divided, neither the church nor the family are given the full attention they deserve.

The whole argument about priests leaving church property to decedents is an old anti-Catholic slander that has no basis in fact. At the most basic level, it is impossible for a priest to leave church property to a son because, by definition, it is the property of the church and not the priest! The idea that a priest could take the land and buildings owned by the diocese and give them to an heir is ridiculous.

Now, the celibacy issue is just a discipline (like not eating meat on Fridays during Lent) and not an infallible issue, so its merits can be discussed in good faith, however, stick to the facts. In the past there have been a handful of really bad examples breaking the rules, but that does not convict the other 99% who are faithful to their vows. For more reading on the matter, I suggest Matthew 19:12, where Christ clearly commends those who, “for the sake of the kingdom of God”, have not pursued the married state. Also, St. Paul is more explicit in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35.

Regarding papal infallibility, if it is such an “impossibility,” can you please provide one instance in which a pope contradicted a previously-infallible teaching? It hasn’t happened. Surely if it were “impossible,” there would be something, throughout these 2000 years, that would support your case.

The thing to keep in mind about papal infallibility, is that it is a negative charism. It does not mean that a pope will be “right” or always do the right thing, but instead guarantees that he is prevented from teaching error. This does not mean that popes cannot sin (they do!) or that they will always do the right thing (Peter didn’t!). Instead, it just prevents the pope from teaching error under three (very limiting) circumstances: when he is speaking 1. as the pope, ex cathedra (he means to) 2. to the entire Church (not just privately to friends, or a particular region) and 3. on matters of faith and morals (his opinions about sports don’t mean squat). As you can see, Peter’s denial falls apart here because it fails to meet all three criteria.

Pete, I understand that one can become very discouraged because of hypocrisy in the church. However, the hypocrisy by individual members does not preclude the fact that the Catholic Church is the only church founded directly by Jesus Christ and has existed in an unbroken line of succession since Cavalry. I really recommend that you carefully and prayerfully consider the matter. Perhaps visiting a site like catholicscomehome.org and poking around for more information. Another good site for particular questions is catholic.com.

God bless

Except that there ARE married priests in the Latin Rite, although if you ask one of them, they may tell you how much more difficult it is to balance wife and children. The discipline (not doctrine nor dogma) of celibacy is a gift in imitation of Christ. Something Jesus said about making oneself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom.

I may be misreading you, but it seems to me you have a problem with authority, not hypocrisy.

It is these characteristics and its corruption of the visible church that causes people to say they are spiritual. Yet, spiritual is the word they use for lack of another. I think they are like myself – Christian, but church alumni.

I am not Catholic! Yet, Catholic Bishops have threatened US congressman with exclusion if they do not adhere to abortion doctrine. Others have argued that the Catholic church is trying to keep secret both the doctrine of Probabilism and the idea that it is your conscience, not the Pope, that has the final say.

Sadly, the Christian good news – the idea that, aside from salvation, Christianity can maximize your happiness today is lost in the intolerance and exclusion which at times looks more like hate than Christian love. So I continue my Christianity with a loose net of other church alumni, and we wait. We wait for the visible church to once again tolerate the devout Christian who does not take the Bible literally and maybe, as an example, does not believe that the earth is 10,000 years old and believes that evolution really happened.

I was at a complete loss of what to say, except, “good luck finding an entire community of people wherein every single person is nonjudgmental & loving.”