Pope Francis

mamanC - I think it is important not to confuse a questioning mind on the subject of religion with being convinced that "all Catholics are at best stupid and at worst evil."

None of the posters here have said that - some ex-catholics have expressed their distress at what they have been through; some agnostics have expressed their concerns about some of the things done in the name of religion; and some atheists have expressed their view that there is no god.

No-one has said that catholics are "stupid" and "evil" - what they have said is that some of the effects of the teachings have been negative: large poor families, paedophile priests for example. I cannot imagine that most thinking catholics are happy about either the poverty or the priests in question.

It is very important that those of theist beliefs do not over-react to others' concerns and extrapolate - it cuts off dialogue and that is a dangerous route.

We are all aware that there are numerous people of intelligence who have a religious faith - the fact that we do not all share that faith does not mean that we have to brand them as stupid - and I would never do so. Just because I hold a different view does not mean that I think they are stupid; and hopefully they do not regard me as stupid.

Do not be defensive - it cuts off debate!!

Right behind you, mishap. Well said. Also, if all everyone did was try to be good, there'd be far fewer problems in the world. Let's not dismiss trying to be good as not enough.

Actually, I'm struggling to think of what else there is to improve life, apart from trying to do the right thing all the time. Are you referring to faith as the "what else religion is about", lily? (that's not a poke but a genuine question)

And I'm behind you, too. Please credit us with the maturity and intelligence to be able to separate out our belief about whether there is a god, from issues affecting not just organised religion but many other walks of life where greed, corruption and harm to children occur. Good people can come from anywhere, and I think I can recognise a good person whether they are religious or not.

Bags. Yes, belief is what makes a faith different from any set of opinions or activities, however laudable. A de B rather dismissed it this morning but I think it may be more important than he admits or knows. And - I think I've said this before but it is worth emphasis - it is a mistake to assume that we are now living in a post-faith world. Many people 'believe without belonging' including, apparently a number on GN. Many claim to belong, over half the population of the UK, for example and many, many more in other countries.

Thanks, lily. I didn't hear whatsisname, but mightn't he have been referring just to the majority in this country, who don't have any particular faith? He certainly is right about people like me who have no faith – it simply isn't an issue, so its importance is zilch.

That's not saying it's not important to people who have faith. I understand its significance to them, but they are a minority in the UK now.

Mishap, none of the posters have said that Catholics are stupid. What some have said follows:

What a load of old tosh
Men in a frock (X 2 )
Taken in by this balderdash

And

Worrying that he's a Jesuit (no reason given)

Now this may have been satisfying for those who posted those comments but it doesn't add to debate.

There are members of this forum who are willing to discuss the issues with courtesy and I absolutely respect them and it is always good to learn about people's views and why they hold them. But, sadly, any thread on religious matters frequently descends into assertion and tired old insults.

This thread is about the new pope. He's been in place for a matter of days and as I said before, we (those of us in the RCC and those outside who are are sisters and brothers in faith from other traditions) are waiting with hope and interest. It is far too early to make any pronouncement about the future, but it would be good not to prejudge.

What a load of old tosh
Men in a frock (X 2 )
Taken in by this balderdash

And

Worrying that he's a Jesuit (no reason given)

The quotes you mention do not say Catholics are stupid, though they do imply that Catholicism is stupid. This is a perfectly valid view to hold and to express.

The Jesuit order is know to engage in casuistry. Makes people wary and worried. Also a valid view to take and to express.

The only quote I've come across from the new pope, from not even knowing he existed before last week, was misogynistic. So far that and his talk of the church being for the poor is all I know if his attitudes. I judge the first thing to be stupid and the second not to be stupid. Time will tell whether he does anything real and practical to improve the lot of the poor. He could start by abolishing the anti-contraception rule/advice.

Many of us humanists, and members of other religions worry a great deal about the effect of the Vatican and its power structure on:
child abuse
covering up child abuse
negative impact on poor women's rights to choose - as rich women do - when to have children
negative impact on women'g general reproductive health (early pregnancies and too many pregnancies often in places where maternity care is poor)
and so negative impact on the life chances of girls
negative impact on the fight against aids
negative impact on attempts to restrict population growth.
negative impacts on attempts to alleviate poverty - large families really do not help poor people
and finally
negative impact on devout catholics who do not appear to be getting the support they would like due to the vatican's rules on having a celibate male priesthood.
That about sums it up.

Nobody on the thread said Catholics are stupid but mamanc lowered the tone by implying this was done. Maybe she may have been was confused with another forum

What the fu-- is 'casuistry'?!

Look it up.

The thing is, if intelligent and caring Catholics don't want their church or its leader to be criticised, they should be doing something to change some of the ante-diluvian attitudes that it espouses. They should be fighting to bring it out of its backward looking rut. And they should stop whining and try to effect change when intelligent and caring people criticise what is wrong with the RC church.

I have. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Apparently.

I think it should be borne in mind that, however much people hate the wrongdoings within their chosen church, and however difficult they find it to come to terms with some of its reasoning, they still love that Church and the religion behind it. And, therefore, kindness should be shown when discussing it.

Does anyone here really find that difficult?

Not at all. Respect is perhaps the more apt word, though. What I see, running through most of this thread, from believers and non believers, is a concern for the politics and structures surrounding and often dominating the major churches.

As ever, debate is healthy and I have seen little acrimony here.

Well I prefer the word kindness.

#peaceandloveman

I think the argument about atheists being dismissive of catholics (I personally don't dismiss them, or accuse them of being stupid) would have more strength and credibility if the protests about ill-treatment came from within catholic congregations. The impression given (and I am open to this being a false one) is that the church is so powerful that protests and demands for change will not be tolerated. Let's see more ordinary catholics protesting that their church is neglecting the plight of African AIDS sufferers by denying them permission to use condoms, or pressing the Vatican to allow freedom of information about the internal politics that have resulted in the last pope stepping down. All I experience of catholics at present is that they are defensive about this dysfunctional organisation and will not hear a word said against their holy father or the hierarchy. Everyone, every organisation, has its faults, so what's stopping them being aired by catholics? Or by catholic Gransnetters? It's not being disrespectful to want to debate these issues.

I have been used to challenging organsations I belong to, no matter how passionately I support them. Being open to challenge and change enables individuals and organisations to transform themselves for the better. The face that catholicism presents to the world is a 'sweep problems under the carpet' culture, which we Gransnetters don't hold to in our many and varied debates about other issues, so why shouldn't it be challenged? The incongruence of not addressing such church issues is never going to go away, as long as the catholic hierarchy has this stranglehold on its worshippers. What are they afraid of? Perhaps pope Francis will loosen the shackles, although it takes more than one man to cut through the secrecy and dogma.

By the way, this is addressed to catholicsm, but applies equally to many other organised religions. Surely we can debate and ask curious questions in a healthy, open way without being called hostile to catholics, or dismissive of their beliefs. Each to their own.

Good post when. I think one of the things that distinguishes the RCC from anglicans and non conformist churches is that it has an international top down power structure that is very distinctive. There appears to be no representation of the members. C of E has synod. Non conformists have various assemblies and representation. Not only a lack of "democracy" and "customer consultation" or any kind of upward feedback mechanism in the RCC but a completely hierarchical structure with the pope as a kind of mediaeval emperor who is "infallible" and cannot be challenged at the top of it. The corollary of this seems to be a life long conditioning of those who grow up in the RCC to not question.

I'm just about to leave home to go to Mass! When I return, I shall do try to respond to the points which have been made.

But in the meantime, although you may well not have read comments I have made on other threads, if you can find them, I think you will find that I am very critical of aspects of the RCC. And I have said so in no uncertain terms. And I say so in places other than this forum.

I, too, am off to have Sunday lunch with my son and his family, so back at teatime. Just reflecting on this thread, perhaps the arrival of pope Francis has at least opened up opportunities for change now that the world has seen the refreshing way he set his stall out as soon as he was appointed.

I have been taking instruction to become a Catholic for the last six months and have always been encouraged to question. Some of the most influential people in the parish are woman without who the Church could not function - these are strong willed intelligent women who do challenge and question.

As for the "infallibility" of the Pope, this is a misconception. According to the Catechism the Pope is only deemed infallible when he defines a dogma in a solemn ecclesiastical act, in other words makes an authoritative decision in doctrinal questions of faith.

Like MiceElf I am also about to leave to go to Mass but hope to be able to find time to rejoin the discussion later

Can't see him changing anything of any importance tbh.

It is interesting (and heartening) to hear that those within the RC church do question its teachings and dogma.

Do you feel that this questioning leads to change either locally or globally?
And do you think that this same questioning goes on in S America and Africa amongst less well educated catholic communities?

The puzzle for non-catholics (and non-church subscribers of any kind) is the idea that adherents align themsleves with a particular church and then set about trying to change it by (quite reasonably) wanting to be rid of those things that seem unfair or unreasonable. What is it that makes them join in the first place if they are unhappy with the dogma? I know that some are "cradle catholics" (or whatever denomination), so that they are brought up within the church.

Believers are free to worship outside of the church, so I presume that the desire to be a part of a like-minded community plays a part in that decision. I suspect that this is a bit of what A de B is talking about in his idea of secular organisations to fulfil that community cohesion role for non-believers.

I feel that the central hierarchy of the catholic church needs to take a long hard look at some of the effects of its doctrine (as outlined by JessM) and take responsibility for initiating changes to address these, rather than waiting for grass roots objections to filter through from educated catholic communites in the west. It can then concentrate on the positive elements of its doctrine that encourage peaceful co-existence and loving one's neighbour, which no-one could argue with.

I am somewhat at a disadvantage as I read your posts 12 hours after they are written (it is 8.30 am on Monday morning here). However, much of what I would have said has been very well covered by Mishap, Joan, jess, Bags, and several others.
I don't think my life has been damaged by my catholic upbringing - I just stopped believing in any god when I was 12. My opposition to the institution, not to individual adherents, is based on the Vatican's attitude to contraception, abortion, women priests, homosexuality, and the dreadful cover-up of the child abuse scandal.
I would ask our devout Catholics one question - if so many Catholics ignore the teaching of the church on some of these subjects, why is there not a groundswell of opinion from the ranks, telling the hierarchy that you don't want to follow its teaching? If there is no mechanism for the views of the laity to be heard in Rome, what are you all doing to try to get one put in place?

Similarly, I am often told that I must not condemn Muslim men for the awful crimes committed against women in their culture, but if enough Muslim men said 'We don't want our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters' to be treated as mere possessions of their men, then surely the attitude of their leaders would have to change. I can only conclude that the majority of Muslim men like their present power over women.