The Decline and Fall of the American Catholic Church

No. It does not, I was confirmed, along with all those in my class. I can quite honestly say that I had not the faintest idea of the depth and beauty of the faith to which I belonged. I know all of my classmates were confirmed and some did not even go to mass weekly. They did not bother going to the sacrament of reconcilation etc, etc. It was something that everyone did if you were "Catholic" whether you were a practicising Catholic or not, it was just part of going to a Catholic school, you did it. Many if not most Catholics do not care or understand the true depth of the Catholic faith.

 

Well, I wish you the best of luck trying to best me when it comes to religion.

 

No argument here, but the difference with the RCC is that the clergy are supposed to be held to a higher standard than your typical authority figure. When priests do something awful, it speaks badly for more than just them but also their religion.

 

One of the strategies for growth of the Catholic church (and others) is to expand in underdeveloped countries. The lack of sophistcation in those fertile areas make the wealth that is introduced by the church very compelling and converts are plenty as the church becomes a mechanism for survival.
But as the country develops and education thrives, the entrenched and intractable doctrines of the church become revealed as antiquated and unresponsive to the questions that begin to arise in the laity. Investing authority in fellow fallible human beings begins to lose its appeal as people become intellectually empowered.
In the U.S., the crises of child abuse most notably revealed the human limitations inherent in pursuing god. We are weak, and it has opened the eyes of many lay people to the fallibility of the clergy, all the way up the food chain to the pope. This is not to say that the pope is a pedophile, but that he is simply a fallible human being, and nothing more. He is not an emissary of god, but a man just as subject to weakness and misinterpretation as the next. Some of the doctrines are so out of touch with people's understanding of god that they fall away, seeking a more authentic and responsive faith.
How the Catholic church responds to this reality will ultimately determine its fate.
But they also have a crapload of cash, so they will hang in there for awhile.

 

Well thank you for offering me luck.

 

I completely agree, priests though are just people like you and me, people make mistakes. It is a bad reflection on the Church, but it is not the Churches fault that individuals behaved in the way they did or do.

 

This theory is all well and good though it is completely wrong. The Catholic Church has been in decline many, many times in it's 2000 year history but always seems to come back just as strong or stronger. The Catholic Church will suffer and has sufferred and at these times there will be good devout people raised up in her defense. For a religion that is antiquated and unresponsive to the questions now being asked it has survived 2000 years.

 

That is true. The protestant reformation is a good example of the Church in a down period from which it recovered.

 

And Buddhism and Taoism even longer.

 

It is the Church's fault, however, if they systematically keep these people from being brought to justice.

 

No, it would still be fault of people within the Church. Nowhere in the teaching of the Church does it state that any wrong doings should be covered up. That is not a teaching of the Church, but once again I know what youmean and I agree, that those who were in a position of authority within the Church who tried to cover up these crimes should be held accountable, no doubt about it. Though I also must state once again that the behaviour of these people does not detract from the teachings of the Church.

 

Buddhism and Taoism have been around for along time, yet its strange how they hardly spread out of Asia. Whilst the Church went global in such a short period. Also look at all the Church contributed to society, hospitals, schools, in the field of science etc. Those who invaded Christian countries tended to adopt the Christian religion, and when Christians invaded countries the Christian religion spread among the natives of the countries rapidly.

 

Force and violence can be a powerful motivator.
South America is a case in point. At the point of a gun a continent became Catholic.
Since Jesus said the road is narrow and the travelers few, I don't think using an argument of popularity is terribly persuasive.

 

Considering the history of the Church that would still be considered recent. Look back shortly after the death of Jesus. The apostles and other Christians spread the Gospel across many different nations even being martyred for what they preached in a very short period. Long before the conquests of Spain etc.
Many people profess Christianity, but find it hard to follow it's teachings.

 

The martyrdom stories are almost all apocryphal, being invented hundreds of years after they were gone by people with an agenda to make their deaths seem as noble as possible. There are no contemporary accounts of their deaths, only myths generated to grow the legend.
Spain is not in South America, which was simply an example I gave of how majorities were created in underdeveloped countries, a strategy the Catholic church has used repeatedly.
Again, the argument of truth through the numbers of people who believe a given thing is a logical fallacy.

 

No, the martyrdom of the apostles cannot be proved, but we do know Christians were martyred for their faith, it is a fact ask any historian worth their salt. You, could make the claim the apostles martyrdom are myths but that is not what you are doing.
I know Spain is not in South America no one is claiming it is. Who introduced Christianity to South America?, what nation?.
I know what you are saying I am talking about before the Catholic Church was established as it is now. Shortly after the time of Jesus, Christianity spread very rapidly. In those times the Church could not offer anything to places that were underdevolped. The early Christians were the impoverished people spreading the Gospel to so called more civilised nations. So therefore your argument does not work.

 

I AM claiming that the apostles martyrdom are myths, in response to your using them to support your claim of religious authority through them.
At the very beginning the faith was understood to be an apocalyptic one, that the end was nearing and that there was great urgency to come to the faith. It flourished among people who were being persecuted and needed hope desperately, and the idea of the Christ supplied it. These were people in very dire straights and in enormous need of something to believe in in the face of their abuse.
Even Christ thought the end was near and people needed to get straight very quickly. It is one reason he suggested those that could handle it should not marry and simply remain celebate. It wasn't to live a lifetime that way, but simply for the short period of time that was left.
This, of course, proved not to be so.