During twelve years of Catholic education I witnessed close up how widespread the clerical rot is. And the higher up the ranks the worse the rot. The spiritual core is separate from this systemic rot though and is invisible to most outsiders. It’s this spiritual core which sustained Francis of Assisi and which sustains Cardinal Joseph Zen as well as many rank-and-file faithful. So, to clarify, I’m not arguing that the Catholic hierarchy isn’t full of immorality and selling out. It is. I’m arguing instead that wholesale religious persecution isn’t the answer to this problem but rather pruning in the form of bringing all child rapists, abusers and their enablers to justice is the answer.
The Catholics complained that religious persecution has never stopped in China and warned that they could not see any possibility that it would, even if a deal were reached.
“We are worried that the agreement would not only fail to guarantee the limited freedom desired by the Church, but also damage the Church’s holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, and deal a blow to the Church’s moral power,” they wrote.
“We earnestly ask you, with the love on the people of God, appeal to the Holy See: Please rethink the current agreement, and stop making an irreversible and regrettable mistake.”
Senior Vatican officials argue that any deal would help Catholics in China practice and evangelize their faith. There are about 10 million Catholics in China, but their numbers are dwarfed by the fast-growing number of Protestants, and some officials hope a deal could help Catholicism keep pace.
But retired Hong Kong cardinal Joseph Zen has been at the forefront of those arguing that a deal with a “totalitarian” regime would be immoral and a sellout.
Outside of places like China, that is, everywhere where cases of abuse have occurred in the Catholic world, there’s absolutely NO possibility of that kind of persecution. None. The only question is how above the law the organization continues to feel it is. They may have brought it down a couple of notches because they were dragged there kicking and screaming by social changes, but does anyone think the mindset has really changed? When the standard response to such events is simply calling the police I’ll believe it. Hopefully people are now aware enough that such cases can’t occur again, but I have my doubts.
There’s been some stirrings among US protestants as well recently
A basis of comparison:
Okay. getting back to the topic at hand… or related to it.
The Archbishop of Philadelphia wrote a piece for the start of Lent (Ash Wednesday, Feb. 14), starting off with the Vatican’s “Reichskonkordat” signed with Germany in 1933. Although it appears he in no way intended to do so, his talk on the deal with the German Reich could read the same as what deal may happen with Communist China.
"Reading the Reichskonkordat (“Reich concordat” with the German state) today, 85 years after its 1933 signing, sparks some interesting thoughts. Structured as a treaty to govern the relations between the Holy See and German government, the text is remarkably positive. It’s also thorough. As deals go, this was a good one. The state got a stable legal relationship with a well-organized, potentially troublesome, and internationally connected religious minority. The Church got protection for her people.
A few problematic passages in the text do exist. Article 14.2 obliges the Church to consult the German Reich on the appointment of archbishops and coadjutors. Article 16 requires new bishops to take an oath of loyalty to the state. But details like these weren’t unknown in Europe’s historical context. The concordat’s guarantees of Church freedom to profess and practice the Catholic faith, and to pursue Catholic education and social ministries without interference, are extensive, explicit, and generous.
They were also empty. The Reich began violating the deal almost as soon as the ink on the treaty was dry. State pressure on Church life was so harsh by 1937 — just four years later — that Pius XI’s encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge (“With burning concern”) had to be smuggled into the country. It was read from all of Germany’s pulpits on Palm Sunday of that year. In it, the Holy Father condemned the Reich’s (Nazi-directed) neo-paganism, race hatred, “Aryanized” Christianity, widespread attack on human rights, and contempt for the Old Testament. In response, the state simply doubled down on its pressure.
What’s the lesson here? It’s this: If you sup with the devil (so the proverb warns), you’d better bring a long spoon. It’s probably a bad idea in the first place."
The rest can be read here: Toward a deeper experience of Lent
Christians believe otherwise:
While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will all these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”
Jesus began by telling them, “See to it that no one deceives you. Many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. These things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, as well as famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
So be on your guard. You will be handed over to the councils and beaten in the synagogues. On My account, you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all the nations. But when they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand what to say. Instead, speak whatever you are given at that time, for it will not be you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.
Anti-religious “sentiment” is on the rise and even becoming mainstream so when we Christians read the following we see it as storm clouds gathering on the horizon:
I have often wondered how prevalent child-molesting is among Catholic priests here. The odds are pretty good that at least one of the priests who has been given a Taiwan passport, was sent here in order to keep him out of the newspapers.
Storm clouds that will hopefully rid the Church of the child rapists once and for all. Along with every other institution that has historically protected them. Manchester City ‘ignored warnings’ and kept Barry Bennell in youth set-up | Manchester City | The Guardian
According to Catholics Jesus appointed Peter as the leader of the church. But no such scripture exist saying that he was to be pope and create a establishment that holds earthly powers that’s even governing. And “catholic” just means universal.
One of the things I find the hardest when debating on theism with atheists is that that most of the time I understand atheism better than them and they have zero clue on theistic beliefs and theology. And kinda groups all religions into one and use the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.
It’s also funny because i believe in the probability of a existence of god mostly because of science yet most atheists can’t fathom science and religion being non mutually exclusive. Many scientific learnings and Things like cosmic background radiation, Einstein’s relativity all point to the probability of an existence of God. But most atheists don’t even know what what something like cosmic background radiation is when they championed science as the replacement of God.
Some of the most sound arguments for God are from scientific knowledge and discoveries.
To be clear, I don’t think they are either, except when they are (as with people who believe the world is 26 years old and came out of a pack of baseball cards and such.)
How do you figure? I’ve heard some such arguments, but it seems to me “big” observed facts such as this don’t tell us anything about their origin.
I don’t see it as a anti Christianity sentiment, but more like criticism of the institution of the church, specifically the Catholic Church. I’m pretty critical of many Christian institutions in general, I think many of them do not represent what Christianity is about and are leading Christians astray.
Remember one of the main reasons Jesus was killed was he has extremely critical of religions leaders and their institutions and they hated him for it. I’m not targeting just the Catholic Church but many churches of all denominations and Christian institutions, however the Catholic Church to me me is especially guilty of some of the things he hated. Things like materialism, building grand churches, holding on to expensive religious items, having so much dogma and long and unrealistic inflexible rules (he often spoke about this) it kept believers from gaining salvation, public showing of piety, using religion for political powers. And i do believe Jesus would be extremely pissed off religious institutions like in the Catholic Church forced Christians to believe they have to go through the church like a intermediary between them and God.
They probably think it’s the other way around.
Or, if they’re smart, that you’re damn arrogant to think you know better than they what it is that’s inside their own heads.
(That said, there are ways to prove for a fact you understand someone better than he understands himself. Those ways do NOT involve debate. Also, they can be quite lucrative.)
I don’t tell Catholics or atheists what they believe, but I’m not above pointing out what they actually say and do.
Or is your point that you know what they’re SUPPOSED to believe to qualify for a particular label? That’s another kind of arrogance. You don’t get to define someone else’s identity.
Storm clouds don’t work like that. They rain on everyone’s parade.
Witness what #MeToo turned into. Or the Russian interference business.
Unless you’re Rowland calling someone “toxic woke”. 
I’m saying many people don’t have a clue on their own stance or are able to defend it just as the same as any other religions beliefs. There are many ignorant people out there of all beliefs. I’m saying a particular issue I have found talking to atheists. I have found similar things talking to people of other beliefs. For example, It’s amazing how many “Muslims” i have encountered and defends Islam when I ask them about a particular fundamental principle of Islam I have issue with, they don’t even know it. Some of them can’t even name the 5 pillars of Islam. There are absolutely credibly intelligent atheists that would blow me out the water in a conversation. But there are also really dumb ones that can’t defend their own beliefs.
I’ve been a atheist most of my life, going back and forward from a nihilistic atheist, deist and back the theism.
And how is it arrogant to tell a Catholic or an Baptist, Mormon, Muslim or whatever , hey this is what your religion or particular denomination clearly lays out as what it’s about?
im not defining someone’s identity. If they’re claiming a particular identiy but don’t believe or know anything about it while defending it or criticizing someone else’s beliefs system. Yeah, maybe I’m going to question their belief system.
I’m not saying I understand people more than they do themselves. You completely missed my point. I’m saying there are people out there, for example Christian quoting the Bible to argue for Christianity, but using the Bible as the authority of what is true to an none believer is clearly very stupid. Or someone saying religion has held back scientific discoveries when that’s not a very accurate depiction of history.
Quick, Andrew: name the seven deadly sins and seven heavenly virtues! 
A: I’m Taiwanese.
B: Oh, so you’re from China, but instead of XJP Thought you follow the 三民主義.
A: That’s not what I believe.
B: But it’s clearly laid out!
Any thoughts?
Not taking back anything I’ve posted before about Muslims, but…
there are some professing Muslims that I’m willing to cut a degree of slack that you would not offer them.
Another professing Muslim can argue with them over what correct Muslim doctrine is. And they do. Violently. But I’m not a professing Muslim, so I don’t have a dog in that fight. All I care is that they lay off killing us infidels. The ones that lay off are fine in my book.
I’m also willing to cut some professing Catholics a lot of slack. But by way of friendly advice, they might consider jettisoning the papacy. If they don’t, it’s maybe a problem - but not for me. It’s their call.
And trying to cut a deal with tyranny is always a bad idea.
Are you comparing the central tenants of a religion to something that’s not even technically something that’s written in scripture. I believe the 7 deadly sins are more of a Catholic thing, I’m not certain. But it would be like asking a Christian the 10 Commandments.
I think even you know this is apples and oranges.