Is The Catholic Church A force For Good Or Evil?

[CaptainBeaky]

We wouldnt even be discussing the Catholic church if it wasn't a religion. The Catholic church is self-defined as Christian. Christianity is defined in the Bible. The topic is about whether or not Catholicism is a force for good or evil. As a Christian, I believe that good and evil are not subjective, they are objective. Evil is not a scientific term, it is a spiritual term. Therefore in my opinion, the discussion, by default, is about the Catholic church as defined in the Bible. I'm simply expressing my opinion like everyone else here is doing.

I think you might also find the the Church of England, Methodists, Baptists, Unitarians, Presbytyrians, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren etc would also self-define as Christian.

However... Defining terms in common is always good for a discussion, although I can see a divergence here already - would you define 'good' as, "as prescribed in the Bible", and 'evil' as, "as proscribed by the Bible"?

I look at life through the lens of Christianity, so a topic about evil, good and the Catholic church, in my world view, is entirely a spiritual subject, not a secular one.

That being the case, the argument that the Catholic Church is a force for good rests on the chain:
1. The Church defines that behaving as the Bible requires = Good
2. The Catholic Church behaves as the Bible requires
Therefore 3. The Catholic Church = Good

The logical flaw here is that the measure you use is an internal one, not external... which is back to our old friend the circular argument, hence the relevance of my earlier comment.

Rather than instructing me on how to properly present an argument, you should instead present your own arguments using the criteria you are offering.

More a question of pointing out the logical flaws and lacunae.

As to my own arguments - Messrs Fry and Hitchens encapsulate my argument with eloquence and clarity, and I would be hard pushed to put it as well.

Byteware puts it quite concisely -

I don't believe anyone who actually reads the REAL history of the Catholic Church. I can't imagine that you can come to any conclusion other than that the Catholic Church is evil.

I mean, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, Popes murdering their predecessors so that they could ascend the throne, Popes buying the Papacy, and that doesn't include the recent belief that the Church should be protected from scandal more than children should be protected from paedophiles.

Leaving history aside for the moment, I would say the two biggest arguments against the Church being a force for good are child abuse by priests and the associated the cover-up, both in protecting the priests concerned and the silencing of the victims, and the continued refusal to reconsider the stance on the use of barrier contraception, in the light of the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Also, please note the difference between the Church not being a force for good (as argued in the I-squared debate), and the Church being a force for evil. Presenting the options as being either good or evil is a false dichotomy, and a gross over-simplification of the issue.

For what it's worth, I watched the video, and found Stephen Fry's presentation to be quite compelling. I agree with most of what he said. However, I disagree with his premise that abstinence and fidelity aren't the only viable options for preventing the spread of aids.

Here we go again with a differing interpretation of "viable option".

Using a barrier method of contraception has been proven in properly conducted, peer-reviewed studies to prevent the transmission of the HIV virus, which is the causative agent for AIDS, therefore it is a viable method.
If you mean "the only viable options from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church", then fine, but the course you are recommending risks the lives of those liable to infection, and more importantly, the lives of their children, who do not have the opportunity to make the choice to abstain, be faithful or use a condom, because they are born with the disease, infected in utero.

Suffice it to say that Stephen Fry is a passionate, captivating speaker and he presented his arguements with much skill. I thoroughly enjoyed how he spoke his mind and tossed diplomacy right out the window. Refreshing!

See? There is always some common ground!

 

[travelingfool]

Yeah, but marrying more than one person is not. So, if you feel the need for more than one woman, the Bible clearly allows for you to marry the other woman and have her as well...

Lol, no it doesn't, my friend. Polygamy was allowed, but not recommended, in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, it is not allowed. So Christians are forbidden to have more than one spouse.

 

[byteware]

Lol, no it doesn't, my friend. Polygamy was allowed, but not recommended, in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, it is not allowed. So Christians are forbidden to have more than one spouse.

There are only a handful of scriptures that could even be construed as addressing the issue, and they are either about divorce, or about leaders specifically.

It NEVER forbids Christians from having more than one spouse...

 

[travelingfool]

There are only a handful of scriptures that could even be construed as addressing the issue, and they are either about divorce, or about leaders specifically.

It NEVER forbids Christians from having more than one spouse...

Well, at the risk of getting spanked by the mod stick again, I'll briefly lay them out. You are correct in one sense, in that it isn't directly addressed. However, it is naturally assumed by what is said in those handful of scriptures. Here they are:

Matthew 19:8-9

8*He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9*And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Mark 10:11-12

11*And he said to them, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12*and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Romans 7:2-3

2*For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3*Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Here, Jesus and Paul make it clear that if you divorce for any reason other than infidelity, it causes your next marriage to be adulterous, and rendered invalid in God's eyes, because your first marriage is still valid and binding. Granted, the passage is specifically about divorce, but it is also implicit in the text that to marry another, if your first marriage is still binding, is sin. So according to Jesus' own words, if you have an existing, valid marriage, and you marry another, it is adulterous, and therefore sin.

Two more passages that address the issue, again, not specifically, but implicitly, are 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6:

1 Timothy 3:2

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Titus 1:5-6

5*
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-- 6*if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

Those in Church leadership positions are to be the "husband of one wife." These leaders are also told to be examples to the rest of the believers, and the believers are told to follow the example of the leaders. (1 Cor 4:6, 1 Cor 11:1, Phil 3.17; 4:9; 1 Thes 1:6,7; 2 Thes 3:7,9; 1 Tim 4:12; Tit 2:7; 1 Pet 5:3) So if we are to emulate the leaders, and the leaders are commanded to be monogamous, then we are to be as well.

So this mandate to emulate the monogamous leaders, combined with Jesus' clear instruction that it is sin to marry another while your first marriage is still binding, makes it very clear that Christians are forbidden to engage in polygamy.

 

[byteware]

Here, Jesus and Paul make it clear that if you divorce for any reason other than infidelity, it causes your next marriage to be adulterous, and rendered invalid in God's eyes, because your first marriage is still valid and binding.

You added the "because". Christ never said WHY. You assume (we all remember what that means) that it was because you would only be allowed to have ONE wife. It could just as easily be ASSUMED that it was because you could not marry anyone else when you have divorced your wife for anything other than fidelity.

Those in Church leadership positions are to be the "husband of one wife." These leaders are also told to be examples to the rest of the believers, and the believers are told to follow the example of the leaders. (1 Cor 4:6, 1 Cor 11:1, Phil 3.17; 4:9; 1 Thes 1:6,7; 2 Thes 3:7,9; 1 Tim 4:12; Tit 2:7; 1 Pet 5:3) So if we are to emulate the leaders, and the leaders are commanded to be monogamous, then we are to be as well.

Then by your logic above, we are ALL commanded to be exactly as the leaders are. Everything commanded of the leaders, are by "the distributive property of faith" commanded of ALL of us.

So, then what is the point of commanding leaders specifically about anything, if we are ALL supposed to do it?

So this mandate to emulate the monogamous leaders, combined with Jesus' clear instruction that it is sin to marry another while your first marriage is still binding, makes it very clear that Christians are forbidden to engage in polygamy.

See, Jesus gave no such clear instruction that it is sin to marry another while your first marriage is still binding. You make that assumption.

All of this rests pretty much on YOUR assumption of why it is sin to marry someone else when you have an invalid divorce.

 

[travelingfool]

I think you might also find the the Church of England, Methodists, Baptists, Unitarians, Presbytyrians, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren etc would also self-define as Christian.

Of course. But the discussion is about Catholicism, so...?

However... Defining terms in common is always good for a discussion, although I can see a divergence here already - would you define 'good' as, "as prescribed in the Bible", and 'evil' as, "as proscribed by the Bible"?

I suspect this is a trap that I just walked into, but I'll bite: yes.

That being the case, the argument that the Catholic Church is a force for good rests on the chain:
1. The Church defines that behaving as the Bible requires = Good
2. The Catholic Church behaves as the Bible requires
Therefore 3. The Catholic Church = Good

The logical flaw here is that the measure you use is an internal one, not external... which is back to our old friend the circular argument, hence the relevance of my earlier comment.

You didn't use facts in your example. If the Bible is the standard (and it is) by which to measure the verity of the Catholic church and its fidelity to the Bible, then it fails across the board. I already enumerated many doctrines of the Catholic church which are diametrically opposed to the Bible, some of which are patently condemned therein, but alas, the post in which they appeared has disappeared at the hand of a moderator, so I'll refrain from listing them again.

More a question of pointing out the logical flaws and lacunae.

I confess I had to look up "lacunae," lol.

Here we go again with a differing interpretation of "viable option".

Using a barrier method of contraception has been proven in properly conducted, peer-reviewed studies to prevent the transmission of the HIV virus, which is the causative agent for AIDS, therefore it is a viable method.
If you mean "the only viable options from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church", then fine, but the course you are recommending risks the lives of those liable to infection, and more importantly, the lives of their children, who do not have the opportunity to make the choice to abstain, be faithful or use a condom, because they are born with the disease, infected in utero.

I am not against contraception, and neither is the Bible. Rather, it is silent on the subject. What it isn't silent about is that sex outside of marriage is a sin. So a church cannot officially condone the use of contraceptives outside of the framework of marriage, else it would in the same breath be condoning sin. It would be immoral for a church to buckle and say, "Oh well, since they are going to sin anyway, we might as well tell them to use condoms to prevent aids." What's the point in that? If they are going to disobey the Bible and have sex outside of marriage, then why in the flippin' world would they give a rip about what the church says about contraception?

Makes no sense at all.

And why do non-Christians care whether or not a Church condones contraceptives? Non-Christians are not under the authority of the church, so they are free to do as they please. Now if a professing Christian takes issue with their church condemning the use of contraceptives outside of the framework of marriage, then that is altogether another story. In that case, the person taking issue has proven they are not a Christian anyway, since they don't submit to the Biblical prohibition of extra-marital sex.

I understand your point about the prevention of STD's, but that has to be left up to the individual, not the church.

See? There is always some common ground!

Si se

 

[ElasticNinja]

Also, my middle son is 22 years old, and engaged to be married. Neither he nor his fianc

 

[travelingfool]

Your middle son is a good liar

Lol, that's what my friends say too , but if you knew him, you'd know it was the truth.

 

[travelingfool]

You added the "because". Christ never said WHY. You assume (we all remember what that means) that it was because you would only be allowed to have ONE wife. It could just as easily be ASSUMED that it was because you could not marry anyone else when you have divorced your wife for anything other than fidelity.
-------
Then by your logic above, we are ALL commanded to be exactly as the leaders are. Everything commanded of the leaders, are by "the distributive property of faith" commanded of ALL of us.
-------
So, then what is the point of commanding leaders specifically about anything, if we are ALL supposed to do it?
-------
See, Jesus gave no such clear instruction that it is sin to marry another while your first marriage is still binding. You make that assumption.
-------
All of this rests pretty much on YOUR assumption of why it is sin to marry someone else when you have an invalid divorce.

You know, I have to be honest here, byteware. I banged out my reply to you earlier today while driving, without giving it a whole lot of thought, because I was certain that the Bible explicitly condemns polygamy. Polygamy has never been an issue to me, because I couldn't imagine being with anyone other than my wife. The idea is actually repulsive to me. However, now that I am done driving, I have spent the last couple of hours scouring the Bible, certain that I was going to come up with better evidence to make my case. Instead, I have come away realizing that you are right. I can find no New Testament passage that outright condemns polygamy, and the ones that are traditionally used, the ones that I used, are not conclusive enough to build a case upon. I apologize for being so dogmatic about my assertions, because when I step back and look at it objectively, the evidence isn't conclusively there.

Of course, most Biblical doctrine does not fall into this category, because it is clearly stated, however this is not one of those doctrines.

There is another possible interpretation that we both missed, that may serve to strengthen your arguement. Why, if polygamy was not allowed, would Paul even need to tell Timothy that an overseer must be the husband of one wife? If polygamy was not allowed, then wouldnt these instructions to Timothy be redundant? So if he gave instructions for leaders to be monogamous, perhaps this assumes that some of the laity were polygamous. That's one way to look at it anyhow. It is also interesting that the text usually rendered, "husband of one wife," is literally, "one woman man" in the Greek. This being the case, perhaps he is speaking more to fidelity than to marriage in particular.

That said, I still think that my original explanation of Matthew 18 in a previous post is the most cohesive and convincing arguement regarding the condemnation of polygamy. However, in light of what I said in this present post, I see now that different interpretations may be allowed for.

Anyhow, there are times in a man's life when he needs to eat some crow. I can't say it was tasty, but it was necessary.

 

[byteware]

Anyhow, there are times in a man's life when he needs to eat some crow. I can't say it was tasty, but it was necessary.

I appreciate your honesty. Don't worry though, I just ate crow in a different thread... so, what goes around comes around.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

I banged out my reply to you earlier today while driving,

Does the bible not tell us that thou shalt not type whilst driving?

 

[travelingfool]

Does the bible not tell us that thou shalt not type whilst driving?

Lol, that is the 11th commandment, but the original Hebrew makes it clear that it is only binding on Monday's.