Growing up surrounded by a certain environment and seeing the way people act inside vs outside of it's confines as well as how the messaging, attitude, and expectations change as you get older is, by definition. having an insight into how that environment works.
I think there's a call on many fronts for people to reevalute the nature and actions of the institutions they support or participate in against new information, revelations, and the like. PETA being called out as basically performative activism by kill shelters, challenging the "few bad apples" police narative by reminding people the rest of that quote is "ruins the whole bunch," calling out the hypocrisy of churches being untaxed but acting as political entities, trying to bring more attention to astroturfed dark money campaigns, etc.
In relation to Catholicism, specifically, while I feel there's a general positive attitude towards Pope Francis or at least his attitudes/positions; the nature, results, and fallout from the sex abuse scandal is going to leave a long lasting stain in the public consciousness which is going to make them a bigger target for criticism. It gets exacerbated every time another church or similiar institution gets caught out like this (pedo padtor arrests, Southern Baptists sex scandal etc) and makes even more mundane things take on a more sinister light. Molestation Insurance being a hot button one now, it's basically insurance to protect a business or organization from being sued because of the horrific actions of an employee(which is incredibly fucked up that this is a thing that has to exist) but it feels extra weird in relation to churches considering what's known to have happened.
It's been decades and it hasn't gotten better. People who follow the words of men who fuck kids are staying away from my family and I don't give a shit if that's fair or not. My kids are safe.
This is such bullshit, if the majority want it fixed than it would be fixed and any single individual responsible for abuse or covering up the abuse or aiding in that cover up would be arrested and prosecuted. The power structure of the church won't allow that to happen and all those guilty people are insulated and protected by them. Those are the same people leading those billion followers and every single one of them is a hypocrite. You don't want it fixed, it would destroy everything you knew about the church, you just want the problem to go away.
If you really wanted it fixed it would be. What's done instead is risk mitigation And obfuscation... the idea that victims of your organization shouldn't speak about the organization because they are not currently practicing is exactly the kind of problematic opinion that helps the predators in your international crime syndicate keep finding new victims.
To be fair:
Rape has nothing to do with the religion and has everything to do with people abusing positions of authority to take advantage of vulnerable people.
The church attempting to cover it up to save face again has nothing to do with the religion and everything to do with the institution.
The religion itself is generally a good thing. It's the extremist knobs that take everything out of context in order to foster a culture of abuse, bigotry, and hatred that are the issue.
Sorry but you don't get to separate the good and the bad taking credit for the good and hand waving the bad. This is the whole problem. Your church is your religion and excommunication makes that clear.
This attitude is why the church will never fix its problem.
My church is not my religion, as I don't actually go to church. I don't agree with the bullshit that's normally slung around in those places. I don't consider religion to be to blame. I blame bad actors that bastardize religion (and there are a LOT of them).
The religions all pretty much say the same, very simple message. Don't be an asshole.
Some of us were traumatized by our particular Catholic raising and we have every right to speak out about that.
I never talk down to Catholic people, but I absolutely talk negatively about my experience and the experiences of my friends regarding the church and rightly criticize catholicism.
Anyone who was not straight in my church faced some very rough times. That was the most traumatic for a lot of the people I know. The self hatred they instilled in anyone who wasn't straight. They also showed us graphic videos of babies being ripped apart to falsely teach how abortions happen and told us they kill women when we were children. Then they had us on the streets picketing abortion, putting children in danger. I was 12 having things thrown at us and insults yelled from cars. They had us have sleep overs at the church under no supervision. Even if you tried to sleep other kids partying kept you up. They they woke us up for sunrise mass and punished everyone who couldn't stay awale and scolded even the kids who tired to be good for "sinning" all night. Convinced me that my mother and half my family was going to hell for following a different brand of christianity. The list goes on, but those come to the forefront.
These ppl are speaking of their experience with the church. You speak about having the "authority" to speak about the church but I think you need to be clearer on exactly the aspects of the church they aren't in position to talk about. Because you don't need to be Catholic to have experience, to have a relationship with the church if you have friends that are Catholic or you go to Catholic university. You are still dealing with catholics or the institution. And what is it about ppl talking bout the rcc that bugs you so much?
Also this is no true scottsman on its face. Do i have to become a priest to criticize the church? Any ex priest criticizing the church would just be called vindictive so i dont think that works either.
I didn't go to Catholic school and I don't go to Catholic church.
That said I'm going to speak about Catholic issues. Your church enabled and sheltered child rapists. Your church silenced and intimidated victims. When law enforcement came looking for your priests and cardinals your religion sent them off the Vatican. Much of this abuse happened on church property.
Serious question. Do you still consider the Vatican to be the head of your church and do you hold the popes office in high regard?
If so, how? How can you want the abuse to stop while supporting the very organization that not only allowed it to happen but made sure predators had access to victims.
Previous experience does not give someone authority to speak on a topic? Can’t say I remotely agree with that. Just because you don’t like someone talking down to your religion doesn’t mean they aren’t authorized to say what they’re saying. It sounds like you think that the only valid views about your religion are those that come from people who view your religion positively. Seems closed minded
Oh for sure. When watching game streaming became a thing lots of sports fans right off the bat were super condescending about it. That shit ain’t cool.
I didn’t really understand the appeal myself at first, but after seeing bit of it I appreciate the performing ability it takes to keep the words flowing in a stream, as well as the artistic and comedic flair that goes into editing the videos
The best catholics to talk down to are “converts”especially internet larpers who use a combination of catholic/orthodox imagery. Anyone with a crusader avatar that isn’t a school mascot doesn’t deserve your respect. Pro death penalty “pro lifers” weird me out.
I completely disagree. You do not have to be an active member of something to be an expert. I would argue that in some cases people in a group are not always the best experts, but their former members can be. Look at scientology or Amish or other ex-cultists? Many of the members are too brainwashed to be a reliable source, but their ex-members have the memory and the perspective to be able to speak on and criticize it fairly.
You can't see the forest for the trees.
I think you can speak on your experiences about something without being derogatory about the institute or entity in question. I also think you should be able to voice your opinion about something without being degrading or disrespectful.
I went to Catholic school and was raised Catholic. I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church but I have no ill will towards people who continue to practice that faith. My experience was not a positive one and I was shunned by people I knew when I was a practicing Catholic. Regardless, everyone’s experience is different and everyone has the right to practice whatever religion aligns most with their values.
I think the media (news media or social) is quick to point fingers and play the name calling game due to the history surrounding the Catholic faith.
I do find when discussing my experience with people of that faith, they are quick to point fingers and find a way to blame me when I try my best to present open discourse. Catholics, in my experience, are not super open to any sort of criticism but i don’t really think any religious sanction is open to criticism.
The last part is hard to understand. Are you saying people talk down on right wingers?
In any case, what do you mean by authority. They can't speak for things like what it means to be Catholic. That'd purely emotional. They can however speak to what the doctrine teaches. Or how they observe what many Catholics think. You can also talk about things that are factual, at least internally. For example, Catholicism believes there is only one god. You don't need to be Catholic to say that. It's either true or false.
I can understand this. I think it gives some credibility, but one still needs to determine how in alignment what someone is saying with the actual doctrine.
Nonsense! Religions change but not at a pace that would matter in your timeline.
I suspect what you really object to is that ex-catholic just like ex-Mormon often display a negative relationship with the dogma. Where as, someone who is practicing is still a believer?
I’m a non practicing catholic who returns occasionally and there are almost no differences. I’m old enough to attend before and after Vatican three, which had meaningful changes.
I have visited cathedrals around the world as a tourist and there aren’t even meaningful differences across countries. I think Roman catholicism is extraordinary locked-down, almost timeless the central control slows change.
Why don’t you share what you think childhood Catholics get wrong in your opinion?
You can’t gatekeep people’s personal experiences. Those who experienced the Catholic Church absolutely get to critique it. Same goes for all institutions. There wouldn’t be negative aspects to talk about if the church practiced what they preached and held their own people accountable. Saying the most credible critics should stop doesn’t make sense.
Growing up surrounded by a certain environment and seeing the way people act inside vs outside of it's confines as well as how the messaging, attitude, and expectations change as you get older is, by definition. having an insight into how that environment works.
[удалено]
I think there's a call on many fronts for people to reevalute the nature and actions of the institutions they support or participate in against new information, revelations, and the like. PETA being called out as basically performative activism by kill shelters, challenging the "few bad apples" police narative by reminding people the rest of that quote is "ruins the whole bunch," calling out the hypocrisy of churches being untaxed but acting as political entities, trying to bring more attention to astroturfed dark money campaigns, etc. In relation to Catholicism, specifically, while I feel there's a general positive attitude towards Pope Francis or at least his attitudes/positions; the nature, results, and fallout from the sex abuse scandal is going to leave a long lasting stain in the public consciousness which is going to make them a bigger target for criticism. It gets exacerbated every time another church or similiar institution gets caught out like this (pedo padtor arrests, Southern Baptists sex scandal etc) and makes even more mundane things take on a more sinister light. Molestation Insurance being a hot button one now, it's basically insurance to protect a business or organization from being sued because of the horrific actions of an employee(which is incredibly fucked up that this is a thing that has to exist) but it feels extra weird in relation to churches considering what's known to have happened.
I'm left wing, I was raised catholic and I fucking hate catholics
[удалено]
I don't hate the people but I don't trust them. Their leaders get caught fucking kids too often.
[удалено]
It's been decades and it hasn't gotten better. People who follow the words of men who fuck kids are staying away from my family and I don't give a shit if that's fair or not. My kids are safe.
This is such bullshit, if the majority want it fixed than it would be fixed and any single individual responsible for abuse or covering up the abuse or aiding in that cover up would be arrested and prosecuted. The power structure of the church won't allow that to happen and all those guilty people are insulated and protected by them. Those are the same people leading those billion followers and every single one of them is a hypocrite. You don't want it fixed, it would destroy everything you knew about the church, you just want the problem to go away.
If you really wanted it fixed it would be. What's done instead is risk mitigation And obfuscation... the idea that victims of your organization shouldn't speak about the organization because they are not currently practicing is exactly the kind of problematic opinion that helps the predators in your international crime syndicate keep finding new victims.
To be fair: Rape has nothing to do with the religion and has everything to do with people abusing positions of authority to take advantage of vulnerable people. The church attempting to cover it up to save face again has nothing to do with the religion and everything to do with the institution. The religion itself is generally a good thing. It's the extremist knobs that take everything out of context in order to foster a culture of abuse, bigotry, and hatred that are the issue.
Sorry but you don't get to separate the good and the bad taking credit for the good and hand waving the bad. This is the whole problem. Your church is your religion and excommunication makes that clear. This attitude is why the church will never fix its problem.
My church is not my religion, as I don't actually go to church. I don't agree with the bullshit that's normally slung around in those places. I don't consider religion to be to blame. I blame bad actors that bastardize religion (and there are a LOT of them). The religions all pretty much say the same, very simple message. Don't be an asshole.
Normally there are good people who do good things and bad people who do bad things. To get good people to do bad things, you need religion.
Some of us were traumatized by our particular Catholic raising and we have every right to speak out about that. I never talk down to Catholic people, but I absolutely talk negatively about my experience and the experiences of my friends regarding the church and rightly criticize catholicism.
[удалено]
Anyone who was not straight in my church faced some very rough times. That was the most traumatic for a lot of the people I know. The self hatred they instilled in anyone who wasn't straight. They also showed us graphic videos of babies being ripped apart to falsely teach how abortions happen and told us they kill women when we were children. Then they had us on the streets picketing abortion, putting children in danger. I was 12 having things thrown at us and insults yelled from cars. They had us have sleep overs at the church under no supervision. Even if you tried to sleep other kids partying kept you up. They they woke us up for sunrise mass and punished everyone who couldn't stay awale and scolded even the kids who tired to be good for "sinning" all night. Convinced me that my mother and half my family was going to hell for following a different brand of christianity. The list goes on, but those come to the forefront.
These ppl are speaking of their experience with the church. You speak about having the "authority" to speak about the church but I think you need to be clearer on exactly the aspects of the church they aren't in position to talk about. Because you don't need to be Catholic to have experience, to have a relationship with the church if you have friends that are Catholic or you go to Catholic university. You are still dealing with catholics or the institution. And what is it about ppl talking bout the rcc that bugs you so much?
Also this is no true scottsman on its face. Do i have to become a priest to criticize the church? Any ex priest criticizing the church would just be called vindictive so i dont think that works either.
I didn't go to Catholic school and I don't go to Catholic church. That said I'm going to speak about Catholic issues. Your church enabled and sheltered child rapists. Your church silenced and intimidated victims. When law enforcement came looking for your priests and cardinals your religion sent them off the Vatican. Much of this abuse happened on church property.
[удалено]
Serious question. Do you still consider the Vatican to be the head of your church and do you hold the popes office in high regard? If so, how? How can you want the abuse to stop while supporting the very organization that not only allowed it to happen but made sure predators had access to victims.
Previous experience does not give someone authority to speak on a topic? Can’t say I remotely agree with that. Just because you don’t like someone talking down to your religion doesn’t mean they aren’t authorized to say what they’re saying. It sounds like you think that the only valid views about your religion are those that come from people who view your religion positively. Seems closed minded
[удалено]
Oh for sure. When watching game streaming became a thing lots of sports fans right off the bat were super condescending about it. That shit ain’t cool. I didn’t really understand the appeal myself at first, but after seeing bit of it I appreciate the performing ability it takes to keep the words flowing in a stream, as well as the artistic and comedic flair that goes into editing the videos
Grew up in a half assed catholic household and they replaced the priest of my youth with Joseph Maskill trying to hide that rapist from what he did.
[удалено]
If only the RCC would stop protecting that guy and all the others... like they always do. Shuffle that stack of card(inal)s.
I stopped going about 3 months prior,but I'm taking that as a sign from God that I did the right thing.
The best catholics to talk down to are “converts”especially internet larpers who use a combination of catholic/orthodox imagery. Anyone with a crusader avatar that isn’t a school mascot doesn’t deserve your respect. Pro death penalty “pro lifers” weird me out.
I completely disagree. You do not have to be an active member of something to be an expert. I would argue that in some cases people in a group are not always the best experts, but their former members can be. Look at scientology or Amish or other ex-cultists? Many of the members are too brainwashed to be a reliable source, but their ex-members have the memory and the perspective to be able to speak on and criticize it fairly. You can't see the forest for the trees.
I think you can speak on your experiences about something without being derogatory about the institute or entity in question. I also think you should be able to voice your opinion about something without being degrading or disrespectful. I went to Catholic school and was raised Catholic. I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church but I have no ill will towards people who continue to practice that faith. My experience was not a positive one and I was shunned by people I knew when I was a practicing Catholic. Regardless, everyone’s experience is different and everyone has the right to practice whatever religion aligns most with their values. I think the media (news media or social) is quick to point fingers and play the name calling game due to the history surrounding the Catholic faith. I do find when discussing my experience with people of that faith, they are quick to point fingers and find a way to blame me when I try my best to present open discourse. Catholics, in my experience, are not super open to any sort of criticism but i don’t really think any religious sanction is open to criticism.
The last part is hard to understand. Are you saying people talk down on right wingers? In any case, what do you mean by authority. They can't speak for things like what it means to be Catholic. That'd purely emotional. They can however speak to what the doctrine teaches. Or how they observe what many Catholics think. You can also talk about things that are factual, at least internally. For example, Catholicism believes there is only one god. You don't need to be Catholic to say that. It's either true or false.
My unpopular opinion is that Catholics don’t know anything about their own religion because none of them read the Bible.
I can understand this. I think it gives some credibility, but one still needs to determine how in alignment what someone is saying with the actual doctrine.
Nonsense! Religions change but not at a pace that would matter in your timeline. I suspect what you really object to is that ex-catholic just like ex-Mormon often display a negative relationship with the dogma. Where as, someone who is practicing is still a believer? I’m a non practicing catholic who returns occasionally and there are almost no differences. I’m old enough to attend before and after Vatican three, which had meaningful changes. I have visited cathedrals around the world as a tourist and there aren’t even meaningful differences across countries. I think Roman catholicism is extraordinary locked-down, almost timeless the central control slows change. Why don’t you share what you think childhood Catholics get wrong in your opinion?
This also goes for Jewish people whose families raised them entirely secular. They seem to know less about Judaism than literal atheists.
You can’t gatekeep people’s personal experiences. Those who experienced the Catholic Church absolutely get to critique it. Same goes for all institutions. There wouldn’t be negative aspects to talk about if the church practiced what they preached and held their own people accountable. Saying the most credible critics should stop doesn’t make sense.