[Hydrogen]

Why prepare the next generation when the rapture is only a few years away?

I thought Rapture was happening in 1981.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-0BLV04vbE

 

[digi]

I did say it had its faults. But try comparing the sermons of a Catholic priest to some of the Imams or megachurch preachers in the GTA. It's quite evident the difference an education makes.

I'm not sure what your point is, but the "sermon of an Imam" does not compare to the diddling of a young boy....no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[Whoaccio]

I'm pretty sure most religions have their share of pedophiles... It is nearly inevitable that wherever there is an authority figure job which has frequent and unaccompanied interaction with children it will attract pedophiles. Camp councilors, teachers, principles. priests, babysitters. Of course, being a priest is the only one whose job infers a divine connection. One good thing about the Catholic church is its more bureaucratic structure. So, when it was discovered that priests had been diddling boys, it was egg on the face of the Church as a whole. By comparison, when Ted Haggard solicits gay prostitutes and smokes meth or some imam in Saudi Arabia has 3 underage wives, they are just a few rogue individuals who of course have no connection whatsoever to the larger religious movement.

The training process for Catholic priests is much more contemporary, for lack of a better word. Most of them do have quite advanced levels of education in areas outside of theology. It strikes me as a much more organized and professional manner of training, and probably accounts for some of the *relatively* progressive views of the Catholic Church, like giving up on this creationist thing as far as science goes. In the evangelical movement, where promotion is less a function of education and worldliness and more a function of how inflammatory you can be, this is impossible.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Now, I don't have a particular love for the Catholic church (and please, just what does pedophilia have to do with the stance on science? I understand that it is an area of critique, but it is sort of irrelevant in this context), but it must be stated that the Vatican actively support research activities (e.g. Vatican Observatory). Can you imagine those mega-sects in the US do the same thing? Please, don't cite the Creation Museum as an answer.

Also keep in mind that there is also quite a list of figures in the CC with significant contribution to science and humanities.

AoD

 

[digi]

So, when it was discovered that priests had been diddling boys, it was egg on the face of the Church as a whole.

They did their best to cover it up, paid people off and moved the diddling priests around.

it must be stated that the Vatican actively support research activities

In 1991, the CC finally officially recognised that the earth is not the center of the universe.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

digi:

In 1991, the CC finally officially recognised that the earth is not the center of the universe.

Which is a formality - it's not like the CC actively denied the Copernican model of the solar system in face of scientific evidence for what, centuries? I mean, were they actually preaching otherwise? I don't think so.

AoD

 

[afransen]

I'm not sure what your point is, but the "sermon of an Imam" does not compare to the diddling of a young boy....no matter how you try to spin it.

And Imams never do anything terrible? I think you are revealing some bias.

 

[Whoaccio]

I don't really know what the point of this is, I don't think anybody here is standing up for the Catholic Church as some kind of model for enlightened humanism and certainly no one is defending pedophilia. Bringing it up in the context of science and religion is a pointless argument though. Never mind that a child is more likely to be abused in a US public school or cub scouts meeting, it has precisely zero to do with science vs. religion.

In the context of science (or even just general reason...) vs. religion though, the Catholic Church is still probably in the front of the pack in terms of respect for science and reason. Maybe the Church of England or some of the modern Jewish temples beat it, but that is just about it. Organizations like the Vatican Observatory or Pontifical Academy of Sciences clearly have no parallels in religious groupings which have recently been more obstinate towards science and reason.

As an aside, can anybody imagine the public reprimand if a Catholic priest, anywhere on earth, enlightened us with the opinion that a man can not rape his wife, but does have the option to starve her should she not comply? Everyone from the Pope to the local Bishop would go into full damage control mode to ostracize him.

 

[kEiThZ]

And Imams never do anything terrible? I think you are revealing some bias.

Moreover, anybody who's live in the middle east knows that pedophilia is just as common in the muslim world as in the christian west.

They just change the rules to make it look acceptable. In Afghanistan, our troops have had to rescue numerous boys from taliban, government officials, tribal elders, etc. who often keep them as 'companions'. It's so common in fact, that we now have standard procedures for dealing with complaints about young lads being kidnapped. Combine that with the forced marriages of young girls in their early teens, and the truth about pedophilia is murkier than many would suggest.

That's not to take way anything from the abuse of boys by priests. But it's ridiculous to suggest that the Catholic church has exclusivity on having pedophiles in the ranks of its clergy.

As to the issue at hand, AoD hit the nail on the head. The Catholic Church's support for science in the post-reformation era stands well above that of any other faith group. And their scientific institutions are actually respected by scientists. The Vatican Observatory is considered a fairly decent physics institute. Historians and archaeologists with the Vatican archives are considered some of the best in their field.

The greatest contribution, however, has been the Church's stance that pure science is a form of revelation of the 'truth'. It is from this point of view that the church has challenged creationists. The CC has earned the ire of other Christian groups and denominations for rejecting creationism, intelligent design, etc. and for stating flat out that this is not the 'truth' and should not be taught in schools, etc. I would suggest, that for all its failures in history about relations between the scientific community and the Church, the stance taken today by the Church is extremely helpful to most scientist. Imagine the consequences for science if the Church started railing against the Darwinian evolution or the Big Bang Theory.

Even where they have issues with stuff like stem cell research, their opposition comes from bioethical standpoints. They are not opposed to the research as a science. They are opposed to its implications and consequences. That's not a far cry from many secular bioethicists who have voiced simliar concerns about this stuff. While I personally would disagree with their stance on the issue, we have to recognize that's a far cry from most Christian groups (and increasingly many Islamic groups - who also don't believe in evolution by the way) that are aghast at a lot of basic biological research wholesale.

 

[digi]

And Imams never do anything terrible? I think you are revealing some bias.

I think you revealed yours when you stretched and twisted my words to mean something completely different, but suitable to your bias. Are you a politician?

 

[afransen]

What twisting? I asked a question. I certainly am neither sympathetic nor defensive of any organized religion.