Support NeoGAF

[Freezie KO]

I'm talking about the principle of the matter, why would you willingly give to an organization that does ill? Same principle applies to the government to many people their belief system tells them that the Church is like a government and God's government on earth.

Many people don't willingly give to the US government. The government takes from taxes by the legitimate threat of force. That's coercion, not charity.

God is not going to come down and force anyone to give tithe.

EDIT:

Because these people also would like the word of Jesus spread and possibly more people to become catholics and be "saved".

Why are you telling them based off you're moral reasoning (one crime, though repeated legitimization 2000 years of history) what they should give their money to?

Right. So if they want the word of Jesus spread and are willing to ignore a couple thousand (!) years of child rape, then they're complicit. That's why I'm "telling them". If they don't want to be complicit, don't give. If you don't care that you're complicit in the rape of children, by all means, go have a party at the church.

 

[Devolution]

You don't want to because it doesn't fit your argument. I'm talking about the principle of the matter, why would you willingly give to an organization that does ill? Same principle applies to the government to many people their belief system tells them that the Church is like a government and God's government on earth.

Have you ever given to a charity or bought a product that has had someone on staff that has raped or abused kids and defended that person? I'm gonna say probably sometime in your life the answer is yes. The Church is large it does good, that's why people are giving, they're not going to withhold help to the worlds largest charity that does good work in a lot of places because they've done horrible things.

It only fits whatever nonsensical comparison you're trying to make. I disagree with a multitude of things the government does, if I renounce citizenship where do I go? If I fail to pay taxes I go to prison. This is not analogous to the choice you make when you give money to the Church. What are the consequences for not supplying the Church with money?

 

[TheNatural]

I'm sure they got all the money to fight and settle lawsuits, payoff witnesses, and fly priests to different parishes from their private lemonade stands on the side.

Devo questioned "why people who have a problem with the Church would continue giving it money". As in giving the Church money. Plenty of people give the Church money that aren't throwing in $1 here and there to a collection plate.

But I'll one-up her statement. If you are knowledgable about child rape and the Catholic Church's cover up, why even give to their collection plate? Go to a secular charity organization and give it there. At least you'll have a better chance it won't go to the next child rape suit.

I really doubt that crosses people's minds in church moreso than when people give their money to anything they think is a good cause, or a good product. Most churches are small and on a local level, that money goes right to supporting local charity or giving away food, clothes, and things like that. Could it go somewhere else? Sure. But it always can, and people devote their time and money to things familiar to them in the community.

Point being, we all have blood on our hands with regards to cash flow. Who's right is it for someone to say you're a horrible person for giving money to something that the controlling forces of that entity may use for a bad purpose?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Belonging to a church is not as analogous to being a citizen of a country as it is to being the member of a fan club.

 

[el retorno]

It only fits whatever nonsensical comparison you're trying to make. I disagree with a multitude of things the government does, if I renounce citizenship where do I go? If I fail to pay taxes I go to prison. This is not analogous to the choice you make when you give money to the Church. What are the consequences for not supplying the Church with money?

To religious people, they can't renounce the church with out risk of hell. I know you'll disagree with that as do I, but the Church is a spiritual government to them. I also believe tithing is required to some extent.

Belonging to a church is not as analogous to being a citizen of a country as it is to being the member of a fan club.

This isn't true to a believer.

 

[gutter_trash]

He doesn't speak enough languages, it's like he only bothered to learn German and that's all.

His Italian comes from being raised in an Italian family and his Spanish comes from being raised in a Spanish speaking country.

I find it real lazy for someone of his high ranking to not speak English, Portuguese and French

 

[Count Dookkake]

This isn't true to a believer.

Yeah, so?

 

[el retorno]

He doesn't speak enough languages, it's like he only bothered to learn German and that's all.

His Italian comes from being raised in an Italian family and his Spanish comes from being raised in Spanish speaking country.

I find it real lazy for someone of his high ranking to not speak English, Portuguese and French

That really does suck, but I hope we get some funny soundbites of him mispronouncing things from this.

Yeah, so?

They don't have a "choice"

 

[GillianSeed79]

To religious people, they can't renounce the church with out risk of hell. I know you'll disagree with that as do I, but the Church is a spiritual government to them. I also believe tithing is required to some extent.

I would tend to disagree with this. I don't have a problem with, say, using the offering money to fix the local church's leaky roof or to provide for the local poor or nuns that serve the church whilst observing the vow of poverty.

I do have a problem with the idea that Rome needs or deserves to be paid homage. I mean, I'm pretty sure if Jesus or Peter were alive today they'd tell Rome to sell off all its property, the Sistine Chapel, all it's priceless heirlooms, papal jewelry, etc. and use all the money to give to the poor.

 

[Freezie KO]

I really doubt that crosses people's minds in church moreso than when people give their money to anything they think is a good cause, or a good product. Most churches are small and on a local level, that money goes right to supporting local charity or giving away food, clothes, and things like that. Could it go somewhere else? Sure. But it always can, and people devote their time and money to things familiar to them in the community.

Point being, we all have blood on our hands with regards to cash flow. Who's right is it for someone to say you're a horrible person for giving money to something that the controlling forces of that entity may use for a bad purpose?

False equivalences all day long. We all have blood on our hands, so let's just throw them up in the air and stop caring.

Why even give to charity at that point? Why try to stop the sale of blood diamonds? Why try to stop companies that skin animals for evening gowns? And especially, why bother to favor organizations that don't support child rape? We've all got blood on our hands. Why bother?

This isn't true to a believer.

Lots of factual statements aren't true to believers.

 

[Evlar]

Yeah, so?

I'm at a loss to understand what you're trying to accomplish here. If information about why your argument won't lead people to take the action you recommend isn't useful to you... Are you really trying to convince people or satisfying some other urge to argue?

 

[el retorno]

I would tend to disagree with this. I don't have a problem with, say, using the offering money to fix the local church's leaky roof or to provide for the local poor or nuns that serve the church whilst observing the vow of poverty.

I do have a problem with the idea that Rome needs or deserves to be paid homage. I mean, I'm pretty sure if Jesus or Peter were alive today they'd tell Rome to sell off all its property, the Sistine Chapel, all it's priceless heirlooms, papal jewelry, etc. and use all the money to give to the poor.

My understanding of tithing was it was supposed to help people and spread jesus' word. I admit I'm not sure of the requirements on who it goes to. I also don't think there is a steadfast rule like 10%

False equivalences all day long. We all have blood on our hands, so let's just throw them up in the air and stop caring.

Why even give to charity at that point? Why try to stop the sale of blood diamonds? Why try to stop companies that skin animals for evening gowns? And especially, why bother to favor organizations that don't support child rape? We've all got blood on our hands. Why bother?

I think the point is that you can still fight for change while giving money. You don't have to as some here seem to say cut off all affiliation with the church.

Lots of factual statements aren't true to believers.

You're trying to say that they can leave when in their belief system they would risk hell, you're not going to convince someone if they don't share you're beliefs.

 

[Count Dookkake]

They don't have a "choice"

Yes, they do, unless they are children.

I'm at a loss to understand what you're trying to accomplish here. If information about why your argument won't lead people to take the action you recommend isn't useful to you... Are you really trying to convince people or satisfying some other urge to argue?

I'm at a loss what you are hoping to accomplish here.

el retorno can speak for himself.

Also, your assumptions are interesting.

Lots of factual statements aren't true to believers.

DING DING DING.

 

[strobogo]

Can anyone answer why people were making a big deal that he cooks his own meals? How is that considered being humble? Don't most people in the entire world make their own food?

 

[Fenderputty]

This *was* a thread about the pope. And then quickly changed to quick one liner drive by jabs about how everyone in the Catholic church and anyone who ever supported is is basically a pedophile.

It wouldn't have been a relgious thread without some sort of persecution complex.

 

[RobotMafia]

That really does suck, but I hope we get some funny soundbites of him mispronouncing things from this.


They don't have a "choice"

Are you saying that religious people can't make choices for themselves?

 

[el retorno]

Yes, they do, unless they are children.

If they belief in the dogma they don't. I'm not arguing a philosophical point that they don't truly have a choice but within their world view they would risk hell.

I just don't understand why people are just telling believers abandon your beliefs because some in the organizational structure of your religion have done horrible things, do that or you are condoning child rape.

Are you saying that religious people can't make choices for themselves?

No, I'm not a catholic btw. I saying that they can't make a choice and still practice their religion. This argument is about does giving to the church while knowing about crimes they've committed make them culpable or in someway condoning the crime. Some say they don't have to give up their faith just don't give or leave. I'm trying to say if your a catholic you don't have that "choice."

My main point is church goes and 95% of the people in the church are not condoning sex abuse and think its horrible

 

[TheNatural]

False equivalences all day long. We all have blood on our hands, so let's just throw them up in the air and stop caring.

Why even give to charity at that point? Why try to stop the sale of blood diamonds? Why try to stop companies that skin animals for evening gowns? And especially, why bother to favor organizations that don't support child rape? We've all got blood on our hands. Why bother?

Did I say any of that?

What I'm saying is what right of it is YOURS to tell someone what to do with their money? What are you doing with your money? Do you smoke? Have you ever bought weed? Ever bought something from a subsidiary of Phillip Morris?

I'm not the hypocrite on my high horse lecturing about what horrible people are for "supporting" something bad, then turning my head the other way when it suits my agenda. Yeah it's cool and all to talk tough from a keyboard, but what the fuck are you doing to make a difference, and what makes you above scrutiny?

 

[Devolution]

Are you saying that religious people can't make choices for themselves?

God is apparently really pissed off if you decide not to give money to an institution that harbors pedos and child rapists.

 

[Count Dookkake]

If they belief in the dogma they don't. I'm not arguing a philosophical point that they don't truly have a choice but within their world view they would risk hell.

I just don't understand why people are just telling believers abandon your beliefs because some in the organizational structure of your religion have done horrible things, do that or you are condoning child rape.

They have the same choice that they insist gay people do.

Seems fair enough to me.

 

[TCRS]

It wouldn't have been a relgious thread without some sort of persecution complex.

Your post implies that this isn't what has happened. Yet this shamble of a thread is before you. We're hardly even talkin about the new pope anymore.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Can anyone answer why people were making a big deal that he cooks his own meals? How is that considered being humble? Don't most people in the entire world make their own food?

The priesthood is very patriarchal to the point where it sometimes creates egotistical, pampered or misogynist priests. The nuns/women of the church usually provide for all the priest's needs such as cooking meals and everything. It's why everyone got pissed off at the last pope for basically going after the nuns in the U.S., since they do most of the actual good works of the church outside of mass.

 

[el retorno]

They have the same choice that they insist gay people do.

Seems fair enough to me.

Listen your making assumptions about a hell of a lot of believers. I think A LOT of catholics don't approve of the churches stance on LGBT issues. I don't think all (even most) at least in the western world think gay people go to hell.

 

[TCRS]

God is apparently really pissed off if you decide not to give money to an institution that harbors pedos and child rapists.

You still haven't offered any convincing argument as to why people should stop supporting a large organisation in which some evil has taken place? Are you implying that the institution in itself is evil? You keep saying no. Then what are you saying? Are you ever going to clarify your position?

If your argument is indeed that the Catholic Church is evil full stop, then that's no argument at all.

 

[el retorno]

God is apparently really pissed off if you decide not to give money to an institution that harbors pedos and child rapists.

People are not giving to protect "pedos and child rapists"

If your argument is indeed that the Catholic Church is evil full stop, then that's no argument at all.

That's what it seems that argument is. And if that's a debate they want to have then thats what should be stated.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Listen your making assumptions about a hell of a lot of believers. I think A LOT of catholics don't approve of the churches stance on LGBT issues. I don't think all (even most) at least in the western world think gay people go to hell.

What a weird assumption to think that people who belong to a group adhere to that group's policies. Silly me.

And yes, I know that there are "Catholics" who aren't homophobes, but if homophobia is on the menu, stop going to the restaurant or get the restaurant to change. Otherwise, others may assume you to be a homophobe.

 

[NaM]

D10s, Messi y el papa. Amén.

 

[Freezie KO]

You're trying to say that they can leave when in their belief system they would risk hell, you're not going to convince someone if they don't share you're beliefs.

You're right. People who believe that God will banish them to a fiery pit of doom if they stop giving money to an organization that supports child rape will never be on my side. But that's kind of a useless statement. Because those people are insane.

Did I say any of that?

What I'm saying is what right of it is YOURS to tell someone what to do with their money? What are you doing with your money? Do you smoke? Have you ever bought weed? Ever bought something from a subsidiary of Phillip Morris?

I'm not the hypocrite on my high horse lecturing about what horrible people are for "supporting" something bad, then turning my head the other way when it suits my agenda. Yeah it's cool and all to talk tough from a keyboard, but what the fuck are you doing to make a difference, and what makes you above scrutiny?

I'm not above scrutiny. Never said I was. And if you want to criticize my posts about buying Nintendo or Apple products because they use labor from FoxConn, that's perfectly fair.

I don't think the labor conditions at FoxConn are as bad as thousands of years of child rape and a pro-AIDS agenda, so it is similarly fair that I criticize those that give money to an organization that promotes those values.

 

[el retorno]

What a weird assumption to think that people who belong to a group adhere to that group's policies. Silly me.

And yes, I know that there are "Catholics" who aren't homophobes, but if homophobia is on the menu, stop going to the restaurant or get the restaurant to change. Otherwise, others may assume you to be a homophobe.

THIS IS MY POINT and what I've been trying to say, rather than telling people they need to leave, they can stay and try to change things, it happened with, slavery, civil rights, apartheid and it will happen with gay rights. This I think is an actual valid argument.

 

[Rayis]

He doesn't speak enough languages, it's like he only bothered to learn German and that's all.

His Italian comes from being raised in an Italian family and his Spanish comes from being raised in a Spanish speaking country.

I find it real lazy for someone of his high ranking to not speak English, Portuguese and French

Yeah, that's not really enough languages, I thought that to be a pope you had to at least know 5 languages? I remember hearing that when they made Benedict pope

 

[Fenderputty]

I just don't understand why people are just telling believers abandon your beliefs because some in the organizational structure of your religion have done horrible things, do that or you are condoning child rape.

I think "organizational structure" is being used way too lightly in the scentence here. You make it sound like the regional HR manager went renegade. This is corruption from the CEO all the way down to the branch management though. It's more than just the people involved, it's the fact that the church's image is more important than it's actual followers.

 

[Count Dookkake]

THIS IS MY POINT. This I think is an actual valid argument.

How many more centuries do you guys need?

 

[ComputerMKII]

You don't want to because it doesn't fit your argument. I'm talking about the principle of the matter, why would you willingly give to an organization that does ill? Same principle applies to the government to many people their belief system tells them that the Church is like a government and God's government on earth.

Read John 18:36.

 

[el retorno]

How many more centuries do you guys need?

First of all I don't share in their beliefs. And when did the gay rights movement start in the secular arena, the 1960s? I'm not saying their stances shouldn't be criticized but you don't have to leave an organization because they're views haven't caught up.

 

[Count Dookkake]

First of all I don't share in their beliefs. And when did the gay rights movement start in the secular arena, the 1960s? I'm not saying their stances shouldn't be criticized but you don't have to leave an organization because they're views haven't caught up.

I'm sorry for calling you Catholic.

Regarding the gay rights stuff, that is one problem of many.

 

[out0v0rder]

he looks nice. kinda like the monsignor at my old school.

 

[el retorno]

I'm sorry for calling you Catholic.

Regarding the gay rights stuff, that is one problem of many.

You keep shifting the argument. My main thrust isn't that the catholic church has awesome views, its just that by belonging to the group doesn't mean you support everything and that you shouldn't be forced out or lumped together with the worst.

 

[Fenderputty]

You still haven't offered any convincing argument as to why people should stop supporting a large organisation in which some evil has taken place? Are you implying that the institution in itself is evil? You keep saying no. Then what are you saying? Are you ever going to clarify your position?

If your argument is indeed that the Catholic Church is evil full stop, then that's no argument at all.

When the organization at hand is all about stopping evil and protecting people from evil, I would say the fact that ANY evil can come from it is reason enough to at least question support.

If the Catholic Chruch can hide pedophiles, what moral authority does it have to tell you what God wants? What moral authority does it have to say condoms are bad? What moral authority does it have to set doctrine? What moral authority does it have to tell it's folllowers that only through a priest can they speak with God?

As has already been pointed out, this isn't the first terrible thing the Catholic Church has been responsible for either.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Thanks, mods, for updating the thread title!

 

[Mully]

Peter the Roman has risen! It's all coming true.

 

[Lonely1]

Bergoglio, el hincha de San Lorenzo que llegó al Vaticano

http://www.clarin.com/europa/Bergoglio-tecnico-quimico-llego-Vaticano_0_881912035.html

Oh Argentina. Fútbol crazy.

 

[NaM]

Bergoglio, el hinchade San Lorenzo que llegó al Vaticano

http://www.clarin.com/europa/Bergoglio-tecnico-quimico-llego-Vaticano_0_881912035.html

Oh Argentina. Fútbol crazy.

There you go...

 

[Count Dookkake]

You keep shifting the argument. My main thrust isn't that the catholic church has awesome views, its just that by belonging to the group doesn't mean you support everything and that you shouldn't be forced out or lumped together with the worst.

When you try to minimize their lateness to treating gays like humans, I have to point out that this is one of many problems. For instance, earlier we were discussing centuries of child rape.

Regardless, if someone wants to eat at the International House of Child Rape, they run the risk of being judged.

 

[TheNatural]

I'm not above scrutiny. Never said I was. And if you want to criticize my posts about buying Nintendo or Apple products because they use labor from FoxConn, that's perfectly fair.

I don't think the labor conditions at FoxConn are as bad as thousands of years of child rape and a pro-AIDS agenda, so it is similarly fair that I criticize those that give money to an organization that promotes those values.

I don't scrutinize how other people should live their lives via trickle up purchasing on moral ground. Maybe business ground, in the competitive marketplace from a strictly consumer perspective, but I have no moral wallet counter and don't pretend to judge people on that.

So how do you even demonstrate what is bad or not on moral ground with money flow? How do you even quantify it?

A) I have $5 to collection pot in church, $4 of which is going to help poor families in the church with school supplies, food, and clothing who otherwise wouldn't have it. The other dollar is for upkeep and some gets funneled to the Archdiocese, which pennies may end up as some sex abuse defense or settlement.

B) I bought an Apple product, which goes to cost of goods made by Foxconn under slave labor conditions that some have committed suicide due to, and then Apple profit whom is notorious for not giving any to charity and keeping money for own purposes

C) I drove my car to work, which required a $25 fill up, most of which through OPEC is going to Saudi Arabia's government who has been notorious for human rights violations and jailing opposition preventing freedom of speech.

D) I bought a carton of cigs for $15, after cost of materials goes straight to Phillip Morris who continues to market the smoking habit through generations to cause cancer and emphysema in hundreds of thousands of smokers.

I don't pretend to know which option is best on moral grounds and I'm not going to be on my high horse lecturing others on the internet about it. All I know is as people, except for maybe the most fucked up, aren't out to go support pedophiles, cancer, human rights violations, or anything else.

I'm sorry some people don't pretend to be above anyone else on where they choose to put their money, in something they may need or want, or where they think their money is going towards a good cause. I won't criticize you or anyone else, and I think it's crap that some do.

 

[GillianSeed79]

What a weird assumption to think that people who belong to a group adhere to that group's policies. Silly me.

And yes, I know that there are "Catholics" who aren't homophobes, but if homophobia is on the menu, stop going to the restaurant or get the restaurant to change. Otherwise, others may assume you to be a homophobe.

This is part of the reason I don't identify myself as Catholic anymore and why I think a lot of people are leaving the church. I basically have a litmus test with any church now. Anti-gay or covering up pedophile priests? Thanks. Bye. I'll pray for you.

It's no secret that there are large swaths of the Western industrialized world that have left the church. They have a big media campaign right now focused solely on trying to get people to come back to the church. One of the problems with the Catholic Church is that, traditionally, people used to see it as "The Church." I.E. this was the church that Peter founded, so the idea of leaving or converting to another denomination sounded like a one way ticket to hell. A lot of people are much more educated and progressive these days.

I mean, if you look at the demographics, most of the church's most ardent supporters are those that actually benefit from it, i.e. the really poor/those that live in poor countries, etc.
This is a really bad analogy, but it's kind of like asking people in the Palestinian territories why they support Hamas or why those that live in Lebanon support Hezbollah. For the average poor person that is supported by those organizations, they don't see them as blood-thirsty terrorists, they see them as organizations that provide for the poor and for their families.

The Catholic guy that lives in some slum in a third-world country that is fed and clothed by the church is probably going to turn a blind-eye to the pedophile scandal. Meanwhile, those of us of who live comfortably in the West can afford to simply walk away.

 

[Fenderputty]

You keep shifting the argument. My main thrust isn't that the catholic church has awesome views, its just that by belonging to the group doesn't mean you support everything and that you shouldn't be forced out or lumped together with the worst.

Why is it not OK for a non believer to question a believers support though? I understand that by being a Catholic, one isn't a pedophile nor does it mean they support it. They are however, knowingly supporting an institution who has a rather questionable moral compass. The irony is that the organizaion is in charge with guiding the moral compasses of it's followers.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Why is it not OK for a non believer to question a believers support though? I understand that by being a Catholic, one isn't a pedophile nor does it mean they support it. They are however, knowingly supporting an institution who has a rather questionable moral compass. The irony is that the organizaion is in charge with guiding the moral compasses of it's followers.

And allegedly with the approval of the inventor of morality himself, God.

 

[Devolution]

When the organization at hand is all about stopping evil and protecting people from evil, I would say the fact that ANY evil can come from it is reason enough to at least question support.

If the Catholic Chruch can hide pedophiles, what moral authority does it have to tell you what God wants? What moral authority does it have to say condoms are bad? What moral authority does it have to set doctrine? What moral authority does it have to tell it's folllowers that only through a priest can they speak with God?

As has already been pointed out, this isn't the first terrible thing the Catholic Church has been responsible for either.

It's terrible this point needs to repeated so much and teased out this much.

 

[Ikael]

From a Catholic POV:

- The whole fuss about the possibility of a black Pope reeks of hitoric ignorance: there has already been several Popes of African ancestry and different races. I am sorry for you Nostradamus fans

- First public quote: "dear sisters and brothers. You probably know that the conclave's duty is to provide you a new Pope, and it seems that my fellow Cardinals have looked for him at the very end of the world" *wink* *wink* Dat world - ending trolling <3

- The guy surely has a subtle sense of humour, choosing to name himself "Francis" after one Pope called "Benedict" (Franciscans and Benedicts were two religious orders that hated each other's guts)

- His first gestures and his overall lifestyle seems to reek humility. I approve of that.

- The fact of him being a Jesuite is far more shoking and telling that any kind of country of origin or politically correct quota. Jesuites always meant business, or as Umberto Eco described them, they used to be the "Church marine corps". He has been chosen with a clear intention of shaking the things up, period.

- The whole chorus clamouring for how the Church should "get with the times" is really, really, really missing the point. The Church is meant to be a "contra cultural" force. It is suppoused to go against the forces of its time regardless of their popularity, when something is wrong they must dennounce it, popularity polls be damned.

- That being said, this doesn't mean that there's nothign that can be changed or adapted. Doctrine is eternal, but rituals are not. While things like abortion (which deals with the very theological concept of life) or homosexual marriage (which deals with another holy sacrament such as marriage) are off limits, things like reforming celibacy, female priestdom, transparency and democracy within the Church are quite within the realm of possiblity.

- He has been an ardent proponent of inter-faith dialoge, and quite critic with the current economic system an what he felt as a "cultural war" being waged against traditional values and yadda yadda. Still, If you want to have a better in depth look of his ideas, try reading the book that he co-wrote with a Rabin. It pulls no punches, dealing with very thorny, very controversial, trascendantal issues: Religious fundamentalism, atheism, the Holocaust, homosexuality, capitalism. Must read, and instant-best seller, I think.

- Still, the whole rush to find past writtings / declarations / whatever of the Pope in order to figure out his future stances tends to be quite futile, really. If there's a charge that change the person that occupies it, is this one. For example:who would have thought that Ratzinger, "the God's rotweiller" would end up being the first Pope to resign?

Nobody's blaming every priest, and yet it's hardly unreasonable to say that it's wrong to support an organization that has gone to the greatest lengths to protect itself rather than pursue justice for the victims it has produced. To protest that every priest isn't a rapist is to miss the point completely. You don't excise a cancer by saying nice things about the parts that aren't afflicted.

Following the same logic, it is time that English taxpayers stop supporting the BBC altogether, I guess. The different reactions to these two have been pretty telling, specially regarding media treatment.

It's terrible this point needs to repeated so much and teased out this much.

Yes, us catholics never learn, mang. We're all grovelling and basking in such a lowly level of moral authority, the whole 1.000 million of us. One's gotta abbandon the Church to start riding your mighty horse of moral upstanding I guess.

 

[TCRS]

When the organization at hand is all about stopping evil and protecting people from evil, I would say the fact that ANY evil can come from it is reason enough to at least question support.

If the Catholic Chruch can hide pedophiles, what moral authority does it have to tell you what God wants? What moral authority does it have to say condoms are bad? What moral authority does it have to set doctrine?

As has already been pointed out, this isn't the first terrible thing the Catholic Church has been responsible for either.

I guess for a catholic person that moral authority is derived from God and The Bible. In their mind the belief system is not invalidated by some people in authority doing evil things. Either way I'm not sure how that relates to donations. As others have pointed out, most catholic people support their local churches and see the good side of it and want to support that.