What the hell is going on with the catholic church?

[Smith_3]

It seems like in an pathetic attempt to combat the diminishing numbers of members they have cranked up the sexist and the just plain stupid rethoric a few notches in recent times.

:shrug:

[RC]

1. What are you talking about? Links? sources?

Not that I doubt you, but flesh it out with some examples.

[Hekate]

2. The Pope just said that condoms make the African AIDS epidemic worse. Go figure.

That was this week. Pope Ratzinger doesn't seem to live in the real world -- although most Catholics do.

Hekate

[Smith_3]

3. That, and then the thing with "washing machine vs. pill". And of course the 9 year old.

It seems like incidents are piling.

[ejpoeta]

5. well he does live in a 'castle' wearing his fine linens.... just like jesus would do.

do we have a picture of jesus?? even in their version he sure looks like one of the little people. I don't know whether jesus ever really existed, but I do know that it sure seems like his goal was to call out people like the catholic church for the frauds that they are. I don't think that ratzinger asshole knows what the hell he is talking about and i sure hope people realize that fact.

[izzie]

4. When people change a church must also. Same as a country

But we can see world wide that it seems to first turn on the other side of the coin. Look at the Middle East. You can see the culture of the people is moving to a more open society so all the nuts come out and try to stop it. It just seems to work this way. Look back at history in Europe. England moved on as it would go with what the people wanted but on the far side Russia would not and it moved in to civil war. You have a job ruling people if you do not give them some of the things they want. The garage on the corner, church on the corner or country on the corner face the same test.

[TWiley]

10. Is God a populist?

This is why religion generally falls into the malarkey catagory. Most denominations seem more interested in marketing God for contributions than anything else these days. Especially the new fundamentalist mega-churches. New tactics to bilk the foolish out of their money.

[izzie]

14. I guess you are right in some ways but churches do have to change

Is the Church the same as the one they had in the Middle Ages etc. If no one comes you do not have a church. One has to wonder where are the Puritan today? Gone with the times I will make that guess.

[Why Syzygy]

26. This is what I get.

God is Justice. I know Atheists won't agree with that. But, the more I study, the more it becomes apparent to me.

If rich rulers, even in the church, continue so long in practices that produce suffering and more suffering for the servants, eventually the account becomes due. We're seeing it all over the planet during this time. People will only be enslaved for so long before they rise up, no matter what name or title one gives the oppressor.

[TWiley]

27. How does imprisonment, brutal torture, false confession, and conversion equal justice?

There was no justice as you describe when the church folks were the big shots. There never has been a positive example of it that I can find either. When the religious get too powerful, that is when you get the most horrific abuses, and the least discernible justice. If your virgin daughter were sacrificed to a volcano, how exactly would you proceed in prosecuting those who put her on the alter before the cheering faithful?

[Why Syzygy]

28. There are two parts to every trial.

Justice is based upon legal guidelines. The prosecution is still making its case, which is to accuse and demand punishment (diabolos).
Justice won't be measured until after the defense presents its case (paraclete).

I didn't say "church folks" are Justice. I said God is Justice.

The question was, Is God a populist, meaning rule by the people. No. He's better than that.

However, we do see the balance of justice still swinging up and down on the physical plane. Measurements are still taking place. From a world society perspective, it appears that the oppressed are presenting evidence that in the name of justice, the balance needs to shift.

Where do you think the concept of Justice originates?

[TWiley]

36. The concept does not appear to originate from God

The last I checked, direct communications from God were pretty sketchy, and those who vocalize "Gods thoughts" seem to be opposed to most recognizable forms of justice.

I think that the concept of Justice originated with secular humans. Most notably Aristotle.

[Why Syzygy]

37. You probably realize

that many of us believe we have some communications that we accept as divinely inspired. Since the subject of the forum is "Religion", those views will be expressed. I doubt that you have heard every view point of Justice suggested in those communications.

Do you consider Justice to contribute to viability/survival of humanity? Similar to game theory?

[TWiley]

40. Why not specifically state your favorite on justice, and I will state mine.

I will go first.

One year, an old man was too sick to make the trip to town to buy supplies.
He decided to send his oldest son.
These three coins, the father said, are all our family has, and we will starve and die if you fail.
Go now to the village, and buy what we need to survive this next year.

The boy put the three coins in his pocket and started his journey.
Along the way, he discovered a stream he had never seen before and decided walk along it a while.
His robe got caught on a twig and the coins fell on the ground.

The boy continued to town before he discovered that he had lost all three coins.
He cried loudly and said, "I have failed, now my family will starve and die in shame"

Soon, another boy came into town rejoicing.
"Glory to God" the boy said "Today, I have found three coins, and now my family will live, and will not die in shame"
The sorrowful boy approached the rejoicing one and said, "Those were my fathers coins, and I want them back"

A crowd of villagers gathered and one said "Return all three coins to the first boy to honor tradition"
Others said "No, God has spoken in defense of the poor. Today the peasant will live. God is Charity"
Still others said "Give one coin to the first to honor tradition, and two coins to the other in honor of charity"
Among those, others still disagreed saying "No, give two coins to the first to honor tradition, and one coin to the second for charity"

Realizing no solution, one villager said "The wise woman must decide" and all agreed.

The two boys stood in front of the wise old woman and told their stories. The entire village was present and silent.
"I have heard enough" the old woman said, "Now put those coins on the table before me" The second boy obediently placed the three coins on the table.

The wise old woman then stuck her hand in her robe and said "In my hand are all the coins I own" Without these, I and my family will starve and die in shame" She then stretched out her hand and placed another three coins on the table. She gave two coins to the first boy, gave two coins to the second boy, and kept two coins for herself.

"Now" she said "We all once had the same amount, we then lost the same amount, and we now have the same amount". "Nobody must starve and die in shame"
"This is Justice"

[Why Syzygy]

41. Cool.

I can't top that story. It's an excellent representation.
This concept only started coming together for me in a meaningful way this past week; after two resources yielded additional information and started clicking.

I don't want to go all holy roller on you, but obviously our perspectives are going to differ as to what the Ultimate in Justice represents. That means that I don't believe we will ever have 'perfect justice' until time is done, but that we should strive for it all the same. So, I'm just going to share some pieces of an incomplete puzzle.

Tolstoy: "When will justice come? When those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are."

It's interesting that our brains seem to be hard wired for fairness.

The human brain responds to being treated fairly the same way it responds to winning money and eating chocolate, UCLA scientists report. Being treated fairly turns on the brain's reward circuitry.

"We may come to be wired to treat fairness as a reward," said study co-author Matthew D. Lieberman, UCLA associate professor of psychology and a founder of social cognitive neuroscience.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/brain-reacts-to-fairness-as-it-49042.aspx?link_page_rss=49042

I think justice can also be viewed as the Ethic of Reciprocity. This should be the ideal of both individuals and society if we are to approach justice. It also has basis in our laws of physics.

But there is near unanimity of opinion among almost all religions, ethical systems and philosophies that each person should treat others in a decent manner.

In our opinion, the greatest failure of organized religion is its historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers. It is our belief that religions should stress that their membership use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, the other gender, other races, other sexual orientations, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

I especially like this one:
# Taoism:

* "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
* "The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

If we want to be people of justice, we will follow those instructions. But, as we know, there are going to be plenty of other people around who are striving for justice only for themselves, not realizing that is impossible; and failing often in ourselves.

That's where the believer's faith comes in, trusting that when all the evidence has been presented, the law of justice will have been served. There is a caveat, in that as a Christian, I believe that our accounts have already been paid, in this time; but, will not be evident until the trial is completed.

[ZombieHorde]

42. The God in the Holy Bilble is not about justice.

Think about the story of the Garden of Eden. All of humanity is punished because two people were hoodwinked by a talking serpent.

How many babies did God murder in the great flood he caused.

God performed all sorts of horrors to Job, just to prove a point to Satan.

The God you invented in your mind may be Justice, but the God written about in the Holy Bible is not.

[Why Syzygy]

45. So man,

who seeks justice, is greater than God?

That would mean that nothing exists greater than man. And while, as referenced in an earlier post, man appears to be hard wired to seek fairness/justice, there is no just among us. What a cruel fate of biology! To hard wire us for a survival desire which has no hope of ever being fulfilled is counter productive to all conditions of evolution!

[ZombieHorde]

46. "greater than God?"

I guess this depends on your definition of God. I was just referring to the one I am most familiar with.

That would mean that nothing exists greater than man.

The Sun? The planet Earth is pretty great in my view.

And while, as referenced in an earlier post, man appears to be hard wired to seek fairness/justice, there is no just among us.

How do you know there are no just among us? What sort of criteria do you use to measure whether some is just?

What a cruel fate of biology! To hard wire us for a survival desire which has no hope of ever being fulfilled is counter productive to all conditions of evolution!

How has our desire for justice and our failure to attain justice interfered with our ability to breed?

[Why Syzygy]

47. I'm not going to engage in a line item debate.

I will respond thusly. But, I will not be drawn into a freeper-ish method of "discussion".
Dissection has its place, but for this, I'm going to stick with concept, which represents synthesis.


The God we're talking about hasn't changed. You start with deflection.

I guess this depends on your definition of God. I was just referring to the one I am most familiar with.

The Sun is perfectly just. We agree on that point.

That would mean that nothing exists greater than man.

The Sun? The planet Earth is pretty great in my view.

Name anyone in history. I've already posted my definition of justice. If you're not going to consider the ideas I've already presented, quit wasting my time.

And while, as referenced in an earlier post, man appears to be hard wired to seek fairness/justice, there is no just among us.

How do you know there are no just among us? What sort of criteria do you use to measure whether some is just?


Breeding is hardly the only requirement for survival. If you care to use grown up discussion, count me in. I won't play the freeper game.

What a cruel fate of biology! To hard wire us for a survival desire which has no hope of ever being fulfilled is counter productive to all conditions of evolution!

How has our desire for justice and our failure to attain justice interfered with our ability to breed?

******

See if you can dispute this. No one can take any action no matter what it is, without *justifying* that action.

[ZombieHorde]

48. "I'm not going to engage in a line item debate."

OK.

The God we're talking about hasn't changed. You start with deflection.

I was trying to be diplomatic because you have been nice to me in the past, but I just pissed you off. So to answer your question, yes, man is greater than God.

I will respond thusly. But, I will not be drawn into a freeper-ish method of "discussion".
Dissection has its place, but for this, I'm going to stick with concept, which represents synthesis.

I sincerely do not know what the above means. I use the bold text line by line method so that I can respond to all of the ideas in your post. My method helps me to organize my post. Do you find it offensive, and if so, why?

Name anyone in history.

Socrates. Mother Teresa. MLK jr.

I've already posted my definition of justice. If you're not going to consider the ideas I've already presented, quit wasting my time.

I didn't see your definition of justice, I am sorry I missed it and offended you. I look at a lot of threads, sometimes I miss things. I went back and this is what I found.

"Justice is based upon legal guidelines. The prosecution is still making its case, which is to accuse and demand punishment (diabolos). Justice won't be measured until after the defense presents its case (paraclete)."

Then there was TWiley's story, which you seemed to like and I found interesting.

You then retorted with: "I don't believe we will ever have 'perfect justice' until time is done, but that we should strive for it all the same."

and this quote:Tolstoy: "When will justice come? When those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are."

I am still not sure how you measure justice. I have been accused of creating straw men when I just guess what people were trying to say, so I like it when people just come out and say what they mean.

Breeding is hardly the only requirement for survival. If you care to use grown up discussion, count me in. I won't play the freeper game.

I was commenting on your evolution comment. The contradiction you proposed in no way impedes evolution.

See if you can dispute this. No one can take any action no matter what it is, without *justifying* that action.

What about involuntary actions? Such as sneezing or rolling over in one's sleep.

What about conscious actions of little consequence, such as fiddling with a pen or shaking your leg.

*************** <---I like this notation and I am going to steal it from you.

I have to say I am disappointed in seeing you resort to insults, but let's use it. How do you justify insulting others?

[Why Syzygy]

49. I didn't insult you.

You replied with a line item debate.

I'm not going to communicate via one liners. If I revise that policy, I'll let you know.

I will still be nice to you.

[ZombieHorde]

50. I don't understand why you are upset. I don't understand your complaint.

[Why Syzygy]

51. It's my feeling

that posting via one line debate method, as both our posts above are, is a method that *feels* freeper-ish. I didn't call you a freeper. I see people I consider nothing more than disruptors and trolls using that method. Whether it is unique to them (trolls) or not, I do not know. I assume not because I don't think you are a troll.

It strikes me as a defensive stance. I know from experience, here at DU, that no productive dialog results from such an attitude. I'm of a *mature* age. I prefer to spend my time in pleasant and/or productive ways. I don't ENJOY responding to gut soup (one liners). I'm very much into integration and synthesis. Bring it all together. :shrug: But if that changes, I'll participate in that style. Not upset with you. I'm glad you asked for clarification.

I'm not being perfectly clear because I haven't given enough thought to bring it to a decently articulated conclusion.

edit: It could be that if you are in the age range that I'm guessing, your school days didn't include a lot of paragraph writing.
Is that correct?

[ZombieHorde]

52. "your education didn't include a lot of paragraph writing. Is that correct?"

No, my education included paragraph writing.

I enjoy the line item method because it is a quick way to touch on all of the points presented to me. I often read and post while taking mini-breaks from my homework (I am doing math homework tonight), so my posts are closer to an outline of ideas than to your preferred paragraph method. The line-item method is usually faster. Another strength of the line-item format is I can ask for clarity concerning a specific point of someone's post easier than if I were to use a paragraph format.

Although I have had many people complain about the subject matter of my posts, you are the first to complain about my posting format, and I also believe you complained about my avatar the other day, which was another first for me. I have been accused of creating push polls, but I have never been accused of posting freeperish or trollish before today.

[Why Syzygy]

53. LOL

I'm just all critical. :blush:

I edited to read "school days" rather than "education", to be less offensive.

Maybe tomorrow will be better for me to take another look at your outline.
I like outlines. Nice framing.

:hi: goodnight

[saltpoint]

6. A church ought to be modern enough to be effective

for its flock. It ought to be reasonably modern enough to be effective.

There is a pervasive and evidently earned impression out there that Benedict is not the man for the job.

[Smith_3]

7. Unfortunately, catholic teachings include the infallibilty of the pope.

If one regards being a catholic as more than being a member of some kind of club (which for instance technically I'm a catholic) then one cannot get around.

[saltpoint]

9. Yes. The infallibility card gets played, even when the Pope says condoms

are part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.

Not all 6th graders are wholly informed on all things but most of them could explain to the Pope that condoms are in fact helpful in the spread of disease.

Papal infallibility is right there, smack-dab in the middle of a lot of debates, and hard to get around, as you say. But in this instance, the 6th graders would be right and the Pope would be wrong.

It really is up to Benedict to publicly apologize for his statement. As a matter of global health policy, he was dangerously mistaken.

[willing dwarf]

12. Infallablity is a red herring

Popes only claim infallibility when the speak "ex cathedra" and that's only happened about 4 times since the doctrine of infallibility was established back in the late 1800's.

I'm with you that this anti condom tirade is an outrage, but you do your argument no favor, you undermine it by making erroneous claims about the infallibility issue.

[saltpoint]

13. I think it is the Vatican who is undermined by referential infallibility.

The "Vicar of Christ" on earth is less a leader of his flock when he is demonstrably wrong.

[Dorian Gray]

15. Did you not read the last poster

the only time the Pope is considered infallible is when speaking ex cathedra. It doesn't mean that any opinion he has is infallible. That is far from the truth.

[saltpoint]

16. I completely understand the distinction in Church doctrine and reassert

that the Pope visited Africa AS the Pope.

He was not there as a private citizen and I contend his remarks do damage to others, in that they represent reprehensible corruption of the truth.

[Goblinmonger]

25. That's not completely true.

Even the bishops have infallibility when it comes to Christ's doctrine as Vatican II explains:
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Vatican II also indicates that when the pope is speaking as the pope (i.e. the shepherd of the church), to Catholics as a whole about matters of faith and morals, he is infallible. If it is ex cathedra it is, defacto, infallible, but that is not the only time that the pope, or the bishops for that matter, can be infallible. As long as it meets the three prong test:
1) speaking as the pope
2) to Catholics as a whole (this is from Luke 22:32 "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.") concerning
3) matters of faith or morals
then it is infallible.

Infallibility is not a cut and dried concept like you make it seem by any sense.

[JerseygirlCT]

31. Not in everything. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

30. I think part of the problem is that

too many - including and especially the RCC hierarchy, seem to think that the pope IS the church, when really, it's quite the other way around.

[saltpoint]

32. Nicely put, and quite a closer reflection of the tenets of the ministry of

Jesus.

The Pope is not being knocked around because he is Catholic. I think he's being knocked around because he is using his religious authority to dictate things to others which don't align with what they need.

The last thing anyone needs -- whether it's Africa or Bolivia or St. Louis -- is to be told that condoms are part of the problem of disease contagion. That's just completely unsound science / medicine / social policy / public health policy.

There is a cluelessness to this Pope. He seems half-visioned. With a broader vision he might see the people you are saying comprise his church.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. Yes, absolutely vision-impaired

He sees no further than the restrictions of his own personality and the all-important maintenance of his power.

The church IS the people - that's hard to maintain with a structure of absolute authority. There's an inherent weakness.

[saltpoint]

34. Agree. It's similar in government, too, at least in one respect, that we are

the government.

Of, for, by the people, etc. That model came under big strain with Dubya, but it feels quite a bit restored under Obama. I'm hopeful.

The Church could do itself a huge favor, it seems to me, to ordain women. I know your situation in your family and praise your parenting and wish only that your Church had felt the trust in its female congregants.

A lost oppoturnity.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. Well, my new church does, and that's a good thing

Perhaps we'll eventually set the example that changes things - who knows?

[old mark]

8. No, you are not thinking correctly about the church: Their whole thing is

that YOU must change to fit THEM, not the other way around.
Pope Benny said early on in his carreer that the catholics in the US who could not abide by the RC church's "standards" should become Episcopalians...So he is willing to drop that amount of people rather than change any doctrine.
They are concentrating on Africa and South America, although you won't see a non-European Pope in your lifetime. They will talk about it, but never do it.

mark

[willing dwarf]

11. Ratzinger is falling back on the stuff he knows

his puritanical schtick.

It's appalling to go to the epicenter of AIDS and denounce the use of condoms. Is he fomenting an invisible genocide? I remember how long it took for SOuth Africa to get past the statements of one political leader who made erroneous statements about how AIDS could be avoided.

This move of Ratzinger/Benedict is like sending germ laced blankets to the native americans.

Ironic the man would have taken the papal name of Benedict which means to speak well.

[geckosfeet]

17. Just the pope dusting off a few WWII era demonization techniques.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. They are going after my governor

It's pathetic.

[Mari333]

19. kind of like its turning into Opus Dei

my mom loves it.

[mitchum]

20. Tradition

[krabigirl]

21. Ugh. I wish a world leader had the cojones to stand up to the Pope.

The comment about condoms causing AIDS is ignorant and causing many more to die or be born into poverty. I hate that church.

[spanone]

22. as a reformed catholic, they are irrelevant in my world...they are guilt mongers

[Peace Patriot]

23. The Church has been into oppressing women and corraling the sexual energy of

the human race, to the purpose of acquiring lands and wealth, and self-glorification of its hypocritical, male, sexual "puritans" for 1,500 years at least; more like 1,700 to 1,800 years--but the patriarchal "church" really cemented itself in place in the 5th Century AD, after a couple of centuries of suppressing the real Christians and burning their scrolls, especially those, like the Gnostics, who worshiped both the God and the Goddess. Suppression of the Goddess, and women, thereafter became the main goal of the Catholic Church, for the next 1,500 years.

The current Church does not date back to Christ and St. Peter, as they like to assert; but rather to St. Cyril of Alexandria, whose mobs of Nitrian (desert-crazed) monks murdered the Greek philosopher, Hypatia, by skinning her alive on the streets of Alexandria, in 415 AD, and also put the torch to the last of the Alexandria Library. Thereafter, with Cyril in the lead, women were obliged to wear veils in church, and were forbidden to speak in church. Hypatia was into reconciling Neo-platonist science and the Christian Gnostics (the real Christians, who, for instance, drew lots for who was going to preside at Mass, and women and even children could be the "priest"), and was a famous teacher and lecturer, who had bishops as her students (for instance, Bishop Synesis of Ptolemais, who corresponded with her on scientific subjects, and revered her as his most important teacher and mentor). The failure of Rome to punish Cyril for Hypatia's murder marks the true end of the Roman Empire in this defiance of Roman law. (Hypatia was a Roman citizen.) Cyril went on to dictate the extremely punitive, powermongering, anti-variety, anti-egalitarian policies of the Catholic Church at subsequent, formative Church Councils. He is now considered a "saint"--in the Roman Catholic Church's lexicon of dead people that they claim are, for absolutely certain, in Heaven.

When Rome's "missionaries" approached Pagan or Pagan/Christian (Pelagian) communities in western Europe, Scandinavia and later England, their designated enemy was often the Sacred Grove, which they prompted the locals to cut down, as a requirement of loyalty to the Roman Church. The Sacred Grove was the realm of the Goddess, and vitally important to successful agriculture (much later, we now know that the connection was scientific, as well as religious--groves of trees are essential to attract clouds, to control flooding and to provide biodiversity). But to the Roman Church--which had smashed Goddess statues throughout the Middle East and Eurasia--it was evil. This imbalance in the psyches of Europeans, wrought by the Church's war on women, has led quite directly to our patriarchal global corporate predators and their destruction of the planet. Nature (the Goddess) is "the enemy"--to be exploited, raped and ruined, for the enrichment of a few men. The Church sees women as chattels, lesser souls--they even argued at one point as to whether women have souls at all--for bearing children to swell the ranks of their congregations, and fill their coffers, just as corporations now view our citizens as cannon fodder for their corporate resource wars. The Church and war profiteers oppose birth control and promote repressive rightwing policies for the same reason: to exploit women to make soldiers for their own purposes, and to control sexual energy for profit.

This Church has gone far, far, FAR astray from the message of Jesus and the New Testament. 1,500 years of sin, crime, hypocrisy and hating "thine enemy"--the opposite of Jesus. These self-worshiping male prelates, swishing around in their velvet and lace robes, ought to be in sack cloth and ashes, for the crimes that they claim to be descended from. They owe women an apology. They owe the world an apology for the sick, distorted religion they have created.

[acmavm]

24. The 'church' has been run by opportunistic power hungry thugs since

shortly after the days it emerged from cult status and became what is called 'organized'.

And I was baptized in the church shortly after birth. I am Catholic school educated.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Well the current pope is every bit as ultra-conservative

as his predecessor, but he lacks the ability to communicate and appear empathetic that JPII had. He's not good at the PR angle, but I don't see that his positions are any different in the least. Still misogynistic at heart, still hidebound in the ways that protect his personal power. Looking back always to the good old days. And stubborn. Very, very stubborn.

[rug]

38. How is one billion a diminishing number?

[saltpoint]

39. A number of the sources note that there are indeed a whole bunch of

Catholics worldwide, but that the numbers are growing in traditionally non-Western parts of the globe, including Africa.

In Europe generally and France notably, the Catholic populations have declined. In the United States, they have declined for example in New England and in some of the Great Lake States.

Catholics who root for the most conservative expression negotiable for the future of their faith note also that in Brazil, the Catholic population decline has apparently stabilized. Various far-right hellfire nutbag Protestant organizations flooded Brazil with missionaries but their impact has leveled off and the Catholics have slightly rebounded.

A conservative Catholic voice (with whom I sharply disagree on most subjects) offers the short article below which is noteworthy because it delineates the beginning of Catholic population decline in the U.S. to the decade of c. 1960s and offers the de-urbanization of U.s. cities as a significant variable in that decline.

http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/2005/Quinn_117-122.pdf

It is also interesting that with the migration to suburbs, the "Reagan Revolution" found fertile ground. Unions and the Democratic Party were far more strained when this "de-urbanization" took place.

[knitter4democracy]

43. His Eminence has been on the crazy side lately.

He talks of bringing the Western and Eastern churches back together, but even we don't go this far in the Eastern Orthodox Church. We're looking into getting women back into the deaconate, and we allow abortion and birth control (we don't condone them, but we allow them), let alone priests being able to marry. Next to Pope Maledict, we look darn close to liberal!

[skepticscott]

44. Your question is awfully broad

It could have been asked at just about any time over the past thousand years or so and still be relevant.