I'm sure that Catholics do a lot more good than harm.

It's like the story of Stavros (this might get deleted):

A tourist is visiting a remote Greek island and decides to climb to the highest peak. There sitting despondently is an old man. the tourist ask him his name, but the old man gets very irate at this point and says:

See those boats down there by the shore? I build every one of them, but do they call me Stavros the boat builder? Oh no!

Look at those houses over on the bluff? I build them all when I was young, but do they call me Stavros the house builder? No.

And those vines over there? I grew them all. My wines are the finest in the region, but do they call me Stavros the wine maker? No they do not!

- But you bugger one goat...................

The Catholic Church is old, traditional, and behind the times. Its membership is dwindling and hence the reason for WYD - to recruit the young. At least the world knows where they stand on issues

More troubling are the fresher newer evangelical churches such as Hillsong. They are all glitz and song and dance which is very attractive to the young. However, their intentions and purpose are not as clear and upfront as the Catholic Church.

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 11:08pm:


Lol, kudos where it counts. However, they are still archaic and behind the times. Either they are incompatible with modern society or modern society is incompatible with them.

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 11:08pm:


My wife is Catholic as well. If I were to believe in a Christian god I wouldn't have been a Catholic - more likely an Anglican.

It's actually a myth that the suggestion that Catholic priests remain unmarried contributes to child abuse.  I heard a report on this recently that sounded reasonable.

My recall is a little vague, but from statistics from the Anglican Church,  the ones who  choose to marry are not the problem when it comes to child abuse. Their biggest problem is extramarital affairs with women in their parish. Usually the actual child abusers have no interest in getting married anyway.

So the argument is that the celibacy of Catholic priests doesn't contribute significantly to the problem.

Hi pommy

"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

In the same way, their wives[b] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus. "

1 Timothy:3, 2 - 12


There is direct  orders as concerns a deacon and an overseer.
A priest, bishop and cardinal are overseers.
There are other quotes about being married or celebate.
Up to yourself is the idea.


muso - I'ld agree that married men are not child abusers and child abusers are not too interested in getting married.
So having a married priset would be a good filter ?

I saw the doco muso was referring to, I am assuming it is the same, I may be wrong, but the upshot was that the paedophiles were buggered in the head already, and that is why they wanted to be priests in the first place.
As a born and raised catholic, I can tell muso that the catholics are no better than the other religions, at the end of the day they are all deluding, self serving, deceitful bastards.
I mean the churches, or religions, not all the individuals unfortunate enough to have been brainwashed with their religious codswallop, and without the intellectual capacity, or integrity to realise or admit their mistake.

bugger religion, it sucks.

Have you seen those poor silly buggers on the telly, all guitars, and grins, and halleluhahs,  I think they could all use a good sexual encounter. I think they may be slap happy. I am sure they are nice enough, but they wouldn't have an original thought amongst the lot of them.

Hi sprint, I think you may have misinterpreted what I meant, because I phrased it so poorly.

I don't mean that people who believe are dumb, I know many who are far smarter than myself, who have a very strong faith based belief.
What I think they do is compartmentalise their belief into an area which they choose to exempt from critical analysis.
They accept that it makes them feel better in some way, and accept it on that level, and leave it at that.

People in this category are however, most unlikely to be the least bit preachy, and accept, and recognise their faith as an imponderable element, that they choose to suspend rationalisation for.

The ones who attempt to legitimise their beliefs on an intellectual level, are not the smart ones, because if they were, they would accept that they have no supporting intellectual arguments at all, to justify their beliefs.

The former group accept a religious philosophy on a very personal level, and contain it there, and that is how all religious people should regard their faith.
If they all did that, we would not see the troubles we always have between rival dogmas, and you would not hear people like me complaining about it.