2021: Vatican Calls Homosexuality a "Sin"

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think they are, and agree it is a stretch if technically true. When it comes to bits and pieces of land across the globe and not just inherited royal title, the Catholic Church must be at the top. When it comes to revenue generated directly from real estate holdings, I don't think they are anywhere near the top though.

I do find it funny that with only a couple of exceptions, almost all the people on the list have inherited title because either they, or their ancestors, were deemed to be appointed by a god to better than normal people. I'd rather put my faith in Ted Turner than them lol.

I often wondered about this.

Is the ownership of some random ass Catholic church in Canada a legal entity in Italy? Or do those local parishioners own it etc?

Have to think some of those old ass churches in the downtown areas of like Boston, Toronto, NY etc are sitting on land that is worth $100 million or more.

Also I heard the Mormons own an absurd amount of real estate.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I often wondered about this.

Is the ownership of some random ass Catholic church in Canada a legal entity in Italy? Or do those local parishioners own it etc?

Have to think some of those old ass churches in the downtown areas of like Boston, Toronto, NY etc are sitting on land that is worth $100 million or more.

Also I heard the Mormons own an absurd amount of real estate.

That's the thing. A lot of their wealth is tied up in things that are not easily flipped. It's like how Jeff Bezos is considered the richest person on the planet by some metrics (personally, I think it's Vladimir Putin), but Floyd Mayweather can actually write a bigger cheque on the spot. In order for the Church to survive, it needs to generate revenue. Wealth generates wealth, and without wealth, they can't be charity on a large scale. The business side of the Church is important for that.

And before people say they should just go away, consider for a moment that Catholic institutions employ over 1 million people worldwide and are one of, if not the biggest charitable institutions on the planet. The Economist printed a story a while ago that said the Church does about $170 billion in charitable work (based on data from 10 years ago). Besides being one of the biggest funders for HIV research, they account for between 15-30% of the entire social safety net in the U.S. alone. It's even more in places like Africa and South America.

It's difficult to calculate the exact amount. Catholic Charities USA, the largest group in the U.S., regularly ranks #3 behind the Salvation Army and United Way in the top 400 charitable organizations. But there are other Catholic charities that rank in the top 400 (Father Flanagan's Boys Town for one), and it also doesn't include individual parishes that conduct charity work independent from the Vatican. Taken as a whole, the Catholic Church is quite likely #1 in the U.S. This is in a country where only 20% of the population are Catholics, so it is a pretty substantial contribution. I don't see other non-religious institutions stepping up to take over. They are also the leading hospice givers in North America. Honestly, I would rather have people die in comfort than take it away just to spite a religion I am often at disagreement with.

For all the warts the Church has, it would leave a massive hole to fill if it just disbanded and sold off their wealth on a one-time cash dump as some people suggest they do.

It's also worth mentioning that although the Salvation Army isn't Catholic, it is a Protestant Christian organization. So the #1 and #3 charitable organizations are Christian-based. I mean, come on Atheists, do your thing! If you want to see religion go away, you have to put your money where your mouth is.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's the thing. A lot of their wealth is tied up in things that are not easily flipped. It's like how Jeff Bezos is considered the richest person on the planet by some metrics (personally, I think it's Vladimir Putin), but Floyd Mayweather can actually write a bigger cheque on the spot. In order for the Church to survive, it needs to generate revenue. Wealth generates wealth, and without wealth, they can't be charity on a large scale. The business side of the Church is important for that.

And before people say they should just go away, consider for a moment that Catholic institutions employ over 1 million people worldwide and are one of, if not the biggest charitable institutions on the planet. The Economist printed a story a while ago that said the Church does about $170 billion in charitable work (based on data from 10 years ago). Besides being one of the biggest funders for HIV research, they account for between 15-30% of the entire social safety net in the U.S. alone. It's even more in places like Africa and South America.

How much of this has to do with the condition of the social safety net in these nations? I wonder how the Catholic Church compares in heavily socialist Scandanavian countries, or even in places like France and Germany?

It's difficult to calculate the exact amount. Catholic Charities USA, the largest group in the U.S., regularly ranks #3 behind the Salvation Army and United Way in the top 400 charitable organizations. But there are other Catholic charities that rank in the top 400 (Father Flanagan's Boys Town for one), and it also doesn't include individual parishes that conduct charity work independent from the Vatican. Taken as a whole, the Catholic Church is quite likely #1 in the U.S. This is in a country where only 20% of the population are Catholics, so it is a pretty substantial contribution. I don't see other non-religious institutions stepping up to take over. They are also the leading hospice givers in North America. Honestly, I would rather have people die in comfort than take it away just to spite a religion I am often at disagreement with.

For all the warts the Church has, it would leave a massive hole to fill if it just disbanded and sold off their wealth on a one-time cash dump as some people suggest they do.

It's also worth mentioning that although the Salvation Army isn't Catholic, it is a Protestant Christian organization. So the #1 and #3 charitable organizations are Christian-based. I mean, come on Atheists, do your thing! If you want to see religion go away, you have to put your money where your mouth is.

You are correct about the administrative, social and economic difficulties in liquidating the Church, but I also think that your challenge to the non-religious is unfair without the benefit of a long established centralized administration for channeling charitable work like in the Christian Churches.

[CroFlames]

Interesting stuff. But does the Vatican actually own churches and land around the world?

By contrast, who owns non denominational Christian churches, or other Protestant churches that don't have a central authority like Catholicism?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Interesting stuff. But does the Vatican actually own churches and land around the world?

By contrast, who owns non denominational Christian churches, or other Protestant churches that don't have a central authority like Catholicism?

De-centralised churches are all self-owned. I don't know about all of them, but there are certainly plenty of individual churches within massive denominations like the Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, Lutherans, Methodists, Persbyterians, etc. who all independently own their own buildings.

It might be the same for Anglican/Episcolpal churches, but I cannot say for sure. However, my doktorvater's wife is the Vice-Dean of a cathedral in Chester, and I know from her experience that the individual church building is owned by an independent trust that is constantly needing to fundraise in order to keep it open. It is also a national historic site that receives Federal funding, and yet this is not enough to keep it in operation.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Interesting stuff. But does the Vatican actually own churches and land around the world?

By contrast, who owns non denominational Christian churches, or other Protestant churches that don't have a central authority like Catholicism?

Not sure about other groups, but the Catholic Church does own most of the land that their churches, schools, hospitals, and other buildings are on. They also buy land for other reasons. For example, in parts of the U.S., Catholic environmentalists were able to convince the Church to buy land to construct green corridors between churches in environmentally sensitive areas. I think the organization is called "Good Lands" or something like that. ESRI had a story about it on their website as they have donated resources to help with the mapping. Side note, ESRI is a great company. They donate resources to a lot of social justice and environmental causes.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Besides being one of the biggest funders for HIV research
.

What's the Catholic Church's stand on condom usage?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's also worth mentioning that although the Salvation Army isn't Catholic, it is a Protestant Christian organization. So the #1 and #3 charitable organizations are Christian-based. I mean, come on Atheists, do your thing! If you want to see religion go away, you have to put your money where your mouth is.

Listen, religion can stay, I really don't care that much. However I do care about organizations such as the Catholic church (and yes others) that has institutionalized and facilitated sexual assaults.

Also I feel like Matthew 7: 3-5 applies

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What's the Catholic Church's stand on condom usage?

I knew someone was going to point that out. It's the opposite of their stance on monogamy and abstinence. They don't approve of it, like a lot of religious groups. I know a lot of non-religious men who don't approve of them either.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I knew someone was going to point that out. It's the opposite of their stance on monogamy and abstinence. They don't approve of it, like a lot of religious groups.

They probably wouldn't need to put so much money to HIV research if they support condoms, or come to think of it they could save some money in childcare and orphanages if they supported condoms

I know a lot of non-religious men who don't approve of them either.

Those men as #######s.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

They probably wouldn't need to put so much money to HIV research if they support condoms, or come to think of it they could save some money in childcare and orphanages if they supported condoms




Those men as #######s.

The way I look at it, HIV transmission is number one, a lifestyle issue. The lifestyle they promote would be effective at reducing transmission of the virus, but considering the amount of discipline and willpower it can take, it is not going to work all the time. For that reason, they shouldn't discourage condom use as it is a public health matter. I think the way they look at, and just guessing, is that failing to hold your urges is a sin, but is easily forgivable because the aftermath probably involves real remorse. Having condoms ready for use shows an intent or premeditation to committing a sin, therefore makes it worse. But if you already have one and you plan on breaking the other rules, you might as well use it. I disagree with the stance, but I can see the moral dilemma a devout Christian might have.

To put it another way, if a Catholic already has a sex life that puts him at risk, that person is already likely sinning in the eyes of God. At that point, not using condoms is a personal choice and not a religious one. It's a convenient excuse to tell their partner though I guess.

I personally think the bigger issue is birth control and population control. I can't find any moral argument to discourage condom use for that purpose.

[Fuzz]

Or, and here's a crazy thought, maybe you should make people feel guilty for doing something natural, loving and fun. Or you can continue to inflict mental anguish on people for no good reason.

Man, I hate this stuff. Whatever good they claim to do, their is always an evil that goes with it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Interesting stuff. But does the Vatican actually own churches and land around the world?

By contrast, who owns non denominational Christian churches, or other Protestant churches that don't have a central authority like Catholicism?

in episcopalian churches like the Catholics and Anglicans church property is owned by the level above, so the parish church is owned by the diocese, the diocese property is owned by the Arch Diocese and, in theory the Arch Diocese property would be owned by either Rome or Canterbury, I suspect the transfer of wealth out of the country might be legally a bit more contentious though

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The way I look at it, HIV transmission is number one, a lifestyle issue. The lifestyle they promote would be effective at reducing transmission of the virus, but considering the amount of discipline and willpower it can take, it is not going to work all the time. For that reason, they shouldn't discourage condom use as it is a public health matter. I think the way they look at, and just guessing, is that failing to hold your urges is a sin, but is easily forgivable because the aftermath probably involves real remorse. Having condoms ready for use shows an intent or premeditation to committing a sin, therefore makes it worse. But if you already have one and you plan on breaking the other rules, you might as well use it. I disagree with the stance, but I can see the moral dilemma a devout Christian might have.

To put it another way, if a Catholic already has a sex life that puts him at risk, that person is already likely sinning in the eyes of God. At that point, not using condoms is a personal choice and not a religious one. It's a convenient excuse to tell their partner though I guess.

I personally think the bigger issue is birth control and population control. I can't find any moral argument to discourage condom use for that purpose.

So to be clear, love and the consensual expression of love is a bad thing.

Come on Catholics, et al be better.

[Two Fivenagame]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's the thing. A lot of their wealth is tied up in things that are not easily flipped. It's like how Jeff Bezos is considered the richest person on the planet by some metrics (personally, I think it's Vladimir Putin), but Floyd Mayweather can actually write a bigger cheque on the spot. In order for the Church to survive, it needs to generate revenue. Wealth generates wealth, and without wealth, they can't be charity on a large scale. The business side of the Church is important for that.

And before people say they should just go away, consider for a moment that Catholic institutions employ over 1 million people worldwide and are one of, if not the biggest charitable institutions on the planet. The Economist printed a story a while ago that said the Church does about $170 billion in charitable work (based on data from 10 years ago). Besides being one of the biggest funders for HIV research, they account for between 15-30% of the entire social safety net in the U.S. alone. It's even more in places like Africa and South America.

It's difficult to calculate the exact amount. Catholic Charities USA, the largest group in the U.S., regularly ranks #3 behind the Salvation Army and United Way in the top 400 charitable organizations. But there are other Catholic charities that rank in the top 400 (Father Flanagan's Boys Town for one), and it also doesn't include individual parishes that conduct charity work independent from the Vatican. Taken as a whole, the Catholic Church is quite likely #1 in the U.S. This is in a country where only 20% of the population are Catholics, so it is a pretty substantial contribution. I don't see other non-religious institutions stepping up to take over. They are also the leading hospice givers in North America. Honestly, I would rather have people die in comfort than take it away just to spite a religion I am often at disagreement with.

For all the warts the Church has, it would leave a massive hole to fill if it just disbanded and sold off their wealth on a one-time cash dump as some people suggest they do.

It's also worth mentioning that although the Salvation Army isn't Catholic, it is a Protestant Christian organization. So the #1 and #3 charitable organizations are Christian-based. I mean, come on Atheists, do your thing! If you want to see religion go away, you have to put your money where your mouth is.

The Catholic Church is also #1 in child rape.

[jayswin]

Canada is one of 9 countries where religion is on pace to go extinct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12811197

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.
The team's mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one.

The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.

The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

[81MC]

Almost life as quality of life increases, the need to have a higher meaning diminishes. It isn’t exactly surprising that when life is great, all your needs are met, you’re safe from other members of society, and you don’t risk starvation if the weather sucks,, that you don’t pray for some help.

Isn’t there an actual term for where failures are performed to be unavoidable or no fault of your own, while success is perceived to be the result of to it own actions? When is the last time these nations actually faced real threat en masse? Of course there’s no god, the standard of life we lead is from our own hard work, not divine intervention. We can make the obvious assertion about religious folks, without any of the strife of those who are.

Now if life was relatively hopeless, there was no future to look forward to, we were generally brutally poor and the crops failed again...I can certainly see why someone would need both a higher being to rationalize the sufferings of life with, and something, anything, to keep society from turning into anarchism.

We are living as easy as has ever been known to man. Far and away, the standard of life anyone posting on this message board enjoys is better than all of everyone, ever. It’s insanely easy for us to live. Might be harder for a Nigerian orphan who might get to die at 50 from AIDS to come to terms with that being the sole meaning of existence.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Canada is one of 9 countries where religion is on pace to go extinct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12811197

Good, can't come soon enough

[Thor]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What's the Catholic Church's stand on condom usage?

The Catholic church not only condemns the use of condoms, in AIDS riddled Africa they have often publically told African's that not only are condoms not ok, but they also fail and are unreliable, even helping propagate the ugly myth that condoms cause all kinds of health problems.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Thor

The Catholic church not only condemns the use of condoms, in AIDS riddled Africa they have often publically told African's that not only are condoms not ok, but they also fail and are unreliable, even helping propagate the ugly myth that condoms cause all kinds of health problems.

Much of my Mom's side of the family lives in the Philippines and it's the same BS there. Condoms are completely taboo and it's no wonder each family has like 5+ children. An already severely overpopulated region on tiny spaces of land, but don't you dare use condoms because Jesus says they are so bad. I remember going there and finding it hard to find any in stores. I was told that the only people who use condoms there are foreigners visiting brothels (who usually bring their own) and women who work as prostitutes.