The whole Catholic aesthetic is amazing. Really is the tops.
replies(8):
My source: Warhammer 40,000
There is absolutely no shot that someone would respond to someone sexually abused by their parents with, "On the other hand, I have a loving spouse that makes that same action a very loving and peaceful experience!" It's brazenly distasteful.
Even if 9 out of 10 of cardinals, priests and worshippers were crooked, my faith in Christ wouldn't move one inch (2.54cm); it might actually become even greater.
I think there is a profound difference on how two different kinds of people approach religion.
On one side, I've never given much care to what the "social opinion" of something is in order to engage with it or not. My choice to follow Christ is rooted on myself, not on what I'm told to be right or wrong.
On the other, I can understand people who choose to associate/dissociate from specific groups/trends based on what they hear on the news/radio/etc... and I think that's completely valid as well. There was a even time in our past where having this trait was a desirable thing!
"The aesthetics of $THING are really very impressive whether you believe the underlying mythology or not."
"Yeah well I had a bad experience with $THING so I don't get any joy out of it all because it's dark and sinister!"
...ok? What's the response to something like that supposed to be? Is this Reddit where we should fall over each other to apologize to someone we've never met about a thing that theoretically happened decades ago and also presumably happened to hundreds or thousands of other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
When someone shares that their time in the Church was marked by coercion and abuse, responding with “well, my experience was uplifting” can feel dismissive of their trauma. It’s similar to hearing a survivor of sexual assault and replying, “my sexual experiences have all been wonderful.” Both experiences can coexist as true, but leading with your positive story in that moment risks minimizing the other person’s pain. It's distasteful, and is not conducive to a productive dialogue.
IMHO, the GP has a right to share his experience here as we do ours. A thread on the election of a pope, with a subthread on the beauty of church, is a fair venue for sharing. There's no need for prejudice, disguised as policing, on either side.
You have good intent, but I disagree and believe that "fair for all" does not mean "every viewpoint deserves the same consideration". Specifically, I have spent my entire life encountering Christians who try to tell me I've just had a bad experience and that things are great on their side of the pond, if I'd take a look. But I've read the Bible front to back, I was at the top of every class in my religious studies, I engaged critically with theology during my exposure to it. And my holistic experience revealed the deep hypocrisies, conspiracies and power structures inescapably tied to the Church's past and present.
The Catholic Church, and all Judeo-Christian denominations in general, are simply a vehicle for power and control. It treats its followers well, but those who don't fall in line are often subject to very dark corners upheld by violence.
The truth is that while you think your perspective is more considerate than mine, it's actually more ignorant. I have seen the things you've seen in the faith, but you haven't seen what I have seen. You have an incomplete picture about the realities of the Church.
And yes, it does get tiring and eventually a part of the overall trauma to have well-meaning people completely disregard the truths I share with them and tell me I don't know the Church for what it really is, retreating to their own limited experiences without considering the implications of mine. And while it wasn't your intent, as a group behavior it becomes patronizing. I'm glad you had a good Catholic mother. I had abusive, often homeless drug addicts for parents and was left in the care of a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god, and who was directly empowered and blessed by the Catholic Church to carry out his sick abuse.
P.S.
> who may be willing to improve their dialectic skills
this is also patronizing and snarky especially after beginning your post with "Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate. We should always strive to engage with others on Hacker News in good faith.
The designs look nice, gold looks nice, the pope has some nice swag, but it's all a symbol of power. It's easy to forget that when you're lost in the sauce. SS uniforms looked slick as hell as far as uniforms go, but I wouldn't debate with a Holocaust survivor about why they should see the good in Nazis. The other people in this thread seem to have forgotten about the Crusades.
This is a thread about the Pope, why wouldn't people be allowed to say good things about the religion it leads?
But guess what, some invisible hand hid my comments, even though the one where I expressed my opinion has more upvotes than downvotes and is not even flagged (cc @dang, perhaps you know what happened?). Is it breaking a policy? How is it different from the comment from @soulofmischief? Very tricky situation to be in, I can understand why someone would prefer to just hide it all.
I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
Good news is the pendulum is swinging back, and it's swinging back hard! Deus vult! :D
But to cater to your question, no, he did not send me an email.
He did not have to do anything, I was the one who approached God.
I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad. You're not a teenager anymore.
Source: you.
For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
>it's actually more ignorant
This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide. Just don't do that a lot or you'll get scolded by @dang or @tomhow, and with reason.
>a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god
With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him. Reminds of something from a great writer, "He who has not God in himself cannot feel His absence", perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :).
There's another famous quote "To Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s"; if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved.
>"Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate.
Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
My source is nearly two thousand years of well-documented history.
> For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
That is completely beside the point that not every person gets to have this positive relationship with their cult community, and that some find themselves in its crosshairs.
> This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide
No. Lol. Calling your viewpoint ignorant is not a personal attack. It's objectively ignorant, as you have already demonstrated. "Let it slide?" Did Jesus teach you that one? You need to check yourself and tone down the pompousness and patronizing attitude in your posts.
> With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him
I don't blame an imaginary patriarch who was whitewashed in order to establish colonial White supremacy.
> perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :)
I'm going to again request that you tone down the patronizing, I-know-better-than-you attitude. Apparently you did not pick up on Jesus' teachings of humility.
> if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved
More demonstrable ignorance. I had no one. Everyone I told ignored what was happening, and the police who frequently ended up at my home told me to endure my abuse or find myself in a more abusive foster care system. The Church and my Catholic family empowered this man to do whatever he wanted. You can't just disbelieve this away. I know you're used to just deciding on randomly believing or disbelieving things without veritable proof, but that's not how reality works. My experience is real, and cannot be shallowly dismissed without acknowledgement as to the very real, very documented violent history of the Church, including the Vatican's ongoing direct involvement of covering up child abuse within its ranks, which again, is public record, with plenty of court cases you can google at your leisure.
> Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
Now you're just in denial and being sarcastic, presenting a false dichotomy. No, there were more than two choices you could make when replying, and practicing some humility would reveal those options to you.
No one is mocking you. You appear to have some sort of persecution complex, and are using it to shield you from having to earnestly engage with my replies. You're literally suggesting there is some kind of conspiracy to be unfair against you. I have not downvoted or flagged any of your comments. Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of the crowd and open yourself to criticism.
> I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
You didn't have to reply to my comment with an ignorant, invalidating, dismissive and patronizing take. That was your choice, and the consequence is that people might reply to you in order to point out faults in your attitude and message.
Just because you thought you were well-meaning doesn't mean you were. Your sour approach to discourse has made itself apparent in this thread. Many perpetrators of the Crusades also thought they were doing a good deed.
> You're not a teenager anymore.
Nor are you, I'm assuming, so please answer my question.
> I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad.
You should not become so defensive when pressed for proof of claims you make about invisible patriarchs living in the sky and turning cities into salt because people had too much anal sex.
I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you.
If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can, email in profile, or <username>.com.
I won't engage in this conversation further, not because of you, you can write to me as much as you want over there; but because it deviates from the purpose of the site.
Peace be with you.
For what? Levying warranted criticism?
> I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you
More patronization and smuggery. At no point have I displayed an overemotional response.
> If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can
You need help, but I don't think you're ready to see that. Go back and read through the Bible again, both Testaments, ironically it should help you see the error of your ways here.
> because it deviates from the purpose of the site
You know when you've lost a debate, and that's fine. I hope you have learned something, and next time someone shares their real, valid, negative experiences with the Church, you are not so quick to attempt to invalidate and correct them. There is still much for you to learn about the Church, I have learned what I needed to and moved on. Hopefully that happens one day for you, too. I sincerely mean that. The Church is a perverse organization and you can do better.
Ironically, your patience here feels a lot closer to the humility we’re all supposed to be learning!
Rather, I saw the start of a flamewar below (not caused by you) and I figured I'd say my piece. But it came out wrong and you got flagged undeservingly.
Sorry about that :\
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.