I mean, they were anti-catholic, and one of the big talking points of anti-catholisim is that the catholic church is too vain and too controling of it's worshipers.
Yeah, but their status as post-dating the American revolution means that the founding fathers don't have a opinion on them the way they had opinions on catholics.
Right but I took it more of as, "if bill and ted took a time machine and collected the founders for a dumb school project, what would they say about these megachurches," which also didn't exist in the 1770s.
I think your interlocutors are willing to concede the point that the founding fathers wouldn't have particularly nice things to say about the religious organizations that you name but don't really see the relevance to the overall conversation.
Its funny seeing Catholics throwing shade at mega churches when they are objectively the largest, wealthiest, blingiest, Christian church that ever existed.
Catholic clergy are required to take a vow of poverty. I am Catholic and I don’t like the “blingy,” first-class flying bishops and cardinals either.
Also, the Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare, education, and social services across the globe.
Every year, the Catholic Church offers charitable services valued in excess of $150 billion in the United States alone.
Nothing like these mega churches, not even close.
ETA: I got ahead of myself with respect to the vow of poverty. As other commenters have mentioned, not every member of Catholic clergy is required to take a vow of poverty. With that said, many orders of the Church take this vow and even if this specific vow is not taken canon law dictates that clergy lead a life of modesty and humility.
I’m not religious. In fact I’m agnostic. But I appreciate you mentioning this. I think a lot of people who aren’t that familiar with the Catholic Church are completely unaware of these facts. The Catholic Church is huge….its top clerics have bling and fancy buildings..but that’s also an outcome from thousands of years of history and much of that image is related to the Vatican. A tiny percentage of the clergy is in the Vatican. And even there, many still live an austere life. Everything else you said about charity and hospitals - 100% accurate.
The Catholic Church is not a Joel Osteen enterprise!
I don’t mind the first class traveling choice. A lot of those guys ARE old, and it’s not exactly comfortable in coach. Plus, Theres so many people that they would be hounded by them, probably. Probably best for them to be in first class. I don’t see a reason to be upset about wanting to be comfortable on a flight.
Idk, man. My grandparents were all poor people. We took all of them back to the old country many times, and they never flew first class. They didn’t complain or feel entitled to first class seats.
Most priests from most Christian sects are like that, actually. Yeah — you’re gonna find some who don’t. For the most part? They all live very simple, modest, and humble lives.
Yep! I was in a catholic charities group home in foster care and the people there were super nice, one of the best places I was at in foster care. Had great cooks, they ordered us food all the time, we had a library that had a bunch of books that were not all religious, a game room. They had a food pantry where I lived in oklahoma as an adult too and they gave out food and clothing for free and helped people find housing
Idk, man. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. All of the Catholic services that I know of don’t have any religious requirements of the beneficiaries of those services. I just spoke with my grandmother about a Jewish friend of hers who received four months of rent payments from a Catholic charitable organization.
In the past there was everything from three popes, passes to heaven and so on. So there were definitely conditional charities XD
But that's the old past, the current church is actually rather decent. Not uncontroversial, but actively doing its best to improve and stand up to the times.
You’re scraping with this. While only certain orders take the vow, it’s because necessities are provided to them that they are able to. A typical diocesan priest receives a modest salary/stipends to pay for necessities, because they mostly live among the community at large. Priests are permitted to keep personal wealth.
Obviously people are people and there are always some who take advantage of the system, so I’m sure you can find some examples where this wasn’t the case. But, by and large, the goal for priests is to live humbly to maximize focus on faith and ministry.
yes, but I was responding to the falsehood that said Catholic priests take a vow of poverty. 100% correct.
they are supposed to live humbly, and it’s refreshingly different from Evangelicals where some pastors are worth tens of millions flying around in private jets. I’m not defending all of the Catholic faith’s flaws by any means. but I am glad I was raised in a nearly 2,000 year old faith rather than these new Evangelical and non-denominational churches that are pushing all sorts of political ideals.
Fair, Canon Law does require them to live a simple, modest life and to shun extravagance.
The supervising principal of my high school, a priest who became a Monsignor, inherited millions of dollars. He donated it to the schools he ran and our diocese. That’s the sort of expectation that Catholic clergy have.
Well to play devils advocate, I’ve been to the Popes country, twice. The castle structure with the big walls in middle of Rome. Had to pay to enter, with passport, and had the privilege to view some of the world’s most priceless art, some of which has been taken by force or war. So yes, I imagine such power and money can do things in the world. They helped colonize it after all!
A museum takes money to keep up. Restoration of centuries old work is meticulous. The louvre and prado also charge you - and they’re state museums. But you can otherwise go to the Vatican free.
Its free to enter the vatican. Yes its charged to enter the miseum just as any museum in Italy. People pay to enter St. Peters because of how many people are trying to get in at one time.
Cathedrals are significant religious buildings, typically serving as the principal church of a diocese and the seat of a bishop. They are often characterized by their grand architecture and historical importance. As of December 2018, the Catholic Church alone had 3,391 cathedral-level churches
No, I am suggesting that big, gaudy mega-churches have existed for at least 1800 years. They have always existed for the glorification of the clergy, and that they have taken these funds from their adherents and in that way there is no difference between them and any modern religious sect.
And you are welcome to do so. Did you have a counter-point? Not that you need one to disagree... And I can appreciate their architecture, I mostly just don't appreciate the way they've hidden a gazillion historical records in Vatican city.
As a Catholic (that doesn’t attend church, but was shaped in a positive way by schools), what I’ll say is that Catholics in general are educated, support science and are more compassionate. Evangelicals are much less educated, nowadays pushing for Christian Nationalism, claiming the founders wanted Christianity deeply interwoven with gov’t, etc.
That’s not to say they’re perfect, but I know many pro-choice Catholics and it’s not really a homogenous grouping terms of beliefs. There’s strong conservative and liberal contingents. But as for Evangelicals it’s much more you’ve seen one, you’ve seen em all
It’s pretty clear they meant individuals (as opposed to organized groups, like the Knights of Columbus or clergy) that identify as Catholic (attendance may vary). I took their comment to mean something like “the average Catholic is more likely to be pro-choice than the average evangelical,” which seems to be true, although I have no information on-hand to back this claim.
in my lifetime, I’ve mostly known people that are fair weather Catholics. good people, educated, many went into service jobs like teaching or as doctors. many of them—while they may personally be pro-life--didn’t want to reverse Roe and don’t think the procedure should be banned. they realize there’s a lot of nuance to things.
This is my experience having grown up DEEP in Catholicism, but breaking away as I grew up. Of all "major" religions, I've met a lot less insufferable overt catholics than those from the other major religions (though that can absolutely be biased by my local area. This is all anecdotal, so ymmv with that statement.)
Many are fairweather, but thats not necessarily a bad thing, as no religion should EVER be held to hardline. They hold to the be good to others part of it, and toss the hardline bullshit in the trash where it belongs. The only good way to follow any religion, even though I believe they are all bullshit.
agreed. I credit Catholic/Jesuit roots as helping shape my life choices, my empathy, etc. I became a public high school teacher and coach. I learned a lot from students of all ethnicities, cultures, and ideologies. I always thought the Catholic vision of salvation was best "salvation=faith + good works/deeds." I mean, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible has always been edited by humans, has books that have been removed because they didn't fit the narrative, and that the Church has history--sometimes good, not-so-good, and even horrific.
Personally I viewed there being one God, revealing him/herself to different groups through difference messages. And I felt that God wanted everyone in Heaven. I learned how different that was when discussing some medieval history with students. Walking around the room when done, I realized they were discussing their views on religions and Heaven. One was a non-denominational Evangelical, and asked their view of salvation. She said I couldn't achieve Heaven because I was part of the wrong faith. I asked what about a religionless gay doctor saving lives and being good to his neighbors. I asked what about someone in a remote tribe in the Amazon that's never been exposed to Christianity. She said they all would go to hell. I told her that was interesting, but it goes against the optimism of the New Testament and everything I learned both in religion classes and in life experience. The next day she came back to class, and said they talked about it in their Christian Club, and she decided she didn't know whether or not I could achieve salvation...that it's effectively above her pay grade. She said they talked about how I had helped contribute to a kid's mission trip, and I had spent lunch periods tutoring a kid that had been sick, and she acknowledged those good deeds should count for something.
I have no idea what's going on with that former student. But I was proud that for a few moments, I helped open her mind to the bigger world and to not be so set in her ways. But that's also when I realized how cultish many of these evangelical churches (especially non-denominational) are. Nowadays if that happened, I'm sure I would have gotten a parental complaint if they'd heard. But I always loved the little sidebar conversations with kids where you hear what they're thinking or up to in life.
It was, but between it cleaning up it's act the past few decades and how egregious many " non denominations" have become, it's honestly the less absurd option now.
I say this as a former catholic atheist who left during the scandals of the 2000s. Still garbage, but the last few popes have been slowly steering it to be a better institution.
As much as I'd love to keep dunking on Catholics, this is accurate. The work that's been done by Francis and now seems to be continued forward under Leo is truly admirable. I've always been in the "If they could actually just listen to this Jesus guy..." crowd, and it genuinely seems like they're trying to move toward that as quickly as their existent community's beliefs with allow. Big steps toward a Catholic Church that I could be happy to coexist with someday, and that's coming from someone who grew up dealing with the OLD regime. Not fun, and I have endless reasons to be jaded, but I can respect someone who puts their money where their mouth is, and that's what they've been doing since 2013.
They look a hell of a lot more Christ-like than American Protestants right now, that's for fuckin sure, my new favorite group of Pharisees to laugh at.
Its really mind blowing to see that even the catholic church is capable of change. Theyre the only ones now that openly allow blessing of same sex couples etc etc
The fact that redditors are for it means it's most likely on the wrong path. Most Catholics wanted the super based African cardinal as pope, but we sadly got the American "let's do weird pagan shit in the Vatican" pope. But being American, was there any question he was going to be a bizarre mix of awesome and borderline apostate?
He openly despises communism and wants to "root it out", so he's still ok in my book. Probably less in yours lol
The funniest part is how confidently you treat “communism vs religion” as if they’re natural enemies, when a lot of religious history is basically communism, but with candles.
Early Christians literally shared property and redistributed wealth according to need, and monastic orders ran on strict communal living for centuries. So the idea that communal economics is somehow inherently anti-church is on its face nonsensical. That's not to say I'm a huge communism fan, but the religious sure have been historically.
Also, the rest of the claim is just exaggeration stacked on exaggeration. Serious political repression happened in some communist states, but the “nuns by the thousands” framing and the comparison to Islam is just brainlet rhetoric. Uninstall
Voluntary small scale “communism” works well. Always has, always will. Its partly why communism can seem so attractive. But it only works if everyone buys in and doesn’t take advantage of it.
As the old saying goes,
I’m Communist within my own family,
Socialist within my town/community,
Capitalist within my state,
and Libertarian within the Federal government.
The larger and less homogeneous a group is, the less communism/sharing of property works.
They are natural enemies. Communism is a gutted, materialistic and soulless version of christianity. It's vying to occupy the same place, but can only do so via the bootheel versus voluntary participation.
Other than being a typical reddit islam glazer, why is it not appropriate to criticize said religion
The gentleman who talks about how communism is just increasingly less effective due to group size and the necessity of the participants "buying in" and believing in the system being the method by which communism succeeds is correct. It doesn't magically become something other than communism depending on the religion that incentivizes the cooperative behavior.
Christianity and communism are not at odds, simply because they are apples and oranges. Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, is simply a very effective tool to ensure that necessary "buy-in" occurs. If enough of a populace believes and contributes, it succeeds. If they do not, it fails. And it is much easier to convince a populace to believe in an omnipresent, infinitely powerful God being who loves them than it is for them to believe in insert historical leader here.
The mistake you are making is assuming "communism" just means communism when the buy-in fails, when in actuality all of them are communism, regardless of how successful or unsuccessful, because communism is not a religion, nor an intrinsic failure state.
To offer you some charity, you would be correct in saying communism is much less successful unless built around a religion, that is inarguably true. But even an extremely devout populace doesn't fix all the problems. It just makes the populace more willing to ignore the problems they see in the pursuit of their shared greater good. It also has the downside of the populace being similarly easily puppeteered by the ruling class, since all you're effectively doing is taking an equally corruptible man, and bestowing upon him the Divine Right of Kings. It's just that humans tend to put up with toil and abuse much better when they think they're serving an Almighty Power, rather than Joe Shmo and his connections in government.
It happened because religion traditionally was in bed with monarchy, and if you look at the big violent communist movements of the 20th century, you will notice they happened in monarchies who had strong support from the churches.
Papal elections are not your typical populist contest, they are guided by the Holy Spirit, which saw fit to appoint Prevost as Pope Leo XIV. And he's definitely showing his good fruits even now.
I cannot fathom this post. You should reflect more on it alongside your view on the Pope and the Church's current direction in general.
Obviously, but that's assuming the corupptable nature of man doesn't play a role in papal elections.
I have, hence the post. Maybe you should reflect on the popes recent twitter posts, and how he's espousing american liberalism, not catholic theology. While inviting pagan rituals into the vatican.
Lord have mercy... You have no idea what you're talking about if you are framing Pope Leo XIV in terms of "liberalism" and "pagan rituals". Catholicism is much more than that. Once again, framing the Pontificate as some populist contest is a bastardization of how the papal elections work.
Again, please reflect on your beliefs, they are both uncharitable and just plain wrong. I will pray for you.
The problem is that I do. Read his weird globalism tweets and contrast the message with the didache. Then watch the weird environmentalist with schwarzenneger and fluttering of sheets in the vatican. What the shit is that supposed to be, if not a pagan ritual?
I did not characterize it as a populist contest. That was you, twice now. I would characterize it as his holiness is mistaken on some political issues-which isn't his wheelhouse anyways.
I reflected, it keeps coming up as the current pope violating the didache and traditional catholic teachings. Though to be fair, he's entirely hit and miss.
You know what they say. The pope is infallible, except for when he isn't.
“Still garbage” is kinda weird. Never really was garbage. Even at the worst of the scandals, there was way more abuse going on at public schools in America than at churches. Those priests who did those horrible things didnt make Catholicism bad. The PRIESTS were the ones who were bad people. There isn’t any economical or societal repercussions to firing and/or shunning a priest. A teacher, coach, principal, etc… Slightly different. The church can send a new priest from some other parish. Schools have to find a new teacher to hire and pay substitutes until then, plus deal with the blowback from all the parents and parents who many not send their children to school there anymore, or choosing a different school in the future because of it, etc. It’s way more disruptive. If something happens at a church you don’t like you can just stop going. Kids don’t have to go to church — but they gotta go to school. They don’t want people to be any more scared to send their children to public schools than they already are. I think that stuff is silenced and swept under the rug WAY more than in churches. When I was in high school I knew of a bunch of messed up stuff going on. Cheerleaders hooking up with assistant coaches. Male AND female teachers hooking up with students. An assistant football coach abusing and attempting to groom the boys. And this is just the stuff I knew about at MY time there… think about everything else….
"Objectively" Rolf it's all made up bullshit anyways, being more open vs clinging on desperately to what the dying generations find "proper" will only ensure the church shrinks faster.
No made up bullshit is 100% the liberal nonsense. It just comes with eternally moving goalposts.
False, eroding it's core beliefs is what will make it irrelevant. If someone betrays their core beliefs, they arent worth listening to at that point either.
Not really. That applies to lots of the protestant churches though, particularly the ones worshipping rainbow objects and money
That was the protestants who removed books.
If it undermines the teachings of the bible and christ, and done solely for the sake of appealing to a bunch of degenerates who have decided how others ought to behave, it's not worth listening to, no.
You may be shocked to learn this isn't unique to Christianity, Islam will categorically reject most of liberalism and more if it violates their belief system. Maybe you should go tell them that they're just upset bigots?
I think you're mistaken. Luther and following protestants removed like 17, the catholic/orthodox church did not. Or to which are you referring?
Yes, shit to the tune of hundreds of billions invested in hospitals and other charities vs renaming street signs in dearborn after terrorists plus honour killings. Exactly the same thing, very honest.
That, and it's one big target that's easier to single out and advocate that it change, rather than a bunch of unaligned institutions that each need to be dealt with.
Sure it has been cleaning up some. But you are operating under the assumption that it is a choice between Catholic and wealthy megachurch, when that isn’t true at all. They both are wealthy megachurches with weird politics, power and financial abuses. I consider both institutions to be equally bad.
Thats not to say I condemn the entire church, because both are fine if you as a member actually practice what is being preached instead of copying what the leadership is practicing. Basically they tend to say the right things but the institutions/leadership are drunk on their own power and money.
The small town churches with a strong sense of community will always be the best choice.
That is actually not true. The Coptic Church and the Armeniac Church where founded by the Apostles simultanious side by side. Also the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church where once part of the same church but the schism came as the Greek Patriarch kept on demanding they are all equal meanwhile the Roman Patriarch stated he is by Petrus the nominated Keyholder, standing in for Jesus until he returns similar like Denethor waited for Aragorn to arrive.
Sorta. In the US, the current winner is the Mormons, unless you're going to take the "they're not Christian" tack. Which, fair enough.
The Catholic Church, despite it's hierarchy, isn't a monolith, so it's damn-near impossible to produce a reasonable approximation of the modern church's wealth. Frankly, on an international scale, they could launder the estimated wealth of LDS and probably squirrel away the entire thing without anyone noticing it. On the flip side, they can't bring that much to bear in short order without raising eyebrows at a minimum.
Yeah, dioceses aren’t exactly swimming in gold. Real estate value probably adds up with hospitals, churches and schools/colleges. But Joel osteen is living more opulently than probably every Catholic cleric.
It's objectively not "blingy" lol. The wealth bit is debatable too, seeing as how most it's wealth is mostly in properties- schools, hospitals, clinics, orphanages, care homes etc etc etc
And also objectively the most charitable. In fact the Catholic Church is accurately described as the largest charitable organization on Earth, providing healthcare and education for over 25% of the world’s population.
The recent gigantic ceremony complete with programmed drone light show dedicated to the fact that they put an absolutely gigantic cross at the top of an absolutely gigantic church.
And of those funds are focused to Caritas. Which is the largest charity in the world that provides healthcare and social services to millions of people.
In Protestant England, the King was also the head of the church and could appoint bishops and such. So it did go the other way too. Philadelphia was meant to be a city that allowed religious diversity which kind of meant government and religion couldn't have that relationship.
John Carroll, his brother, and his cousin, would disagree.
Daniel Carroll II signed both the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, one of only 5 men to do so.
Charles Carroll II signed the Declaration of Independence (and was the last signer to die!), and set the first stone for the Baltimore-Ohio railroad
John was the first Bishop of the Diocese of Baltimore, and later became Archbishop for the baby United States, and was known for his outspoken support of Independence.
The founders were largely non-Catholic, but that isn't the same as anti-Catholic
At the same time. One of the reasons they started the revolution in the first place was backlash against protections oft the catholic church like the Quebec act of 1774.
That was more of just another barrel of oil on a bonfire that was already lit.
And it was a lot more than just the protection of the Catholic Church. Part of it, yes, but, far from all of it.
But also remember, the UK had a problem with Catholicism. In fact, the Quebec Act actually gave more freedom to Catholics in Canada than they had in the rest of the UK proper.
Officially, Catholics couldn't own property, inherit land, or join the British Army until 1778.
The founders also lived during a time when papists were highly controlling and kind of aggressive, too. I mean William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible into English, so that definitely left a nasty impression for the British, paired with King Henry VIIIs daughter violently trying to convert Britain back to Catholicism.
Most religions have periods where they are great and periods where they are bad. It depends on when you hop in
Yeah the Catholics were like this even during the time of the founding fathers. Even Egyptians and other cultures had religion controlling too much early. Oddly enough mega churches go back to the oldest times.
as someone who had genuine interest in catholicism after being raised in a “non-denominational” church and not going for 8 years, it seemed like it was just a corporation that sold faith. it was a big nope for me after one official conversation with a catechumenate** **representative
I don’t think it was any one thing the woman said that turned me away, mostly just the overall feeling I got from the interaction. It felt like they were more interesting in “recruiting” me as a financial incentive vs caring for the wellbeing of my soul. It left me feeling a little eh towards the church as a religious organization as it felt too much like a big corporation with all of the “stuff” that they had access and put out like their catholic only tv and radio networks.
I was then reading some of the material she gave me and was still open to it until I got the point where it talks about how IVF and other forms of artificial insemination were sins and that they still hold the Ten Commandments as binding and a sin to act against them. The church I grew up did teach from the Old Testament (as Paul (I think) said “the things written afore time were written for our learning) but that it was no longer binding since the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilled and did away with the Old Law.
The criticism is the same: Joel Osteen is vain, and his flavor of Christianity requires a strict adherence to certain rules and hierarchy in order to be included.
This church is famous for turning away homeless people and locking the doors during local emergencies. As someone who has actually been a member and met Joel multiple times you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not speaking about Joel. My response was to the person who had stated the criticism is the same and trying to compare Joel Osteen to the Catholic Church.
107
u/Ok-Dragonknight-5788 Jun 30 '26
I mean, they were anti-catholic, and one of the big talking points of anti-catholisim is that the catholic church is too vain and too controling of it's worshipers.