Catholic bishops in Quebec want government help

Assembly of Bishops requesting taxpayer dollars to cover operating costs

Quebec’s Catholic bishops are asking the provincial government to help their struggling parishes make ends meet. The group’s proposals include a request the province start covering the day-to-day operating costs of churches. The Assembly of Bishops says that, barring government help, catholic churches in province are liable to be sold to developers, who’ll transform them into condominiums or music venues.

Le Soleil




Browse

Catholic bishops in Quebec want government help

  1. Whaaat??

    NO.

    • NO, NO, NO

  2. They have operated tax free.
    No dam way

  3. The masses may not go for this.

  4. are these the same bishops who complained about the fact that there are too many masses being offered in English for immigrant communities?

    At least in America, no bishop would be stupid enough to make such a request.

  5. Why isn't the Vatican bailing them out ?

    • Because the Vatican bank is in legal hot water of it's own.

  6. What's French for chutzpah?

  7. Oh! Oh! I've got it solved! And it won't need any public subsidy! I give you La Charte de la culte québécoise:

    French Canadians in Québec may attend no other church but Catholic. Canadians whose parents can produce credible evidence that they attended a non-Catholic church (or synagogue or mosque) in Canada may obtain a certificat d'hérétique for permission to register with a non-Catholic place of worship; their descendants may apply for a similar certificat if they can prove that at least one parent, holder of his or her own certificat, did register with (and did for at least one year regularly attend services at) a duly-certified heretical place of worship in Québec. Les néo-québécois will have the permission to join any Catholic church of their choice. C'est normal that the Québec Catholic majority, threatened by a North American sea of non-Catholicism, will seek to protect its identity.

    It's perfect! And there's already a bureacracy set up in Québec that has exactly this mindset.

    I sure hope Max plays along with this…

  8. This is 2011, churches in Quebec and all other provinces, regardless of religion, need to get their fiscal houses in order or lose it all as they are losing their flocks. Christians, and for that matter most other groups, pray to the same Maker under a litany of names. So, close down churches that cannot pay for themselves, and share their buildings of worship with other denominations. Bishops, surely you do not think that the ecumenical council of the 60s was a one way street.

    You know all about taxes and death so pay up or close up.

    • Churches don't pay taxes.

  9. Solutions: sell off church buildings & properties not able to support themselves via their congregations. Put
    the money earned back into a few outstanding churches that will be preserved for posterity.
    Hold services in basements of people's houses. Allow male Roman Catholic Priests to marry women or
    men if they are gay (so the abuse of the young will hopefully stop). This will also stop legal costs of abuse cases
    from draining the weekly dwindling parish collection-plate coffers. The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the car industry requiring a bale out. Christianity will survive this downturn and Priests knew about congregations diminishing even ten years ago
    so it has not been a surprise. The church will morph into new ways and means…..Jesus' message will
    go forward but not in the same format and culture of the Catholic heyday of the 1950's.

    • If you believe in the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden you are deemed fit for the bin. If you believe in parthenogenesis, ascension, transubstantiation and all the rest of it, you are deemed fit to govern the country.

      –Jonathan Meades

  10. Lazy, piggish, selfish, me-first, gimmie-gimmie, screw you attitude isn’t a surprise coming out of Quebec but coming from their church, that’s pushing it. NO MORE QUEBEC FREEBIES.

  11. Once you give concessions to one group, other unfolding hands follow. What is going on with Canada's culture, why so many depend and expect on being taking care of by the state? What happens to "Responsibility"? Is it dead in Canada? Socialism is a killer of Responsibility, it institutionalized dependency, helplessness, and idiocy . Without balance, we will be heading such black black hole. Oh, I forgot where already down here! Do they expect taxpayers to be on the hook for their legal bills to fight sexual abuses too? Religious bill 101 anyone (for the good of protecting distinct culture)?

  12. Let the free market decide, Padres…and apparently is already has.

  13. We are turning a page in history. The people have no use for the Church as they see it for the ridiculous bronze age myth that it is. We do not want it, have no use for it and we should let it fade into history. Let the enlightenment continue.

    • Amen

  14. Maybe if they turned over all pedophiles still hiding in all corners of Quebec and the charge all those that helped to hide them, then maybe….. But wait that would not leave anyone left……

    • not even then. not a penny

  15. Since Quebec is a receiver of transfer payments this would mean that all Canadians would shell out hard earned money for a cult. Why would we want to support an evil organization controlled by pedophiles?

  16. To heck with music venues and condos…some of these places would make great strip joints!

    …and we'd still be left with something that celebrates Quebec culture!

    • you are preaching to the choir.

  17. Can the churches be converted into arenas? They may replace God with hockey, but most of Québec's youth may not mind that much.

    • Or notice.

  18. since when does something concerning money and Quebec not concern the rest of Canada.
    read taxslave comment re: transfer payments….ie OUR money sent/given to Quebec.

  19. Why not ask Harper to fund churches using the federal gas tax? Catholics vote, right?

  20. Thank you for the commercial, but not everybody is catholic nor do they want to be.

    • I meant to add that 'western civilization'….as opposed to the other civilizations….started with the Greeks. And they had education and hospitals and art etc long before catholics were ever heard of.

      • And yet these same Greeks converted to Christianity are are still largely Christian today and are part of a Church that is probably even less acceptable to you than Catholicism.

        • Mmmm try the ancient Greeks…Plato, Socrates…. not the Greek Orthodox church of today.

          The ancient Greeks disappeared long time ago…..and then there was that upstart… Rome

          Catholicism has only been around for a short time.

    • obviously not everyone is, but neither is everyone anti-Catholic, I was standing up for a minority which everyone else here has nothing but scorn and hate for

      • No, indifference. So don't play victim.

  21. The Catholic Church was one of the main causes of the Dark Ages . Its backward stances on hygiene, medicine and science in general caused everything from the plague to a serious decline in the quality of life of the average citizen. Without the Church science would be at least 4 to 5 hundred years more advanced. We would have cured cancer among other maladies and space travel to other planets and systems would be common place.

    • Like the Church or not, I could care less, but your comment is wrong on every point from start to finish. You are ignorant of history and science.

      • To see to what depths the human mind is currently devolving, we must understand the true history of what has been called the Dark Ages. Only by going behind the falsifications of historians prejudiced by their Christian beliefs is it possible for us to understand how degraded people's minds had become during the fifth through sixteenth centuries in Europe: the earlier Dark Ages.

        Europe languished in intellectual and cultural retrogression during the Middle Ages, while the light of wisdom was preserved and advanced by those they labeled "the infidel Saracen." The reintroduction of the Classical (Greek) Tradition and the Perennial Tradition through the confluence of European and Muslim thought, beginning around 1000 CE, revitalized earlier conceptions of knowledge as derived from experience–participation in reality.

        As d'Alembert states in his introduction to the French Encyclopedia,

        "most of the great minds during those dark ages . . . were preoccupied with a thousand frivolous questions about abstract and metaphysical being instead of thoroughly investigating Nature or studying man."

        As Christianity led humankind into a mindless life of obedience to its dogmas and leaders, the light of human intelligence began to go out. Christendom lost the art of brick and tile making, of bridge building and public sanitation. A despotic theocracy did not want people to think or to examine the world about them.

        • Still more huey. Greek science was dead within one or two generations of its major flowering. Christianity doesn't show up as a significant social movement for another 600 years, during which the Roman Empire flourishes in one of the most outstanding displays of inhumanity. Human culture is so degraded that it takes over 1000 years for minds in the Occident to even begin to re-develop the capacity for investigation of natural phenomenon.

          Fat load of good Greek learning did for the Saracens.

          "A despotic theocracy…" Gary, they were saving the likes of you from yourself.

          • And also let us not forget how much of that Saracen learning was simply a result of their contact with the Orthodox Byzantine Empire (which they eventually destroyed.)

          • None of you folks paid attention in history class I see.

            Catechism will do that to ya.

          • Yet the catholic church still tried to reconcile Jerusalem with Athens much later. If Greek Science was dead many centuries prior to this that does speak volumes about Aquinas' achievements.
            To see the stultifying effect of the church you just have to study the history of the early church fathers around the med. Not big fans of knowledge, inquiry or curiosity those guys. After Constantine things started to lose momentum greatly in terms of acquisition of knowledge in Europe. Art was kind of boosted but only so far as it was scripturaly based. Bishops of Milan repeatedly prevented any discussion using Greek philosophy. Their view was that they had the one perfect book and needed no more. Book burning was common as was the destruction of libraries.
            You are right that islam fell into the same myopic trap a few years later but until they did, they acted as a reservoir of literature and knowledge while it was being destroyed in xtian areas.
            To see how bad catholicism was for a country just study the history of Spain and look at how different countries fared post Luther, when some realms broke free of the influence of Rome or post Henry VIII when England did like wise. One side thought outside the box as individuals and groups and took risks, one side deferred to the wisdom of clerics and tradition.
            As for the Romans they brought a lot of innovations with them and certainly were no more inhumane than their neighbours. If you think they were bad, then you cannot think much of xtianity, they became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century and ran it given your maths for 600 years before things changed.

          • I am not here to defend the Catholic Church or to play tit for tat with your simplistic cherry picking.

            Gary's comment is factually untrue. Hence my rebuke.

            You demonstrate a graphic novel understanding of history.

          • Not really I've studied a bit with respect to Aquinas and the early church focusing on the first 4 centuries as well as the appearance of Luther. All of what I have said is brief and as such is not detailed and is a generalisation of sorts.
            Given your responses with respect to the Romans and their contributions to the west and how it facilitated the growth of xtianity the comic book understanding of history lies with you.

          • What relation does Luther have to the first 4 centuries of Christianity? Oh, right, PRIMATIVISM.

            Ancient Rome only has a good name because of a handful of writers that, in the midst of utter darkness, managed some smoothness of literary expression.

          • What utter darkness?

          • He arrived out of the corruption that formed the foundation of the Church in his time.
            I see where my use of language may have tripped you up in my comment, maybe this is clearer,
            Not really I've studied a bit with respect to Aquinas and the early church focusing on the first 4 centuries. As well as the appearance of Luther.
            There that better

          • How does one arrive out of corruption? I get the gist, so I assume, of what you say, but it is hardly clear.

            Anyhow, my possition is this: Gary is wrong in asserting that we'd be flying amongst the stars (how Faustian!) by now if it weren't for the CC. Where that true, the Chinese or people of India would have beat us to the punch.

            Regarding Emily's assertion: "And the Catholic church burned scientists at the stake….they have indeed held back progress by centuries." I take umberage with the completely false idea that the CC actively rounded up people claiming to be scientists and burnt them at the stake because they where scientists. Never did I say that people didn't die at the stake, something we all find quite gruesome.

            As to your position pro Romani ancienti, I find so very little, during the whole course of it, that can be held up as laudable, given the major expressions of the culture.

          • A simple example of the corruption that the early church fathers allowed to enter into the orthodoxy of the early church that advocated anti-intellectualism can be seen in their attitude towards open inquiry. This is illustrated by the change form the debates and inquiry of the early church to the ideas espoused by Augustine in 4/5 AD.

            "There is another form of temptation­, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity…… It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understand­ing, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."

            The obsession that had evolved within the Western church to do with the apocalypse had changed the church's focus. Now it was all about preparing for the end times and to do that all you needed was the bible. Any other form/source of knowledge was rapidly becoming moot so why would you even look for it. In fact it was the church's opinion that they should dissuade from wasting your time. This obsession with end time continued unabated right through 1000 AD (Richard Landes books give a detailed look at the process in France.)
            Then not only was knowledge outside the bible not to be investigated the church then monopolised the bible and its contents. It wasn't until the protestant era that bibles in the vulgar tongues were produced and heaven help those found in possession of them. In the 1500s many a bible smuggler experienced an auto de fe in catholic Spain for this particular heresy.
            Emily was right with citation of the two scientists who were killed, but look at it this way, if the church were willing to burn xtians just for having a non-Latin version of "approved" knowledge, just how many inquisitive sorts would need to fry before everyone else who might be tempted to inquire might get the hint.
            "Kill one to rule them all," is a tactic that has worked throughout history especially when combined with an efficient informer network.

            As for the Romans, you do sound like the Peoples Front of Judea, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

          • Those splitters?! We're the Judean People's Front, thank you very much. I don't see how you can consider the Roman empire to be a great scientific culture. Engineering, yes, but there is a big difference.

            G. Bruno was did not suffer auto de fe because he was a scientist. It is more accurate to call him a natural philosopher, I would also suggest that the work that won him such esteem in the 18th & 19th century was more like speculative cosmology. The only one in the pantheon of "scientists", to be truly worthy of the name is Kepler. He actually investigated a natural phenomenon, the orbit of Mars, and with his mind, as opposed to Galileo's more empirically flavoured telescopic discoveries, discerned the truth of the matter. Otherwise, I find Bruno a fascinating person, and hope to devote more time to him in the near future.

            Vanini was very bad at picking his friends – Pomponazzi!! But I must admit, I am at a loss, can you provide a link to his actual scientific works, as opposed to his theological speculations? Such details are lost on others, but I do hold them as being of some importance.

          • The problem with tagging some one as a scientist in the reformation era is that while they might have practiced in areas we would recognise as science today they invariably practiced other stuff too including religion. Everything was lumped under the heading of Philosopher. A persons scientific theory back then would undoubtedly have held some religious and philosophical content as well as content from pseudosciences like astrology. To be persecuted as a scientist then would mean disputing the "undisputed accuracy of the works of Galen etc. I'll recommend Philip Ball's "The Devil's Doctor" here and his biography of Paracelsus as a terrific example of just how lines were blurred. As for Vanini the way I interpret his "scientific" credentials are that he argued against the church approved method of furthering knowledge at the time. This relied on inducing new knowledge from existing knowledge in an argument. While great for the # angels on a pinhead type discussions it was definitely at odds with using observation as a basis for furthering knowledge. He question the orthodoxy of his day and suggested that there might be other methods of acquiring truth. This is the first step on the road towards the scientific method.
            Induced evidence for an anti-science approach in the church can also be seen in the behaviour of those we would recognise as scientists. For an illustration of the fear that Scientists had for the implications of their work you need look no further than Copernicus. That fear was real and based upon preceding events that involved "scientists" in the day and before.

            Back to the Romans as kind of a flippant aside, I possess a degree with the identifier BSc (Eng), and have found the overlaps frequent and the areas of separation not necessarily that huge. Also a fair degree of Science was required in testing engineering principles and finding suitable materials for the job in hand

          • Let's start with the BSc (Eng) first: Come on! The cultural overlap of engineering and science is definitely a modern development. You can't possibly equate your degree of today with what was going on 150 years ago, much less 2000.

            Fear in Copernicus was not of the CC, it was his contemporaries in natural philosophy. Additionally, Copernicus was not at all scientific in the sense that you or I would consider. He was very much of the Aristolelian mode. His cosmology had more epicycles than Ptolemy! He didn't make a discovery, per se, he importated Aristarchus and reasoned there from.

            Thank you for the recommendation on Phillip Ball. I shall also retract my "graphic novel" jab, with apologies. I will also concour with a good deal of what you say in your main paragraph. It gets me going when these people, Bruno, Paracelcus, Kepler, Cusa, Galileo, etc., are taken from the historical context in which they had their arrising (possibly out of corruption?) and they are talked about as if contemporaries. It leads to gross simplifications, tends to ignore the political machinations of the time, and turns them into graphic novel caricatures.

          • The BSc.(Eng) is probably more accurate for those far off times. It would be hard to separate the scientists from the engineers then as both disciplines were practiced by the same folk. Science and maths led to engineering solutions to problems. The trebuchet is my favourite.

            While you have a point that Copernicus might have feared his peers it was the power of the time that could enforce any punishment and that was the church.

            Historical context is everything, you are right, That's why whenever a politician today is caught using the excuse "I was taken out of context," it annoys me. They have no idea what being taken out of context means. Enjoy Ball's book it is a great insight into the transition between two very different ways of thinking and is a stunning smack in the head for anyone who thinks they know how folk have always thought.

    • Actually most historians now would tell you that the Dark Ages were a bit of a misnomer, the ideas you are spouting now are just old English Protestant ideas, secularized to conform with your world-view. The plague was caused by an increase in global commerce during the middle ages (the rats and flees traveled by ship.) True enough people did not know how to fight plague then but they didn't know that in ancient Athens either. To an extent there was a dark ages it was due to pagan tribes from northern Europe over-running the Roman Empire. There were no "Dark Ages" in the Orthodox Christian East (Byzantium). In the west the Church gradually converted and civilized the peoples of Germany, England, Scandinavia, etc. It was a long process but we got there. Your claim about science being 500 years more advanced without the Church is insane. Counter-claim, without the Church we'd all be Muslim and 500 years behind. Maybe maybe not, but there is about as much evidence for that as you have for your claims. The church produced many great scientists, the origins of celluar biology, genetics, and even the big bang-theory were all the products of Catholic clergymen who doubled as scientists.

      • Muslims came after Christians….Muslims have Jesus you know.

        And the Catholic church burned scientists at the stake….they have indeed held back progress by centuries.

        • name two.

          • There are lots of them, but you asked for two

            In 1619 Lucilio Vanini was burned alive at the stake for proposing that humans evolved from apes

            They tore out his tongue first, because he also said the church was only in it for the power

            Giordano (Filipo) Bruno, 1548 to 1600, was imprisoned by the Inquisition for 7 years, tortured & burnt at the stake. His crime was to publicly state that the Universe is infinite, stars are distant suns, and that other worlds are populated. He also subscribed to Nicolaus Copernicus' Heliocentric view of the solar system.

            Which is why Galileo…threatened with the same fate, recanted.

            E pur si muove!

          • Galileo! What a fraud. Lied that he wasn't advocating Copernicus when he clearly was. Why he would support Copernicus when Kepler had the better interpretation. It isn't as if he didn't have a chance to read Kepler. Galileo wasn't burn't at the stake, either, so that red herring gets kicked to the curb.

            Bruno wasn't burnt for his science. Neither was Vanini.

            You fail.

          • Nope, sorry….the whitewashed church version doesn't stand, on any of them I'm afraid.

            Don't make sh*t up, it's recorded history.

            And I said Galileo recanted to avoid being burned.

          • Don't make $%^& up!! When have you ever resisted that temptation?

          • I can always source what I say….that upsets you.

            So again, don't make sh*t up.

          • I am still waiting for any evidence that the Catholic Church actively burnt scientists. Considering the rarity of true scientists, as opposed to enthusiast of scientism which are altogether too abundant, it aught be the easist thing in the world to do.

            And, no, you can't source what you say. That I find somewhat upsetting.

          • Again, you're making sh*t up.

            It's recorded history, sorry.

            No whitewash will cover it up.

          • He didn't say "E pur si muove!" either!

          • No, I did.

          • No, you did not. You typed it out. You are certainly not the author of it either. You quoted it. That you do not understand the difference is case in point for your reputation.

          • No, dear….I wrote it with a quill pen.

            Of course I typed it out you ninny…and it's the phrase connected to Galileo, instantly recognizable.

            You have no idea if he said it or not so don't be making sh*t up.

          • Connected it is. Say it he did not. I have a very clear idea that he did not. I obtained it in the readily available investigation of the mater. You may find such an account the The Sleepwalkers, by Mr. Koestler. There was also a multiparty review of the extensive documentation of G. Galileo's appearance before a judicial review in the mid 1800's that completely debunked any assertion that Galileo was persecuted.

            Additionally, he was not burnt at the stake, so I do not know what talking about Galileo has to do with your assertions that the Catholic Church actively burnt scientists.

            Epic fail.

          • You have no idea if he said it or not….you weren't there.

            He may well have said it after he returned to his house…under arrest.

            And I told you he wasn't burned at the stake…..pay attention.

            I said he recanted because otherwise he would have been….just like the others.

            Sorry…the church whitewash simply won't work anymore

            Those days are over.

          • Oh, and you were there? Not. Fail.

          • No, not even I am that old. LOL

            However, it's long been attributed to him, so he no doubt said it at some point even if it wasn't in 'court'

            Are you aware Galileo's hand is preserved with the middle finger up?

            Obviously he didn't do it….but his friends summed up his feelings. LOL

          • You put words in his mouth and now you know his feeeeellings? Can you talk to Houdini, too?

          • Ahhh the well-known method of Con 'debate'

            You've lost on all counts, so now you do the sexist 'feeeelings' and question my sanity.

            Sorry, Epic Fail

          • Does mommy know you're still up?

          • Just so you know, I think you make a lot of sense.

            However, some bloggers here have serious issues (in their heads).

            It's clear that countries which followed Christianity are the ones who innovated the most in the history of humanity, in arts, history, research, HUMAN RIGHTS, etc..

            Islam countries are expert in terrorism. This must be in the Kuran as all their countries revel in it.
            Why do people think the French invaded Algeria in the first place ? (Pirates? Slave traffic?) Those are facts. Some people live in fantasy world where Elvis is still alive, Communism is a good think (look at North Korea).

            The good thing, is that people are starting to wake up that stuff like what Emily says is false.

            The next few years are going to be fun to watch….

          • Another history flunk-out I see.

            Probably a creationist at that. LOL

      • Your attempt to link the dark ages idea with old Protestants has some merit, but modern investigators still acknowledge the anti- intellectual attitudes of the early church fathers and how these ideas were promulgated into the early catholic church and beyond. A decent primer on this is the "Closing of the Western Mind." Some of its conclusions can be queried but not the accuracy of the quotes from the churches pillars.
        Certainly anybody trying to say what would have happened if such and such had happened and claim huge differences like 500 years cannot be taken seriously.

  22. It will be sad to see the beautiful buildings your pious ancestors built get converted into bars and condos.

    Better they should just stand there housing congregations of seven to twelve octogenarian parishioners each? Tick, tick, tick…

    • You want to talk about ticking and tocking, in the United States the highest birthrates are in Utah. In Europe they are among Muslims. The future does not belong to secular people maybe having that one kid in their 30's. If the Catholics go it will be interesting to see who is actually on the rise in a few generations.

      • There are over a billion atheists in the world alone. And those are just the ones we know about.

        We are not about to become Catholics to avoid becoming Muslims….that's absurd.

      • Again this myth that the only way to propagate your culture is to breed it.

        Create a culture that actually serves people's needs, and it'll get converts that negate the need for a high birth rate.

        • You make it sound like all you need is the right recipe to make a culture. I'll zip up to the cupboard. I think I have some oregano. Would that help?

          • Oregano wouldn't….torturing and burning people doesn't either.

            Don't make sh*t up.

          • I'm still waiting for you to actually produce a real reference. Oh, wait, you're just making #$%^ up. If you won't follow your own advice, why should I?

          • No you're not.

            You asked for two, I gave you two.

            Your response was that it didn't happen.

            Poof…just like that, it didn't happen. Because you said so.

            So if I gave you 100…you'd say the same thing.

            However, it's historical fact. And no amount of whitewash…or poof….will change it.

          • But you couldn't give 100 because there isn't. Not because I say there isn't. It is simply because there isn't. There isn't even 5. It is a myth built upon the flimsist tissue.

            In otherwords, you are either ignorant, or making $%^& up. Probably both.

            I can't just say "poof" and make things go away. I will demonstrate: Emily stop posting… Poof!

          • Yes, indeed I could give you 100

            It's recorded history

            But you are so brainwashed, you'll simply dismiss it.

            The father told you to.

          • I call complete and total bull #$%!!!! Start typing. I want 100.

            And no made up names. Must be on record, with a third party as having been burnt at the stake for being a scientist.

            Put your money where your mouth is, Emily. Only 100 easy to obtain names and you will be publicly vindicated.

            I smell an epic fail coming… whose it going to be… me or you?

          • No you don't

            If you did, you'd just google it instead of playing games on here.

            So the 'epic fail' is yours.

          • Google'd: 100 scientists burnt at the stake.

            Answer: Giordano Bruno and… nope, can't see anyone else. Considering how Galileo is held up as the very crown of the scientific martyr, you'd think that the busy bodies would have combed the annals to dredge up the slightest evidence of oppression, never mind being burnt at the stake. The evidence just isn't there.

            It is time to put back on the adult hat which your age affords and admit your error.

          • LOL sorry…but there were lots of people the church burned at the stake, scientists and otherwise.

            If you want to play doofus here, it's your choice.

            Everyone can enjoy the laugh at your expense.

          • Oh, yes, it is me they are laughing at. Good one.

          • Yes, I'm afraid so.

            It's that 'kick me' sign you're wearing.

            Other people know how to google, and aren't looking through fairy wings when they do it.

          • Thank you Emily for your patience and humor in dealing with Mr. ad hominem aka Coldstanding. Revisionist history seems to be his forte.

          • You couldn't come up with 100 names either.
            Not 10
            Not 5
            Not 3
            Maybe 2
            But you'll be posting all kinds of dodges.

          • I have been looking for those 100 names, and I've only found two.

          • And good on you! It is an open challenge. I have pressed the issue because it is a commonplace of scecular discourse, that the CC rounded up scientists and torched 'em. The fact simply do not back up this myth. It is wrong.

            Over a 2000 year history, one will find a litany of mis-deeds worthy of remonstration, but this isn't one of them.

          • – Andrew Miller, Short Papers on Church, London, Chapter 16.
            From the information given it is possible to conjecture how the figure of 50 million was computed.
            There were probably well over 25 million killed or exiled in Spain, almost all of them killed; about
            3 million Protestants killed in Bohemia during the Thirty Years' War; probably over 5 million
            Protestants killed in Germany at the same time; 2 million Albigenses; 2 million Saxons and
            Scandinavians; 20 million Protestants in the Inquisition from 1518 to 1548 and onwards; and
            perhaps a total of a million Protestants killed in France and in the Irish Rebellion taken together.
            This gives a total of 58 million killed in Europe during the Middle Ages.
            The imposition of the Inquisition was also severe: many of the "dissenters" targeted by the Church were some of the brightest scientists of the time, whose only crime was to look for scientific explanations for natural phenomena not explained in the Bible.

            Many scientists were forced to either abandon their work or if they dared to continue, had to do so in great secrecy. This was one of the primary reasons why the great Leonardo Da Vinci produced so many of his manuscripts in mirror writing, to prevent others from reading the results of his research and thus avoiding persecution, even though he worked at the time when the Inquisition was tapering off in its power.

            The persecution of these great minds with the accusation of paganism also unquestionably stripped Europe of many of its cleverest people: the cumulative effect of the Dark Ages was to set Europe back centuries in development.

            They torched the scientists they found because invariably they saw the foolishness of the bronze age myths contained in the bible. Speaking up was a death sentence.

          • I'm well aware of people being burned because they translated the Bible into English and spearheaded the Protestant Reformation, but that isn't what was being alleged here. Scientists (tragically) had to keep their doubts and opinions to themselves if they wanted to survive.

          • People played rough in politics back then. We might not like it, but there is precious little that you, I or anyone else can do about it.

            Thankfully, we all enjoy a degree of emancipation and are now living in a virtual utopia of interpersonal harmony and bliss.

          • That's because the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars. Oops, that's another debate altogether… sorry.

            (Just joking. I don't believe in astrology.)

          • You must be a Virgo.

          • Hey, I didn't say it would be easy, and you being a sarcastic twit doesn't help other than to help identify the parts of our culture we should probably excise if we want one that will actually serve people's needs.

          • How does this "excise" of your's work? Is that the part where "we" start declaring people to be either useless eaters, to have out-lived their usefulness, or to be otherwise not worthy of living in your brave new world?

            My first comment was mocking. This comment is sarcasm.

            It is the great indulgence of our time, afforded by ample histories, to exercise hindsight. That you disagree with the Christianity is your privilege. But you over-step said privilege when you start second guessing the choices our ancestors made. Our their choices appropriate for our time? No, and neither are yours for theirs.

      • If the Catholics go? Did you say if?

        NEWSFLASH: The Catholics are gone. Why else would the Catholic Church be begging for a modern secular bailout from the taxpayers formerly known as their flock?

        • Yes, the very flock they've been abusing all this time

  23. I agree that it is important to remember the immense contributions Catholicism has bestowed upon Western Civilisation. If not for its high schools, what uniform would our strippers ascend to the stage in?

    • I hope you stay away from high schools.

      • I always have. Especially when I've been enrolled in them.

      • I hope you stay away from high schools.

        Shame that so many priests and brothers, servants of God, did NOT…

    • Strippers don't wear uniforms. They wear costumes. Some strippers have dressed up as nurses. Will you be dissing them too? French maids? Teachers? I ask only because I so relish your wit.

      • I am not as certain as you that Justin was dissing…

        • Oh, I know he wasn't dissing strippers. Who would? Parochial education he was dissing.

          • 'Parochial education' is an oxymoron.

          • You are the less complex form of oxymoron.

          • Sorry…whitewash doesn't work any more.

            Religious education is no education at all.

          • Are you suggesting that people take up lieing and outright fabrication, instead? How is that working for you?

          • No, I'll leave that to you and your church.

            The rest of us have an education….without the fairy tales.

          • How dare you besmerch the good name of an eduction by suggesting that you have received one?!

            You have consistently pervaricated, lied, failed to back up your claims, and just generally puked out useless BS.

            Post freely, I couldn't care less. But you have been thoroughly unmasked as a fraud.

          • LOL cute, but another epic fail on your part.

            Hard parting with the beads eh?

  24. I have nothing against religion as long as these religions tolerate and live peacefully along with others. As for the Catholic church or others, they are free to practice it as long as they do not expect tax payers to pay for them and their upkeep. They should start training priests how to financially manage and how to operate their churches, not only in rich but most of all during lean and tough times. Why not ask the vatican to increase their budget? Gosh, for them to have the cheek in running to and asking the government for their upkeep, is beyond thick skin!

    • Well they're never going to get along….they're all so convinced THEIR invisible friend is the only REAL invisible friend.

  25. It's better churches be preserved as "bars and condos" and their physical structure enjoyed for years to come, rather than just letting them fall into disrepair or knocking them down. Because a bailout is so not on. A condo in every church I say!

    • I got dibs on the Bell Tower… 2 bdrm tower unit with a heavenly view……

    • A condo in EVERY church? No fair! Somebody said something about some bars, too…

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *