seen a bunch of people just hating on the Catholic church and even catholics for no logical reason at all
The logical reasons to hate Christians could fill a book. However, I think we’re just pretty secular around here.
Mostly the child rape, but also the cover-up of the child rape. Oh, and the secret relocation of the child rapists to new places so they could continue raping children.
Also the genocide, a history of repressing the poor, the misogyny, Indulgences, the whole Crusades thing, the Spanish inquisition, the coalition with Hitler, the extremely problematic wealth of the Vatican, the homophobia, and the child rape.
Did I mention the child rape?
Wow edgy if you’re going to hold child rape against organizations or ideologies you basically have to be an anarchist
You think that’s edgy? I downloaded a car once.
Can you teach me this power?
deleted by creator
the coalition with Hitler
Not to mention that the Vatican was actually the first state to sign a treaty with both Hitler and Mussolini.
I’m not big on ww2 details but would that actually be a choice? The vatican is smack in the middle of Italy, they wouldn’t even need to fly the bombs over so much as toss them.
Not excussing their myriad of other crimes but occasionally even the bad guy gets a bad deal.
I think given all their other actions during WW2 it’s definitely part of a pattern and probably wasn’t solely (if at all) in self defence. IMO if you read enough about various religions you’ll realise that organised religion is always fascistic.
Not to mention the fact that the catholic church is largely responsible for anti-semitism having blamed all Jews for the death of Jesus for nearly 2000 years (and even after what happened during WW2 they didn’t stop doing it until 1965).
Mussolini founded the Vatican state in 1929 and couldn’t attack it without loss of face
the coverups are a diocesan problem within the US not the vatican level and it has been addressed and the clergy punished


In the US? That’s a weird way to write “world wide”. And you think, what you posted is enough? The abuse is underpinned by structures deep in the catholic church. It takes a hell of a lot more for changing that, than just sacrifying some pawns. There are studies about this, which state clearly and painfully, how the catholic church supported and protected perpetrators and how they actively hindered the full disclosure of the cases by independent researchers. These are problems, that are still active and are discussed a lot. And the big publicity wave was like 2010, so 16 years ago.
Greetings from an ex catholic in germany, who quit out of rage about the churches eggretious actions.
PS: Did you know, that the catholic church in germany tries to chance its structures to be more grassroots instead of strict hierarcy (even a little bit)? It’s called the Synodal path. Triggered by real grassroot movements like Maria 2.0. Though the Vatican is really upset about that and tried to end this change.
So that just leaves the genocide, a history of repressing the poor, the misogyny, Indulgences, the whole Crusades thing, the Spanish inquisition, the coalition with Hitler, the extremely problematic wealth of the Vatican, the homophobia, and the child rape.
… Because the fact that they admitted it after years of covering it up doesn’t make up for it.
Also, read the last sentence in the graphics you posted.
Aside from that, stellar argument🤣
yes, numerous US bishops did that, thats why the pope brought the USCCB to the Vatican and most american Bishops, its a diocesan problem
The church hasnt repressed the poor, and the hitler thing was because the vatican is literally SURROUNDED IN MUSSOLINI, the Pope secretly helped Jewish families around Europe due to the Church’s reach
So I started reading this post since I figured it would have some interesting comments but its becoming apparent that there is some sort of ulterior motive here for the OP. I suppose it should have been obvious this was an exercise in bad faith since their initial comment includes, “…for no logical reason at all”. But congratulations on getting some decent engagement on this platform.
OPs basic question is being answered with valid points and their responses indicate that they are just reacting defensively and trying to explain away or excuse all of the horrific things the Catholic Church is provably responsible for. As for me, I wouldn’t trust my kid with any religious organization because I think they all have a pedo problem and can’t keep their hands off of children; their minds or their bodies…just look who keeps getting convicted of these crimes and I can assure you it isn’t the atheists people should be worried about.
yes, numerous US bishops did that
Also numerous Australian, Canadian, Mexican, South American, Asian, Irish, Polish, Norwegian, other European, etc priests and bishops did that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
I read the page
its mostly american dioceses and there will always be bad apples, they should be excommunicated
And what is that saying about what one bad apple does to the whole bunch?
Its not a numbers game. Just because most of them happened to be in America, doesnt mean that it wasn’t a worldwide problem.
You know, I don’t hate all catholics, I don’t mind the ones who go to church, help others out and shut the fuck about it. I dislike the ones who act all surprised and have a bad faith conversation about if its good or not.
But I absolutely despise the catholics who downplay and make excuses about the very well documented worldwide systematic child sexual exploitation done by the members of the catholic church and the protection by the church of the said abusers.
You really oughta do some actual research before you waltz in here and start wondering why everyone is so mean. The fact that you even had the nerve to start this thread is a clear sign that you have no fucking idea how bad your church actually is and I think its because you are either a complete fucking moron or just totally ignorant. And then you dare to argue with people, who are just answering your question and start throwing around words like “strawman” without even understanding what it means. You post screenshots of wikipedia articles that are saying that yes, the members of the church did sexually abuse thousands and thousand of kids and yes, the church 100% did hide child molesters and then you act like its no big deal?
I really do hope your religion is right because that would mean you burn in hell for all eternity and thats the least of what you deserve. Fuck you, you disgusting piece of shit.

And that’s the thread
Explain Bernard Law then.
Law was Archbishop of Boston from March 1984 until his resignation on December 13, 2002, after his involvement in the Archdiocese of Boston sex abuse scandal became public knowledge. Law was proven to have ignored or concealed the molestation of many underage children;[2][3] Church documents demonstrate that he had extensive knowledge of widespread child sexual abuse committed by dozens of Catholic priests in his archdiocese over almost two decades; he failed to report these crimes to the authorities, instead merely transferring the accused priests between parishes.[4] One priest in Law’s archdiocese, John Geoghan, raped or molested more than 130 children in six different parishes in a career of 30 years.[4] Law was widely denounced for his handling of the sexual abuse cases, and outside the church his public image was destroyed in the aftermath of the scandal.
Two years after Law resigned from his position in Boston, which Bishop William Skylstad called “an important step in the healing process”,[2] Pope John Paul II appointed him Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome in 2004. He resigned the position upon reaching age 80 in November 2011, and died in Rome on December 20, 2017, at age 86.
(I should add for context that after his resignation he moved to Rome immediately.)
No reason? Do you not hear about the excessive amount of sexual abuse that the church encourages through there non action or outright moving sexual predators to another area to avoid community problems.
Or their stance on safe sex, which shockingly, is not safe at all.
All to appease their magical invisible friend in the sky.
strawman
So you are just a cunt.
.pɐǝɥʞɔᴉp .ʎɐʍ uɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀ lɐnsn ʎɯ uᴉ ʇɐɥʇ uɐǝɯ ʇ’uop I pu∀
Calling these reasons strawman argument tells a lot about you…
Quick question: Is everything alright upstairs, brother? Like is everything okay at home?
yes, I just had some success on my garden, with a few flowers :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
Read. Learn.
Yeah I don’t think you know what that word means.
Religion is a political tool made to opress the masses. Catholicism is particularly harmful for sanctifying asceticism.
They sell this backward idea where suffering and misery is glorified while engaging in pleasure, principally sexual please, is seen as sinful and impure.
It keeps people from raising against their masters and constantly feeling guilty about themselves for craving sexual satisfaction.
no it is not?
It is. Some less some more. Religion is a strong tool to drive a cause. Look at the USA, at India, Afghanistan and the entire middle east. From egypt to isreal to iran.
centralizing “religion” as one universal thing, check
america, india, the middle eastern nations and afghanistan are not Catholic nations
Talking religion in general not just catholic.
Also the middle east isnt a nation lol
its a region
And you listed it as a nation
woops, sorry, editing it rn
I was raised in a catholic family, had church school every Sunday, wanted to be a monk. All until I reached the age of reason, I hope you will as well
oh boy here we go
had little to no spiritual guidance as a kid with parents that barely understood the basics of Christianity, and never went to sunday school at all and most of the adults around me didnt even WANT to speak about anything “religious”, have been persecuted for my faith multiple times
and what order did you want to join?
OP, a defensive catholic, has a persecution complex? This is incredibly surprising.
After seeing your interactions on this thread, I can add one more logical reason I don’t like Catholics to the pile.
Ignoring the myriad of other reasons, merely the fact that the catholic church opposes women’s control over their own reproduction (which is the only measure that works to alleviate poverty) should be enough for anyone.
ETA: also, isn’t it weird to be lectured to about sex by a virgin who you call father?
huh? womens control over their own reproduction? how?
I’ll humour you (although I think you’re actually trolling)…
Incase you didn’t know, the catholic church opposes abortion and contraception.
yes, it does. You should only have sex if you want a child, otherwise its quite hedonistic
The catholic church explicitly promotes sex for the purposes of unity within a married relationship.
The church also promotes having sex during non-ovulation times to dissuade natural conception.
So you’re a hypocrite who gets off (no pun intended) on telling others how to live, the worst kind of theist dickhead.
to facilitate natural conception and sex can be of unity, but only when you do it for the purposes of having a child
Facilitating natural conception can be unity but does not necessarily mean it must be.
You are picking and choosing what you believe.
You’ve been trained well.
sex can be unity but does not mean it must be
OK now you have one reason why people hate on it.
Hippies had it right. Enjoy your bodies how you see fit, this is no business of an organization.
“it’s actually against my religion to sexually satisfy my partner.”
Holy fucking shit lol
Hedonism rules. You should try it sometime.
Even Catholic teaching says that sex is vital for partner bonding beyond procreation.
?
What is unclear to you about my comment?
Troll being troll, I think. Lol.
You might be surprised to find out that atheism is probably over-represented here on Lemmy and is probably the dominant “belief” as opposed to traditional religion.
One aspect of this is that you’ll see that religion in general is not exactly well respected among the userbase. You might just want to alter your expectations, because it’s not anti-catholicism as much as it is anti-religion in general.
Source: Am atheist. All religions are fucking stupid and holding humanity back. Sorry not sorry.
Amen brother, oops I mean … whatever.
No logical reason at all?
Without going through a host of historical atrocities, modern day misdeeds and crimes, you could simply look at the global systematic and institutionalized protection of raping of little boys…for centuries. This alone would warrant the hate.
Bet you also wonder why the world hates Israel with a fiery passion too.
false equivalence, strawman
Okay. Guess you’re wondering what the big deal is about the Epstein Files?
The Catholic Church makes Epstein and all of the pedos involved look like JV league amateurs.
I’m really not sure what you expected asking this question in your post. The Catholic Church deserves every bit of hate and more than it currently receives.
I was raised Catholic. Fuck the Catholic Church
I wasnt. I discovered the Faith with Gods guidance.
and cite your sources
Lmao, you can’t be fucking serious. Not gonna spend any more time here explaining this but will leave this
If you’re actually this naïve, try perusing the references located at the bottom of this page. However, I suspect you will discredit it in some manner. Or try to brush off the 165+ sources describing exactly what everybody else is saying here.
A bit of advice? Just accept the fact that the Catholic Church has been fucking little boys in the ass for centuries. This will make it easier for you moving forward, because this topic is absolutely common knowledge.


Neat
So you have psychosis
back to the 1800s “accuse them of insanity when they say something you didnt quite like” technique, I see?
It’s just an objective oberservation. No matter if someone tells me they have magical powers, have seen unicorns or believe in god: All of that is stupid and proves something is wrong with you.
God is real, there are a bunch of scientifically proven miracles…
Okay, so we’ll break it down in increasingly narrow boxes :
1- Hatred of religion in general
Religion has been and continues to be a tool for legitimizing power structures. As such, they’re associated with the oppressive systems they’ve historically upheld. That goes from state structures like monarchy to modes of production like slavery, reaching whithin family dynamics, like patriarchy. Atheism was until recently broadly criminalized throughout the world. Atheism, or at least secularism, is a feature of many ideologies that arose since the late 18th century to uproot these systems, while religions are claimed by ideologies that arose in reaction tooto these. Politically, religion is therefore seen as conservative .
2- Hatred of Abrahamic religions
Some see these religions (Christianity, Islam, Druzism, Judaism) as inherently more oppressive than other, because they see it as a sin to worship gods other than their, and do not permit synchretism like other religions do. This is a big debate, and it doesn’t hold true to the same extent for all Abrahamic religions, but I’m not getting into details on this.
3- Hatred of Christianity
There are religious people who hate christianity for theological reasons, but I’m once again more interested in the political aspect. Many hate christianity for its role in colonization and association with western imperialism. It’s basically the first two points applied to specific circumstances of christianity : How it came to eradicate paganism in Europe and attempted (sometimes continues to attempt) to do the same globally, how, using colonial means it erases cultures. Same can be said of Islam to an extent, and you could say the main difference is that Christianity has been successful more recently and more globally. But then again, while they’ve had the same attitude towards paganism, Islam has historically tolerated more religious in their states, as long as these were “religions of the book”. Tho it’s true that the situation has come to be a bit reversed on that point…
4 a- Hatred of Catholicism for theological reasons :
Idk about the details, but part of a reason why the reform happens was that catholicism was seen as drifting to far from true belief and focusing on preserving and enriching itself as an institution. Other accusations include being too close to paganism due to the cult of saints and the continuity with Roman institutions (diocieses that predate the christianisation of the empire, nuns too similar to Vestal virgins…), and the fact that at the time, the mass was always in Latin although most people didn’t understand it.
4 b- Hatred of Catholicism : Post-colonial reasons
Point 3 applied to former colonies of France, Spain and Portugal, for which evangelisation was purely Catholic. the Catholic church continues to wield large power there, and some people consider its influence a remnant of colonialism. However, it is interesting to note that catholicism can be seen the opposite way by people from catholic countries for which a protestantprotestant country is seen as a greater or more recent oppressor (like Ireland or Puerto-Rico).
4 c- Hatred of Catholicism : Structural reasons
Catholiscism has a strict clergy hierarchy, moreso than Protestantism or Islam. Some see this as wrong in itself for philosophical or theological reasons, but even if that is not the case, this means the Catholic Church, more than others, can be perceived as an institution with agency and responsabilities. More than others, they’re expected to answer to their past positions and to solve their ongoing issues, something it struggles with as it doesn’t want to alienate the more concervative parts of its clergy. Also, this leads me to the next point :
4- d : The pedophilia thing. This is already very debated in the other comments, so I’m not gonna get in the details, but clearly not a good look.
4- e: Catholics in majority protestant country
Ecumenical debates pass over the heads of most christians, who just go with the form of christianity that is the “default” in their country/region. But what about those raised in families that hold on to their religions where it is a minority? This point seems important to me because a lot of the debates about Catholiscism I see online are really about catholicism in the USA, where it is a minority. In such countries, catholics will usually be seen as more pious and conservative than other christians, and quite often they’ll be, for several reasons :
-
Principle of selection: A family that is just vaguely christian, upon immigrating, could’ve converted to better integrate. If they didn’t, it’s either because their specific belief was important to them personally, or because the community in which they integrated was mostly of other catholics, making it a solidarity factor which in turn increases its importance.
-
Sense of responsability : If holding a belief is an active choice rather than going with the flow, believers will tend to give it more mind. They may feel they have more of a personal responsability to uphold it. This can culminate in what’s known as “siege mentality”: People who feel like an important part of their way of life or their belief system is threatened will react with fervor, oftem violence. This is why so many religious or political speech relies on tropes such as “They’re trying to steal/destroy/corrupt our thing!”
-
Because Lemmy is, for the most part, atheist. The reason why Catholicism seems to get more hate than any other religion is because it’s more often mentioned in media posted. And as for your “no reason” claim, you might want to read up on news regarding systemic issues with the catholic church and its hush-culture.
And you might want to read up on what the strawman-falacy is before trying to call everyone out on it. It’s not a strawman argument when people refer to specific issues or examples that answers your original question. Being able to name argumentation techniques and fallacies does not make you right.
“sky daddy” is a strawman, because youre perverting the belief to make it seem crazy
No, that is not an example of a strawman argument
it is, because its making a strawman out of the beliefs and arguments of the church to make it easier to attack
Look, I will quote wikipedia for you:
straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
Calling somebodies god a sky daddy or invisible sky friend is not a fundamentally different thing than calling it god. It is disrespectful, but not a strawman. Nobody is questioning your belief in your god, they are just mocking it.
To give you an example of what actual strawman fallacy looks like, here is one from wikipedia again:
Another example of a strawman argument is U.S. president Richard Nixon’s 1952 “Checkers speech”.[13][14] When campaigning for vice president in 1952, Nixon was accused of having appropriated $18,000 in campaign funds for his personal use. In a televised response, based on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Fala speech, he spoke about another gift, a dog he had been given by a supporter:[13][14]
It was a little cocker spaniel dog, in a crate he had sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted, and our little girl Tricia, six years old, named it Checkers. And, you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this right now, that, regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.
This was a straw man response; his critics had never criticized the dog as a gift or suggested he return it. This argument was successful at distracting a number of people from the funds and portraying his critics as nitpicking and heartless. Nixon received an outpouring of public support and remained on the ticket. He and Eisenhower were later elected.
No it doesn’t
👁️👁️
🫎
It’s a metaphor. The Abrahamic god is not technically in the sky, but he has been called the almighty father and heaven has been represented to be in the clouds enough times even if technically isn’t that everyone understands what “Sky daddy” means. It’s a derogatory term, sure, that’s the point. The term being derogatory doesn’t make it a strawman though.
It’s an insult and the Abrahamic god isn’t a protected individual so whatever.
Actually, supposing that God exists somewhere above us in the clouds physically makes much more sense than God living literally everywhere at once, while also living outside of our universe, and also living as a physical person 2,000 years ago, and also living in the past, and the future all at once.
“Sky daddy” is extremely charitable all things considered.
Well, Duh, hes God. Hes not restrained to space and time
That’s what makes it more insane, not less.
omnipotence, please research it
Lol. I know what it means, I’m suggesting its more insane than a sky daddy.
It literally is crazy. What is ’god’ other than the father of everything (daddy) living in the sky?
Also, finally fucking research what a strawman is.
heaven is not “the sky” and the CREATOR and the Eternal Father, not daddy
Cannibalism of zombie wizard. And before you dismiss it away as “strawman”, please carefully explain how transubstantiation during the Eucharist is not:
- magic
- cannibalism
We can use whatever terms you like. But I will draw a hard line at consuming human flesh and calling it anything other than cannibalism. Either it literally happens and that is pretty fucking gross, or it doesn’t in which case the whole point is moot and crazy to think it does happen.
we are eating the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ. Not in the cannibalism way tho, and “magic”, say, is anything supernatural right? God cannot be comprehended by us, and nothing happens that is supernatural, but just out of our understanding of nature.
and Jesus wasnt a wizard. He was and is the son of God
Jesus Christ proclaimed at the last supper “this is my body, eat” because the crucifixion was nigh, and he was literally sacrificing himself for our sins so we may reap what we did not sow
Not in the cannibalism way tho
Nonsense response. What is the definition of cannibalism? Here, let me provide a link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannibalism
You have not explained why eating the flesh and blood of another human is not cannibalism.
God cannot be comprehended by us, and nothing happens that is supernatural, but just out of our understanding of nature.
So does the transubstantiation happen? Does that little cracker turn into some Jesus liver pate? Does that thimble sip of wine turn into O-neg blood? According to catholic.com (a reputable source, right?), it literally happens.
and Jesus wasnt a wizard. He was and is the son of God
He wasn’t a wizard? Someone who exercises supernatural powers? You know who else was the son of a god? Hercules. He wasn’t really a wizard tho, so plus one to Jesus, I guess.
he was literally sacrificing himself for our sins so we may reap what we did not sow
For an immortal godbeing to be inconvenienced for a weekend doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice. Let’s assume it actually happened. The whole torture, crown of thorns, spikes in the hands/feet (nevermind that wouldn’t actually pin a human to an actual crucifix), it was what? A day or two all together? If this was nearly 2000 years ago, that’s like 730,000 days ago. So let’s say five days total: 2 of the dying, 3 of being dead in a tomb (long weekend). Five days out of 730,000. Is it really a sacrifice?
Catholics tend to vote for republicans and other right-wing parties. This tells you everything you need to know about them. They have no morals and clearly struggle to understand the teachings of Jesus.
On my end it’s mostly cultural. Quebec went through the Quiet revolution in the 60s in response to the social and educational stagnation the Church and the government imposed on the working class.
Then add on top the residential school systems that caused great harm to the indigenous nations in Canada which was handled by the Church.
Yeah. not fond at all of the Catholic Church after all that. The less power it has in politics and public services, the better IMO. It doesn’t mean I hate catholics, just the organization behind it.
For me; I suffered a Catholic school with undiagnosed Autism. That’ll turn anyone against it.
I didn’t suffer so much as it created a world of completely unrealistic expectations for me, I felt like I was in a bubble for 8 years of Catholic school then thrown into the real world of public high school with zero tools to prepare for it, it was not pretty.
the church really does need to launch probes and investigations into these “schools”
No, the responsibility for persecution lies with the state.
I can’t speak for all of Lemmy, but I am against the Catholic Church for a number of reasons. They hid child abuse for decades (centuries?) by shuffling around the offenders, essentially protecting them from any consequences. They accept donations with the explicit stated reason to perform charitable acts, but the percentage they actually spend on charity is so small it would be illegal in a lot of places if an actual non-profit did it. They hold back science. Though it’s not a requirement, many practice circumcision, which is essentially mutilating a child. I could probably keep going, but that’s enough.
they do not hold back science at all they do MULTIPLE charities in foreign countries, I have seen them with my very own eyes
and the shuffling around is at a diocesan level in the US, not the vatican
I didn’t say they don’t do charity, I said the percentage of their donations they actually spend on charity would be criminal for a non-profit.
The child abuse and coverup problem is absolutely not limited to the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Whether one thinks the church holds back science is mostly a matter of opinion. It seemed like you were asking for opinions, so I offered mine. If you were looking to debate, I’d maybe reword your original post so you don’t come across as sea lioning. The relationship between the church and science is complex, and to me, the bad outweighs the good.
well, depends on what you count as “charity”. They need to pay for the food of the charity workers, their housing, etc and actual charity, which is usually not logged or kept track of that much, no one notes down a starving childs name before giving him bread to eat
Here’s an Irish Mayor recounting how Catholic priests raped and beat him repeatedly as a child, and how the catholic church of Rome sent out a priest during the investigation into the rapes just in an effort to discredit him and call him a liar.
can you give me the timestamp when he says the catholic church sent a priest to silence him?
At this point, I am 100% positive you are sea lioning. Just to let you know, you’re not very good at it.
It’s a short video, and I found his speech pretty moving, I’d recommend watching it in its entirety.
Ooooh… multiple charities… how generous!!!
The catholic church is only estimated to be worth $2.5 trillion (and they have their own country).
To put that in perspective, that’s enough money to spend $1 every second for ~79000 years.
source? and it gives out a BUNCH of money
Any institution that allows and venerates shitheads like “Mother Teresa” is undeserving of respect.
hey so, mother teresa ran multiple orphanages and distributed food to poor in Calcutta, India.
the missionaries of charity are still currently an active order there, performing charity
Mate she was a fucking cunt.
She kept people sick and refused to give them medicine because she felt that prolonging their pain brought them closer to God.
“Suffering makes you closer to God”… Except when it’s MY suffering. Then I’m allowed to go to a real hospital and get treatment.
She was a fucking hypocrite and a sadistic person.
???
You really ought to read up on her. She was an awful person.
Brother she was forcing sick kids to reuse needles





















