Nor can I. But the Church as a unit, I think, has done far more harm than good over the course of its life, and should be rightly villainized for it.
At present they seem to be far more harmless than the fundies. And since the fundies are inherently anti-papist, I would question some of the hostility here against the Pope.
I have to vehemently disagree. We're talking about an area of the world ravaged by HIV/AIDS. Any attempt to keep condoms out of hands of the population's hands, and to keep them from getting all of the information they need, is monstrous.
I couldn't find any evidence that this is what happened. So far I've only read that the continue to preach against condoms. Other than being on wrong side of the issue, I haven't seen that they have reduced access to condoms. I do have actual knowledge they have actively rescued refugees from African genocide, and that kind of overt act gives me hope that they are not actively causing the spread of STDs.
It's disgusting, and it shouldn't matter whether or not they're successful. What kind of thing is that to even say? If a woman successfully fends off a rapist, is the rapist not a monster? Come on.
I wouldn't equate it to rape at all. I would reserve that comparison for the pedophile priests. Rape generally involves self-gratification at the expense of a victim's horror. You might say that some clerics get gratification from winning converts and imposing their social order on the world, and this might correctly be associated with a deviant sex drive, in a psychological sense. But what I'm seeing differently about this, than perhaps you see it, is that it appears to me that their preaching methods are gentle and harmless. As far as I can tell, they're merely preaching to their congregations. I don't see them doing anything violent, corrupt or with abuse of power. My thinking is that people either choose to believe them or not, but if they believe them, they don't buy into the idea of casual unprotected sex anyway, so no harm done. That's why I can't compare it to heinous behavior. I do think that if they were interfering in public policy then that would be tantamount to a crime. Short of that, I think they're probably more on par with a person who's a public nuisance. I'm not there, so I can't speak with a clear sense of the true impact, it's just that I haven't found any smoking gun.
And if you don't know the facts, maybe read up on it?
I haven't been able to find any thing more than the predictable anti-contraception preaching they're infamous for. As I recall, HIV-AIDS was linked to sexual transmission over 30 years ago, and throughout that time the Catholics have continued their anti-contraception rant. So I see this as nothing new. I doubt they've increased the rate of STD infections unless they're actually preventing people from getting condoms.
Yet they fight against gay rights
You mean the right of marriage. I don't think they want to restrict the rights of gays in any other way, at least not that I've heard of. My understanding is that if a gay person was homeless, hungry or in need of medical care, no Catholic would deny them assistance on account of their sexual orientation. If I'm right about that, then it would seem to me that they are on the legitimate side of human rights, except of course the right of marriage. I also don't see them spewing anti-homosexual vitriol which is so prevalent among the fundies. It might be interesting to hear from the gay and lesbian members here and any straight friends and relatives of theirs, which person would they expect would assist them in the event of an emergency - a Catholic or a fundie?
and the use of contraception, and in practice they cover up years of sexual abuse.
It seems to me they have weeded out most of the pedophiles, revised their rules about giving sanctuary to criminals, and trained their priests and administrators to notify the police of any reports or suspicions of abuse. Hopefully the scumbags that were hiding in the cloisters, pretending to be holy men, are long gone. I can't imagine that the Catholics could survive any fresh reports of a coverup. But I don't connect this with any pope either since it seems unlikely they would have anything to do with the affairs at the local level.
This doctrine is either one they don't follow, or their idea of "humane treatment" is different from mine.
I don't see how a pedophile priest represents the values of humane treatment that Catholics are famous for. They are some small fraction of criminals that were operating under the guise of priesthood. This wouldn't seem to relate at all to the innocent good people who are serving humanitarian needs, who are probably constitute 99.9% (or more) of the priests who dedicate themselves to relief efforts, plus the countless lay volunteers and the congregations who donate to their cause.
I never said the Catholics were alone in their crusade. But they are by far the largest Christian denomination, and therefore the most influential.
In some regions (including some parts of Africa) I think the fundies probably outnumber Catholics. And though the population of people who call themselves Catholics is huge, a great many of them are not influenced by church authorities.
I never meant to imply that all Catholics are bad people. I never said the church hasn't done anything worthy of praise. I just thought Joe was out of line heaping praise on this weasel of a man after what he's preached for and against, and then his subsequent defense of the church.
My own view is that the Pope is probably a very good person who was chosen for the right reasons, and who represented their hope of getting away from such a long history of Italian leaders -- someone who represented a break from Germany's sordid past and the reunification of East and West (as in the reunification of the two Germanys). He always seemed to have peace, mercy, charity and reconciliation as the key talking points, and other than a few passing snipes at gay marriage, abortion, and contraception in general, I think these topics pale in comparison to his message of humanism.
The problem is that the demons are in their leadership,
I doubt that any pedophiles are safe in the cloisters anymore, and I doubt that the leadership has many bad guys among them. It doesn't comport with their humanitarian work.
and in the ink on their doctrines.
I think the recent doctrines, under this Pope and his predecessor, have probably been more focused on human rights and acquiescence to science than ever before.
And if the good outnumber the bad by a million to one, that still leaves a lot of bad apples among the 1.18 billion Catholics there are in the world. And a good number of them wear robes.
I understand your suspicions, I just think they've probably weeded out all but the best of them by now.
