What's the best Catholic apologia out there?

NYPA

>>9688676
Apologetics are an established part of Christianity and I'm looking for recommendations from the users here, as there are many (seemingly) well-read Catholics on this board. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I don't know of any books defending the church when it comes to sex abuse because in some cases there simply isn't a defense. Sometimes they fucked up, but generally speaking the "defense" is to provide the context behind the churches decisions. Most of the cases regarding sexual abuse or cover-ups comes down to church leaders following doctors orders. In the 60's, 70's, 80's, and even up to the 90's it was a common belief that pedophiles could be cured through psychiatry and be allowed to return to work, so when an incident occurred the priest would be sent off for treatment and when they finished they would return to work. The accusations of cover-ups are generally a misunderstanding. The church would move the "treated" priest from the diocese that the crime took place to a new one ironically to spare the victim from having to see him every Sunday.

It's just a tragedy. There are some cases where the church did fuck up and they did some shady shit, but for the most part how can you really blame them? If the top minds of the psychiatric profession tell them that a person can be completely cured and that's okay for them to return to work how can they be faulted for believing them?

>>9688767
It's the fruit you get for V2. No more firm stance on the no tolerance on homosexual clergy. It's why Fr. Martin SJ. is for whatever reason not only still not defrocked, but actually moving up with the support of newly made Cardinals. The homosexual mafia got themselves a puppet pope.

>>9688810
>No more firm stance on the no tolerance on homosexual clergy.

I believe you're mistaken. This says you can't become ordained if you're gay.

>In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

File: JPEG_20170525_005251.jpg (21KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 128x128px

>>9688735
Sadly most of my engagement with Catholic writings has been concentrated on a few authors and have only recently started to read (but mostly on various blogs and publications) on the problems of the post conciliar Church. Until Amoris Latitia I felt like the Church had my back so I could engage ethics and metaphysics, but as it's not so, I started digging into scholastic theology recently. So no help from me this time.

>>9688830
This was almost never enforced by progressive bishops (Benedict reinforced and proclaimed the rule again, but to no avail)- seminaries were often hives of homosexuality. Almost all the scandals are tied to this, because of the rather obvious connection between pedophilia and homosexuality (the priests almost always went for twinks basically). Basically progressive bishops under the guise of V2 filled their seminaries with sodomites and due to the newfound laxity nobody cared until it was too late.

>>9688864
There's a more nuanced explanation than scapegoating the gays, surely.

>>9688876
How can there be when it was them who raped the children and their progressive bishops who protected them? The victims were almost always 12-16 and male. Like 90% of the cases.

>>9688864

You're confusing the 1961 order the ordaining of gays that was generally left up to the bishops discretion to the one I posted which is from 2005. That order is mandatory.

How do you know seminaries are "hives of homosexuality" or that most scandals are tied to them or that priests have pet twinks? What is it about Vatican II specifically that exasperated the sex abuse scandal? You're making a lot of assertion that sound like they came straight from a Chick Tract. That stuff is very easy for protestants to repeat to each other because nobody challenges it, and after enough time it becomes a "fact" in the minds of whoever repeats it enough. I hope you're willing to provide good reasons for believing this stuff to be true, and if you don't have good reasons, to then change your mind about the things you believe.

>>9688670
The rates of pedophilia are higher in the general education system. Insurance companies don't rate the Catholic Church any higher than other large institutions when it comes to insuring against sexual abuses - insurance companies have the numbers.

If you're living in an Anglo country what you're witnessing is the century old anti-Catholicism originally practiced by Protestant but now is just embedded in the general modern culture which is really one and the same with Protestantism.

>>9688670

The vessel of the truth needs no defense, it only needs to maintain its integrity over time and people will come to it to drink if they are thirsty.

The best defense of Catholicism is the world and the lives of good Catholics.

>>9688911
Thanks for this post. The second half of it is something I often feel but haven't been able to read about at length. Can you recommend any work that touches on anti-Catholicism in Protestant countries?

>>9688937

I'm not him but you might be interested in reading Bearing False Witness by Rodney Stark.

File: stop.png (581KB, 762x464px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 762x464px

>>9688670
>when your religion is so bad you need to say sorry for it

As a pedophile myself I am deeply disturbed at the actions of the Catholic church. They have brought so much negative publicity to the issue that it has made it much harder to enjoy doing the things I love.

>You're confusing the 1961 order the ordaining of gays that was generally left up to the bishops discretion to the one I posted which is from 2005. That order is mandatory.
I'm not. I know the difference well enough and I know people high up in the hierarchy who told me about these things.
>How do you know seminaries are "hives of homosexuality" or that most scandals are tied to them or that priests have pet twinks?
Were much more for the most cases because now they are for the most part empty. I don't remember where I read the data at. Maybe it was Rorate Caeli or First Things.
>What is it about Vatican II specifically that exasperated the sex abuse scandal?
Discipline barely exists in the contemporary Church. It's ironically only applied to various traditionalist groups. Sspx got problems far sooner than a number of heretics like Kung and Kasper, who is openly stating he does not believe in an unchanging God is the shadow pope.
>You're making a lot of assertion that sound like they came straight from a Chick Tract. That stuff is very easy for protestants to repeat to each other because nobody challenges it, and after enough time it becomes a "fact" in the minds of whoever repeats it enough. I hope you're willing to provide good reasons for believing this stuff to be true, and if you don't have good reasons, to then change your mind about the things you believe.
I'm not. I don't really feel like digging up the articles from the number of publications I follow. I feel like I've read it on Rorate Caeli or Onepeterfive, but it could be First Things (unlikely, because they probably wouldn't openly state the strong link between homosexuality and pedophilia) or World Catholic Report.

File: a50766864621c2abb3e4f4ab66efb01d.jpg (170KB, 736x860px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 736x860px

>>9688670
>Looking for best defenses of Catholicism in general

Since you're on /lit/, Thomas Merton's autobiography, The Seven-Story Mountain, makes a decent general case for Catholicism, although it's not an apologetic, strictly speaking. It's a classic memoir which I suspect will still be read 100 years from now.

An actual book-length apologetic that's well-written and readily available is The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam, written in the 1940s, I believe, but still relevant in its general claims.

In terms of what you would find best or most helpful, it really depends on where you're coming from. Atheist? Agnostic? Bible Christian? Protestant? If so, what denomination?

A very good overview of Catholic scriptural and historical bonafides is set out in this short essay:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

>and responses to the sex abuse scandal in particular.

See the John Jay Criminal College Report, an independent study:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

See also 1: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual

See also 2:
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

Executive summary: Over the past 50 years, about four percent of Catholic clergy have sexually victimized minors, although incidents of abuse in the past 20 years are significantly lower. In the United States, according to insurance payouts, Protestant clergy abusers are just as numerous as Catholic clergy abusers. And abuse in secular institutions is 8 times worse than Catholics and Protestants combined.

The whole idea that a priest is MORE likely to abuse a child is a meme. Priests are actually statistically LESS likely to be molesters than the general male population (= 1 in 5 or 1 in 10, depending on who you ask). And the vast majority of the cases of clergy sex offenders (about 80%) involve abuse of post-pubescent teens, not pre-pubescent children. So the phrase "pedophile priest" is a misnomer. Of course, any such cases are too many.

Why then does the Catholic Church get all the attention for sex abuse when other orgs have a much worse problem? Because of the element of "scandal": it makes for a good story, and good stories sell papers and magazines, and generate clicks. Perhaps more important is the legal structure of Catholic parishes in relation to the larger Church, and a legal doctrine called repondeat superior. A Catholic priest who abuses a kid means the chance of a bigger payout because you can sue his diocese/order as well. And that means big bucks. And lawyers want to get a slice of that pie. Seeing the Church's deep pockets, they make a rational decision to sue the Church. This is not to excuse the problem, merely to put it into perspective.

>>9688767
The problem isn't that doctors were wrong. The problem is that the catholic church knew that their priests were comiting some of the worst crimes imaginable, and because they didn't want a public scandal didn't take it to the authorities so that the guilty priests could be punished. Your context is bullshit, there was no attempt to "cure" them. There was 3 hail Mary's and off to a new church.

There is no good defense because as other people have said the catholic churchs actions are indefensible.

Anyone who believes in god and thinks the catholic church is ordained by god and is gods organization is severely retarded.

Catholic priests rape at lower rates than male public school teachers. I wonder why you never hear about that.

Well shit, I've got you scared now don't I?

File: 2014-08-17_iri_2978987_I1.jpg (42KB, 620x621px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 620x621px

>>9689103
This, there was serious moral failures in regards when so many serial abusers were protected at an institutional level

>>9689027

>And lawyers want to get a slice of that pie.

Yes they do, my friend. Yes they do.

>>9689103
>Anyone who believes in god and thinks the catholic church is ordained by god and is gods organization is severely retarded.

Why do you believe this? I think there's an underlying assumption here that priests can't or shouldn't be sinners. Peter himself was a sinner and Jesus was the one that made him the rock upon which he built his church so I don't know why you would believe that popes are supposed to be sinless. With some notable exceptions all humans are sinners. I don't know how familiar you are with the Old Testament but God is no stranger to using sinners for his purposes.

>>9689310

Who said anything about being sorry?

>>9689183

not only that but the authority of the church kinda relies on the idea that man is incapable of living without sin.

>>9689183
One might even go further and argue that the Church, as an institution, can remain holy even while staffed with sinners (completely staffed with sinners, as it were), and that this is a strength of it as an institution. It's a strength of all the apostolic churches, really. They persist as institutions, as mechanisms, despite the flaws and failures of the people running them.

The Vatican turned to the kikes for financial help
Its all been downhill since then
The church was flooded with closeted marxist homo pedo scum who not only turn a blind eye to but encourage wicked behaviour

>>9689404
Stormfags out

File: Thomas-Aquinas.jpg (186KB, 505x701px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 505x701px

>>9689404
The Vatican just shouldn't have a bank, period, because lending money at interest is a sin. The Vatican should be at war with global finance, not participating in it.

>>9689407
Sorry I have a basic understanding of history