Octopus Overlords

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europ ... index.html" target="_blank

Nearly every day since the end of January, more Germans have come forward with allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, with roughly 170 reporting such abuse.
Two self-identified German victims were connected to a boy's choir that was directed by Father Georg Ratzinger, the pope's brother, from 1964 to 1994.

Any idea why they have so many problem with this? Is this a problem with all religions and the Catholic Church just had bad luck to be put on the spotlight for this?

I'm sure it'd make a fascinating study.

If I had to guess, I'd guess it's a whole combination of things.

1) Sexual abuse of children is probably more common than we tend to think of it.
2) The Catholic Church is huge in the west. Deviants are going to be a large percentage of Catholics because the population has a large percentage of Catholics.
3) Catholics define themselves by their religion. These are the no abortion, Fish on Friday, every sperm is sacred people.
4) Deviants who believe in God look to God to make themselves stronger.
5) In our lifetime Catholic discipline schooling has been abusive to its catholic children. Imagine already being deviant and then being abused by trusted authority figures acting in the name of God. (What is that study about abusers coming from abused families)
6) Psychopaths seek positions of power and trust over the powerless and trusting.
7) Though a child is clearly defined by the law, it is not so clear in many people's mind.

Most organized religions don't demand that their religious officials vow celibacy and then give them authority over children.

I wonder how the rate compares to the general populace. It's not like child molestation only occurs in the Catholic Church, but we certainly wouldn't hear about incidents beyond our locale when it's just Uncle Rico.

noxiousdog wrote:I wonder how the rate compares to the general populace. It's not like child molestation only occurs in the Catholic Church, but we certainly wouldn't hear about incidents beyond our locale when it's just Uncle Rico.

I think a more interesting question would be how the rate compares to the general populace who are trusted with children and I assume the rate is higher because the dynamic is different than the one we set normally set to trust people with children.

Of course that's an assumption.

A couple of contributing factors that make it look like a large % of Catholic priests are pedophiles.
1) When it is found out it gets a lot of media coverage. Not sure, but i believe this is due partly to an animosity between the media and church.
2) The sheer level of hypocrisy involved. Catholics (as a group rather than individuals) are often preach and look down on others, and these guys are supposed to be better than your average person.
3) Catholicism has very strong stands on a lot of ideals. I know of more than one gay person who is a devout Catholic and has one hell of a time trying to reconcile the conflicting views. It has been suggested before that many people in that kind of a situation go into the priesthood to hide from their own urges, and some fail at containing them once there.
4) After the scandals of the late 90's where priests were being moved around and their action covered up rather than being punished for their actions, people are hyper-vigilante and are catching more of the actual incidents and probably seeing some that aren't really there too.

Arcanis wrote:Catholics (as a group rather than individuals) are often preach and look down on others

Ridiculous, at least in so far as you are suggesting that they do so any more than other organized religions. Recall that many non-Catholic Christian organizations look down upon Catholics as idolators and not true Christians.

One factor is that pedophiles looks for positions where they will have unsupervised access to children. They may even do it not because they plan to hurt the children but because they believe they love them.

I doubt statistics exist, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there were many pedophiles among teachers, schoolmasters, coaches, and nannies in the old days. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that there are more pedophile pediatricians than (say) pedophile heart surgeons.

Another area where this occurs is among prison guards and officials. According to a recent series of articles in the NYRB, incidence of pedophilia in juvenile corrections facilities is much higher than normal.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Arcanis wrote:Catholics (as a group rather than individuals) are often preach and look down on others

Ridiculous, at least in so far as you are suggesting that they do so any more than other organized religions. Recall that many non-Catholic Christian organizations look down upon Catholics as idolators and not true Christians.

If it isn't fact, it is at least the public opinion, which in this case i feel is more important. Few groups garner as much hatred as the Catholic church and many people wait and watch for their opportunity to bash them. How often do you hear about people hating Baptists or Mormons (the non-fundamentalists with several wives that is)? And ILB i'm a catholic so i've seen the hypocrisy from the inside, i don't know enough about churches of other religions to quantify what the ratio would be.

Arcanis wrote:Few groups garner as much hatred as the Catholic church

I highly doubt that. It's socially and fashionably acceptable in our contemporary society to hate Catholics and to make fun of them, especially as so many flee the Church when they come of age. Even treating group to mean religion I'd guess Muslims and Jews are hated more than Christians and Catholics in particular. But that is just a guess, possibly tainted by being brought up in a more rural Christian area.

I stumbled onto some call-in talk show on RTE a few months ago, I think it was out of Dublin or Cork. There was this woman who had been abused and was fighting the Church in Ireland for a long time. She was saying she was just giving up because it wasn't worth it any more. It was actually heartbreaking. All the callers were calling in with huge crises of faith. The general consensus seemed to be that the only way to save the Church was to leave it (thereby removing support for the current regime). I guess it's really bad there. Not nessarily the abuse (which is bad anywhere), but the code of silence and the coverups.

LordMortis wrote:

Arcanis wrote:Few groups garner as much hatred as the Catholic church

I highly doubt that. It's socially and fashionably acceptable in our contemporary society to hate Catholics and to make fun of them, especially as so many flee the Church when they come of age. Even treating group to mean religion I'd guess Muslims and Jews are hated more than Christians and Catholics in particular. But that is just a guess, possibly tainted by being brought up in a more rural Christian area.

The hatred for the Catholic church was larger in the past. The KKK used to really have it in for us papists, but I think they now tend to focus on simpler issues like black and white that their minds can more easily comprehend. The typical KKK mind is not really suited to debating the distinctions between idolatry vs. veneration or what the big deal is about transubstantiation.

That said, I'm occasionally surprised by some of the hatred that I see projected at the Catholic church by some (but by no means all or even most) protestants. Maybe it's because of the perception that Arcanis feels is out there, but the public proclamations from the Church are (usually) for good relationships with other faiths. (There are the occasional missteps, but it's mostly about getting along and loving thy neighbor.) I do take exception to the idea that Catholics preach some sort superiority over other Christian faiths. I've certainly never experienced that at church, but I suppose it's possible that there are some rogue churches out there saying those kinds of things.

As to the original topic, it's something I feel a lot of embarrassment about as a Catholic. I think the culture of the Church is (too slowly) changing to avoid the cover-ups and reassignments that have caused so much mistrust of Church policy on the issue, but we're obviously not fully there yet. I find it impossible to justify overall church policy on the issue to date, except to note that things do appear to be getting better.

Bottom line, those who are guilty of the abuse need to be outed and defrocked, and those who covered it up and/or enabled it need to be properly, publicly, and severely punished.

ImLawBoy wrote:Bottom line, those who are guilty of the abuse need to be outed and defrocked, and those who covered it up and/or enabled it need to be properly, publicly, and severely punished.

That, simply, will not happen.

The London Times wrote:The Pope was drawn directly into the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal last night as news emerged of his part in a decision to send a paedophile priest for therapy. The cleric went on to reoffend and was convicted of child abuse but continues to work as a priest in Upper Bavaria.

ImLawBoy wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

Arcanis wrote:Few groups garner as much hatred as the Catholic church

I highly doubt that. It's socially and fashionably acceptable in our contemporary society to hate Catholics and to make fun of them, especially as so many flee the Church when they come of age. Even treating group to mean religion I'd guess Muslims and Jews are hated more than Christians and Catholics in particular. But that is just a guess, possibly tainted by being brought up in a more rural Christian area.

The hatred for the Catholic church was larger in the past. The KKK used to really have it in for us papists, but I think they now tend to focus on simpler issues like black and white that their minds can more easily comprehend. The typical KKK mind is not really suited to debating the distinctions between idolatry vs. veneration or what the big deal is about transubstantiation.

That said, I'm occasionally surprised by some of the hatred that I see projected at the Catholic church by some (but by no means all or even most) protestants. Maybe it's because of the perception that Arcanis feels is out there, but the public proclamations from the Church are (usually) for good relationships with other faiths. (There are the occasional missteps, but it's mostly about getting along and loving thy neighbor.) I do take exception to the idea that Catholics preach some sort superiority over other Christian faiths. I've certainly never experienced that at church, but I suppose it's possible that there are some rogue churches out there saying those kinds of things.

As to the original topic, it's something I feel a lot of embarrassment about as a Catholic. I think the culture of the Church is (too slowly) changing to avoid the cover-ups and reassignments that have caused so much mistrust of Church policy on the issue, but we're obviously not fully there yet. I find it impossible to justify overall church policy on the issue to date, except to note that things do appear to be getting better.

Bottom line, those who are guilty of the abuse need to be outed and defrocked, and those who covered it up and/or enabled it need to be properly, publicly, and severely punished.

As someone who is going to be baptized into the Church in about 3 weeks this sums up my views on the matter very well.

Catholics are whatever I perceive they are based on watching TV and reading Fark.

ImLawBoy wrote: The hatred for the Catholic church was larger in the past. The KKK used to really have it in for us papists, but I think they now tend to focus on simpler issues like black and white that their minds can more easily comprehend.

This absolutely blew my mind when I found out this out about the Klan's history during the early 1900s.

Bottom line, those who are guilty of the abuse need to be outed and defrocked, and those who covered it up and/or enabled it need to be properly, publicly, and severely punished.

Yup. The problem here is that I think the institution as a whole has repeatedly demonstrated that they protect their own. We take convicted pedophiles and put them in jail. The Catholic Church just relocates the offending members to some unsuspecting community.

Some of what happened within the Catholic Church is based on the decline of Western Catholics willing to accept a celibate lifestyle and devote their entire life to the calling of the Catholic Church. There used to be many more people willing to become Catholic priests whether for the spirituality, service, culture, prestige, tradition, and so on. Since there were ready candidates, many didn't make the cut and it wasn't too rare to be released from service once your calling to the priesthood waned. With the dwindling influx of new priests, the Catholic Church made it much more difficult to resign which was accompanied by a fierce protectiveness of those still within the Church. The shrinking supply of priests meant there weren't enough people to serve the flock, so you needed to use everyone you could. Now, the Catholic Church imports a significant number of U.S. priests and has many of the priest's duties delegated. And it's still not enough to keep many parishes open.

The Church has historically been an insular community. There's a strong interest to protect its own, and a history of internal procedures for handling its own problems dating back to medieval times (along with a history of problems). Child abuse is not only a criminal matter, but a serious spiritual offense. In many cases, the Archbishop wouldn't want to believe that its most trusted members could actually commit such horrible acts. And, too often, these allegations weren't made public or fully investigated back when they were happening. In many cases I think the coverups probably started with disbelief, followed by an honest conclusion that the situations couldn't have been that bad and could be fixed with therapy, forgiveness and repentance (which have strong traditions within the Catholic doctrine).

I don't say this to minimize the crimes, or to excuse what happened. Child abuse is, and has never been, acceptable. Our understanding has increased, as has our skepticism. I've met a number of former priests who are as baffled by what happened as anyone else and wonder what happened after they left. Many of them left to have children and families, and kept in regular touch with those who stayed.

I grew up in the evangelical South, and for a long time I had a case of "Catholic envy." I was used to local churches where the sense of religious community stopped at the edge of the parking lot and denominational neighbors were viewed with suspicion. I sometimes thought about how cool it would be to belong to a literally globe-spanning religious community with a rich history, art, literature, and social web all its own.

It was only after I lost most of my faith and left the South that I even had the chance to meet a large number of Catholics. From my outsider perspective, Catholics seem no more self-righteous and hypocritical than any other religious or non-religious people I have known. The ones who are serious about their faith seem to be admirably dedicated to doing good.

What has changed is my sense of the Catholic Church as an organization. What I once thought might be a global community of great beauty now looks like a tottering mess only slightly more efficient than the United Nations. The cover-ups and scandals around child abuse are starting to make it look like something worse.

Smoove_B wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: The hatred for the Catholic church was larger in the past. The KKK used to really have it in for us papists, but I think they now tend to focus on simpler issues like black and white that their minds can more easily comprehend.

This absolutely blew my mind when I found out this out about the Klan's history during the early 1900s.

I had only recently learned this as well, and struggled for a minute to recall where the information had come from. I realized it came from Freakonomics while they were illustrating the power of information.

The KKK was a much more equal opportunity prejudice organization back then apparently, in that anything that pissed off the average white male bigot was thrown into the charter.

Catholic immigrants were the Muslims of nineteenth-century America: an alien religion thought to be a threat the purity of American identity. This is especially true of Italians and Poles, who generally didn't speak English, but even the Irish were considered to be dangerous foreigners. (For all its flaws, GANGS OF NEW YORK gets this about right.)

This is why JFK getting elected as President was HUGE.

silverjon wrote:This is why JFK getting elected as President was HUGE.

Yep. And even then there were people genuinely concerned that electing a Roman Catholic as President meant that US policy would be dicated by the Vatican.

Shrink says he will only treat molesting priest if church agrees to keep him from working with children and supervise him. Church says "okay", then promptly transfers molesting priest to work with children, where he molests more of them.


I think many generalizations about Catholics are based on animus and stereotypes. But I also think that the Catholic Chruch, as an institution, has acted like a criminal enterprise on the issue of molestation.

I was curious about the civil legal toll. A quick parse of the wiki article suggests that these cases have cost the Catholic Church at least a few billion dollars so far.

Note: It's a bad sign when there is a wiki article or subheading for "[organization name] sex abuse cases." See also: Boy Scouts of America.

You can't have a culture of abuse without a culture of secrecy.

Monsignor Maurice Dooley, an expert in Catholic canon law, was asked what he would do if a pedophile priest confided his crimes to him today. The Monsignor said: “I would not tell anyone. That is his responsibility. I am considering only my responsibility. My responsibility is to maintain the confidentiality of information which I had been given under the contract of confidentiality. “There must be somebody else aware of what he is up to, and he could be stopped. It is not my function.” He added: “I would tell (him) to stop abusing children. But I am not going to go to the police or social services in order to betray the trust he has put in me.”

A small problem...

Dooley's comments, while in line with church policy on hearing confessions, appears directly in conflict with the Irish church's policies on child protection introduced in 1996. Those require all abuse complaints to be forwarded either directly to the police or to health officials.

If your experts don't know church policy regarding child protection (14 years after the fact), you may have a problem.

So their defense for covering up the abuse is that, being the church and all, they have spiritual methods of dealing with it that trump temporal ones? That argument might have worked a few centuries ago, but those days are long over.

This is looking more and more like Waco.

helot2000 wrote:You can't have a culture of abuse without a culture of secrecy.

Monsignor Maurice Dooley, an expert in Catholic canon law, was asked what he would do if a pedophile priest confided his crimes to him today. The Monsignor said: “I would not tell anyone. That is his responsibility. I am considering only my responsibility. My responsibility is to maintain the confidentiality of information which I had been given under the contract of confidentiality. “There must be somebody else aware of what he is up to, and he could be stopped. It is not my function.” He added: “I would tell (him) to stop abusing children. But I am not going to go to the police or social services in order to betray the trust he has put in me.”

A small problem...

Dooley's comments, while in line with church policy on hearing confessions, appears directly in conflict with the Irish church's policies on child protection introduced in 1996. Those require all abuse complaints to be forwarded either directly to the police or to health officials.

If your experts don't know church policy regarding child protection (14 years after the fact), you may have a problem.

I was recently thinking about that. That whole confessional thing seems to come in to play where God is the judge, not man. In addition you have that whole forgiveness thing. And then you have the whole Inquisition stain you are trying to work off. It's got to be a hard position for them to be put in all around.

It doesn't justify anything but it sort of gives some context, I guess.

helot2000 wrote:You can't have a culture of abuse without a culture of secrecy.

Monsignor Maurice Dooley, an expert in Catholic canon law, was asked what he would do if a pedophile priest confided his crimes to him today. The Monsignor said: “I would not tell anyone. That is his responsibility. I am considering only my responsibility. My responsibility is to maintain the confidentiality of information which I had been given under the contract of confidentiality. “There must be somebody else aware of what he is up to, and he could be stopped. It is not my function.” He added: “I would tell (him) to stop abusing children. But I am not going to go to the police or social services in order to betray the trust he has put in me.”

A small problem...

Dooley's comments, while in line with church policy on hearing confessions, appears directly in conflict with the Irish church's policies on child protection introduced in 1996. Those require all abuse complaints to be forwarded either directly to the police or to health officials.

If your experts don't know church policy regarding child protection (14 years after the fact), you may have a problem.

I think the difference is that a Confession is not considered a "complaint." There is a difference.

I would also hope that the priest would not give absolution without the penitent showing he was truly sorry and taking responsibility - which in this case would probably mean going to the police themselves.

stessier wrote:

helot2000 wrote:You can't have a culture of abuse without a culture of secrecy.

Monsignor Maurice Dooley, an expert in Catholic canon law, was asked what he would do if a pedophile priest confided his crimes to him today. The Monsignor said: “I would not tell anyone. That is his responsibility. I am considering only my responsibility. My responsibility is to maintain the confidentiality of information which I had been given under the contract of confidentiality. “There must be somebody else aware of what he is up to, and he could be stopped. It is not my function.” He added: “I would tell (him) to stop abusing children. But I am not going to go to the police or social services in order to betray the trust he has put in me.”

A small problem...

Dooley's comments, while in line with church policy on hearing confessions, appears directly in conflict with the Irish church's policies on child protection introduced in 1996. Those require all abuse complaints to be forwarded either directly to the police or to health officials.

If your experts don't know church policy regarding child protection (14 years after the fact), you may have a problem.

I think the difference is that a Confession is not considered a "complaint." There is a difference.

I would also hope that the priest would not give absolution without the penitent showing he was truly sorry and taking responsibility - which in this case would probably mean going to the police themselves.

Every priest/preacher I have every heard speak on the subject said they are legally protected from being forced to disclose anything said in confession, but are morally obligated to report child abuse. So take from that what you will.

stessier wrote:I would also hope that the priest would not give absolution without the penitent showing he was truly sorry and taking responsibility - which in this case would probably mean going to the police themselves.

I love this idea. It doesn't sound like it's practiced, but it would be a great start.

I still don't understand how those who knowingly moved a molesting priest to a new hunting ground, those who swore victims to silence are not guilty of a crime.

I also do not understand why the Catholic church retains it's tax exempt status....or really any of these mega churches where the "leaders" make out like bandits and live like kings.

If you want to know how bad is was for Catholics back in the 1840s-50s. Read up on the San Patricios and how Catholics were treated in the the army.

There used be front page news stories about orgies that Catholic priests and nuns were having while bathing in the blood of Protestant child they had kidnapped and murdered. There was wide spread belief that the pope was behind all the Catholic immigration in order to turn this into a Catholic country run by the pope.

Jaddison wrote:I also do not understand why the Catholic church retains it's tax exempt status

Why?

There used be front page news stories about orgies that Catholic priests and nuns were having while bathing in the blood of Protestant child they had kidnapped and murdered.

Why do you think there are ovens in the basements of every old convent??? Have to get rid of the bodies somehow.

LawBeefaroni wrote: All the callers were calling in with huge crises of faith. The general consensus seemed to be that the only way to save the Church was to leave it (thereby removing support for the current regime).

maybe it is time for...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope" target="_blank

At a highly exclusive private school where I taught, one of the math teachers had a predilection for young boys. He would call them in for special "study sessions" and then threaten them with failing grades and other abuse if they talked. It went on for years. Eventually there were rumors about it, but the principal decided that it was a matter to be handled internally. After all, the teacher was still a professional, and good teachers are scarce. Plus, schools have a long history of taking care of children and generally know how best to handle even the most difficult situations. The teacher finally admitted the wrongdoing, and the principal moved him to a purely administrative position where he had contact with fewer children.

Oh, wait. That didn't actually happen, because that would be fucking insane and everyone involved would go to jail.

ImLawBoy wrote: I do take exception to the idea that Catholics preach some sort superiority over other Christian faiths. I've certainly never experienced that at church, but I suppose it's possible that there are some rogue churches out there saying those kinds of things.

I guess the pope has gone rogue then:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html" target="_blank

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 056515.ece" target="_blank

Seriously, that's one of the problems Protestants have with Catholicism - we're not seen as equals in any discussions. Now that makes sense from the Catholic POV since the pope is infallible but it doesn't do much for ecumenism.

Grifman wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: I do take exception to the idea that Catholics preach some sort superiority over other Christian faiths. I've certainly never experienced that at church, but I suppose it's possible that there are some rogue churches out there saying those kinds of things.

I guess the pope has gone rogue then:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html" target="_blank

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 056515.ece" target="_blank

Seriously, that's one of the problems Protestants have with Catholicism - we're not seen as equals in any discussions. Now that makes sense from the Catholic POV since the pope is infallible but it doesn't do much for ecumenism.

I'm very, very disappointed to see the Pope make statements like that. Your assertion that you're "not seen as equals in any discussions" is just 100%, flat-out wrong, though. I see you as an equal. I can assure that every RC priest that I've ever heard discuss other Christian religions has never stated that Protestants were in any way less than equal. You've obviously pointed out where the Pope has said different, but that doesn't mean you're "not seen as equals in any discussions."

At this point, you can either choose to recognize that there are a lot of Catholics out there who do treat you as an equal in your Christian faith, or you can assume that we're all in lock-step with the Pope's statements (by the way, not all Catholics buy into the infallibility thing, even if that position might be grounds for excommunication). One way is a lot more likely to lead to better relationships between Christian faiths.

Grifman wrote:since the pope is infallible

Just so you are aware, the teaching of infallibility only applies certain things - not that the Pope can do no wrong.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp" target="_blank

and the more common site without the imprimatur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility" target="_blank

ImLawBoy wrote:

Grifman wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: I do take exception to the idea that Catholics preach some sort superiority over other Christian faiths. I've certainly never experienced that at church, but I suppose it's possible that there are some rogue churches out there saying those kinds of things.

I guess the pope has gone rogue then:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html" target="_blank

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 056515.ece" target="_blank

Seriously, that's one of the problems Protestants have with Catholicism - we're not seen as equals in any discussions. Now that makes sense from the Catholic POV since the pope is infallible but it doesn't do much for ecumenism.

I'm very, very disappointed to see the Pope make statements like that. Your assertion that you're "not seen as equals in any discussions" is just 100%, flat-out wrong, though. I see you as an equal. I can assure that every RC priest that I've ever heard discuss other Christian religions has never stated that Protestants were in any way less than equal. You've obviously pointed out where the Pope has said different, but that doesn't mean you're "not seen as equals in any discussions."

At this point, you can either choose to recognize that there are a lot of Catholics out there who do treat you as an equal in your Christian faith, or you can assume that we're all in lock-step with the Pope's statements (by the way, not all Catholics buy into the infallibility thing, even if that position might be grounds for excommunication). One way is a lot more likely to lead to better relationships between Christian faiths.

Actually, although I've never seen it worded the way it was in the articles (and it would probably be best if we could see the original statements rather than interpretations and quotes), that's basically what I've always been taught. The Catholic Church considers itself the one true faith. Every other splinter has some defect that prevents it from being in full communion with the Church.

So I guess I don't know what you mean by "not seen as equals in any discussions".

Between individuals? In my experience, I have never known a Catholic to look down on another person for choosing a different religion. Some people may annoy us by pushing their religion on us, but I think that's different.

Between the Churchs at say, the Rome level? Well, I think every religion thinks it's the right one and tries to win others over to their teachings. I can't imagine why it would surprise you when it is stated as such or when one suggests that the other religions have it wrong.

To be fair, Christian sects have a long history of refusing communion with competing Christian sects. This is especially true of American evangelical denominations. Go into a Baptist or Church of Christ congregation and tell them you're a Methodist, and they'll likely offer hopes that you will someday join them in the true faith. Tell them you're a Catholic or a Mormon, and you may as well be Hindu.

stessier wrote:So I guess I don't know what you mean by "not seen as equals in any discussions".

That's the phrase used by Grifman (although I added the italics). I'm reading it literally - there are certainly discussions where Catholics treat Protestants as equal, so that statement is false.

Certainly the Catholic Church believes it is the best option out there, and I suppose it makes sense that the formal position of the Church states that. When we're talking about why people may dislike Catholics, though, I'm not sure that Rome-to-other Church discussions are really that valuable. I think it's more valuable to use the interactions that most of us have in our day-to-day lives with people of the same and other religions.

I'm the first to admit that I'm no scholar of the Catholic Church and Protestant religions. I've tried to phrase a lot of my writings in this thread as "in my experience" types of statements. So there may well be some disconnect between my experiences and the formal teachings coming out of the Vatican. I'm reacting somewhat strongly in this thread, though, to statements about Catholic arrogance and global statements about how Catholics don't treat Protestants as equals. I'm sure that happens on occasion, just as I have seen some Protestants look down their noses at Catholics. If all of us take the worst that the other religions have to offer, though, and don't concentrate on the positives or where we get along, then that's not going to help matters among the various religions.