BuffettNews.com

bumper wrote:

bravedave wrote:

... I wouldn't think people are quite that dumb...

That's quite a gauntlet to cast down. Almost an invitation to the next ***** who comes along.

There are millions of dumb people. And for each and every dumb person there is someone else who is just a little dumber. I see dumb people every day. Some of them don't even know they're dumb. (A regular old dummy may ruin your day, but a ***** who thinks he's smart can make your whole life miserable.)

So knock on wood or throw some IQ points over your left shoulder. Let's all try to make it through the day without a dumb encounter.

I believe you've just called down the moderators from upon high

Cool! I had no idea that "*****" would make it past the cybercensor . (I figured it would come out as dumbf*** or something)

iuparrothead wrote:

IrishG wrote:Since none of us were there, none of us now what the exact truth is...but your attemps to readily discredit anything you deem wild ramblings can as easily be said for anything one believes in the Catholic faith. They've spread more lies and killed off as many people as anybody. They were so threatened by the Cathars and their "Perfect" lifestyle, along with the rebellion against the rich and crooked Roman Catholic Church of their time, the Church had the Cathars burned alive.

Beware of sweeping generalizations, my friend. "Those people" spreading the lies & killing off people were most likely evil people to begin with... they may have done their malevolent deeds in the name of the Catholic religion, but it wasn't purely the Catholic faith that prompted them to commit the crimes and autrocities... and your examples happened in centuries old cultures, we shouldn't make human behavior associations from the middle ages with what we construct as moral and civil behavior in modern society.

Poor wording. My intentions were not to put those actions on the Catholic faith. The Faithful are no more than believers and are not responsible for the actions of the Church. But there is no denying that Roman Catholic Church, by word of the Pope, has sanctioned horrible attrocities...(just as other religions have) in the past. I also know it rarely had to do with religion; it was more about power, money, land, etc. That's just the way it was back then.

I'm not sure you can't make comparisons of civil and moral behavior from past centuries. The Cathars name literally comes from "Christian" and they had their group of "Perfects" who lived very strict lives. Chastity, no swearing, living absolutely poor, eating nothing but veggies, bread and water....They followed the examples of Christ to the Nth degree. There have been varying cultures that followed Christ and did their best effort to live fully moral and civil lives through all centuries. That's one reason the Mason's were always so popular....they were all intelligent, civil, lived by a moral code, and mostly many nobleman. That has remained constant over a few hundred years..the Masons do large amounts of charity work and promote religious tolerance, kindness to one, and practicing moral fiber.

I say we can absolutely compare the actions of past generations to today. Both the good and evil have always existed and they always will.

IrishG wrote:I'm not sure you can't make comparisons of civil and moral behavior from past centuries. The Cathars name literally comes from "Christian" and they had their group of "Perfects" who lived very strict lives. Chastity, no swearing, living absolutely poor, eating nothing but veggies, bread and water....They followed the examples of Christ to the Nth degree. There have been varying cultures that followed Christ and did their best effort to live fully moral and civil lives through all centuries. That's one reason the Mason's were always so popular....they were all intelligent, civil, lived by a moral code, and mostly many nobleman. That has remained constant over a few hundred years..the Masons do large amounts of charity work and promote religious tolerance, kindness to one, and practicing moral fiber.

I say we can absolutely compare the actions of past generations to today. Both the good and evil have always existed and they always will.

My knowledge of freemason society is limited. But when you say that the freemasons promote religious tolerance I have to ask if religions other than the various protestant denominations are represented at the higher levels of freemasonry. That is a stereotype that I have heard over and over again and have had no one to ask. So, since you are here, I hope you can shed some light on the obviously one sided view I have.

As far as comparing the actions of past generations. Can you compare morality? In the Roman Coliseum, slaves were trained in the arts of war and forced to kill each other. That society, which reigned over one of the longest and most prosperous, and intellectually enlightened periods of human history, considered that moral. Yet we wouldn't today.

green1 wrote: My knowledge of freemason society is limited. But when you say that the freemasons promote religious tolerance I have to ask if religions other than the various protestant denominations are represented at the higher levels of freemasonry. That is a stereotype that I have heard over and over again and have had no one to ask. So, since you are here, I hope you can shed some light on the obviously one sided view I have.

As far as comparing the actions of past generations. Can you compare morality? In the Roman Coliseum, slaves were trained in the arts of war and forced to kill each other. That society, which reigned over one of the longest and most prosperous, and intellectually enlightened periods of human history, considered that moral. Yet we wouldn't today.

Yes, freemasonry and all it's higher levels or "offshoots" such as the Shriners, Scottish-Rite, York-Rite, etc, are tolerant of all religions. Before you are considered for petinioning of a Masonic Lodge, there are several required factors: The first and irrelevant being you must be 21 and a male. The next is that you MUST believe in a Supreme Being, a Creator, of some sort. As long as you're not an Atheist. Now the first rule in the Masonic lodge is there is no discussion of religion or politics. Your personal beliefs and opinions are your own. The Masons are brought together to help their brothers and those in need, as well as provide moral guidance. So all forms of religion, not just Christianity, are represented in Freemasonry. In early times, the most prevelant group represented would be Deists, which is the basic founding of Freemasonry. The Masonic symbol, represented by a T-square and compass inside a "G" represent this believe. Freemasonry and Deists have much in common, though it's not exclusive. Deists believe in a Creator of the Universe, but not in the Bible itself. They believe in morals, intelligence and civility by God, but not because of the Ten Commandments. Many of our founding fathers, as well as many famous names in history (George Washington, Ben Franklin, Mozart, Voltaire, etc) were Deists....others may call them Pagan. All these men just happen to be Freemasons. Freemasonry believes in the Architect of the Universe. The T-square represents integrity, honesty and truth, hence "being square with someone". The compass is a way to encircle oneself with their morals and to keep a boundary upon them. It's a moral reminder. The G is for Geometry, which completes the tie in to the "Architect" of the Universe. It's modeled after a man who built Solemon's Temple. Freemasonry used to be a "secret society" because nearly every big name in history concerning science or literature needed an "underground" place to gather and promote their intelligence and learning, which was severely repressed or thought of as satanic in the past. Consequently, this has huge impact on the American Revolution and the founding of this country. The Republic is a Masonic idea from long ago. Too much? There are many negative stereotypes about Freemasons, from racist to satanic and it's all BS. Masons aren't even a secret society...it's a public society with a couple secrets.

Excellent point about that aspect of Roman history...but during the relatively same time period, you had other civilizations across Europe who may not have seen this as moral. Considering it moral and considering it entertainment is not really the same thing. For example, one might consider p*** in its concept as immoral, but that doesn't necessarily stop them from watching it.

Thanks for the quick lesson Irish. I appreciate it.

But to the original thread. I have two thoughts. First to the non-Catholics. No offense but why do you care what an organization says to which you have no claim? To you, this is just an organization with rules and regs you don't agree with. But why can't they have their own rules and regs without the condemnation from those who don't belong. This would be like me saying that the rules imposed by the Masons are stupid. Why would I do that? I'm not a Mason, nothing I say will affect the Masonic brotherhood. The Masons have spent centuries developing their rules and codes of conduct they would look at me, learned or not of their ways as an outsider trying to push my views on them. Why should the Catholic Church be any different?
Secondly to the Catholics. The Vatican urging a boycot is significantly different than the Vatican prohibiting the faithful from seeing it. For whatever reason (and those reasons are published for everyones edification) the Church has decided that this movie and book are not in the best interests of Catholics, as it has decidely biased images of the Church and it's organizations. A monk assasin being one of the most heinous.

green1 wrote:Thanks for the quick lesson Irish. I appreciate it.

But to the original thread. I have two thoughts. First to the non-Catholics. No offense but why do you care what an organization says to which you have no claim? To you, this is just an organization with rules and regs you don't agree with. But why can't they have their own rules and regs without the condemnation from those who don't belong. This would be like me saying that the rules imposed by the Masons are stupid. Why would I do that? I'm not a Mason, nothing I say will affect the Masonic brotherhood. The Masons have spent centuries developing their rules and codes of conduct they would look at me, learned or not of their ways as an outsider trying to push my views on them. Why should the Catholic Church be any different?
Secondly to the Catholics. The Vatican urging a boycot is significantly different than the Vatican prohibiting the faithful from seeing it. For whatever reason (and those reasons are published for everyones edification) the Church has decided that this movie and book are not in the best interests of Catholics, as it has decidely biased images of the Church and it's organizations. A monk assasin being one of the most heinous.

The whole Opus Dei assasin munk deal is a bit entertaining. Now Opus Dei are all over TV defending themselves because of this movie. Dan Brown really takes their "self punishment" deal to the extreme. They seem like a good group of people to me.

First I want to say, I don't critize the Catholic faithful, in fact I respect all religions, whether I agree with them or not. But comparing the Masons to the Catholics is not the best scenario, here's why: Mason's don't speak of their beliefs. They don't discuss religion or politics. It's mostly a support system where they practice their motto, "Making good men better men"...mostly they do charity work. You'll never see a Mason advertising or "speaking out", they don't even "recruit". To be a Mason, you have to ask a Mason. They're very low key and most people don't even know they exist. Now comparing that to the Catholic Church, who has a tendency to tell folks what is moral for them (which all religions do)...that's a stretch.

It's not how the Catholic Church teaches, because all religions at its foundation have the greater good in mind. I mostly have a curiosity...and if my curiosity were to be satisfied by a legit answer, I would not question the Church. My curiosity being the same questions I asked early in this thread. How does a religion teach things they for fact not to be true? One of the posters before noted that my comments were widely known by their fellow Catholics. So how does one feel knowing that you're practicing a faith of a Church who openly teaches blatant lies (this actually applies to Christianity as a whole, not the Catholics). If one were to give me a satisfying answer as to why it took the Catholic Church 400 years to turn Mary into a virgin (that didn't involve political motives), my curiosities might be satisfied. I don't truly mean to criticize, it's just in my nature to quest such things. I'm a logical, fact driven person. Emotions and "faith" do not come easy to me. All the power in the world to those who lead better lives and find comfort in their beliefs. I honestly wish I was one of those people...I've even tried. It didn't stick

btw - for those who are offended, I do not mean to do so. I really just get a kick out of a good debate. Please do not take this personally.

green1 wrote:Thanks for the quick lesson Irish. I appreciate it.

But to the original thread. I have two thoughts. First to the non-Catholics. No offense but why do you care what an organization says to which you have no claim? To you, this is just an organization with rules and regs you don't agree with. But why can't they have their own rules and regs without the condemnation from those who don't belong. This would be like me saying that the rules imposed by the Masons are stupid. Why would I do that? I'm not a Mason, nothing I say will affect the Masonic brotherhood. The Masons have spent centuries developing their rules and codes of conduct they would look at me, learned or not of their ways as an outsider trying to push my views on them. Why should the Catholic Church be any different?
Secondly to the Catholics. The Vatican urging a boycot is significantly different than the Vatican prohibiting the faithful from seeing it. For whatever reason (and those reasons are published for everyones edification) the Church has decided that this movie and book are not in the best interests of Catholics, as it has decidely biased images of the Church and it's organizations. A monk assasin being one of the most heinous.

To me, it's about publicity, perceived power, and how that power is used. It has nothing to do with my general acceptance or dismissal of the Catholic faith.

live2ski wrote:

bravedave wrote:

... I wouldn't think people are quite that dumb...

That's quite a gauntlet to cast down. Almost an invitation to the next ***** who comes along.

There are millions of dumb people. And for each and every dumb person there is someone else who is just a little dumber. I see dumb people every day. Some of them don't even know they're dumb. (A regular old dummy may ruin your day, but a ***** who thinks he's smart can make your whole life miserable.)

So knock on wood or throw some IQ points over your left shoulder. Let's all try to make it through the day without a dumb encounter.

True, I call them Democrats.

yeah... they were the one who elected our idiot, er, "President"

IrishG wrote:First I want to say, I don't critize the Catholic faithful, in fact I respect all religions, whether I agree with them or not. But comparing the Masons to the Catholics is not the best scenario, here's why: Mason's don't speak of their beliefs. They don't discuss religion or politics. It's mostly a support system where they practice their motto, "Making good men better men"...mostly they do charity work. You'll never see a Mason advertising or "speaking out", they don't even "recruit". To be a Mason, you have to ask a Mason. They're very low key and most people don't even know they exist. Now comparing that to the Catholic Church, who has a tendency to tell folks what is moral for them (which all religions do)...that's a stretch.

It's not how the Catholic Church teaches, because all religions at its foundation have the greater good in mind. I mostly have a curiosity...and if my curiosity were to be satisfied by a legit answer, I would not question the Church. My curiosity being the same questions I asked early in this thread. How does a religion teach things they for fact not to be true? One of the posters before noted that my comments were widely known by their fellow Catholics. So how does one feel knowing that you're practicing a faith of a Church who openly teaches blatant lies (this actually applies to Christianity as a whole, not the Catholics). If one were to give me a satisfying answer as to why it took the Catholic Church 400 years to turn Mary into a virgin (that didn't involve political motives), my curiosities might be satisfied.

My point about the Masons was simply to show that simplicity of someone outside an organization trying to change an attitude within an organization. That is the only parallel I draw and it is appropriate.

Where is it said that after 400 years they turned Mary into a Virgin. Unless I am mistaken, the Old Testatment states that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. People believe Christ is the Messiah, and have since his life and death, therefore people must have believed Mary to be a vrigin. This isn't a belief that sprang up after 400 years, and the fact that you say it in that manner shows your attitude towards it. It may have taken 400 years to put down in a book, but then again, it took 400 years for the gospels to be put down into books as well. But simply because it took 400 years to be written does not mean that it took 400 years before people believed.

Quiet and Shy wrote: To me, it's about publicity, perceived power, and how that power is used. It has nothing to do with my general acceptance or dismissal of the Catholic faith.

What do you mean by publicity, perceived power and how that "perceived" power it used. If it is perceived and not real, than how can it be used? Are you upset that when the Catholic Church speaks, millions of people around the world will listen?

green1 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote: To me, it's about publicity, perceived power, and how that power is used. It has nothing to do with my general acceptance or dismissal of the Catholic faith.

What do you mean by publicity, perceived power and how that "perceived" power it used. If it is perceived and not real, than how can it be used? Are you upset that when the Catholic Church speaks, millions of people around the world will listen?

The same way that the Russian bear was perceived to be a powerful animal prior to 1905... All it took was the Battle of Tsushima (sp), and the perception of power, and it's projection went from daunting to punchline.

green1 wrote:

IrishG wrote:First I want to say, I don't critize the Catholic faithful, in fact I respect all religions, whether I agree with them or not. But comparing the Masons to the Catholics is not the best scenario, here's why: Mason's don't speak of their beliefs. They don't discuss religion or politics. It's mostly a support system where they practice their motto, "Making good men better men"...mostly they do charity work. You'll never see a Mason advertising or "speaking out", they don't even "recruit". To be a Mason, you have to ask a Mason. They're very low key and most people don't even know they exist. Now comparing that to the Catholic Church, who has a tendency to tell folks what is moral for them (which all religions do)...that's a stretch.

It's not how the Catholic Church teaches, because all religions at its foundation have the greater good in mind. I mostly have a curiosity...and if my curiosity were to be satisfied by a legit answer, I would not question the Church. My curiosity being the same questions I asked early in this thread. How does a religion teach things they for fact not to be true? One of the posters before noted that my comments were widely known by their fellow Catholics. So how does one feel knowing that you're practicing a faith of a Church who openly teaches blatant lies (this actually applies to Christianity as a whole, not the Catholics). If one were to give me a satisfying answer as to why it took the Catholic Church 400 years to turn Mary into a virgin (that didn't involve political motives), my curiosities might be satisfied.

My point about the Masons was simply to show that simplicity of someone outside an organization trying to change an attitude within an organization. That is the only parallel I draw and it is appropriate.

Where is it said that after 400 years they turned Mary into a Virgin. Unless I am mistaken, the Old Testatment states that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. People believe Christ is the Messiah, and have since his life and death, therefore people must have believed Mary to be a vrigin. This isn't a belief that sprang up after 400 years, and the fact that you say it in that manner shows your attitude towards it. It may have taken 400 years to put down in a book, but then again, it took 400 years for the gospels to be put down into books as well. But simply because it took 400 years to be written does not mean that it took 400 years before people believed.

I don't know if it's actual fact, but it's been noted in many different books that during the 5th century, many changes occurred in the Catholic Church. Perhaps it was just the writing time line. But from researchers, as well as from the Bible itself, Jesus did have brothers, including an older brother. So if Jesus had an older brother, how exactly was Mary a virgin? Perhaps they meant to write she got pregnant without having sex that particular time?

btw - during the same 5th century is when they decided to cover up pagan holidays and symbols, change the Sabbath day, etc. Is a huge wipeout campaign. I believe Mary was part of that.

IrishG wrote:I don't know if it's actual fact, but it's been noted in many different books that during the 5th century, many changes occurred in the Catholic Church. Perhaps it was just the writing time line. But from researchers, as well as from the Bible itself, Jesus did have brothers, including an older brother. So if Jesus had an older brother, how exactly was Mary a virgin? Perhaps they meant to write she got pregnant without having sex that particular time?

btw - during the same 5th century is when they decided to cover up pagan holidays and symbols, change the Sabbath day, etc. Is a huge wipeout campaign. I believe Mary was part of that.

I have never heard from a reliable source that Jesus had any brother, or sister for that matter. The closest I heard was that box found a year or so ago with the inscription "James brother of Jesus". This was proven to be a forgery. On the contrary there are numerous references to Joseph being a man who kept to the old law. This law prohibited sex before marriage, and if his wife bore a child not his own, then sex after that birth was prohibited. So this would preclude other children. The main reference to people saying that Jesus had a brother was when he was on the cross he looked to one of his disciples and said "Brother, there is your mother." Yet none of his disciples before this point were referred as his brothers. It is widely accepted that he was speaking in a fraternal sense, and since he had no true siblings he was entrusting the care of his mother, which was his responsibility, to someone he trusted as a brother.

The sabath was changed to Sunday because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. That is in the cathechism.
If I am not mistaken, and I could be on this one, is that Easter, the day Christ rose from the dead was the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. All of which would have been known to farmers as a way to measure when to plant and reap. That tradition continues. Christmas. I know it was moved to when it is now, but I don't know the reasons and it may be as you say.

RinglingRingling wrote:

green1 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote: To me, it's about publicity, perceived power, and how that power is used. It has nothing to do with my general acceptance or dismissal of the Catholic faith.

What do you mean by publicity, perceived power and how that "perceived" power it used. If it is perceived and not real, than how can it be used? Are you upset that when the Catholic Church speaks, millions of people around the world will listen?

The same way that the Russian bear was perceived to be a powerful animal prior to 1905... All it took was the Battle of Tsushima (sp), and the perception of power, and it's projection went from daunting to punchline.

I will ask again, are you upset that the Catholic Church can speak and have millions of listeners? Or just that you perceive them to wield a power they may or may not have? If you are syaing that they don't have any power than I would ask if you know of the Catholic influence in the downfall of communism.

green1 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote: To me, it's about publicity, perceived power, and how that power is used. It has nothing to do with my general acceptance or dismissal of the Catholic faith.

What do you mean by publicity, perceived power and how that "perceived" power it used. If it is perceived and not real, than how can it be used? Are you upset that when the Catholic Church speaks, millions of people around the world will listen?

I'm not trying to offend or be combative here. I'm merely sharing how I view this decision and position by the Pope/Vatican.

Publicity: the Vatican released the statement to the media.

"Perceived Power": not all Catholics do everything the Vatican directs them to do, and although the Pope has been seen as a global spiritual leader representing faith, this type of position undermines the potential influence the Pope has with Catholics and others as a spiritual leader. And I'd suggest the near-absolute power of the Pope from centuries ago, which has evolved into something more akin to a level of influence today, isn't always grasped by today's Vatican.

I just think the Catholic Church is focusing on the wrong thing by taking such a negative position on something such as this; it isn't helpful in the short- or long-term. It smacks of out-of-touch defensiveness and micromanagement today, and I'd suggest this approach hinders the Pope's credibility and influence for the future, as well.

Alternatively, the church could use the popularity of the book and movie as a teaching opportunity to get people interested in and curious about learning the truth of the faith, but they have instead chosen to view it as a threat. (They're fighting the wave instead of riding it.) And that's too bad.

Quiet and Shy wrote:I'm not trying to offend or be combative here. I'm merely sharing how I view this decision and position by the Pope/Vatican.

Publicity: the Vatican released the statement to the media.

"Perceived Power": not all Catholics do everything the Vatican directs them to do, and although the Pope has been seen as a global spiritual leader representing faith, this type of position undermines the potential influence the Pope has with Catholics and others as a spiritual leader. And I'd suggest the near-absolute power of the Pope from centuries ago, which has evolved into something more akin to a level of influence today, isn't always grasped by today's Vatican.

I just think the Catholic Church is focusing on the wrong thing by taking such a negative position on something such as this; it isn't helpful in the short- or long-term. It smacks of out-of-touch defensiveness and micromanagement today, and I'd suggest this approach hinders the Pope's credibility and influence for the future, as well.

Alternatively, the church could use the popularity of the book and movie as a teaching opportunity to get people interested in and curious about learning the truth of the faith, but they have instead chosen to view it as a threat. (They're fighting the wave instead of riding it.) And that's too bad.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The pope and Roman Catholic Church teaches in accordance with it's tenets. When something comes out, such as this, that is blatantly wrong, one sided or anti-Catholic it must counter it or it looses credibility. By suggesting a boycot the church is holding it's ground and not letting it's footing be undermined inch by inch. If they did not take this step, then 50 years from now someone would come forward with a theory just a little wilder using the assertions in the Da Vinci code, and on and on, a slow decay of core beliefs.

As far as riding the wave, the church I attend is riding the wave by giving talks, study groups etc. about how and why the Da Vinci code is wrong. They are using it as a teaching tool just as you said they should.

green1 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:I'm not trying to offend or be combative here. I'm merely sharing how I view this decision and position by the Pope/Vatican.

Publicity: the Vatican released the statement to the media.

"Perceived Power": not all Catholics do everything the Vatican directs them to do, and although the Pope has been seen as a global spiritual leader representing faith, this type of position undermines the potential influence the Pope has with Catholics and others as a spiritual leader. And I'd suggest the near-absolute power of the Pope from centuries ago, which has evolved into something more akin to a level of influence today, isn't always grasped by today's Vatican.

I just think the Catholic Church is focusing on the wrong thing by taking such a negative position on something such as this; it isn't helpful in the short- or long-term. It smacks of out-of-touch defensiveness and micromanagement today, and I'd suggest this approach hinders the Pope's credibility and influence for the future, as well.

Alternatively, the church could use the popularity of the book and movie as a teaching opportunity to get people interested in and curious about learning the truth of the faith, but they have instead chosen to view it as a threat. (They're fighting the wave instead of riding it.) And that's too bad.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The pope and Roman Catholic Church teaches in accordance with it's tenets. When something comes out, such as this, that is blatantly wrong, one sided or anti-Catholic it must counter it or it looses credibility. By suggesting a boycot the church is holding it's ground and not letting it's footing be undermined inch by inch. If they did not take this step, then 50 years from now someone would come forward with a theory just a little wilder using the assertions in the Da Vinci code, and on and on, a slow decay of core beliefs.

As far as riding the wave, the church I attend is riding the wave by giving talks, study groups etc. about how and why the Da Vinci code is wrong. They are using it as a teaching tool just as you said they should.

It's called fiction....

green1 wrote: I disagree wholeheartedly. The pope and Roman Catholic Church teaches in accordance with it's tenets. When something comes out, such as this, that is blatantly wrong, one sided or anti-Catholic it must counter it or it looses credibility. By suggesting a boycot the church is holding it's ground and not letting it's footing be undermined inch by inch. If they did not take this step, then 50 years from now someone would come forward with a theory just a little wilder using the assertions in the Da Vinci code, and on and on, a slow decay of core beliefs.
As far as riding the wave, the church I attend is riding the wave by giving talks, study groups etc. about how and why the Da Vinci code is wrong. They are using it as a teaching tool just as you said they should.

So you're saying that a book/movie labeled as fiction is going to cause the decay of core beliefs among Catholics? If that is all it takes for RCC's followers to lose faith, I believe you have bigger issues at hand.

Fact is, the RCC has always been easily threatened. I wonder what would happen if I wildly asserted that the RCC was quite possibly the first true organized crime syndicate.

Quiet and Shy wrote:It's called fiction....

I agree. It is fiction, and a good story. But there are people who will take this story and believe that there are legitimate truths within it. For example, there are people who think that all members of Opus Dei believe in corporeal punishment because of the book.

IrishG wrote:So you're saying that a book/movie labeled as fiction is going to cause the decay of core beliefs among Catholics? If that is all it takes for RCC's followers to lose faith, I believe you have bigger issues at hand.

Fact is, the RCC has always been easily threatened. I wonder what would happen if I wildly asserted that the RCC was quite possibly the first true organized crime syndicate.

I am not saying that a fictional book will cause a decay of core beliefs. I am saying that Catholic Church has a duty to state when it's beliefs and tenets are being characteized incorrectly. If you think that any organization should not do the same, than why did you respond with correct information when I questioned the stereotypes asscoaited with Freemasons. Is it OK for one group but not another. The RCC is not easily threatened. You stating that it is, does not make it so. It simply wants to make sure that people realize what is fact, from what is fiction.

I also find it interesting that you state you want to debate something and not insult anyone and then you throw out the "organized crime syndicate". Smiley face not withstanding, it is insulting.