Originally Posted by Gulftastic:
“BIB Doesn't that apply to all religions? The Pope doesn't live in a bedsit, for example.”
It's up to you what you believe about religions, I suppose, but perhaps you will agree that some faiths and the institutions which promulgate them are a little more sincere, i.e. they believe they are doing it for the sake of believers.
Others, like Scientology (who would, of course, disagree and have gone to the High Court about it and - incredibly - got themselves officially recognised as 'a religion') are, to my mind, out and out shysters fleecing the gullible of their money. And I include the Kabbalah (as opposed to the Jewish mystic bunch) in that group.
But I admit it does get very difficult not being totally cynical about the institutions which make up our faiths (though I happily admit that having a faith - I don't - can and does bring a great deal of succour and comfort to a great many, whether the old, the sick, the very unhappy and others, so I never play the evangelical atheist with them).
I was born and brought up an RC (a so-called 'cradle Catholic) and my proviso notwithstanding that there are many wholly sincere RCs and priests, I find aspects of the RC church despicable beyond belief. I visited Rome several times and once visited the Vatican and the sheer opulence of the place - and I am not exaggerating - made me feel physically sick, especially as it is all supposedly intended for 'the glorification of God'. And if you know about the development of the Christian faith from the first century on, you will find it hard to disagree that the 'Roman' Christian church, as opposed to the quite a few other Christian church has over the centuries behaved as badly if not worse than many a modern monster corporation.
It was not the first of the Christian churches, but initially gained prominence over others merely because it was based in Rome, then still the centre of the powerful Roman empire. It proceeded to bulldoze itself to pre-eminence, often by the simple expedient of declaring other strands of faith which it regarded as rivals as more or less heretical and ruthlessly enforcing that judgment. (Here in Britain it was, for example, alarmed by the indigenous Celtic Christian church which had a far more egalitarian attitude and did not, as the RC church did, believe in a hierarchy of power. So at the Synod of Whitby it asserted its power and sidelined the Celtic Christians.)
There are Christian churches older than the Roman Christian church but none as widespread or powerful. There are the various Orthodox Christian churches, the Eastern Christian Churches and, of course the Lutherans and other 'protestant' churches. But none, as far as I know, is a ruthless as the RC church in protecting itself.
However, you could well argue that the RC is slowly coming to the end of its days after centuries of almost unrivaled power: its Prince bishops and popes were, until the 18th century, arguably even more powerful than secular royalty because of the stranglehold the faith had on members of the church. The thought of 'dying in sin', being 'excommunicated', and 'going to Hell' were utterly terrifying for believers who would do anything to escape that (including buying 'indulgences' sold for a handsome profit by clergy which purported to shorten your time in purgatory, a kind of holding camp for those on their way to Heaven).
To be fair, the current pope, Francis I think he's called, is not half as bad as his immediate predecessors but he is up against vested interests in the Vatican so strong he is certain not to prevail in cleaning out the stables.
Sorry this is so long. I was trying to establish a point.
