I disagree. Institutional longevity is pretty remarkable. Especially in this particular context, where the thought is how it's such a broken system, and needs vast rethinking. Nothing lasts that long if it's that broken. Democracy is one of our most cherished institutions, and it hasn't even lasted half that long (either in the modern form or the Greek one).
I think comparing it to a disease is sophistry. Human endeavor in general works much differently than anything biological. I don't want to compare any institution (both the famous and infamous) to that. For one, it takes the fun out of history (and I'm a history buff). History is complicated, full of ups and downs, bad intentions, good intentions, bad intention that end in good, good intentions that lead to hell.
The comparison is apt, because it accounts for the factors being discussed. If you prefer examples with more human agency, then, consider slavery. It is far older than the Catholic Church, and only recently have we come to repudiate it on a global scale. Is slavery a "broken system"? That depends on what one wants to accomplish by it, just as with the Catholic church. Fun with history is fine, but not at the expense of accuracy.
As for the early church, you'll have to clue me in. I don't think they outnumber they factions now. Off the top of my head, there were Catholic (Roman and Eastern orthodox), Aryans, Gnostics, Ebionites, and various offshoot Gnostics like Marcionites.
Just the divide between the Gnostics and what eventually became the church in Rome is much larger than anything within the Catholic church today. The pope is considered the Vicar of Christ, and as such, is meant to represent Christ to humanity, to serve as an intermediary. The function of the ordinary priest is very similar. The Gnostic contention, however, is that no one can represent God to a believer. Each believer must learn about the divine directly, on his/her own (that is the knowledge, or "gnosis" implied in the name).
This is a good example of taking typology too far. Not all oppressed women either. Some were way before their time in that respect (Joan of Arc). Nor are they against science in the way evangelicals are. Hell, the guy who came up with the Big Bang theory and expanding universe model was a priest, who could go toe to toe with Einstein. The church is full of contradictions. But to me, that's interesting.
If I recall, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, one of many women to meet that fate, though more famous. Then there was Galileo. It took the church until the 1980s to exonerate him, and later to admit the excesses of the inquisition. Of course, Catholic universities were teaching what Galileo learned long before that. So does that make them hypocrites? Contraditions like this are not interesting, they are sad, counterproductive, hurtful, and bespeak an arrogant stubbornness that is decidedly un-Christlike.
Thanks. So how does this work exactly? Does the Pope make official decrees every so often or something? Why do people like the idea of a single person deciding the "rules?"
When the pope wants to make an official pronouncement on something, he usually publishes it in a document. The kind of document I hear the most about is the encyclical, but there are others as well. I don't know that they are made regularly, like an annual report or "state of the church" address. Usually they seem to respond to some current issue or problem, or just reflect the goals or interests of the pope writing them.
The pope is no different from any other absolute monarch, except that these days, his influence is limited to the spiritual arena. One might as well ask why absolute monarchy survived so long as a form of government, and how dictators still manage to stay in power. Ultimately, they all have some hold over the people who follow them.
Nice info. I can't really wrap my head around this mindset, but I guess these SJ types have a valid perspective which is useful for something.
Yes, which is why I still have minor hostility towards the Catholic Church. Officially I'm tolerant and don't judge people, but privately I hope conservative religion dies out like the unevolved creature it is. It takes some time to forgive the genocide and torture of millions of people (mostly women) with whom you share a culture and religion.
The church is full of SJs, but then so is everywhere else. There are SPs, who stereotypically are the "sinners" who repent and come back to the fold. Many church scholars are probably NTs, but they are a small minority of Catholics. It is only in very recent times that the laity were encouraged even to read the Bible. The Catholic Church long opposed translation of the Bible and later the liturgy into the vernacular, so ordinary people even could understand it. There was very definitely a mentality of "don't look behind the curtain - we [the hierarchy] will tell you what to believe and how to live. That is still alive and well, among many in authority, and many ordinary believers. It contradicts democratic principles, however, which is part of why the Catholic church in the U.S. has often seemed out of step with the Vatican. Where does this leave NFs? Probably most disappointed of all, since they really want it all to be true.
I don't have to be hostile toward individuals, to be hostile toward ideas. When individuals espouse these ideas, especially uncritically, they tend to lose my respect at least.