Titling a post 'hum' in response to my musing about the Pope and Catholicism strikes me as being exceedingly defamatory.
It wasn't intended to be a study in comparative religions, I would have agreed with your assessment that the harm Catholicism does to society is less than the Christian Fundamentalism's harm to society if it had been a comparative analysis.
The post was instead an investigation into a newer wikimedia manifestation, Conservapedia, which was conceived and overseen by a spawn of Phyllis Schlafly, Andrew, and claims on its front page: "A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free".
There is a problem with what Andrew believes to be the God's honest truth, and the make-up of Contemporary Conservatism's members though. That problem becomes transparent when one reads Conservapedia's Harry Potter entry.
In it, there is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek derisive description of a Christian Evangelical school children mother's attempt to get Harry Potter books banned, because they emphasise the Occult, and because of that are Satanic. As authoritarian proof that this mother is crazy, they reference a message from the Vatican.
A my god is better than your god argument. Although some could argue that this is using original intent in a very realistic way, a faithful portrayal of the Judeo-Christian heritage, it is still very provocative to imply that in matters of religious controversy, the Pope has the final say. Most Protestant faiths would consider that to be apostasy; in fact, most Evangelical Sects go even farther with their belief that The Pope is Revelations horned beast arising from the earth at the end of times.
The cohesiveness of these disparate Christian sects within contemporary conservatism has not been aided by the missives of the once Nazi Youth member, and present-day Pope. The latest assertion of his own most-holy primacy isn't going to help Rudy's already piss-poor standing amongst the Evangelicals:
A document released this week by the Vatican, which declares the Catholic Church's primacy and can be seen as deeming other Christian communities defective, has stirred up outrage.
Pope Benedict XVI signed off on the statement, only days after he moved to reinstitute the Latin Mass (which also rankled some), as a way to correct "erroneous interpretation" of the Second Vatican Council's 1960s teachings, which many considered a breakthrough in fostering dialogue between Christian traditions.
[. . .]
Calling the statement, which refers to the Catholic Church as the "one Church of Christ," "disappointing and regressive," Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah wondered in a written response why, in a time already steeped in division and when ecumenism is most necessary, the pope would issue comments that "will not help our efforts to find common ground and to move forward together."
[. . .]
Scott Trotter, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, weighed in Friday saying, "We are neither offended nor concerned when other faith traditions assert their authority. As stated in our 11th Article of Faith: 'We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may.' "
Jessica Ravitz, "Pope's declaration of Catholic primacy has protestants, other faiths miffed", The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2007
At least the Mormons remember the original intent of the bullets which were being fired at their ancestors' backsides as they scrambled up the western bank of the Missouri River to jump into their Conestoga wagons and seek out their prohesised Zion on Earth. They know far too well the potential harm which comes from allowing society to dictate religious mores. So did James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?
James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments",
June 20, 1785
This cuts to the chase about the blatant stupidity, and preponderately false assertion that America was founded on some sort of imaginary bedrock of a Christian totality, which also was tolerant of Jews but no other religions play in the same league. the "Judeo-Christian" tradition was brought into our consciousness around WWII, and had been non-existent before then. There is No Christian Gestalt. Christianity is instead a multitude of sects each having its own personal Jesus, and there are views held among them that are oppositional to each other. One example regards the esoteric question of whether Jesus was pure godseed. In other words, did Jesus possess Mary's DNA? It may sound trivial, but many people have died over the ages taking the wrong side in variations of that argument. The Constitution's founders were in majority believers in various Christian Sects, but they were also educated men who knew fully the lessons from history, and what the price had been for wars predicated by differing Christian dogmas. It was Inter Christian sectarian violence they were attempting to avoid by keeping religion separated from the government. If you want to get real truthful and harsh about original intent, many revolutionary Patriots were vehemently anti-Catholic, so I guess they don't get freedom of religion in America either:
"And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society 'is the chief characteristical mark of the true church' & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only Sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach Doctrines subversive of the Civil Government under which they live. The Roman Catholicks or Papists are excluded by reason of such Doctrines as these that Princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those they call Hereticks may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of Government, by introducing as far as possible into the states, under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty and property, that solecism in politicks, Imperium in imperio leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war and blood shed
Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists", November 20, 1772
This post had headed lineally for far enough: furthermore, the sarcastic question posed by the arses of the grade school playground; "Is the Pope Catholic", implies a cultural centric ignorance:
Pope Shenouda III, the head of Egypt's Coptic Orthodox church, criticised Pope Benedict on Saturday over a Vatican document asserting Catholic primacy, saying his pride in Catholicism was making him enemies.
"The man (Pope Benedict) makes enemies every time. In his first statements a few months back, he lost all the Muslims. And now this time, he lost a lot of the Christian denominations because he has begun to err against Christians themselves," Shenouda told the state-run daily Al-Ahram.
[. . .]
"We're not opposed to Catholics having pride in their church, but that doesn't mean that every church that doesn't join them isn't a church."
"Coptic pope criticises Pope Benedict", Reuters, July 15, 2007
So the rightful answer to the query is the Pope Catholic is not necessarily, but the answer to the query, "Does the Pope Shit in the Woods", would still be affirmative.
The Vatican has expended a tremendous effort to stigmatise homosexuality by advancing the claim that the problem of their priests being child molestors is in some way related to homosexuality. It is not. Child molestation is a predatory crime, and the victims are not chosen because of their gender, they are chosen because of the opportunity. For some incomprehensible reason, Catholic families have enough sense not to leave young Sally alone with a priest to cut candle wicks, but they are willing to send young Johnny off to St. Buggerers All Boy Preparatory School. Maybe they figure it the only way their sons well ever become a host for the holy spirit; for them to have a lifetime memory that will help them in understanding the phrase from Psalms 23: "thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me". After all of this distorting the facts about child molestation and homosexuality, the Pope has the nerve to ride around in the gayest vehicle ever known to mankind, the Popemobile.
In case you still confused, I've prepared a visual aid to go along with this post.
[ Parent ]