PA grand jury report on Catholic child abuse

[steve_bank]

What is common to light with this in the media is the medieval kind of palace intrigue in the Vatican. Forces are at work to overthrow the current pope. Multiple factions in the Vatican.

Some American Catholics appear to be turning away completely disillusioned.

 

[Thomas II]

What is common to light with this in the media is the medieval kind of palace intrigue in the Vatican. Forces are at work to overthrow the current pope. Multiple factions in the Vatican.

Some American Catholics appear to be turning away completely disillusioned.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Vatican has a long history of intrigue and controversy...https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-butler-intrigue/vatican-has-long-history-of-intrigue-and-controversy-idUSBRE8500WS20120601

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem is, Constantine did not convert until he was on his deathbed. So, if he did anything after converting, it was as a corpse. I suspect putrescence was about all he could handle.

It's all myth. We have no idea. Based on the legacy of Constantine I think he was an incredibly grounded and sensible person who converted for pragmatic reasons. I think he just hedged his bets.

All foundational buildings in Constantinople followed Pagan rituals. Even the Christian buildings. Which is why they have Pagan relics and idols inside their walls. For protection against the gods.

I don't think he cared about religion that much. I think he had a troubled empire to run and had a laser focus on that goal.

My understanding is that he was cursed with the rampaging mobs of various sectarian 'Christians' who kept the Empire in a state of chaotic upheaval. The differences in dogma fueled the ongoing discord amongst Christians and his attempt was to bring unity amongst Christians by simplifying the dogmas to reduce the internecine violence in the streets of the Empire. Hence, the gathering at Nicea.

Mmmm... Yeah. But whenever there's a religious conflict there's usually something very secular they're fighting about.

In this case it was that the Roman empire had figured out a system which continually produced a class of Roman sons without property, whose only route to gaining property was to join the army, and after 30 years of service they would get property. Which worked great to put an army at the emperors disposal and whose salary was the very land the emperor took from Rome's enemies. It was a scheme that paid for itself.

But it was a scheme that assumed continued success for the Roman army and perpetual growth. At some point that wall would be reached. The moment the Roman empire had to slow down it's growth it had to reduce the army, the Roman empire would start to fill with Roman citizens with full rights, with no property, no income and who didn't have an army to join. This is when Christianity enters the pictures and preaches that those poor where the most virtuous people. Which, for obvious reasons, is appealing to people who have nothing. I imagine it's a similar appeal socialism had to the exploited working class of the 19'th century and first half of the 20'th.

My point is that Christianity isn't the root cause of the problems that Christians caused. The problem, all along, was the fundamental structure of the Roman Republican society, and later imperial.