NP not my anti-Catholicism

[Terrance]

Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> American Catholics seem to pay very little attention to what the Pope tells
> them. According to public opinion polls. The things he says are bad--sex,
> birth control, abortion when need be, capital punishment, low wages for the
> unskilled--the flock finds perfectly OK, by and large.

I guess I should say that I'm not Catholic or christian....

For years there has been talk of a split, by the US Catholics. As you
note, this split is for all Practical if not spiritual purposes a
reality in the US (although there are generational considerations to
consider as well as ethnic/cultural/political ones, like catholic
immigration, mostly from Mexico). America is a huge place and
catholicism its dominant religion.  I assume you were referring to the
US catholics, but even in the USA, Catholicism is a very mixed bag.  

> 
> As far as the superstitious stuff goes I really wonder how much interest
> American Catholics or American church goers in general have in that end of
> things these days. My impression is that "God" is a useful concept with
> which to support youth morality--enough morality at least to stay out of
> jail-- which is what parents are overwhelmingly concerned with. And there
> may be many in the church who do sincerely and actively believe in the
> resurrection and the life.

This is a very good description of the middle to upper-middle class US
catholic. 
The superstitious stuff is very much a real and spiritual force in the
lives of the majority of catholics in America. 



> 
> But I  admit I'm out of touch with church goers. One lone Catholic family
> member whose five kids are all complete materialists.  Christian
> fundamentalists are a bit of a puzzle. The ones I know (and I know this
> doesn't apply to all of them) tend to be at the lower rungs of the social
> ladder and I suspect their religion is in part at least a protest against
> the more educated professional classes. Incidently that's a function
> religion has played in America since the beginning and isn't all that bad.

Couldn't be all bad. Could it? I guess one could argue that religion is
all bad. 

That bank founder was beatified because he wasn't all bad. Was he? I
wonder about that. 

Well, assuming, for arguments sake, that the  beatification of men and
women is not all bad,  why not the founder of a bank? Or are  men and
women who establish banks or
other financial institutions somehow unqualified to be saints? Was he a
nice guy? Did he do anything good? Or was he rotten to the core? 

BTW, why do the catholics do this, make people saints? 
Do other religions do it? 
Something like it?   
What are the rules? 
How does it happen? 
Must be lots of politics, but there must be some rules. I mean,
can a great sinner be made a great saint? are there certain sins that
once committed bar an individual from being blessed by the church or
made worthy of public/religious veneration, being made a saint? 

When did this all get started? 
Say, I bet St. Augustine would not approve of this? Is that right? 

JJ O'Donnel says that SA has nothing to say to us moderns. Just one
man's opinion, but he seems to know his stuff.