REPORT Secularism Violations
PoliticsReligionSociety

Fighting may be “inutile,” but reform is inevitable

Red Tani
Red Tani

Ex-CBCP President Oscar V. Cruz has been assimilated by the Borg. Or at least he sounds like one: “Fighting is [sic] the Catholic Church is inutile!” he wrote in a recent post on his blog.

Unfortunately, some screws are loose in his language processor. First of all, inutile means “lacking in utility or serviceability; not useful.”  He probably meant “futile,” which means ” having no useful result” or “completely ineffective.”

To his credit he made it clear that this was not meant for “for agnostics who acknowledge no God” or “eclectics who simply choose what they want to believe as their own private and personal choice” or “people who subscribe to any sect here and there that come and go, or any system of beliefs that blatantly defies all logic and reason.”

In other words, this is meant for the Katoliko Sarado (fundamentalist Catholic). But why is he giving the “Resistance is Futile” speech to the already assimilated?

This and the following fallacies and faulty reasoning shows that his rational processor needs upgrading as well.

“The Catholic Church is the only worldwide institution that is some 2000 years old and counting.”

Old Paganism – 30,000 years ago
Modern Paganism – 1,000 BCE
Hinduism – 1,500 BCE
Judaism – 1,400 BCE
Buddhism – 500 BCE

“There is not a single entity in the whole universe that is as one and universal, that has remained that global and vibrant as the Catholic Church. Yes, they are other old creeds – but there are neither one and universal.”

First , where did Cruz get his data about the whole universe?

Second, is he sure that “there is not a single entity in the whole universe that is as one and universal”? Even God? And please don’t tell me that God is the same as the Catholic Church — panentheism is anathema.

And yes, “Catholic” translates to “universal,” but that’s all. That there are more than a thousand other religions (and over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone) tells us how no single organized religion has been and can be “one and universal.”

“The fact is that the central site of the Catholic Church is officially known, called and acknowledge by the civilized word as the “Vatican City State” that has formal diplomatic relations with most Countries, that sends to and receives Ambassadors from said Countries.”

Are you sure you want to play that card, Oscar? The Vatican was only made a state in exchange for recognizing the fascist government of Benito Mussolini.

“One: In the past, there were Priests, Bishops and even Popes who tried to destroy and erase the Catholic Church from the face of the earth – not to mention secular potentates of all kinds that attempted to do the same. Yet, the Church is still here.”

The Church of 2,000 years ago is no longer here. It has gone through several schisms which resulted in over 30,000 different denominations. The Roman Catholic denomination may be the largest, but it is a modern creation, influenced by all the schisms, internal improvements, and changes in culture caused by mostly secular influences.

The Catholic Church of 2,000 years ago no longer exists, and that’s a good thing. The Crusades and religious wars, the Inquisition and witch hunts, banning books, allowing slavery — these are gone today, and so is the version of the church that condoned it.

“Two: In this period of Phil. History, there are a number of politicians and citizens who harbor hatred for the Church — and if possible, want her out of their way. But as sure as the sun will shine tomorrow, the Church will be then up and about.”

I don’t really get what Cruz wants to prove when he argues for the Church’s power and resilience. There is one institution that is more widespread and resilient than the Catholic Church — slavery.

Does the fact that it was practiced in all continents and that it’s been around for 11,000 years validate its existence? If Cruz wanted to prove the value of the Catholic Church, why didn’t he give reasons it’s a force for good in the world instead of spouting appeals to antiquity and popularity?

“Three, finally, it is good to remember an ominous reality, viz., those Catholics of whatever political affiliation and ideological persuasion, will be usually brought to the cemetery by the Church.”

Ominous means “giving the impression that something bad or unpleasant is going to happen.” At least Cruz got one thing right.

“Lesson: Fighting is the Catholic Church is inutile!”

Trying to reform an institution is different from fighting it. You might not like the word “reformation” but it is inevitable. (Please review Church history, Oscar.)

If the Church has become a more humane, more beneficial, and more relevant institution than it was 2,000 years ago, it is thanks to the people who have fought to reform it.

Awesome image by Jeiel

Related content

44 comments

  5. Hi Twin-Skies.

    <<I>>

    Then Red has, maybe unwittingly, made what is called a "strawman argument." However you look at it, the Catholic Church is not just an "institution" in that it is "a long-established practice by several societies." It is an institution with a definite hierarchical organization in it, as I had defined it. It is in this sense that the archbishop was talking about. And it is in this sense that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are unequaled. For Red to say otherwise by comparing it to slavery is to substitute what Archbishop Cruz was saying with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "strawman"; that is, the Catholic Church is just a "cultural/social institution" not an institution with hierarchical organization), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

    <>

    And here is most people do not understand about the Catholic Church. You see, she does not rely solely on the Bible. She also relies on the teachings handed down from one generation to another that are not written on the Bible (Sacred Tradition) and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to know how to interpret the Bible and Holy Tradition with authority (the Magisterium).

    About the Catholic Church and slavery, see http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.as…

    <>

    Not just so. The Catholic Church is still here, a visible organization 2000 years old, an organization based on the authority of St. Peter and his successors conferred by Jesus Christ. It is not just "because the Bible says so." It's because history has shown so,

    <>

    And there is also the freedom of speech and the right to religion. Religious institutions have the right to say what they think is wrong and what they think is right, and they also have the right to tell to their faithful what they think are the consequences of certain actions, and to discipline their own faithful.

    <>

    Let us see in a few decades, when the population implosions of England and other European countries have fully taken effect and the Muslims take over those countries through sheer numbers.

    Actually, it's already starting to happen now.

    God bless.

    • racist much? instilling the fear of whatever implied threat you may ascribe to islamic growth WILL NOT make what the Catholic Church is doing any more palatable!

      hmmm… I wonder what is more pathetic: a million new catholics born into poverty or one million muslims that are actually productive?

    • [Then Red has, maybe unwittingly, made what is called a "strawman argument." However you look at it, the Catholic Church is not just an "institution" in that it is "a long-established practice by several societies." It is an institution with a definite hierarchical organization in it, as I had defined it. It is in this sense that the archbishop was talking about. And it is in this sense that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are unequaled. For Red to say otherwise by comparing it to slavery is to substitute what Archbishop Cruz was saying with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "strawman"; that is, the Catholic Church is just a "cultural/social institution" not an institution with hierarchical organization), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. ]

      Now you're just playing the semantics game.

      [And here is most people do not understand about the Catholic Church. You see, she does not rely solely on the Bible. She also relies on the teachings handed down from one generation to another that are not written on the Bible (Sacred Tradition) and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to know how to interpret the Bible and Holy Tradition with authority (the Magisterium). ]

      In short, you're resorting to the Courtier's reply http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

      [Not just so. The Catholic Church is still here, a visible organization 2000 years old, an organization based on the authority of St. Peter and his successors conferred by Jesus Christ. It is not just "because the Bible says so." It's because history has shown so,]

      An organization that resorts to violence and political I might add, unless you forgot the Inquisition, or the reason for Dante's writing his Divine Comedy. Then let's not forget the crusades, or the pogroms in the past decade – the church.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom#Reacti…

      And recently, let's not forget the RCC's attempts to pretend its sex scandals never happened, or that the offenders were transferred to other parishes to evade the police.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/53…

      Don't even get me started on your bigotry against the gay community.

      If there is anything that history has shown us, it's that the RCC will resort to underhanded means just so it can keep playing the part of the "Moral" guardian.

      [Let us see in a few decades, when the population implosions of England and other European countries have fully taken effect and the Muslims take over those countries through sheer numbers.

      Actually, it's already starting to happen now.]

      Meh. You're just jealous because your pulpits are beginning to thin.
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la…

      • Hello again, Twin-Skies.

        /Now you're just playing the semantics game. /

        But isn't the strawman argument the ultimate semantics game?

        /In short, you're resorting to the Courtier's reply http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply/

        The obvious answer to the Courtier's reply is, "So explain it to me, then." Didn't I post a link about the Catholic Church and slavery? So read on it. Do you need any clarifications about the Catholic Church's doctrines? Here is a link to an online version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm I'll try to answer any questions.

        The thing is, the Courtier's Reply cannot be applied to the Catholic Church, because anyone can read her doctrines, and explanations of her doctrines, and her history, anytime he/she has an Internet connection, like us.

        /An organization that resorts to violence and political I might add, unless you forgot the Inquisition, or the reason for Dante's writing his Divine Comedy. Then let's not forget the crusades, or the pogroms in the past decade.

        And recently, let's not forget the RCC's attempts to pretend its sex scandals never happened, or that the offenders were transferred to other parishes to evade the police./

        Unfortunately the Church was, is, and will be an organization of men and women, and as the teachings of the Church attest, any person or groups of people, no matter how good their initial intentions or how holy their purpose–even the leaders and members of the Catholic Church—will occasionally do evil. Everyone sins.

        And yet it is also the teaching of the Catholic Church that good CAN still emerge from evil intentions, like Dante's Divine Comedy, like St. Joan of Arc, like the Reconquista, like the more stringent selections of seminarians in place now and the quite ironic increasing number of seminarians, and so many others.

        Your point actually has just proven that the Church was, is, and still will be always correct in many things.

        /Don't even get me started on your bigotry against the gay community./
        <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc” target=”_blank”>www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

        /Meh. You're just jealous because your pulpits are beginning to thin./

        Jealous? Not really. It is not the number of Catholics who leave that irk me, it's the number of "catholycs" who do not follow the teachings of the Church yet insist on using the name "Catholic" to describe themselves. I will be VERY glad if the "cafeteria Catholics" (probably 60% of all Catholics) would all just man up and truly leave the Church.

        Anyways, please watch the video I pointed mimimarquez to. Here is a link: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc” target=”_blank”>www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

        God bless.

          • That's a lot of numbers. Care to cite which studies the video got them from?

            The video claims that in the The Netherlands, 50% of all newborns are Muslim and by 2024 half the population will be Muslim. I find this most odd given that a recent study published by the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, the figure is closer to 8%
            http://www.nidi.knaw.nl/en/output/demos/2007/demo…

            Further along, the video stated that Belgian government, a third of children born in the EU in 2025 will be Muslim and that according to the German government, Germany will be a Muslim state in 2050. a quick search on the net indicates that the closest place the info was taken from is LifeSitenews, hardly the most objective of news site (Hint: it's A Christian Conservative Pro-life site)

            In short, you're trying to resort to scaremongering to try to get us to convert a common tactic among fundies who've got nothing better to do than to fucking lie about their information.

            And besides, even if the numbers were true, what the fuck makes you think your groups is any better. You cannot fix religious fundamentalism by replacing it with another, and you would have to be a fucking moron to even think that works.

        • [Unfortunately the Church was, is, and will be an organization of men and women, and as the teachings of the Church attest, any person or groups of people, no matter how good their initial intentions or how holy their purpose–even the leaders and members of the Catholic Church—will occasionally do evil. Everyone sins. ]

          The difference is that instead of bringing its offenders to the authorities, it has instead opted to cover up the incidents, transferring its molesters from parish to parish. These are not isolated incidents – these are indications of a systemic rot that you pretend is not there.
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/53…

          [And yet it is also the teaching of the Catholic Church that good CAN still emerge from evil intentions, like Dante's Divine Comedy, like St. Joan of Arc, like the Reconquista, like the more stringent selections of seminarians in place now and the quite ironic increasing number of seminarians, and so many others. And yet it is also the teaching of the Catholic Church that good CAN still emerge from evil intentions, like Dante's Divine Comedy, like St. Joan of Arc, like the Reconquista, like the more stringent selections of seminarians in place now and the quite ironic increasing number of seminarians, and so many others.]

          Don't forget Torquemada. I'm a big fan of Ximenez, Fang, and Biggles myself.

          As for the number of Seminarians, well I think you're pulling that assertion out of your ass.
          http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-…

          And furthermore, that was not the point of my referencing Dante's Inferno. Now if your comprehension really is that deficient:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII#B…

          [Your point actually has just proven that the Church was, is, and still will be always correct in many things.]

          And wrong in far more, such as their assertion of being a moral bastion despite the fact they have been wrong on many things. Such as their stance on gay marriages and gay relationships.

          [Jealous? Not really. It is not the number of Catholics who leave that irk me, it's the number of "catholycs" who do not follow the teachings of the Church yet insist on using the name "Catholic" to describe themselves. I will be VERY glad if the "cafeteria Catholics" (probably 60% of all Catholics) would all just man up and truly leave the Church. ]

          That's one thing we both agree on. I hope as much as you do that everybody with a shred of common sense or true human decency decides to give your group a collective middle-finger salute, before storming out of the cathedral.

        • [Anyways, please watch the video I pointed mimimarquez to. Here is a link: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc%5D” target=”_blank”>www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc]

          Your apologists say one thing, elsewhere your representatives says something else. Hypocrites.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5NUdsuBySM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j8PemrX5DA

          I think what this nice young lady says in her video says my sentiments quite accurately:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03PnU27cWDs

  7. cruz's assertiveness and cheeky ranting is just one way of showing how hard the church is keeping intact the barbaric influence they once have. "There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him; haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up disssension among brothers." Proverbs 6:16-19 I wonder if cruz knows this….God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble….

  9. [I believe this is the sense of "institution" that the archbishop was talking about. Can you please tell us or refer us to the organizational structure of each institution you mentioned?]

    I believe the point that Red is trying to make is that is that Cruz's assertion of Catholicism being the oldest religious institution is untrue, in that several recognized religious institutions already existed before that.

    Answering that question does not mean having to elaborate on the exact specifics of said institutions – it will suffice to show that they are older.

    [Oh? Again, what is the organizational structure of this institution called "slavery"?]

    An institution, in the sense that it's been a long-established practice by several societies to practice slavery. it's a practice that, I might add was also practiced in the Bible.
    http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

    [It is Jesus Christ's promise: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)]

    The church claims that Jesus has authority because the bible says so.

    That's circular reasoning. It doesn't prove anything, except perhaps for willingness to resort to logical fallacies

    [However we must touch on one point: Jesus made the promise for the existence of the Church in the world, NOT in a particular place. Which means if we are not careful, the power and influence of the Church in one area (let's say, the Philippines) CAN be removed, like what happened in England during the Reformation.]

    There's nothing in our laws that says the Church should not exist in RP. However, separation of church and state also clearly dictates that the RCC has no more right to interfere with gov't policies than any other religious demographic.

    And FYI, The UK is doing fine compared to us. I think you're being a delusional twat in trying to scare us into thinking what a world would be like without the church meddling in every aspect of our life.

  10. Hmm, interesting article.

    "Old Paganism – 30,000 years ago
    Modern Paganism – 1,000 BCE
    Hinduism – 1,500 BCE
    Judaism – 1,400 BCE
    Buddhism – 500 BCE"

    in·sti·tu·tion [in-sti-too-shuhn, -tyoo-] an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character <a href="http://(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/institution)” target=”_blank”>(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/institution)

    I believe this is the sense of "institution" that the archbishop was talking about. Can you please tell us or refer us to the organizational structure of each institution you mentioned?

    "And yes, “Catholic” translates to “universal,” but that’s all."

    According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

    830 The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." The Church is catholic in a double sense:

    First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her…

    831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race.

    "Are you sure you want to play that card, Oscar? The Vatican was only made a state in exchange for recognizing the fascist government of Benito Mussolini."

    Unfortunately the archbishop is wrong. It is the Holy See, not the Vatican City State, that has diplomatic relations with sovereign nations around the world (Vatican City has no diplomatic office of its own), and unlike Vatican City, the Holy See has existed since early Christian times.

    "The Roman Catholic denomination may be the largest, but it is a modern creation…"

    Interesting. Can you please point to us the historical date of the creation of the modern Catholic Church?

    "There is one institution that is more widespread and resilient than the Catholic Church — slavery."

    Oh? Again, what is the organizational structure of this institution called "slavery"?

    "I don’t really get what Cruz wants to prove when he argues for the Church’s power and resilience."

    It is Jesus Christ's promise: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

    However we must touch on one point: Jesus made the promise for the existence of the Church in the world, NOT in a particular place. Which means if we are not careful, the power and influence of the Church in one area (let's say, the Philippines) CAN be removed, like what happened in England during the Reformation.

    God bless.

  11. Oscar Cruz's article is a kind of sticking out of the tongue with an element of painful truth in it: that the Catholic Church as an institution is largely secure in these parts. The Philippine Church is an institution much like slavery, perhaps a form of mental slavery, which finds its security in the mental laziness of our people.

    A subtle difficulty for all of us, and I mean Freethinkers, is that the enforcement of Separation of Church and State is purely a duty of the State. We are all bound by the Constitution to defend however, Freedom of Religion, even that of Damaso et Salvi.

    We cannot expect satisfaction from Dogmatists, but we can certainly force the govt to obey the Law.

    • In his own words, an ominous reality.

      I agree. The responsibility lies more with the government to implement our secular constitution, and on citizens to remind them of their duty.

    • Some agnostics believe that it is impossible to know whether a god exists (agnostic atheist). Some agnostics believe there is a god, but you cannot know anything about it other than it exists (agnostic theist).

  14. Hi Red. I thoroughly enjoyed this rebuttal of Oscar Cruz's vainglorious ranting about the permanence of the Church and the inutility of fighting it.

    Ray Nobleza–I suppose an even more absurd and downright cruel doctrine is that of Hell–a place of eternal torture and sadistic punishment for the enemies of God and His Church even after they are dead–courtesy of Jesus Christ meek and mild in the New Testament. A matter most eloquently put in these terms by Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great.

  18. The 'Church' is not an institution, a building, a state or just the Roman Catholic church. In the true essence of Christianity, the 'Church' is the people. The Roman Catholic Institution and its leaders are servants of the 'Church' and not the governing power that wants to lord over them.

  19. To effectively reform the catholic church, one must first start refuting the most tyrannical concept ever created: THE ORIGINAL SIN. Allow me to quote Ayn Rand, "The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms; that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly matched."

  20. erm, shouldn't it be Fighting the Catholic Church is inutile, he should lose the first "is" or my grammar is getting bad…

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SUBSCRIBE

Stay Updated

Subscribe now

REPORT

Secularism Violations

Report here

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief; one who doubts or denies religious dogma

Contact us at [email protected]

© 2021 Filipino Freethinkers. All rights reserved.

Menu

Blog

Featured Articles