On RatZ, what do the words "the catholic church" mean?

[Animavore]

I went for 6. That's what most Catholics mean when they refer to 'the Church'.

[drl2]

I think it's contextual, depending on which set of evils we're ranting about at the time.

(Or maybe it's members of this web site, to dredge up an old thread.)

[apophenia]

I would be interested in, and am making some google stabs at, finding out if the meanings and uses of the term have been studied and measured. But in the meantime, two other points occur to me. First, as the church was originally defined, it consisted of isolated Christian Jews assembly in someone's house. Thus, the letter to the Thessalonian "church" was addressed to that group of people who regularly met in someone's house in Thessalonia. Not that words and terms and institutions don't change -- they certainly do -- but that insisting on a particular slice of time and culture to define a term is somewhat anachronistic. But that's a minor point. I think a more relevant point is the general inclination, specifically among atheists, to allow practitioners of a belief (or lack of belief) to define what it means to them. To do so otherwise, even with good intentions, is likely to distort, or, at minimum, disrespect. We as atheists -- or at least me as a Taoist, Hindu and atheist -- am infuriated when people tell me that what my beliefs mean aren't what I intend them to mean, as defined by some outsider. So I guess, imo, the question is how do actual Catholics use the term, and how does it differ depending on demographics and so forth.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem is casual conversational usage doesn't necessarily equate to a definable and concrete conception. It's rather like asking "how much is 'later'?"

[Ronja]

Zilla, I was not after any scientifically exact definition - more like a general feeling of how inclusively the term probably/mostly is used on RatZ. My original hypothesis was that I am unusually and maybe mistakenly discriminating/analytic compared to others here, when I see "the church" as basically the official hierarchy / visible organization and need the separate word "catholics" (plural) to include all members. ATM it appears that this view is not uncommon here, so my original hypothesis appears to be at least a bit shaky, maybe even mistaken. Time will tell (if more people are interested in voting).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Zilla, I was not after any scientifically exact definition - more like a general feeling of how inclusively the term probably/mostly is used on RatZ. My original hypothesis was that I am unusually and maybe mistakenly discriminating/analytic compared to others here, when I see "the church" as basically the official hierarchy / visible organization and need the separate word "catholics" (plural) to include all members. ATM it appears that this view is not uncommon here, so my original hypothesis appears to be at least a bit shaky, maybe even mistaken. Time will tell (if more people are interested in voting).

I agree with what you say here, but I stand by the statement that you'll get as many answers as you get responses.

[Robert_S]

1 Corinthians 12:12-14:

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.

This has been taken to mean that the Church is the body of Christ.

Luke 22:19-20

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Therefore: the Church (in the sense of the global community of Christians) is a loaf of bread. The RCC is just a largish chunk of that loaf.

[Seth]

Well, the simple thing to do might be to be discriminating and precise in how one uses language when posting, so that if one is referring to some sub-set of all Catholics, such as "pedophile Catholic priests," or "Catholic Bishops who conspire to cover up sexual abuse," or "the Pope," or some other identifiable sub-group of individual human beings who comprise the Catholic church, one actually takes the time to specify exactly which sub-group one is referring to, so as not to sloppily imply that the claim one makes is not made against or in derogation of persons not part of that intended sub-group.

I believe that's how a careful, rational thinker using reason, logic and rhetorical skill would go about it.

[Geoff]

The current and historical organisation - the "employees, directors, and CEO" if you like. I don't tend to include its "members/shareholders" when using the term - I'd probably say "the church and its members" or use the term "catholics" for those (and I was one). Whether it's historical or current will depend on context.

pretty much. I think there's a big distinction between the leaders and their victims, so I wouldn't normally lump them all together. I see the term "catholics" as being a lot less derogatory than "the catholic church".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The current and historical organisation - the "employees, directors, and CEO" if you like. I don't tend to include its "members/shareholders" when using the term - I'd probably say "the church and its members" or use the term "catholics" for those (and I was one). Whether it's historical or current will depend on context.

pretty much. I think there's a big distinction between the leaders and their victims, so I wouldn't normally lump them all together. I see the term "catholics" as being a lot less derogatory than "the catholic church".

If you divide the victims from the facilitators, I'd agree. But too many of the "rank and file" were or should have been aware of what was going on for me to give them a blanket pardon.

[Pappa]

The "Catholic" bit is probably irrelevant, as the definition would presumably apply to any Church.

[Animavore]

Well most Catholics (including myself) say The Church for the Catholic Church, being the one true Church appointed by God Himself. Everyone one else is just Prods, that's generic to the people, their church and the whole bastard lot of ye and yer made up religions.

[Pappa]

Well most Catholics (including myself) say The Church for the Catholic Church, being the one true Church appointed by God Himself. Everyone one else is just Prods, that's generic to the people, their church and the whole bastard lot of ye and yer made up religions.

Likewise, I'm sure people in other parts of the world say "The Church" to mean whatever their local sect is.

[Animavore]

Well most Catholics (including myself) say The Church for the Catholic Church, being the one true Church appointed by God Himself. Everyone one else is just Prods, that's generic to the people, their church and the whole bastard lot of ye and yer made up religions.

Likewise, I'm sure people in other parts of the world say "The Church" to mean whatever their local sect is.

Yeah, but.... They'd be wrong

[Thinking Aloud]

Well, the simple thing to do might be to be discriminating and precise in how one uses language when posting, so that if one is referring to some sub-set of all Catholics, such as "pedophile Catholic priests," or "Catholic Bishops who conspire to cover up sexual abuse," or "the Pope," or some other identifiable sub-group of individual human beings who comprise the Catholic church, one actually takes the time to specify exactly which sub-group one is referring to, so as not to sloppily imply that the claim one makes is not made against or in derogation of persons not part of that intended sub-group.

I believe that's how a careful, rational thinker using reason, logic and rhetorical skill would go about it.

I agree that if one is writing a treatise or engaging in a formal debate or discussion, these are very important distinctions to make - when the subject comes up in a conversational style (as is often the case here) I tend to pick out the context from the particular item, even if (in strict terms) it may at first appear misleading. So, for instance, the thread title "Catholic church at it again. This time Holland." could be misleading as it might imply "now" for the abuse; on investigation, it's clear that the "now" of it is the discovery of historic abuse, and that the thread title is just a hurried, conversational, even deliberately scandalous introduction. Yes, it can be called "sloppy", but such conversational discourse on any topic is replete with sloppiness: "football fans are a disgrace"; "bankers get huge bonuses again"; "politicians in corruption probe". I don't expect conversations in real life or here to be stilted by perfect grammar or even accurate phrasing such that every statement holds true on its own - I can take the context and apply it even if the precise wording is off.