[epolanski]

I don't really get this, so I genuinely want to understand.

You can still follow a religion while rightfully thinking that the organization representing it to be corrupt (and how could it be otherwise, as it's made from mortal sinners?).

But you either believe that St.Peter and its descendants in Rome have been tasked by god to spread (and interpret) its word or you don't.

It's fine if you don't (I don't my self, I'm an atheist), but I don't get why can't you be a catholic if you believe and also find the organization flawed.

[pseudony]

He didn’t say that. He said that he agrees with the pope on this issue. You don’t become a catholic from agreeing on an issue

[luizfzs]

My take is that scandals can make some people realize that the Church is fallible, which can lead people to question about the legitimacy of such religion. e.g. if the church representatives can be corrupt, what if their other actions also weren't in service of God?

My point is that once you see a sort of contradiction between words and action, it may make one deeply reflect on it.

[mattnewton]

Litmus tests about personal beliefs are not really how religious organizations function for most people in my experience. It’s about whether you want to associated with a tribe or movement, then the beliefs come with that package.

[hnlmorg]

Catholicism is as much about hierarchy and pomposity as it is about faith.

Plus personal and social experiences are often catalysts for changing one’s beliefs. It happens so often there’s a term for it: “crisis of faith”

[epolanski]

But it should be a crisis of trust in the organization, not it's credos.

[hnlmorg]

I don’t really think you can lecture people on what they should or shouldn’t believe. That’s how wars start. That and control of oil.

The whole point of faith is that it’s a subjective opinion that cannot be proven.

Arguing that someone’s faith isn’t logical is about as sensible as arguing which shade of blue looks more wet.

[epolanski]

I'm not arguing, I'm asking.