I kind of share the same view. Well, in as much as I know what you mean. As I doubt you like every Christian who isn't Catholic. :P
Catholics kinda baffle me more than anything. It's not like the Church has recently become controversial. After all, the protestant reformation wasn't over nothing. Given how heavily indoctrinated people were back then it goes without saying that step wasn't taken lightly.
Sure, the Catholic Church poses different problems today, such as their detrimental effect on Africa and their attempts to sweep any problems they face under the carpet. In short, I just don't see how people can continue to support them.

Most likely they join the Church because they know the Vatican will cover up for them. It's not a new problem after all. The Vatican has a long established reputation for maintaining their reputation at all costs. Perhaps if they realised what their reputation was they wouldn't be so keen to keep it.

Well, true, i cannot like all of them, because i don't know all Christians. But i didn't say "Every", didn't I? Its more of a default stance i guess. From teh handful of Christians i know, i can honestly say, i like them.
There's one thing i've noticed here in Poland while talking [much limited due to my social impairment] with Catholics. They DO think, one can argue with the Vatican's worldview, and still be a good Caholic. Really, i know a lot of pro abortion "Catholics".
Anyhow, how can one BE a Catholic, and do not support the Vatican?
Or to be more exact, how come, people don't know, Catholics can't do that?
That's one of the reasons i've left the Church years ago. Because it was an all forgiving organization, that didn't really care what You believe in, and what You support, as long as You give money and proclaim You're Catholic. And since i was a bit more orthodox, i just couldn't go with it. And no, there's not much choice when it comes to the other fractions of the Chruch here in PL.

They should start cutting off the dicks of these "priests". That would perhaps have some preventive effect.
At least these things conclusively prove that celibacy isn't really a stellar idea.

Rather strange that pedophiles can stay active in church while a priest who has a relationship with an adult woman gets kicked out.
I'm not a catholic, but I thought that the catholic church nowadays only sees being gay as a sin for those who practise it and not for those who stay celibate.

Good questions. The Vatican hasn't been one to sway in the breeze of public opinion. Or even make small adjustments to lessen centuries of opposition. Their standpoint is that you're either 100% Catholic or you're not and you're going to burn in hell whether you accept Christ or not. But like you say, as long as you keep giving them money and maintain the pretence your place in their interpretation of heaven is guaranteed.
They seem to cut a very fine line between necessary reformation where it won't lose them worshippers and a complete lack of reformation where it might. In fact that would seem to be their policy across the board. Even their opposition to contraception and abortion amount to little more than the desire to increase their number. It's not founded on very solid interpretations of the Bible after all.

The BIG difference was media coverage. The pedophiles were allowed to stay because every accusation was promptly covered up in fear of scandal and the accused were only repositioned to other locations. On the other hand, the brazilian priest was very well known by the media of his country because he was very charismatic and he appeared on TV on numerous occasions so when paparazzi uncovered his secret affair the Church had no choice but kick him out.
Regarding the second point, I'm not too sure but I think that as long as you don't commit the sin then you are "fighting temptation" so it isn't as bad.

However, the reverse is also true. We had our Catholic Church scandal a few years ago and all anyone remembers of it was several priests were molesting little boys, but the reality is, that was only part of it. The investigations also centered around priests (and nuns, for that matter) accused of physical, mental and sexual abuse of both adults and children and at least one case of a priest accused of fathering a child with an unwilling mother. However, the only thing the media covered was "Priests touch little boys". In a way, as horrific as that was, they did the Church a favor with it, since nobody paid any attention to whole picture of the scandal and there were only a relative handful of priests that became the focus of it.

I think one of the major problems is the way the church deals with these crimes. Since one of the pillars the church stands on is supposed to be forgiveness, they deal with these matters too lightly.
Paedophilia is not something you can shed away so easily. Give it time and they'll do it again and again. It's not like other crimes you might do like stealing because you're hungry. Forgiving child molesters and thinking they'll see the light and be good and go back to exactly the way things were before is completely irresponsible.
I don't think the church covers these things up to purposefully let them continue elsewhere but the way they handle matters simply doesn't work. The church is so tied to several of their beliefs, like celibacy and repenting your sins, that it only makes sense for a child molester to join up. And yet, doing the right thing, like stripping the offending priest of his duties and delivering him to the authorities and let the courts handle him, sound so anti-church like. Paedophilia should be the real anti church like word here but nowadays the word is getting tacked to the catholic church so much that thinking of one without getting a glimpse of the other is getting harder and harder. Covering these things up is only hurting them and can eventually destroy them.
I've met many a good priest in my time (studied at a catholic school) and to see them and their reputations get tarnished because of the mishandling of the institution they serve is kind of sad. Something shoudl be done about it within the church but if the pope himself is in the middle of a scandal for covering it up, what hopes does the church really have of dealing with the problem efficiently?

I do love little boys.

While there was a long period of time where people needed to attend the Catholic Church in order to have the (Latin) Bible explained to them, and they actively worked against early English translations of the Bible, your statement is a gross exaggeration.
All churches in the history of the Christian religion, even the Jewish Synagogues, also provided a place to have the holy texts explained, whether or not people could read them (many parts of the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible, are poetic, prophetic and/or hyperbolic). They also served as a mechanism for providing news, support, and fellowship between believers. This is as relevant to Catholics as it is to people of any other faith.
The Catholic Church also supports the doctrine of continuous revelation, where the papacy continues to offer new information, rulings or answers by way of divine revelation. To continue to receive instruction and advice that accurately reflects the Catholic faith, it is more important for the Catholic than any other Christian to continue to attend Church and receive advice and information. Ceremonial activities like Mass, the Eucharist and confession are also held in high significance and must be undertaken regularly.
There are massive differences between the Catholic and Protestant/Reformed/Orthodox Christian faiths, and boiling it down to "they only went there because there was no other way to read the bible" is just wrong.
In the interests of behaving consistently, I should also point out that this thread may be considered offensive by some.

I overlooked that because I didn't want to be more damning of the Catholic Church's impact upon Christianity than was strictly necessary. After all, I don't have a problem with most Christians, but the fact that their religion was left in the hands of the Vatican for centuries clearly shows.
The Catholic Church was, as I said, massively corrupt on what would be today an absolutely incomprehensibly ludicrous level. About the closest comparison today would be Scientology and that's being very generous.
As a result, Biblical texts have been 'mistranslated'. We probably never will know the full extent of this, but much of it seems to be in order to make the Bible seem infinitely more damning of 'sins', and of different sins than was originally intended. One example would be homosexuality. Originally it was actually paedophilia that was condemned in the Priestly Code (I guess it has always been a problem).
There are also other extremely dodgy interpretations of Biblical texts that make the Church an unreliable source. Such as their basis for condemning contraceptives.
In short, it's pretty clear that those who actually believe in God in the Vatican have been in the minority. Religion has been more of a tool to those people. A means of control and income. But clearly not something to be respected and followed.
None of which would have the slightest significance to anyone outside the Catholic faith. To them it offers nothing. Just because the Catholic Church wraps up their faith in a wealth of ceremony doesn't make it any more essential for those who merely wish to accept Jesus. In fact, given that the Vatican wrote most of the Bible off as fiction when they bowed down to the theory of evolution it's difficult to see what leg the Vatican is leaving itself to stand on. Both seem to have been swept away.
I should probably point out that I meant there is no longer any need. Christians can follow Christ on their own and research and interpret the Bible themselves. Many already do after all.
The Church will of course make it seem like there's a need, but even Jesus encouraged private prayer as he considered public prayer (as in say, a Church) to be more of an empty public display of devotion (Matthew 6:5-7). So even Jesus didn't like the Church even before it came into existence. :P

The problem I have with that rationale is that the explanation and interpretation of the Bible is colored by the opinions and moral/ethical/political leanings of the interpreter alone and the Catholic Church, more so than any other Christian faith (I can't speak to other faiths as I've never been a part of them), has deemed that the only people qualified to explain or interpret the Bible are the same people responsible either for committing these acts or allowing them to be committed through inaction or cover up. I'm not even talking about this latest batch of scandals, the entire history of the Catholic Church is filled with acts of moral depravity by its leaders that go against the very teachings they purport to be the ideal representation of (Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Pope Alexander VI and his family, etc.).
Everyone should be offended by this thread. The acts committed and the actions taken in response to them are some of the most offensive things a human being can do, regardless of the religion involved, but to not discuss or ignore them would be even more offensive and would be just as bad as the priests, bishops and cardinals who did not see fit to do the right thing in the first place. Only by making this knowledge public and widely known can travesties like this be avoided and/or prevented in the future. If that reflects badly on the Catholic Church, well... quite honestly... too bad, it should reflect badly on them.

True but this one is an important one to discuss. After all gross injustice has only one real enemy, the careful and methodical examination of actions in the light of day.
Oh that and Batman

My apologies - I got the opposite impression, and felt that your original statement was a bit oversimplified and unfair. I do agree with many of your and codagh's points.
Most modern bible translations rely heavily on the earliest available original Hebrew and/or Greek manuscripts. Most of these (including early compilations that were very similar to the content of the New Testament) are dated well before the beliefs and structure of the Catholic church were well established.
Debate continues about who authored some of the books, but with the exception of a few passages, I think the general consensus is that the books are unaltered from the original text.

While the earlier manuscripts have various differences, even early translations such as the King James Version (made before the older manuscripts were recovered) contradict a lot of Catholic doctrine, whether explicitly or implicitly.
Before the Reformation the Church only had the Bible in Latin, which only the most educated people were able to read (even among the nobility, understanding of Latin was by no means widespread). The Church opposed the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people because it destroyed their exclusive access to God and highlighted flaws in their doctrine.