I'm a practicing Catholic .. pretty leftist, all in all. Would love to answer DU questions

[mdmc]

I would love to answer some questions, if Du'ers were inclined to ask.

I've studied wisdom traditions in college and enjoy learning about my tradition and others.
I know that this (DU) may be perceived as an intellectual based discussion forum, over a faith based forum.
I know many at du would describe themselves spiritual, or rational. few subscribe to the categorization of "religious"..
So here it is.
I'm a leftie and I am a catholic. I am very blessed to live in an minority dominated inner city with a severe poverty issue. My local church, St Mary www.stmary.org is really all about making a positive contribution to the reduction of poverty in my home city of Newburgh.

So, if ya have a question, ask. Perhaps I can shed some light.
Let us give it a try shall we..

[11 Bravo]

1. Good luck.

Your faith is about to belittled. Christians may be targeted with impunity here on good old progressive DU.

[mdmc]

6. this I can tolerate. Thanks for the luck (well wishes)

I feel I can help people understand a little what is like to be in a conservative church..

[bfarq]

22. OK, I'll bite. Why do so many people have difficulty with science?

It seems pretty obvious to me. Science explains things that can be answered to a reasonable certainty with facts and reliable observation. Religion deals with things that cannot be answered as a matter of fact. There is no contradiction.

The problem that some people have is that, it is the nature of things for us to understand more and more about the universe every year. So some things that might have been answered as an article of faith in the past can now be answered to a certainty by science. There is necessarily a continuous movement of items from unknown to known -- from the province of religion to the province of science.

An example, the early inhabitants of Hawaii didn't know what caused volcanoes. They just knew that from time to time the volcanoes erupted with devastating force. Because they could not answer it factually, they invented the story of a god Pele who controlled the power of the volcanoes. Today we know what causes volcanoes. We cannot disprove Pele exists. But there seems little point in worshiping a god of volcanoes when we know what actually makes volcanoes work.

And so it was with many other things throughout time. Gods of thunderstorms. Gods of earthquakes. Gods of the sea. Gods of anything we didn't understand.

Most of that is gone now because we understand most of the processes that happen on and to the planet. We don't need a god of global climate change because we can measure and observe those processes ourselves.

What today's religions are left with is the two things that science cannot prove or disprove: the creation of the universe and what happens when our earthly life ends. That's pretty much the final stalemate. A person if free to believe in a godly provider or one can believe the universe just cane to exist on its own. And a person can believe that life is as we see it or a person can believe that there is another unseen dimension where our "souls" go. Can't be proven one way or another.

So my question for you is why don't the religious simply take that point. Why is it necessary for so many of the religious to be at war with science?

Oh, and my other question is do you really believe in transubstantiation? Do you believe that the bread and wine of the sacraments LITERALLY are transformed into the blood and body of Jesus inside your body? My understanding of the Catholic faith is that this is not just symbolism, but that it is an article of LITERAL belief.

[niyad]

25. welcome to DU

[mdmc]

37. perhaps that is due to people prioritizing belief over reason

One think that I like about Catholicism is that we tend to go along with science, perhaps decades or centuries behind.

So - people of faith will follow a law that states that the good will not eat meat on Fridays.
This may have served a purpose at some time, but is no longer, um, required.
The church decided this was too stupid to continue on.

Sure it has been dumb of 100's of years, but we finally got it..

I am part of a movement that believes that science is the ultimate tool to get to know the Divine.

Thanks for the question.

[skepticscott]

66. And does the Catholic Church get

that the wine and host don't really transform to the body and blood of Christ during communion? Or are they they going to play dumb about that scientific fact for the next few hundred years? And how much longer are they going to give credence to so-called "miracles" like Fatima, or to the idea that there are demons who need to be exorcised?

[pnwmom]

70. The Church makes no claim as to any scientific transformation during Communion.

That doesn't make the transformation any less real in a spiritual sense.

[skepticscott]

139. Hogwash

The Catholic church does not accept that the bread and wine are only symbolic of the body and blood, as more sensible religions do. They claim an actual transformation, and that Christ's body and blood are physically present. They cloud the description of it in a morass of theological gobbledegook, but that IS Catholic doctrine.

[pnwmom]

177. You're wrong. They do not claim any transformation that could be measured

by scientific means. Your error is in assuming that scientific truth is the only truth in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

[skepticscott]

224. Tell you what

you quote the specific and relevant statement of doctrine regarding transsubstantiation from your favorite Catholic page, and we'll see exactly what they claim. Or ask a Catholic theologian if the wine and host are merely symbolic of body and blood, or something more.

And as I said, their claim is just shrouded in theological obfuscation (i.e. that the body and blood of Christ truly, actually and physically become present, but they still look exactly the same and the change is undetectable by any means). If it is actually changed, but undetectable, how is the "truth" of what it is anything but invented and cleverly argued nonsense?

[pnwmom]

253. I already did. n/t

[rd_kent]

228. There IS only one truth. Not two, just one.

Either it does or it does not become the blood and flesh of christ. Yes or no, black or white.

SO which is it?

[pnwmom]

252. Not true. There are scientific truths, there are religious truths, and they

need not intersect.

Only fundies discuss religion in terms of black and white, yes or no. Are you a fundie? A fundie atheist? There ARE a lot of them around here, I've noticed.

[rd_kent]

256. They need not intersect if you are ignorant.

You are delusional if you think there are "religious" truths.

As I said before, there is only one truth. Does religion have the truth? Prove it. Science does.

[pnwmom]

258. Sorry, but unlike you, I'm not a believer in the "one truth" theory. n/t

[rd_kent]

262. Neither am I. There is a difference between knowing and believing.

I know. You believe. Thats the difference.

[pnwmom]

283. I "know" scientific, materialistic, physical truths in the same way that you do. We have different

beliefs, however, about the possibility of a reality that isn't part of the material world.

Your opinion on that is only a belief, just as mine is, because by definition you cannot prove or dis-prove the existence of a world beyond the natural world.

[skepticscott]

274. In some cases, there may be more than one way

of looking at things, but when two "truths" are in direct contradiction, they cannot both be correct.

[darkstar3]

278. +10. n/t

[pnwmom]

282. Paradox is at the heart of religion. n/t

[skepticscott]

290. Which is just a fancy way of saying

that religion shouldn't have to make sense or conform to anything in the real world, but should just get a free pass on everything it claims as "truth". Not to mention being something that most religionists would disagree with.

[jgraz]

277. Almost all of them overlap.

Was Mary a virgin when Jesus was born, or wasn't she? That's a scientific question, able to be disproved.

Did Jesus reanimate after being dead for three days, or didn't he? Another scientific question, able to be disproved.

Did Mary ascend bodily into the sky, or didn't she? Yet another scientific question.



Almost any miracle is a scientific claim, as they involve material objects acting contrary to established scientific theory.

[mdmc]

188. they don't think that bread becomes flesh and wine become blood

Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. This change is brought about in the Eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the Word of Christ and by the Action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine remain unaltered.
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283


This is a ritual designed to bring the individual closer to God. An Atman Brahman thing.. i'll be able to clear it up for you tomorrow perhaps (2:30am now)..

[rd_kent]

229. See how ridiculous that sounds?

What a load of BS.

Basically, in order to become closer to god, one must eat the god, right? Thats called cannibalism, and if anyone else did that outside of the church, they would be collected by the loony squad.

[mdmc]

234. It is a universal theme

uniting the God within with the God of the Universe.

[rd_kent]

235. Its still a bunch of hooey.

The fact the people, in todays day and age, still believe this nonsense is amazing to me.

[mdmc]

238. Does it amaze you that one can derive comfort from

listening to someone speak, then partaking in the eating of a small wafer and a sip of wine?

Perhaps you can look at it that way - We do this because it comforts us (well, I don't do it. but ya see what I mean).

[rd_kent]

244. I do see what you mean. Do you see what I mean?

People taking comfort is no problem with me. People actually believing and the church supporting that belief that it is real is absurd.

[mdmc]

265. So you have "no problem" with people being comforted by their beliefs

but feel it is "absurd" to really believe them?

I must admit, if I die and go to heaven, and Vishnu is there and says, "All that Catholic stuff is wrong." I won't be sad. I just hope that there is something after this life. Something with less pain. And I live a blessed life, compared to the rest of humanity.

I guess, in the end, faith is rather absurd. As is life.

[rd_kent]

268. Yes. Is that weird?

I fully respect everyones right to believe what they want, but I do not respect the actual beliefs.

[mdmc]

271. That is logical and not at all weird

I think that may be how I feel when I see Jews leaving stones on a grave or see young Muslim pilgrams whipping themselves while they walk..

Human wisdom traditions are facinating stuff.

Peace Bro..

[rd_kent]

291. Definitley fascinating. Peace to you, as well.

[skepticscott]

275. That's pretty much

what all of the faith-based diatribes of "liberal" and "progressive" Christians on this board boils down to: Yeah, I know a lot of this is silly and doesn't really make sense, but it makes me feel better and gives me emotional comfort, so just let me have it, ok?

If they would just own up to that right up front, instead of going through all kinds of tap-dancing arguments and woo-woo obfuscation to try to convince people that there is more real to their faiths than there really is, they wouldn't get the reaction that they do.

[mdmc]

276. Now I see

peace and low stress..

[pnwmom]

254. See how rude you sound?

Another fundie atheist I see.

Just as rigid and dogmatic as any fundie believer.

[rd_kent]

255. Rude? RUDE?!? Let me tell you what rude is.....

Rude is forcing your beliefs on the rest of the population. Rude is crying that you are being persecuted while attempting to prevent those you disagree with from having the same rights as you. Rude is donating money to an organization that supports and funds the prevention or removing of rights from those they disagree with. Rude is telling me that I will burn in hell if I don't believe the same as you.

Rude, pnwmom, is trying to justify any of this nonsense. Am I rude? I think not. If you want to see rude, have a look in the mirror or go to a church.

[pnwmom]

259. I haven never tried to force my tentative and speculative, albeit hopeful views

on anybody.

And I haven't been calling anyone else's views ridiculous. Try looking in the mirror yourself.

[rd_kent]

261. Last time I checked, this was an opinion board.

It is my opinion that religious beliefs are ridiculous. I form that opinion by looking at the beliefs and seeing them to be as ridiculous as you would think about Pacific Islanders believing a god lives in a volcano. Thats not rude, thats my opinion.

By your logic, or lack thereof, one could call ANY opposing viewpoint "rude". That would make YOU rude from my perspective, huh?

[pnwmom]

280. So anyone who disagrees with you on the issue deserves to be ridiculed.

You're full of yourself.

[rd_kent]

292. No, not at all.

But when ones opinion is based in mythology and holds as much water as the flying spaghetti monster, then yes, it deserves to be ridiculed. Thats why its..wait for it.....RIDICULOUS!

[rug]

284. Good God! Who forced you to believe in transubstantiation? Alert the authorities!

[rd_kent]

293. Strawman!

No one ever said that, but nice try. Please try and keep up....

[mdmc]

89. that is a question of transubstantiation

"taking the mundane and making it Divine".

So that particular ritual will not be going anywhere for a while. The idea that we can experience what Jesus gave the apostles.

As far as the miracles go, we will be keeping them for a while too..

No real harm in these, imho. It is not like these rituals hurt others.

I don't believe any of those things, but there are many things I don't know or understand.

[skepticscott]

141. What a great non-answer

This is not about "taking the mundane and making it Divine" or "The idea that we can experience what Jesus gave the apostles". That's what religions do when they claim only a symbolic role for the bread and wine. That is NOT what the Catholic church claims. They claim an actual, physical transformation, and the actual, physical presence of flesh and blood in the elements. That is not a ritualistic or spiritual question, it is a question of physical, scientific fact, in which church doctrine is in direct conflict with the evidence, despite your (false) claim that the church goes along with science.

[mdmc]

155. how about this

We believe that the bread and the wine are the body and blood. The ritual that we perform allows this to happen through the grace of God.

So I answered your question. We don't think the wine becomes human blood. We don't think that the bread becomes human flesh. We re-enact Jesus' ritual, thereby transubstantiation the mundane into the Divine.

Know one I know thinks that the consecrated bread and wine is blood and flesh that could be brought to a dna lab to be tested.

I don't take the Eucharist, because of my support for gay marriage, women priests, and reproductive rights. So I don't take the blood and the body.

[darkstar3]

176. That may be what you personally believe,

but the Catechism, which dictates what is actual dogma of the Catholic Church, disagrees with you.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm
Check line 1375, where it talks about how the blessing of the Eucharist turns it into Christ's actual body, and read on from there about how important the Catholic Church believes this transformation to be.

[pnwmom]

181. Nowhere in those passages is the word "actual." Or any discussion of a

physical, scientifically measurable change in the bread or wine.

Here is a key passage:

"Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ."

In other words, it is not that the bread and wine PHYSICALLY becomes something else, but that through transubstantiation, the essence of Christ becomes present in the bread and wine.

[darkstar3]

187. Oh for cryin' out loud.

You pick on one word that I used for summarization purposes, and then knock it down?

Here's another important passage:
the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

Christ is "wholly and entirely present" in the sacrament. It's more than symbolism.

[pnwmom]

189. Yes, it is more than symbolism. Believers believe that God is real, too.

But not that He or She can be scientifically proven or measured.

[darkstar3]

195. This is funny.

Believers don't believe that God can be scientifically measured or proven, and yet they constantly attempt to find ways to prove God to non-believers through science. Step into the creationism-evolution debate sometime for just one set of examples.

And BTW: what exactly IS the essence of Christ that somehow makes its way into the Eucharist? Obviously those of us outside the faith can't see it, measure it, or test it in any way, but it might help if you at least explain it.

[mdmc]

198. I will do it tomorrow dark star - its 3am here and i'm beat

I can explain what we believe, but I will never be able to prove God or convert one to Catholicism.

tomorrow i will explain what the essence of christ is and how it makes it into the bread and wine. I will explain, I will not convince.

have a good night and thanks for the discussion.

[pnwmom]

201. Why are you equating all believers with fundamentalists/creationists?

Do you think love is real? Even though it can't be measured or proven scientifically?

God is real in the way that love is real. Both can be described, often by metaphor, and even felt -- but neither can be scientifically measured or proven.

[darkstar3]

202. There's that old canard again.

Years ago, this argument might have carried some weight, but now we have fMRI, which allows us to see the root brain functions behind the vast range of emotions, including love, hate, pain, and pleasure.

Love IS real, and it can be proven on fMRI. God is not real in the same way.

ETA: And AGAIN you create a straw man. I provided an example, NOT a complete explanation, and you picked one aspect of that example to knock down.

[pnwmom]

211. Not that I believe it matters, but MRI's have also shown a part of the brain

that is connected with spiritual experience.

[darkstar3]

212. fMRIs have shown this?

Where?

[pnwmom]

213. In the temporal lobe. But that doesn't prove anything one way or another.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

[darkstar3]

215. Actually, it DOES prove something.

It proves that "feelings" exist in the brain. It proves that when people "feel" God or whatever spiritual connection they wish to describe in their own way, there is a biochemical reaction happening in the brain, just like there is a biochemical reaction in the brain when people "feel" love.

But here's the difference: Love is simply an emotion, and seeing it on fMRI shows us where the emotion comes from. But "God" is supposed to be an external force, so fMRI can't prove "God", it can only prove that some people who say they feel God do indeed "feel" something in their heads.

[rd_kent]

230. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain, and it can be measured.

Those chemical reactions in the brain can be measured.

[struggle4progress]

301. But, of course, that claim rather misses the point. The notion "agape" reflects a view

about how we might regard other people and how we might choose to order our relationships with them, in order to live more meaningful lives in a better world. Whether this view is (or is not) associated with particular brain activity does not appear to be much related to such fundamental interpersonal issues

[mdmc]

236. Here is how it works

(this is only an explanation. this is not meant to persuade or convert.. just explain)..

During mass there is a ritual where the Priest calls the holy spirit to enter the bread and wine to nourish the parishioners.

So at first it is bread and wine.
Then the ritual is performed.
Then the faithful believe that the bread and wine are the manifestation of Christ's body and blood.

We do this in memory of Jesus (who we believe is God, and that he died so that he could know our suffering and be compassionate and empathetic instead of just vengeful).

Sounds silly, but whoop, there it is..

[rd_kent]

245. Do you think that believing in something that cannot be proven to exist is ok?

If so, do you believe that there are lifeforms outside this planet? Why or why not?

[mdmc]

184. I personally believe that it is symbolic

but here is the link from the vatican

Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. This change is brought about in the Eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the Word of Christ and by the Action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine remain unaltered.
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283

No one thinks that the bread turns to human meat, or that the wine turns to human blood. (imho).

I'll check out the link that posted from scborromeo..

[mdmc]

186. damn,, they sure do take it seriously

2:30am now so I didn't read, but they sure have put alot of thought into the last supper..

[pnwmom]

179. Where did you get your theology degree? n/t

[skepticscott]

225. Same old baloney

When the silliness of theology is pointed out (as it can be by anyone with reading comprehension skills), the fallback position is to claim that no one who hasn't studied its deep and subtle mysteries for years can possibly grasp it. Sorry, but that emperor is stark naked.

[rd_kent]

227. Great post. Thoughtful, intelligent, rational and civil.

Well done. Welcome to DU.

[YOY]

2. There are people here who actually think that Catholics don't believe in evolution.

Gird your loins...this former Catholic who has no hate for the Church as a whole wishes you the best.

[mdmc]

10. we believe in all sort of (silly) things, but we get on board when

things get obvious.

We now think that the earth is not flat and that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth..

[rd_kent]

231. Really? What about birth control? You onboard with that yet?

[mdmc]

239. I understand the church's position that man should not interfere

with the process of creation.

While I personally support reproductive health and the use of contraceptives, the church ain't there yet.

[rd_kent]

243. I'm glad you agree, but the church ain't onboard with a lot of modern stuff.

[anonymous171]

17. Or that everything the Pope says is infallibly true. nt

[mdmc]

54. The Pope's infallibility only applies to certain things

from what I understand, it was only utilized once - forgot over what issue.

The Pope can't say, for instance, that Gore won in 2000. He can comment on other issues and claim infallibility. But like I said, many popes, many issues, much drama, only used once that I know of.

[anonymous171]

62. Correct. That one time was when Pope Pius XII announced the physical assumption of Mary in 1950

[uberllama42]

145. According to a professor of mine, it has been used six times

But I don't recall any of the issues he listed. I took the class last spring, but the guy is priest and and has a Ph.D., so I'm sure he's quite familiar with the issues on which popes have claimed infallibility.

[mdmc]

164. interesting

I've heard the one time sourced several times. I wonder what these other 5 are..

[uberllama42]

166. I should e-mail the guy

According to Wikipedia, there are two universally accepted instances of infallible doctrine handed down by a pope, the first being the Immaculate Conception and the second being the Assumption of Mary about a hundred years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility

There's also a list of disputed claims of infallibility, some of which are likely among those my professor considered examples of the exercise of infallibility.

[mdmc]

168. ah, the Conception!

OK...
thanks for the info.. if you are still on terms with your prof could ya ask him about it. I had thought that the only question solved in this way was the assumption..

thanks..

[uberllama42]

172. The Immaculate Conception is one of the examples I use

when I explain how I feel about religion and why it doesn't make any sense to me.

For centuries, the Church taught that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit without any consideration of Mary or her role in conception. No one properly understood human reproduction until the modern era. Just about everyone thought that women were entirely passive and receptive in the reproductive process--a belief that dated back to Aristotle and was held by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

Once biology had revealed that an embryo is formed out of a sperm and an ovum, it was clear to most people who believed in Original Sin that if sin could be conveyed from father to children, it must also be conveyed from mother to children. If women also contribute genetic material (even though the nature of that material was not then understood) it must be that they also convey sin to their offspring.

The problem here, of course, is that if Mary had Original Sin she would have transferred it to Christ, who according to doctrine was without sin. The church's resolution of this conundrum was to declare, in total absence of any evidence, that Mary must have been conceived miraculously without sin. To seal the deal, the pope declared this doctrine ex cathedra, proclaiming that no one was allowed to question the doctrine under any circumstances.

There is no clearer example, in my mind, to show that theology is bunk. I have tremendous respect for what the people at Catholic Worker do--they're down in the trenches, helping the poor and the downtrodden--but the metaphysical trappings are just unnecessary. I can feed the homeless and tutor disadvantaged children (of course, I don't do enough) without all that.

[mdmc]

175. I guess they could have played it another way

and said that Jesus was with (original) sin, up until he was baptized by John the Baptist. That would also explain why there is no word of the teenage sinning Jesus.

Yup.. there just ain't no way to explain away a miracle. You either believe or ya don't. This is another example of where the story really doesn't mean much to me. I mean if Jesus taught us some good things, and died so that our sins can be forgiven, I really don't care how he got here.

lastly,

Myth and lore are very powerful tools, even in this modern time.

Just do good things and everything will work out.. oops that the Buddhist in me.. 2am and gettin tired.. peace out..

[pnwmom]

191. What does Original Sin have to do with genetics? n/t

[uberllama42]

217. Nothing, as far as I'm concerned

I'm not the one who made this stuff up. People talked about Mary and sin and the Virgin Birth for a long time without knowing anything about heredity. It wasn't until scientists had learned something about heredity that the church decided that this Immaculate Conception thing was for real. Pope Pius IX decided the matter at the late date of 1854 because they thought at that time that Mary must have been without sin or else she would have conveyed it to Jesus. It's all very silly.

[pnwmom]

219. The Church has never made any statement about Original Sin being conveyed

through genetics. So they agree with you.

[rd_kent]

232. Did you just completely ignore what he posted about it?

Here, I will repost it for you

Pope Pius IX decided the matter at the late date of 1854 because they thought at that time that Mary must have been without sin or else she would have conveyed it to Jesus.

[pnwmom]

249. That post says nothing about how it was conveyed and it certainly says

nothing about genetics or even the body.

Consider that the Church ALSO believes in the existence of an immortal soul -- separate from the body -- for everyone. It's likely the Church thought that Original Sin was passed along through the SOUL of the Mother.

[rd_kent]

257. Ugh! This is the real problem with religion.

No matter what, you always try to find a way to justify the ignorance.

[pnwmom]

260. Sorry that you're so frustrated. But the existence of an immaterial world, soul,

or God -- by definition -- cannot be proven OR dis-proven by anything in the material world.

That is what atheists and many fundie Christians have in common: a belief that scientific beliefs should accord with religious beliefs. Atheists decide to toss out the possibility of religious beliefs, since they can't be proven scientifically. Fundie Christians try to make up their own science to fit with their religious beliefs.

But most Catholics and non-fundie Christians and other believers do neither.

[rd_kent]

264. I am not trying to disprove anything. You are the one asserting something exists, the burden

of proof is on you.

That is what atheists and many fundie Christians have in common: a belief that scientific beliefs should accord with religious beliefs. Atheists decide to toss out the possibility of religious beliefs, since they can't be proven scientifically. Fundie Christians try to make up their own science to fit with their religious beliefs.

What is common about these two groups? Nothing. Atheists DON"T HAVE ANY BELIEFS! Geesh! Why is that so hard to understand. Science has nothing in common with religion. Science whole purpose is discovery and experimentation. If it works, it is proved to work.
Religion on the other hand, as you stated, try to make up their own science to fit with their religious beliefs.

So again I say, the two have nothing in common.

[pnwmom]

281. A "belief" and a "faith" by definition aren't certain.

Only fundies and atheists think otherwise.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God because I believe She or HE cannot be proven to exist. But you ARE trying to prove all religious beliefs wrong, based on your faith in the current state of science.

[rd_kent]

294. You may be on to something.

I am not trying to prove beliefs wrong, but I am trying to prove they are not right. Without proof, nothing can be asserted as "right". I guess if believers would agree that they may be right, but they may also be wrong, I may not have such an issue with it.

[pnwmom]

295. I am perfectly willing to concede that I may be wrong,

but I hope I'm not.

[rd_kent]

296. Fair enough.

Im glad we ended this in agreement.

[pnwmom]

302. I am, too. I think a lot of the problem is that so many people here

cut their eye teeth arguing with Christian fundamentalists or other hardliners. But lots of us aren't. For example, Madeleine L'Engle, author of A Wrinkle in Time and many other books, was a Christian -- and in her version of Christianity she said she was always teetering on the brink of agnosticism. She said that was what people with real "faith" had to do.

[pnwmom]

251. Interesting AND incorrect.

A doctrine has only been pronounced "ex cathedra" twice, and both times had to do with Mary: the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (she was born without Original Sin); and the doctrine of the Assumption (she ascended bodily into heaven).

[pnwmom]

250. You misunderstood that professor. It has only been invoked twice in history.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1127.html

The doctrine of papal infallibility means that the pope cannot err in the articulation of church teachings concerning issues of faith and morality when he speaks ex cathedra—“from the chair”—in his role as pastor and teacher of all Christians. That does not mean, however, that either the man who presides as pope is or that all of his pronouncements, even concerning Church doctrine, are without fault. Infallibility deals with the correct statement of truths that have already been divinely revealed, but is not itself divine revelation.

In fact, papal infallibility has only been invoked twice: Pope Pius IX’s declaration in 1854 of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (that she was born without the taint of original sin), and Pope Pius XII’s proclamation in 1950 of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (that she entered Heaven without dying on earth). According to the Roman Catholic Church, the reasoning behind papal infallibility is based on New Testament scriptures and previous Church teachings and traditions. Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians do not accept the doctrine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

285. Possible confusion because the 1854 immaculate conception declaration was before 1870

and so it didn't refer to the declaration that the pope could be, at times, infallible. Wikipedia lists some earlier papal declarations that may or may not be infallible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility

[TexasProgresive]

220. 2x- Immaculate Conception of Mary & Assumption of Mary

Down thread there is a mention of 6 times but I have never heard or read that from any source.

[timeforpeace]

3. Why do you think there is less tolerance for Christians than there is for Muslims in this country?

[11 Bravo]

7. I've read the OP carefully. What the fuck are you talking about?

You are what Ann Coulter would sound like if she was a lib. Make shit up and throw it out there. Reality be damned.

[demosincebirth]

11. deleted.

[demosincebirth]

9. Because if they blaspheme Islam, they might get their heads lopped off

[name not needed]

27. Funny coming from someone screaming about tolerance and understanding...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. lulz

[mdmc]

13. I think the opposite is far more truthful

This country is full of powerful Christian influences. The only Muslim influences seem to be their relationships with oil companies, and the NWO crowd that sees the rich as good, whether they worship Buddha or Pan..

[timeforpeace]

41. Excellent response, thanks. What is NWO?

[mdmc]

90. the New World Order

..."in order to bring a New World Order" to our global governments - GHWB 'thousand points of light' inaugural speech.

[skepticscott]

16. Less tolerance??

You cannot be serious. It's barely possibly to run for high public office in this country (and not at all for President) unless you wear your faith out on your sleeve, and that faith can ONLY be Christian. The White House itself runs a giveaway program for Christian churches under the guise of "faith-based and community initiatives". We have a National Prayer Breakfast that our elected officials flock to be seen at and to trumpet their piety, and I guarantee that it isn't being held at a mosque or led by an iman. Our foreign policy, our health care policy and our social policy are dictated in significant part by the Christian right.

Freaking Tim Tebow wears Christian messages and Bible citations under his eyes to force the whole country to look at them on national TV, with hardly a twitter of disapproval. Tell me please (because you know as well as I do) what the reaction would be if he wore "There is no god" or "Allahu Akbar" instead? Then tell me about tolerance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. It looks like timeforpeace has had enough with posting on DU...

and is trying to get himself tombstoned.

Given his posts over the last few hours.

[timeforpeace]

46. And yet your response implies no tolerance for those Christian ideals you mention.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. In what respect, Charlie?

[skepticscott]

68. Tolerance means

allowing things you think are foolish or that you may disagree with or that may offend you to go on without interference as long as they don't harm others or restrict their freedoms. Tolerance does not require respect for that foolishness or allowing untruths to go unchallenged or evil and oppression to go unopposed. Tell me please, how any of what I said is "intolerant".

[timeforpeace]

79. It is not yours to "allow" any of those things you mention. Plus you would not allow them if you had

your way from the tone of your response. It's only that you cannot stop any of that from happening that you misconstrue as tolerance. It is rather ineffectuality, not tolerance.

[skepticscott]

81. Where have I advocated

that any religious practice that does not harm others or restrict their freedoms be forbidden? On what basis do you assume that if I could ban all religions with a wave of my hand, I would? Criticism is not intolerance, even if it makes some people whine about being poor persecuted victims.

[struggle4progress]

269. The so-called "National Prayer Breakfast" is organized by "The Family," a wingnut gang

that conflates Christianity with laissez-faire capitalism

[LeftishBrit]

50. In America???

Unless you're referring to some very specific Christian sect, or unless you move in very unusual circles, this cannot be the case. It's not even true in Britain, but even less so in America:

You have had 44 presidents; all have been at least nominally Christian; none has been Muslim.

You have 100 senators; about 90 of them are Christians; a few are Jewish; none are Muslim (or atheist).

You have over 400 Representatives; only one is Muslim and I believe he is the first ever. The vast majority are Christian; only one is an atheist.

I believe Christians are very much the people in power in most matters in America. This is partly force of numbers, but I don't think that Muslims or atheists are even represented in proportion to their numbers.

[FarLeftFist]

71. Because christians cause 95% of violent crimes in this country....

[pnwmom]

72. Here on DU, not in the country. n/t

[demosincebirth]

4. the so-called tolerant liberals, here, aren't very tolerant. So put on your flame retardant apparel

[gaspee]

12. Huh

So telling the truth = picking on religion? Of course it does, my bad.

[demosincebirth]

18. Ask him a viable question...not about something that happend 500 years ago.

[shadesofgray]

28. Why WOULD any liberals be tolerant of an anti-woman, anti-gay belief system

headed by an old man who Catholics must believe is infallible? That is the real question.

I was raised heavy duty Catholic - went to Catholic school for 12 years, the whole 9 yards - so I knew exactly what I was rejecting.

I would no sooner be a practicing Catholic than I would be a republican.

[anonymous171]

39. The Pope is not infallible. nt

[donco6]

75. You know that and I know that.

But the Church doesn't know that. And it doesn't matter if he rarely uses it - he doesn't have to. The hundreds of millions of followers would believe him regardless.

[demosincebirth]

85. You are so wrong. Must not know too many Catholics...if you did...

you would know what a stupid statement you just made. tsk,tsk, tsk.

[donco6]

108. I am Catholic.

So, yeah, I kinda do know some. Catholic school all the way through.

[demosincebirth]

153. Are you a practicing Catholic or are you

one of those who's had a hard-on for the church for years, for something a Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, Nun, deacon, said or done or didn't do that you vehemently disagreed with?

If you are a practicing Catholic, then I agree, with you, to disagree.

[donco6]

226. Why would that make any difference?

Whether or not people believe the Pope to be infallible is not dependent upon my practice.

[struggle4progress]

137. "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations" -- Pope Benedict XVI (2007)

ZE05072909 - 2005-07-29
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-13698?l=english
Pope Has No Easy "Recipe" for Church Crisis
Impromptu Address to Priests of Aosta

[mdmc]

96. For the same reason a liberal would partner with the DLC

Might I assume that you are a democrat? I am. My party is full of drug warriors, chicken hawks, and homophobic members.
Sure, I could become a Green and see less of this evil.
But I stick with my team, I try to change them when I can. I put up with them when I can't.

My priest gave a sermon stating that no one should be denied the right to tran-substantiate (take the mundane and make it divine). No one should be denied communion. No one should be denied the right to marry (take a human relationship and sanctify it the relationship "transubstantiation" in the eyes of God). He supported, from the pulpit, the right for liberals (pro-choice, gay rights, divorce supports) to receive communion and for gays to get married in the church.

So while the church is wrong, there are people working within the church to change this.

Please google "catholic worker".. that is what they kept from you in catholic school.

[mdmc]

91. I'm to the left of most GD posters, so I will take a shot at middle ground

..

[Jester Messiah]

100. I'm so sick of that tripe. No, I'm not tolerant.

I believe in equality, liberty, and justice. Anything that strives against any of those three concepts, I don't tolerate. As I see it, the Christian churches (and the Islamic as well) are inveterate foes of all three.

[mdmc]

103. How is our political party on equality, liberty, and justice?

I mean, I'm a dem, but I support gay rights (equality), ending the drug war (liberty), and universal health care (justice).

[Jester Messiah]

112. Political parties can change. It's a little harder to go against Divine Writ.

A party can have conferences, primaries, be pressured by the base or grassroots, etc. Religion is different; assuming you believe the word of God comes directly from the head honcho, you're basically under orders. If you question those orders, you're going against God. You've got one guy (the pope, the imam, whatever) who says what those orders are, and what he says, goes. If he says women must be subservient to men, then the Faithful are going to oppress women. Same with gays, other races, other faiths, etc.
In the dem party, we're all free to say that Obama took his eye off the ball, or that Howard Dean is off his nut. We might get flamed, but only in the metaphoric sense!

[mdmc]

117. well, at least it will be a dry heat. It will only seem like an eternity

:)
Between reforming the dem party and my church I have a world of work to do..

[Hekate]

5. Good luck. I appreciate your offer, but hope you have thick skin. nt

[mdmc]

92. thank you!

[name not needed]

8. How much money has your church donated to anti gay marriage efforts?

[gaspee]

15. But that's their right,m

dontcha know? And telling the truth = picking on religion.

[mdmc]

93. Saint Mary Church (Newburgh, NY) = not one penny

The Archdiocese of NY - plenty.

I support gay marriage. I oppose gay divorce. I oppose divorce. Divorce should not be illegal. I just don't want to be part of it.

Adultery and convenience (two people marrying for a tax break until they meet real partners, get divorced, and married for real) are much greater threats to marriage then gay marriage.

[goclark]

14. I salute you for your thoughtful and honest post

I am so hopeful that those that are going to bash or trash your religion(or any religion) would think for a few minutes before spilling words that will not be kind.

I am Christian and would like to think that DU would at least respect the idea that people in the world should be free to worship as they see fit.

I do hope that this thread does not get dumped into the Religion Forum because you are addressing a Political Issue that cuts into the hearts of many of the posters here.

I am African American and Christian so in the minds of some ~ I am "Double Trouble." : )


Hopefully this will be a new day in a New Year at DU and your question can be respected and we can all learn from the discussion.

[skepticscott]

23. People should be free to worship as they see fit

and if the Catholic church and the radical Protestant right wing in this country would confine their religious expression to worship and charitable works, no one would have a problem with it. In actual fact, as you know well, they ram their beliefs down people's throats, and presume that they have a right to dictate what public policy should be for everyone based on the rules and myths of a bunch of Bronze Age tribesmen.

[goclark]

33. I do not agree with that assessment

And I certainly don't wish to be placed in your broad brush as "they."

How unkind of you.

[darkstar3]

80. That is your prerogative.

But just as an example of how your view seems to disagree with reality, do you happen to remember the various declarations of Catholic Archbishops regarding pro-choice Catholic politicians, and communion?

[skepticscott]

83. Would you like a litany

of the abuses of the public policy process that have been foisted on this country by the Catholic church and the fundamentalist Protestant right? Stem cell research, abortion, contraception, homosexual rights, divorce, HPV vaccination, abstinence education, creationism, Middle East policy, school prayer, posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings and crosses on public property, use of tax-exempt churches as political shills ...shall I continue?

And if you freely belong to and support the RCC or the Christian right in any way, you ARE part of "they", whether you like it or not.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skepticscott]

99. Of course when you say you want

the question to be "respected", what you really mean is that no one should be allowed to criticize the RCC in any way whatsoever, or to ask hard questions about the incoherencies, abuses and grievous wrongs of the Catholic church, but that we should restrict ourselves to warm and fuzzy softball questions like "What kind of incense is best?"

And the very fact that you recognize that the Catholic Church and their intrusion into social policy is a political issue shows that you know perfectly well that this is not just about people being able to worship as they see fit.

[mdmc]

102. dude - ask any question you want

I can only answer for myself, not the church. But I will answer you. I will do my best.

hardball it - I might be able to shed some light. I might have some light shined on me.

please.

[skepticscott]

136. Answers from you

that don't speak for the RCC as an organization aren't of much value to such a discussion. Since you don't decide policy or matters of theology, you can basically give any kind of evasive answer you like, without having to explain or justify anything. You gave the impression that you had extensive knowledge of your religious tradition and were willing to answer questions that applied to more than just you, but apparently that wasn't true.

[mdmc]

142. Why would a radical leftie still be a practicing Catholic?

That was what I was willing to answer.

Those policies are part of the tradition. I was trying to explain why one would stick with it.

I am not a Catholic religion scholar, although I do study it with other traditions..

[LostInAnomie]

19. Do you feel that women should be submissive to their husbands...

... and take a secondary role in their families?

The Bible and The Church do.

[anonymous171]

30. Got a source for that? nt

[LostInAnomie]

61. Yep.

COLOSSIANS 3:18
18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

EPHESIANS 5:23-24
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

1 PETER 3:1
1 In like manner you married women, be submissive to your own husbands -- subordinate yourselves as being secondary to and dependent on them, and adapt yourselves to them.

All are still taught as part of Catholic mass as you will see if you go to Catholic message boards where marriage is discussed.

[struggle4progress]

143. These are like old recordings of part of one side of a long-distance telephone conversation, where

one hears the voice of someone one might be inclined to respect, without knowing exactly who was on the other end of the line or what exactly was said before or after. And it is, of course, misleading to quote them without fuller context

Colossians 3 also says Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them ... Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart
Ephesians 5 also says In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies
1 Peter 3 also says Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect

It is, of course, true that the authoritarians and patriarchs like to cite these passages out of context, as narratives supporting their own power demands, but an effort to read them in textual and historical context can lead to rather different interpretations of their meanings

[darkstar3]

158. Throw aaaaalllll the context you want,

you'll still find that Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter all advocate an unequal marriage arrangement, where the true decision-making power and all control rests with the male.

Unsurprisingly.

[struggle4progress]

216. Do you know the saying "Sages are more important than prophets"? Nothing

is easier than sneering at other people's weaknesses and failures -- such as the inadequacies of generations long before ours, since (in some ways) we know much more more than they did, including knowing what became of them

The practical problem, of recognizing the mistakes of one's own time and attempting to correct them, is a serious problem: but to take it seriously is much more difficult and challenging than merely sneering that everyone is imperfect and does not live up to the ideals we would set for them

What was a challenging comment two centuries ago may be a trite commonplace today; what was a challenging comment two millennia ago may have become a trite commonplace a millenium later and may seem merely bizarre today, if one does not try to understand the processes of transformation

The unequal arrangements of antiquity were conventional then, and the strategies for confronting those inequities were crafted for the ambient culture; the meaning of those strategies need not immediately obvious by casual inspection in a different cultural context

Under Roman law, for example, the father of the family retained the right to take the lives of even his adult children -- so a religious demand (from Roman-occupied Judea, written in the language of Roman-occupied Greece) that a father ought not even dishearten his children was not the uninteresting piety "one should be nice," which current listeners may here from it

Nor did the Christian world invent the oppressions of patriarchy: the religion arose, under a Roman regime that gave prepubescent girls in marriage to older men, in a part of the world where an unwed mother could be stoned for adultery

The full subversive impact of the story of Mary and Martha -- where Mary chooses, not to do the cooking and cleaning, but rather to sit discussing with the men, while Martha demands that the male teacher should tell Mary to stop this silliness and get to work, but is rebuked for that -- may not be as clear nowadays, as it was to the original listeners: reading this story today, it is natural to wish the men rose in unison to help Martha -- and yet the story can be read as a version of Biko's slogan The most powerful tool in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed, since (after all) it is Martha who is insisting Mary should get back to "women's work," and it is Martha who is told that she could choose better for herself by not troubling herself with all that crap

[darkstar3]

279. That's all you have to say?

The Christians didn't start patriarchal oppression, they've just been a major source of continuing it? They didn't invent unequal marriage, they just went with it?

My problem here is simple. The ideas you espouse with the various quotes from Peter and the rest belong back in the Bronze Age, and not in what should be a society of equals. You have as much as admitted that, and yet while we leave many pieces of Leviticus to simple history, at least one of these verses appears at every Christian wedding in modern day America. This should not be the case.

[struggle4progress]

300. It seems to me that either you do not read carefully and well or that you enjoy misrepresenting

what you do read. Nobody with any modern sensibility admires the patriarchal attitudes of antiquity: I merely pointed out that old writings cannot be read correctly without understanding the context that produced them and that what seems regressive in a modern context might have been progressive two millennia ago

[darkstar3]

303. You were pointing it out in an attempt to defend the passages,

as well as their usage in modern times. "If you'd just understand it in context, you'd understand that it really is applicable to everyday life" is something I've heard far too many times, especially for verses like these. They belong in the rubbish bin, along with most of Leviticus, and there is nothing that you can say that will convince me otherwise on that point.

As for the quote Nobody with any modern sensibility admires the patriarchal attitudes of antiquity...Clearly you've never lived in the rural South or Midwest.

[struggle4progress]

304. You misrepresent my position, which I think I have stated clearly enough.

[skepticscott]

84. Here is much, much more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7369671

[iris27]

199. Are you kidding?

1 Timothy 2:8-15

8 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

[XanaDUer]

42. Never was taught that in over 14 years of Catholic school

Frankly, I was taught by militant left-leaning nuns from MI who were constantly butting heads with the male Church authorities.

[seabeyond]

52. i never knew a submissive catholic wife in my life. and never met a catholic husband

that expected it, let alone demanded it.

you are thinking a very small group of southern baptist. not even the baptist are into that.

[LostInAnomie]

64. I grew up Catholic and that passage was read in mass repeatedly.

It may not be as dogmatic as the Southern Baptists may be, but it is still taught during mass. I remember because my Mother would always get pissed when that passage was read.

[pnwmom]

127. The whole New Testament is read in Mass over the course of the cycle.

So that passage would be read eventually.

How it is handled (or ignored) in the sermon is entirely up to the Priest.

[quiller4]

69. The Catholic Church preaches and teaches equal partnership in

marriage and has for decades. That was true back in the mid-1970s when we took our pre-wedding classes.

[darkstar3]

159. That would make the Catholics more progressive than Lutherans,

who were teaching as late as 2003 that the man is the head of the household, and that the woman must always be supportive of his decisions.

And here I thought the Lutherans were usually more progressive than the Catholics. Learn something new everyday...

[mdmc]

98. not at all..

I have respect to those that desire to follow such wisdom traditions.
I prefer Obey your spouse.
But that is me..

[TexasProgresive]

222. That is not an authoratative teaching of the Catholic Church

You must be talking about the SBC or some non-denominational fundamentalist church. Cite a reliable reference to your claim that the Catholic Church teaches that.

[seabeyond]

20. all the catholics i knew in calif were left. not so much with the minority here in texas, though

they are still more liberal than baptists, by far

[TexasObserver]

21. Why didn't you start this in the Religion forum, where it belongs?

[goclark]

40. I feel it is an apppropriate Forum

This is an issue that is extremely political and I suppose if we follow your logic, because I am African American the only rights that I have here at DU in order to discuss Civil Rights should only be where other African Americans are "allowed" to express therir thoughts.

Huum

[TexasObserver]

44. We have a religion forum for those who wish to talk about their religion.

[anonymous171]

53. I thought the religion forum was just a gigantic pissing contest between atheists and christians. nt

[TexasObserver]

60. RELIGION is a gigantic pissing contest among theists.

[Better Today]

178. +1000 well said.

[Cetacea]

43. Catholics are frequently trashed in GD, so why not?

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

55. It's a religious thread in GD.

Why do you theists insist on talking about your religion on GD?

The pope is a former Nazi. The church has systematically hidden hundreds of child molesters. The church is the enemy of women and gays. The church takes money from the poor the world over and wastes it on fancy churches and overpaid employees.

And it is only remotely connected to the man who is at the center of the religion, bearing almost no resemblance to the teachings he brought.

[pnwmom]

73. And why do atheists insist on going into religion groups in order

to trash believers?

[Lost-in-FL]

87. You are free to trash non-believers in their forum too.

Trust me. No one will stop you. :hi:

[iris27]

287. Atheists don't go into the "Catholic and Orthodox Christians" DU group

to start a ruckus (I'm assuming...I'll admit I've never gone in there) just like most Christians don't go into the Atheists and Agnostics DU group to post provactive questions. R/T is where the two sides come together. These spaces all serve very different purposes. If R/T was a religious-people-only space, it would be redundant.

[mdmc]

101. I thought the religious forum was a safe place for religious discussion

are you saying that DU'ers go into the religion forum and dis religion? Wouldn't that be like going into the Ned Lamont group and hyping up how great Leiberman is.

I was hoping to answer some of those DU'ers that had questions on why a leftie would be a practicing Catholic.

[uberllama42]

147. There are groups and forums

Forums are open. Atheists may post in the religion forum, just as advocates of gun control may post in the gun forum, skeptics may post in the 9/11 forum, and so forth. Topic forums are for highly contentious topics that the admins feel should be separated from GD.

Groups are closed. They are intended as safe havens for posters with a common belief or interest that might be subject to ridicule or other rude behavior in an open forum. Atheists should usually not post in the Catholic group or the Christian Liberal group, and skeptics should not post in the Astrology, Spirituality and Alternative Healing group. Exceptions are sometimes made for honest questions and for courteous and pertinent answers to questions posed by group members. Only donors can post in groups.

[mdmc]

165. thank you - i learned something new..

peace out

[mdmc]

126. You were right

it did get moved.

I thought this religious forum was a safe place for believers. I didn't know it was where flamefests were dumped.

I was hoping to talk to those that wanted to understand why someone would be part of the church. I thought GD could do the trick..

Anyway peace and low stress,

and please check out http://www.catholicworker.org/ if you want to know more of what I am about and what I was trying to do in GD.

[struggle4progress]

146. Actually, the Pope is not a former Nazi. After 1936, all youth organizations were replaced by the

Hitler-Jugend (HJ), and in following years membership became compulsory:

Following the Nazi seizure of power, other right-wing youth groups were merged into the HJ. From December 1, 1936, under the Jugenddienstpflicht all other youth groups were banned and their membership was merged into the Hitler Youth. HJ membership was made compulsory for youths over 17 in 1939, and for all over the age of 10 in 1941. By 1939, Hitler Youth membership comprised 90 percent of the country’s youth http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitleryouth.html

Ratzinger, who was born in 1927, was conscripted into the HJ as a seminary student in 1941 and into basic training for the Wehrmacht in 1944. Neither of these conscriptions was the same as voluntarily joining the Nazi party. Perhaps 10% of the German population actually belonged to the Nazi Party by 1945; a precise accounting would include a certain number of prominent people who were simply told by the dictatorship that their names had been added to the party roster

[mdmc]

I'm willing to answer DU questions in GD. Catholics are discussed here

but feel free to alert and let the mods decide. I thought educating du'ers on why leftist would stay in the Catholic religion could be GD material.

peace and low stress.

[mdmc]

63. I'm gonna eat a little with some friends

I'll be back at 6:45 to continue.. thank you for all the replies..

[pennylane100]

24. How do you feel a bout a womens right to choose

the right to control her own body.

How do you feel about the right of women (who make up approximately half the worlds Catholic"s) to become priests and leaders in their own church.

How do you feel about the right of gay catholic's to marry the person of their own choosing.

How do you feel about the catholic hierarchy's protection of pedophiles, including many of their own leaders.

How do you feel about the fact that the leader of your church was a formers member of the nazi party.

How do you feel about the fact that your leaders live in luxury, wearing pink gucci slippers at about $1000 per pair while many of their followers live and die in poverty.

How do you feel about the fact that your church is against all forms of birth control, even though it may help stop the spread of aids which is devastating many of the third world countries.

[mdmc]

105. I support a culture of life

Abortion is not for me (but I am a man). I believe it is the duty of the mother and her doctor to be responsible for the safety of the unborn child. Since society cannot support the unborn child, it is up to the mother. It is her choice.
I support Roe v. Wade. I work hard to try to help young women that don't want to have an abortion, but see no other choice. I have never saved a child from being aborted, but I did give a couple young women a chance to have their child with our support. They decided to end the pregnancy and I helped them to deal with that situation.

Women have every right to be priests.

I think that we should have civil unions for all, marriages for the religious. Then catholics can have a catholic marriage (no divorce), while cool churches can have divorce and gay marriages. The catholics could be divorced of their civil union, but they would no longer be able to have another catholic marriage (they could always have another civil union). Some religions won't marry blacks and whites, jews and catholics, yadda yadda. Let marriage be a religious thing with no legal terms, and let civil unions be the legal relationship.

Child abuse is evil. Those who allow it are evil.

I think that it is quite reveling that an "evil" Nazi can be redeemed and can lead a worldwide religious movement. God is all forgiving.

I think that there are always the haves and have nots in all sectors of our community. Perhaps the pope might have a hard time getting into heaven with those Gucci's? that being said-
how many democratic party members are millionaires unwilling to give away their advantage so that poverty can be reduced?

I believe in the sanctity of life - that man should not mess with God's will regarding procreation. But of course, you cant fight passion/sex and win. So I am sinful in this area as I enjoy sex for pleasure (not just for procreation), and I also take precautions. That is why we have confession.

God is perfect - man is flawed. We can't live for perfection, we are human. Just keep trying to learn from mistakes and life the best life you can.

Thank you for your questions and I would love to follow up if you think of anything else.

[darkstar3]

114. You've inadvertanly struck a nerve here.

I believe in the sanctity of life - that man should not mess with God's will regarding procreation. But of course, you cant fight passion/sex and win. So I am sinful in this area as I enjoy sex for pleasure (not just for procreation), and I also take precautions. That is why we have confession.
(emphasis mine)

The "I'm not perfect, I'm forgiven" argument is not new. It also goes by the name "The only moral X is my X."

You think it is immoral and wrong for people to use condoms, and to have sex purely for the purposes of pleasure. This is, of course, perfectly in line with Catholic dogma. But even though you believe that what you're doing is wrong, you've found a way to absolve yourself (proper confession), a way of which people of other faiths cannot avail themselves.

This is hypocrisy. You are participating in an action that you continue to claim should not be performed.

Further, you have admitted here to not just one, but four beliefs on which you differ greatly from Holy Mother Church. How do you reconcile your beliefs on these important social issues with the views of the church you support with your tithing?

[mdmc]

118. Actually, I believe in a forgiving God

So God will let all you non-believers get into heaven (or a better next life, as is my belief = catholic karma).

I don't go to confession. I'll take my digs in purgatory. Unless God is forgiving.

I smoke pot, slack off at work, disrespect authority and my parents, and put many things before my worship of the Lord. I think that reproductive rights, contraception, and gay marriage should be legal. Women should be priests.

Only God is perfect. The rest of do what we can.

Good question on the tithing. I belong to an inner city church, so most of my donations go directly to specific causes (roof on a house, food for a pantry), but I bet some of my money goes where I don't want it. It is just like donating to the DNC.

I am a sinner. Always have been. I have faith in a loving forgiving God. It brings me comfort.

And you have asked some very great questions. I am glad that you posted and we had a chance to exchange ideas.
ps = please check out this link - http://www.catholicworker.org/ if you want to know where I am coming from ..

[darkstar3]

125. .

That website, while somewhat interesting, doesn't seem to answer the main question I have asked, so let me rephrase it:

How can you, or any Catholic for that matter, differ so much in your beliefs from Holy Mother Church, and yet still reconcile your two belief systems enough to call yourself a Catholic?

[mdmc]

129. This is gonna sound awful

The Church is perfectGod is perfect, Man is flawed. (I hope I made it batter)
God forgives. Man sins. God forgives. This is our nature.

My passion is for improving my life, and the lives of all others. End poverty, illness, war, ignorance. Promote love.

Thank you very much for looking at that site.

I kinda see Catholicism much like being a member of the Democratic Party. There is a lot of bullshit, but this is where I belong.

Thank you again for the conversation. (I am also a big Deadhead - love dark star..) peace out!

[darkstar3]

160. So, no answer to my question.

I kinda see Catholicism much like being a member of the Democratic Party. There is a lot of bullshit, but this is where I belong.
There is a huge difference between being a member of a religion and being a member of a political party. People are members of a political party because they want to see certain things take place in our democracy. People join religions for much more varied reasons, but usually not because they're looking to change something about the government, and much more often because they're looking for a social network of like minded people.

And THAT is another thing that confuses me about "Cafeteria Catholics." Your beliefs differ greatly from those of the Church, so how does the Church provide you with a social network of like-minded people?

The short question that rolls together everything I want to know is: Why force yourself back into the mold of the church when it's obviously not a fit for your actual belief system?

[mdmc]

163. Because when faced with the fact that everyone I love will eventually

suffer and die I find comfort in saying prayers and attending church.

Did I turn you on to the http://www.catholicworker.org/ site?

I am a catholic that wants to create peace, help the poor, heal the sick, shelter the homeless. I find most of the people that get involved in my church (again, poor inner city church) are looking to do the same thing as me.

We never hear about excommunication, divorce, gay marriage, condoms, abortion. Let other people stress that.

I feel I do Gods work and being part of my church helps me to do that. I take comfort in that.
Sometimes I wish I felt the same way about the Democratic party. but that is for another day, lol.

[PassingFair]

132. Sounds like you belong in an Episcopalian church....

you break too many tenets of the Catholic church.

"I'll take my digs in purgatory."

...unless your overlords decide to ERASE purgatory,
like they did to "limbo"....

[mdmc]

135. I am more of a Karmic Catholic

I do hope they erase purgatory before judging me :)

(of course I believe in a forgiving God. No heaven or hell. Or purgatory..) or all might perhaps exist here on earth. perhaps..

[pennylane100]

161. Well you may believe that you are a practicing catholic

but I am fairly certain that the church would not think so. I believe you would be referred to as a cafeteria catholic. Which is, in my opinion, is a good thing, but a long way from a true believer.

I was raised in a strict catholic household, educated by french nuns, and trust me, there is no way a catholic can pick and choose his/her beliefs. You have no problem with any of the points I raised which in itself would disqualify you, perhaps even excommunicate you. But if it makes you happy to continue to practice your version of your faith, go for it.

[mdmc]

167. Well, my priest thinks I'm a practicing Catholic

and I think he would know better then the Pope, imho.
Dogma must not undermine the will to do God's work.

I admit that I am a sinner. I don't take the eucharist because of my political beliefs (I could "confess" these, but I have no interest in changing them or not working toward their benefit), I attend church, and I try to perform works of mercy (Counsel the doubtful, instruct the ignorant, admonish sinners, comfort the afflicted, forgive offenses, bear wrongs patiently, and pray for the living and the dead feed the hungry; give drink to the thirsty; clothe the naked; shelter the homeless; visit the sick; visit the imprisoned; bury the dead).

For me, this is what the religion is about. The dogma is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of doing good things.

ps - My priest also thinks that no man (POPE) can ex-communicate a person. Only a person can ex-communicate themselves. But the church must always be Divine and forgiving. I think of this when I see DC Cardinals talk shit or dis Kennedy and whatever..

peace out..

[Jim__]

233. I think it is commendable that although you are personally opposed to abortion ...

... (my understanding of what you have said) you have worked with pregnant women and aided them even though they decided to get an abortion - based on what you've said in this thread, whe you say you worked with them, I take it that you continued to help them.

[mdmc]

240. YES!

That is what I bring to the pro-lifers.

Twice in my life I was able to help women considering abortions. Both were poor black teenagers that did not see a future with the father of the child. Each one would have kept the baby, if they had housing, babysitting, money and support.

(Both of these girls were the children of my friends). I told my friends (the mother's parent) that me and my girlfriend would be willing to allow the babies to live with us unconditionally. The mothers could keep custody, keep the welfare money and health insurance, and could return to take full control of their children when they were ready to do so. We weren't offering to adopt, just to support the moms while they got on their feet.

Both girls decided to have abortions. But they never forgot that there were people out there willing to help them. Willing to give up much to ensure that their family was safe and sound.

I have a friend named June that has saved 17 children in this fashion over the last 2o years. This is how you stop abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the answer. Reducing unwanted abortions is the answer.

When I discuss "pro-life" issues with RTL'ers, I always ask them how many abortions that have been able to stop. I explain what my friend June has done, and asked them how many women in need they have reached out to. How many people have they helped to bring a culture of life into their community?

I remind them that life does not end in birth and that a child living in poverty really is not a promotion of a culture of life.

[Political Heretic]

26. Why are you part of an organization that practices bigotry and is anti-human rights?

How do you justify continuing association with a body that actively engages in the oppression of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?


I can already anticipate the answers...

"I'm working for change from within!"

Right. :eyes:

[anonymous171]

32. I don't know about OP, but I am boycotting it.

I give no money and send them angry letters instead of checks.

[mdmc]

109. I have the good fortune to belong to an inner city Catholic Church

our main mission is to curb the unending poverty that surrounds up.

Every penny goes to trying to feed the poor and improve the community. We will most likely be shut down (we are losing money, not giving enough to NYC), but we are doing good right now.

And if I ever had any real cash to drop, I would put it into a Catholic Worker house in Newburgh, NY.

[donco6]

115. Do you ever wonder why you might be shut down?

Why you don't have enough money to keep a small food-sharing mission going? Why is this not a priority with the archdiocese that undoubtedly sees MILLIONS upon MILLIONS flowing through its coffers every year? Doesn't that bother you at all? I just don't get it . . .

[mdmc]

124. I know very well why we might be shut down..

We don't make money. We cost the church money with our charity to the community. And we are in an inner city where all the Italians and Irish have fled for the suburbs.
Of course having to pay off our perv coverups don't help with our $$ either.

But take a look at this site http://www.catholicworker.org/ please. Or at wikipedia (catholic worker). This is what I am about..

[donco6]

128. Well of *course* you cost them money.

If the people you gave the food to could pay for the food, you wouldn't have to give it to them in the first place. And the church members who donate money for the food should see ALL their money going toward what THEY value - i.e., the food program. Instead, they see a huge chunk of it being sent off to - literally - God knows where to support . . . anti-gay rhetoric? Anti-abortion circulars? Pro-marriage magazines? Why? Why? Why?

Sorry, and I wish you all the best in your quest, but I gave up long ago trying to force my way to a table of people who just don't want me there. Fuck them. There are many other tables with people who WELCOME me.

[mdmc]

133. point taken

perhaps I go because they would prefer I didn't stay.

It is especially gratifying when I can say to some holy roller, "Are you sure Jesus would hate a gay person or would want them to have less rights in our society?" Ya see, Jesus was Divine. Except for freaking on the money changers, he always held it together with compassion.

[donco6]

150. Whatever blessings I have to give, take them all.

Perhaps there are still miracles somewhere out there. Good luck and good night.

[mdmc]

152. thank you as well my friend

[Political Heretic]

298. You never answered my question.

[mdmc]

106. Because I am a registered member of the Democratic Party

and I hope to change those things from the inside, just like you thought I would.

Ditto with the Catholic Church.

[donco6]

111. LOL - OK, good luck with that!

Sorry, having to catch my breath after that one.

Let's see, the church has been around for . . . going on 2000 years? Millions of people killed because of it over the centuries. But you believe you're going to effect change in the Roman Catholic Church?

BWA HA HA HA HA !

Sorry, there I go again . . . the hubris is . . . overwhelming me.

[mdmc]

116. Do you ever think that the Democratic Party will ever support Gay Marriage..

Perhaps in time we will.

Recently NYS failed to pass a gay marriage bill.

NYS Senator Bill Larkin was at my church after voting no. He said it was against his religious beliefs.
I got to ask him if he would like to criminalize, contraceptions, divorce, or infidelity. He agreed that divorce and infidelity were much more dangerous to the sanctity of marriage.

It turns out that Sen. Larkin and I have a mutual family friends. A kid in the family joined the military and got married. He married another soldier to get increased benefits and less taxes. I asked Sen. Larkin if their marriage was more valid then a real devoted same sex couple. We talked about how drunks get married in Vegas on a lark. Why should these frivolous union be more valid then a gay wedding?
I mentioned to Sen Larkin that gay people can get married in NYS, they just can't marry the people they are in love with. There could be mass (straight) weddings followed by mass (straight) divorce.
Sen.Larkin suggested that the times could change. He is 80 years old so it really wasn't of any interest for him to look at this policy in a new light.

But radical leftie mdmc got to talk about this issue with his priest and his (Con. Rep.) NYS Senator. After church.

Times will change. Slowly..

[PassingFair]

134. You have many viable religious choices, while there are NO viable political choices.

You can be just as effective working with another
church, or NO church.

As a political VOTER, however, the Democratic
Party is the only VIABLE choice in most parts
of the country.

You REALLY cannot compare the two circumstances.

[mdmc]

138. Most people have no desire for anything political

So if one is passionate about getting the corporations out of our politics, about opposing corporatism, I may join the Green or Teabag movement.

There are other parties (Green) that fit me better. I have one vote in (electoral college safe) NYS. Perhaps I would be better in another political party. I do lots of local political work so I am set with the Dems.

I've always been in this church. I've always been in this political party.

peace and low stress and Happy New Year!

[Political Heretic]

299. How has it worked out for you so far. At what point do you simply become a capitulating enabler?

Why not join the Republican Party and try to change them from the inside? :shrug:

[Cleita]

29. As an ex-Catholic, I can say Catholics are good on social programs and

backing up unions and labor. They are bad on women's rights and frankly if they become the church of men only, it's all right with me, as long as they stay out of my lady parts.

[bfarq]

49. I'd like to keep them out of the boy parts too.

[Cronus Protagonist]

78. Catholics rape and abuse more girls than boys

People seem to care less about the girls, though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/irish-reform-schools-thou_n_205719.html

[LAGC]

289. LOL.

Thanks, you made my day.

[inna]

31. Recommended.

:hide:

:yoiks:

[XanaDUer]

35. I am a left, very left-leaning RC, too

People don't realize how many there are, actually.

[mdmc]

110. I wanted to broach the Catholic Worker Movement in GD

perhaps in another thread..

[etherealtruth]

36. No questions, though I'm not a practicing Catholic ....

I come from a family of devout Catholics and liberal Democrats. I also (along with my family) credit my Catholic upbringing and education for my liberalism and tolerance.

[demosincebirth]

154. Well said! I try to practice my faith, but I fall short many times.

[donco6]

45. I guess it's not progressive to condemn a religion that oppresses gays.

Oh well.

[anonymous171]

47. The RCC's official position on homosexuality, while still incredibly backwards,

is absolutely progressive when compared to other socially conservative religious dogmas.

[donco6]

56. So, like, they don't want to *execute* gays?

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

My only point, really, is to reject the argument that we must be tolerant of religions that oppress people. Sorry - no dice here.

[Political Heretic]

65. So wait, you're argument here is that they suck less than other abhorrently sucky instutions?

Very compelling. :)

[mdmc]

113. I guess it's not progressive to condemn a political party that oppresses gays

and minorities.

But I AM a Democratic Party Member.

Sure, the Greens may be far better on issues like civil rights (gay rights), ending the drug war (racism), and tearing down our corporate political party system that is destroying the working class.. But I am still a registered member of the Democratic Party.

Sure there are some democrats that are pure and true. Perhaps there are catholics like that - pure and true..

Please check out this link - if you care to. It will answer your question fully -
http://www.catholicworker.org/

[iris27]

288. But there is an obvious benefit to staying Democratic instead of Green...

that there is not for staying Catholic instead of finding a faith tradition that truly suits you.

Greens don't win elections, and by participating as a Democrat, I can see at least some of the ideas I want enacted (Lily Ledbetter), even though I still have to put up with a lot of things I don't like (Stupak amendment). My supporting the Greens makes it more likely for the Republicans to gain power, which means I have a government actively working against my interests instead of one that throws me a few bones and ignores me the rest of the time.

How does staying Catholic provide a similar benefit instead of seeking out the UUs or the Quakers or some other faith tradition that fits your personal views better and also fights poverty and keeps you spiritually connected?

[Cetacea]

48. Do you feel Catholics are less progressive than during the Vietnam War period?

Nice painting of Saint Dymphna, btw. :)

[mdmc]

119. I don't know - but we tend to do good on our anti-war deals

Thanks for the Dymphna shout out! :)

[cbdo2007]

51. I appreciate your openness to questions....but the anti-religion-catholic DUers just

kind of "don't get it" in general and most of their questions aren't even logical, so I'm afraid any battles started here will be losing ones for you. I've tried many times since I've been here over the past 1.5 years or so to even just let people know that Jesus was good and then they'll throw some random Bible quote out at me about Jesus saying some random thing that they're blatantly misinterpreting and there really is no way to respond to that.

I'm a sometimes practicing catholic, though I'm really NOT a catholic, I just have a lot of Catholic family members and enjoy their church services the most of any other Christian churches I've been to. They really do A LOT of great things for people and I couldn't be happier to be associated with them and support them, even if they are somewhat outdated on some things nowadays.

[mdmc]

122. perhaps I can turn them on to Catholic Worker?

http://www.catholicworker.org/

Perhaps that would shed some light?

[LWolf]

57. I don't really have any questions.

A productive line of discussion might include the gap between living a faith and organized power structures.

Personally, I am suspicious of all organized religion.

I also recognize and appreciate the universal truths faiths are based on, and the power that faith has to positively affect people's lives.

[mdmc]

130. thanks for checking in LW

I hope you have a great deal of peace and low stress in the New Year..

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. I was raised Catholic in a very liberal Democratic family

My uncle is a priest and my mom's cousin is a nun. As kids we were taught so much about social justice and that it was important that we focus on making the world a better place.

Then the church got crazy about abortion and here in our area lately, stem cell research.

I left the church gradually as a teenager and for good as an adult when we moved into a new parish and the pastor was a draconian older priest whose sermons were hour long lectures on rules of the church.

When I stopped seeing collection boxes for food pantries in our Catholic churches, I knew I needed to go. When I learned about the pedophile priest scandal, I knew I had made the correct decision.

Still very active in social justice work. But I wouldn't step foot in a Catholic church unless it was to attend a family member's funeral.

I have very fond memories of the church. I was actually a very devout Catholic kid. I still love to hear Mary songs in May. I still carry a rosary. But the RCC of my youth is no more.

[sandnsea]

67. How do you reconcile the hypocrisy

Patrick Kennedy and John Kerry can't receive communion in certain parishes - but you never hear them go after a pro-choice Republican.

They are, literally, responsible for the deaths of millions in Africa because of the assinine view on condoms.

For years, gays were accepted into the Church and many became priests. When they decided to go after the right wing vote, they suddenly did an about face and are now among the biggest haters of them all.

How can any thinking person equate birth control to abortion.

I can't go to communion because I'm remarried, but a child molester or murderer can??

I just can't take it anymore.

[FarLeftFist]

76. On the topic of abortion and hypocrisy....

Doesn't it say somewhere in the bible that our souls don't enter the body until we take our first breath outside the womb? I could be wrong, but I guess that would be my question, is that in there somewhere?

[mdmc]

140. I am afraid I am not a scholar and cannot answer

but that is the most interesting question..

[demosincebirth]

88. I know many divorced and remarried Catholics who take communion and

serve the church very comfortably.

[donco6]

107. They do know they're not supposed to, right?

I don't get it. They don't have a problem taking COMMUNION in a church that has decided they don't deserve to have it?

How does any thinking person even begin to wrap their head around that?

[demosincebirth]

151. I also know a few who were welcomed back to their parish.

Its a personal choice. If you believe in the rule, thats your choice. If you don't, you'll find a parish that will accept you. Many who don't know Catholics and what their faith means to them, and how they practice it in their lives and are just accepting what they hear, from others, as the gospel truth. We are diverse in our beliefs as many liberals in other faiths. One example is the rule on birth control. Seventy percent of the Catholics I've known in my life time have used birth control. So don't cast such a wide net and pigeon hole us all in the same hole. We all love our Church, but we not all in lock-step with the Pope. All of my (catholic) friends are democrats and some are so liberal that I disagree with them on many political issues.

[mdmc]

120. I don't take communion due to political views

I see it as a failure of dogma, not of my beliefs.

My priest claims that no man has the right to excommunicate a Catholic. I bet Kennedy could go anywhere he wanted and get his wafer. But dogma being what it is, is wrong.

I believe in a forgiving God. He will forgive my political views and my failure to receive Communion.

Happy New Year Sandandsea!

[darkstar3]

162. So you won't participate in one of the 7 important sacrements

(and as I read it, the second most important one) because your political views are in conflict with your Church?

So you're allowing your Church to prevent you from fully expressing and experiencing your faith, and this doesn't bother you?

[mdmc]

169. Yup, it does bother me, but that dogma stuff ain't important to me

Doing good, helping people, and leaving this place better for my being here is what is important to me.

This is also a running joke with me and my priest. He always asks me why I won't come up (he knows that I do it cause of the statements jerk bishops/cardinals have made regarding Kennedy and abortion, gay rights yadda yadda. Also I am living in sin with my girlfriend). I say it is because I ate meat on Friday.

My priest claims only an individual can excommunicate themselves from the church, and that no man has the power to excommunicate another.

The way I see it, I don't participate in one ritual because some pedophile higher up claims my political views are sinful. Eventually these jerks in my church will get what they deserve.

Until then, I will go church, hold my political views, and sit with the divorcees and others that don't go up for one reason or another. Mortal sin? Didn't go to confession in time? Too lazy? Dont want to drink from a cup that dozens of others have used? I don't know why they don't go up. I don't go up cause the church claims my beliefs void my participation. These same people live in gold while poverty swells. They profited of nazis, and did many awful things throughout history. Let them eat their bread and body, my relationship with God does not require that. Perhaps I'm advanced Catholic, lol.

ps-after saying all that i still find comfort in prayer, attending church, the whole thing..

[darkstar3]

174. So in other words,

your church is full of wrong-headed ideas and people at the higher levels, but that's OK, because attending church and praying are comfortable for you.

Are you perhaps familiar with the term "cognitive dissonance"?

[mdmc]

180. I don't think they are wrong about everything, just some things

and the things that they are right about are more important, imho, then what I disagree on.

Just because some high level people are wrong really makes no difference to me. The church helps me to do good work. to charge my batteries.

I mean, I guess I really should be a universal Unitarianism or a quaker AND a Green Party Member.
But I've always been a Democrat. And I've always been a Catholic (more or less).

[darkstar3]

185. So,

equal rights for homosexuals is not as important as helping the poor?

Preventing the subjugation of women into breeding stock is less important than doing good works?

These issues may not affect you personally, but to say that they are less important than others, when clearly they are two of the pivotal issues of our time, seems wrong to me.

[mdmc]

196. If I could legalize gay marriage or end poverty it is simple what I would do.

If I could end poverty by keeping women out of the priesthood and keeping gay marriage illegal, I would do it.

But that is only because I cannot think of any real way to end poverty. Except through compassion and empathy.

I guess that is why I am a catholic, praying and going to church charges my compassion and empathy batteries.

[caitxrawks]

74. do you ever get tired of

People saying you're not a Christian? I hear this everywhere I go. On another site I'm on (CafeMom) there's a well-known Catholic hating troll. They're really annoying, plus they're anonymous so we don't know who they are. My husband grew up Catholic (he's now an atheist) and he doesn't understand why people said he wasn't a Christian.

I too find it kinda sorta silly. My mom used to say that Catholics prayed to Mary. I'm glad as an adult I can call her bluff and cry "Bullshit!" Haha.

[donco6]

82. We prayed to Mary all the time.

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, amen."

It's kinda critical in the Rosary.

[mdmc]

121. I only know very few born again right wingers and I tear them up

I live in sin with my girlfriend (how practicing Catholic of me, lol). Her mother told us we would go to hell. I told her she cheated on her husband, got a divorce, and now attends a heretic church that accepts whatever is easy and convenient for its members.

Of course I also pull out, "What would Jesus be doing if he returned to earth?" Before they can answer, I ask, "Would he be curing poor AIDS victims or would he be leading hateful parades against gay marriage?" Then of course, "So you really believe Jesus hates gays? Does he hate divorcees too?"

My spirituality is all about reducing suffering, ignorance, illness, and poverty. I'll go toe to toe with the best of them..

[bfarq]

77. Given all religions are selling faith in things unprovable, how do I choose?

I mean, I'll admit the Catholics have a good head start over many of the others and have quite a few assets in place. But why should a person believe that particular bag of faith versus say:

a) The Mormons who believe that the real god and Truth was revealed when Joseph Smith found some magical stones that nobody else ever saw. Do you believe in magical stones? If not, why should I believe one set of magic and reject the other set of magic?

b) The Scientologists who believe that Xenu brought humans to this planet and one day will take us away in a space ship. Do you believe in Xenu? If not, why should I accept your story and reject the Scientologist story.

We could go on with 20 more examples, but hopefully you understand the dilemma. While some of the religions are similar, some are absolutely mutually exclusive. And that presents us with a conundrum. In a total absence of facts, how do we choose one faith-based story over another?

[mdmc]

123. Do Good Things

I've found that the study of religious traditions was the only way I made it back to the church.
I hated everything about the Catholic Church (all the dogma shit being discussed here).
So I looked elsewhere. Everywhere.
Eventually Joseph Campbell and HH the Dali Lama got me interested in religion.
The more I meditated and studies Hindu and Buddhism, the more I needed an authentic teacher.
I couldn't find one.
Somewhere someone had questioned the Dali Lama on this subject of an authentic master.
The Dali Lama suggested if you were raised in a wisdom tradition, return to it, and take what you can from it.
So I did.
I practice Catholic Karma. I go to church. I try to oppose the dogma I disagree with. And I try to treat people the way that I would like to be treated. When things are bad for me, I try to think about all the negative karma I am burning. When things are good for me, I think of how blessed I am that God gave me all of this good Karma.

So basically, make it up. Whatever helps you to deal with the fact that you and everything that you love will suffer and die, whatever helps deal with that inevitability, cultivate it.

Thank you for your reply. Peace and low stress..

[bfarq]

144. I appreciate that honesty

For me, the best way to deal with the fact that everyone will suffer and die is to accept that is how life works in this universe and try to make the best out of the opportunity that I do have. For me, it is not helpful to try to trick myself into feeling better by convincing myself that the universe isn't actually as it appears to us -- that a whole world of eternal bliss is just over the horizon. To me, that is intellectually dishonest and not how I want to be remembered.

That does leave one with many sad moments when lives are cut short. I get no comfort from hearing "he's in a better place now", but I know many people do -- even when they really know in their heart that is not true.

I certainly believe in religious freedom, and if some folks want this kind of spiritual wrapper, I will fight to the death for their right to do so. And I will also oppose just as vigorously any effort to impose that dogma on me or anybody else.

[mdmc]

148. Well met,

good talkin to ya and keep postin.. :)

[mdmc]

86. I wonder if posters in GD will have their Catholic bashing replies sent over here..

If anyone who frequents the religion forum has any questions on what it is like to follow a wisdom tradition, ask away :eyes:

[Lost-in-FL]

95. Are you saying this because your post was moved from GD?

I am willing to bet that if you were of Mormon faith, Jewish or a Scientologist (etc.) your post would ultimately land here.

You never considered this happening to your post? Why? What made you think so?

[mdmc]

97. I was hoping to talk to the GD'ers that would like to learn

I thought we could learn from each other..

I solicited questions from DU'ers that don't understand why people (especially radical liberals) would ever be part of a religion like the Catholic Church.

I doubt that I will get many questions from the posters in this forum. This seems like a dead forum where religion is discussed by the faithful.

[Lost-in-FL]

104. All I can say is this.

:hug:

[mdmc]

131. :-)

Thank you.

Peace and low stress in the New Year..

[Better Today]

183. You misunderstand, we don't really want to know why, never have.

Asking "why do you believe such..." is just a polite way of saying "you're nuts for believing in fairytales and the goodness of the Catholic faith."

If your thread is worth much it will raise on the Greatest page, as it has,and be seen by many of all sub-forums.

People who expressly intend not to get into religious discussions, don't go to forums about religion, and don't want to find it in their GD forum.

As to questions about Catholicism,. . .why do you presume to think anyone in GD wants your opinions? Seems Christians of all manner, have the godforesaken idea that if everyone just understood (insert religious cult here). . . then we'd all be happy, smiling believers. Why don't you all focus on yourselves, your problems and disgraces (like child abuse and sex abuse in your churches and related schools), focus on keeping your church out of my government (like the Catholic Church interfering in the HCR bill), and pay some god-damned taxes in all the states and communities where your churches reside so as to help all individuals instead of just the few chosen to be good enough for Catholic charity?

[mdmc]

200. point taken

points.

[jgraz]

156. What, in your estimation, is a "Catholic bashing" reply?

:shrug:

[mdmc]

267. I didn't know how this forum worked

I thought it was for religious people to discuss their faith (kinda like the Catholic DU group)

I didn't realize that this was like the 9-11 or gun forum, where people go at it.

So I thought that by moving the thread here, I would be left only with religious readers that are either catholic or practicing another faith.

I did not know that there would be such disagreement here in the smaller forum. I didn't know it existed until my thread was moved here.

So basically my "bashing" post was due to the fact that I thought this thread had been moved to a "pro-religion" smaller group.

Now I know. :)

[jgraz]

272. Hahah! Welcome to Teh Internets.

;)

I bet you could start a flame war on the Catholic group without really trying that hard. :D

[mdmc]

273. sure enough my friend

peace and low stress..

[uberllama42]

149. Do you work with the poor because of your faith

or were you attracted to your church because of your concern for people in poverty?

More broadly, I suppose, my question is this:

If it were not for your religious beliefs, would you still do good work? If you didn't believe in God, would you still feel obligated to help people who are less fortunate?

[mdmc]

171. I used to work in upscale retail management and sales

but I wanted to help people .. always.. So once I got my psych degree I moved over into politics and human services.

My religion helps me to do the work I do (working with adults suffering from severe and persistent mental illness live in the community instead of a hospital) cause it is some sad shit and it can beat you down.

My political work is centered around reducing poverty in Newburgh, NY. I've always done that, even before going back to the church.

I think I was just about as obligated to help the poor when I was a lapsed catholic Buddhist. perhaps more so.

If you take a look at http://www.catholicworker.org/ - this will help you see where I'm at. I mean I'm a democratic socialist, for true.

Thank you for this question by the way. I am very happy with this OP.

[uberllama42]

173. See my reply to you at #172

It sort of continues along this line of questioning.

And yes, I think this has turned out as well as could be expected. You have to have a tough skin to wade into this forum, because people are going to give you shit. Not that I think they should feel guilty about it. But that's the way things are in R/T.

[mdmc]

182. first time here.. didn't know it existed

I thought this was some safe haven that religious dems could go to talk..

[iris27]

190. There are several DU groups that serve that purpose...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=428

And there's an atheist/agnostic group along those lines as well. R/T is kinda where the two come together to discuss theological beliefs, the impact of religion on society, etc.

[dorkulon]

157. Is it true that you're not supposed to read the bible?

Follow ups:

Have you read the whole bible?

It's estimated that 15% of Christians have actually read the bible. How do you feel about that?

[mdmc]

192. I think you should read the bible

the koran
the bagdavita

I am not well read. I have not read the bible. My girlfriend has. I have not. I read the daily reading online everyday, but I have not read the bible.

How do I feel about 15% of Christians reading the bible? I dunno. More people, myself included, should read.

[dorkulon]

205. I've read parts

Just saying, if I though the all-powerful creator of the universe wrote a book, I'd have to read through it at least once.

[mdmc]

206. me too

but he wrote so many.. lucky now that he writes them in english! :)

[dorkulon]

208. If you're including the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita in the works of God, and you believe in

reincarnation and karma, I have to say you're not really a Catholic. At least, most Catholics wouldn't think so. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[mdmc]

241. studied and belief are two different things

I strive to know the Divine. It just so happens that I was raised Catholic and continue to practice in that tradition.

[rd_kent]

248. But god did not wirite that book, man did.

[dorkulon]

297. Gee, ya think?

I realize that. No doubt God would have written more of a page-turner.

[rd_kent]

247. Read it for what purpose?

If people actually read it like regular book, without influence from their church, I think people would see it for what it is......a quasi-historical work of fiction full of contradictions and hypocrisy.

[pnwmom]

193. Not true. Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible.

Personally, I've read the whole New Testament, but only parts of the Old Testament.

[darkstar3]

197. True, but only after Vatican II

Before that, Catholic laity were told NOT to read the Bible because only the Priests could properly interpret what was contained within those pages.

[pnwmom]

203. Not true. Catholic laypeople have had access to the Bible for centuries.

How else would they be able to argue over the meaning of passages with Protestants?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

The original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many Protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The renderings of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument. The work of preparing such a version was undertaken by the members of the English College at Douai, in Flanders, founded by William Allen (afterwards cardinal) in 1568. The chief share of the translating was borne by Dr. Gregory Martin, formerly of St. John's College, Oxford. His text was revised by Thomas Worthington, Richard Bristowe, John Reynolds, and Allen himself — all of them Oxford men. A series of notes was added, designed to answer the theological arguments of the Reformers; these were prepared by Allen, assisted by Bristowe and Worthington.

The object of the work was, of course not limited to controversial purposes; in the case of the New Testament, especially, it was meant for pious use among Catholics.

[darkstar3]

207. delete

Now that you've completely changed your post, mine makes no sense.

[pnwmom]

210. You're the one that made a claim about a ban. So you prove there was ever a ban.

It is true that Catholics were more strongly encouraged to read the Bible after Vatican II than they were before. But they weren't banned from reading it. And translations into English had been available for centuries -- for the laypeople. Priests had always had the Latin.

[darkstar3]

214. On further reading, I may be wrong about an explicit ban.

I can't find an explicit Catholic or Papal ban on reading the Bible referenced anywhere except on Evangelical hate sites.

Of course, I grew up in an Evangelical religion, so you can see how I might still think that.

Aside from that, what I have found is in Lutheranism, where Luther was instrumental in getting the Bible translated into any other language aside from Latin, which could only be read by the educated clergy. I suppose that could be an implicit ban, since the church had always insisted on Latin, but it doesn't serve as an explicit ban like what we were discussing, and it doesn't extend all the way upto Vatican II.

For once, I might have learned something here.

[pnwmom]

218. Of course I can understand why you might have thought that.

It's a common claim, and it certainly would be in keeping with other things the Church has done. But I don't think the Church would ever have had to ban it even if they wanted to. The vast majority of people were illiterate. Latin had become a kind of universal written language, and only an educated elite could read that or any language.

I've learned a thing or two here, too. It's nice to meet someone else who can acknowledge when it happens.

:hi:

[DeSwiss]

170. Ha-ha. Unfortunately practice DOES NOT make perfect.

[rug]

221. Gilbert Gottfried has nothing on you.

http://noteasybeingagenius.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-richard-dawkins-is-bad-at-being.html

[DeSwiss]

286. I'm sure that you of all people, recognize "stupid" immediately.

- It's like looking in the mirror. BTW, is that a self-portraint?

[rd_kent]

305. The truth stings, huh? And you respond by calling him stupid?

hypocrite....

[rug]

307. If you think that pictorial screed represents truth, you're too stupid to be a hypocrite.

[rd_kent]

308. I see it has hit a nerve with you, so there must be some truth to it.

[rug]

309. I'm in utter agony.

[rd_kent]

310. I know, the ignorance really burns, huh?

[rug]

311. Only when I read your posts.

[rd_kent]

313. I know, right? When you read my posts, it makes your ignorance burn.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

312. For someone who is such a strong atheist, you sure do seem to be obsessed

with Christianity. Collecting all those pictures must have taken a lot of time.

[rd_kent]

314. It actually takes no time at all. You cannot swing a stick and not hit some xtian hate, bigotry and

hypocrisy. Its everywhere!

[iris27]

194. Do you believe in hell?

If so, who's going? If not, why did Jesus need to die?

[mdmc]

204. Hell is the absence of God.

I personally believe in karma, so it gets kinda tricky.
I believe that when we die, we become one with God. The God within meets the God without. The individual has divine knowledge.
If your karma is pure you will recognize this diving truth and go to heaven (or the white side of the yin/yang sign).
If your karma is not pure you will be reborn to another life (which I think is purgatory or our current existence).
If you accept the divine knowledge and refuse it, you (choose to) go to hell, or be an individual being separate from God (again, could be back here on earth).

But when just talking western thought -
Everyone goes to heaven except those that refuse to do so.
example -
Hitler kills himself. He is sent to judgment. He is bad, but forgiven. He is allowed to enter heaven with all the ethnic minorities (even jews!). He says, "No thanks!" and heads down to hell by his own decision.


I think Jesus needed to die cause the old God was vengeful. In order to be nicer, God needed to suffer a little.

its 3am so i;m sorry about the babble..

[darkstar3]

209. Dude, you are SO not Catholic.

Karma? Yin/Yang? Reincarnation?

Are you just fucking with us, or what?

[mdmc]

237. It is possible that all of these wisdom traditions tell the same story

Please keep in mind that I have studied many different wisdom traditions.
I in no way see these other religions as "false" and Catholicism as "true".
I admit that I do not know why we are here, or where we go after we are here.
But I would like to know.

I think I can do a pretty good job blending the idea of Karma with the idea of Christ.

I personally think that this life on earth is heaven (for those with a relationship with God), purgatory (for those tryin to make it work), and hell (for those that are working it the wrong way). I can see dying, going to Heaven, and Saint Peter saying something like, "Good work. Now this time focus on helping people more and partying less." Zip. I'm re-born down here and do it all over again.

I really don't know what happens when we go. I take comfort in my prayers and attending church.

[Jim__]

223. You say that your church is really all about making a positive contribution to the reduction of ...

... poverty.

That's interesting. I just finished reading a book, Reason, Faith, and Revolution, by Terry Eagleton. I beleieve he was raised Catholic; I don't think he is a Catholic anymore. But, in the book he had a lot of good things to say about religion and theology, believing that faith is performative. The actions he talked about sound similar to the type of actions you say your church is involved in, namely working to improve the world. He didn't label his thought "liberation theology," because he said he believes all theology is liberating. IIRC, some of his examples concerned the actions of the Church and liberation theology in Latin America. Are the actions of your church similar to the actions of Latin American churches who have embraced liberation theology? Do you think that liberation theology is in sync with traditional Catholic theology?

I'm asking because I am curious as to whether or not the theology described by Eagleton is the theology that is generally accepted by the Catholic Church, or if it is accepted by only a somewhat small subset of Catholics and other Christians?

[mdmc]

242. My city is unique in that we have severe poverty

and most catholics left the city in the 60's for the suburbs.
So my church looked at what was left, and saw what needed to be done, which was to serve the poor.

I think that Christ was all about serving the poor, and the closer the church gets to that mission, the more divine it will be.

I don't know if the church as a whole accepts liberation theology, but I think that at the very least all catholics would consider the platform of liberation theology as central to our religion (to all religions, IMHO).

[rd_kent]

246. But does one need faith and the church to help those in need?

IMO, not even a little bit.

[mdmc]

263. Agreed

for me, it charges my compassion batteries.. I know it is not for everyone..

[rd_kent]

266. And you are to be applauded for your efforts.

I say thank you.

[mdmc]

270. peace and low stress my brother

Good things for you and yours in the New Year..

[ZombieHorde]

306. I got a question.

If the Catholic Church treated black people the way it treats gay people, would you still be a member?