Holy F*&%, I can't believe I have to actually defend this on DU.

[ElboRuum]

A backgrounder.

I haven't been a believing Catholic since I was four. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny lasted longer than God on my list of "Things That Are Ludicrous To Believe In, But Which I Still Believe In Anyway."

I haven't been a complicit Catholic since the first time I had my knuckles rapped with a yardstick by a nun in 1st grade.

I haven't been a Catholic since my mother decided that further attempts indoctrination would be fruitless by 8th grade, although, since I have yet to be excommunicated, the church would say I still am Catholic (though obviously, lapsed).

The only time since that I've set foot into a church or cathedral was for a wedding or a funeral.

I am the LAST person who would defend a faith which originated among the humble and the poor, but gives you the "evil eye" if you don't tithe your 10%... gross, not net.

Now this is GOOD, because I'm not going to defend the faith. I can't defend that which is so recalcitrant and backward. Moreover, it doesn't want my defense, so it shall not have it. It loathes people like me as much as the most grievous of sinners.

But I will defend Catholics. I will defend the faithful.

I have read several threads commenting to the effect that any Catholics which remain Catholics after this abominable decree by the Vatican against the GLBT community are, by association, complicit. So, being a Catholic is now a high crime against progressives?

The only thing that I can say to this is, holy hell, what a bunch of bullshit so stench-ridden as to be embarrassing to thinking people everywhere.

Something you should be aware of if you are not a Catholic and aren't familiar with the faith:

This ain't the dark ages anymore. Catholics have, in the last century in this country, openly disagreed with and thumbed their nose at some of the more backward policies of the church. The Pope, while the leader of the faith, doesn't wield the power Torquemada had during the Spanish Inquisition. Many if not most Catholics have come to embrace progressive ideals AS BEING THE EFFECTIVE AND TRUE path to righteousness, where the church continues to back the wrong horse. Oh, sure, there are those in the faith who believe that the power of Catholicism derives from the papacy and not that bothersome Jesus person, and they have silly bumper stickers on their cars that say you're not Catholic if you're pro-choice and what not. But by and large, Catholics don't want too much truck with that. Catholics, in general, don't like such fundamentalist rhetoric. They've had to actively parse the meaning of their faith because of the grotesque hypocrisies that the papacy has historically clung to tooth and nail, so rote edict and decree doesn't sit well with them.

It honestly pains me to think that these sorts of blanket condemnations are welcome in a place where the dialogue is active and minds are supposedly open. It is beyond hysterical to think that just because the leadership of the Catholic faith has made a decree that the rest of the Catholic world is going to automatically step in line behind it. Wasn't this the same kind of horseshit people pulled with JFK? That the papacy pulls the strings and Catholics across the globe step and fetch? Do you actually believe that just because the Illustrious Eminence, His Royal Catholicness Pope Benedict MCMLXXXIX the Infinitely Awesome says "boo" that this fundamentally changes the thinking and belief of an American Catholic half a world away? If you do, may I interest you in some transportation infrastructure in the New York metropolitan area I'm looking to offload cheap?

We know better.

Now. Can we act better?

[annabanana]

1. Some of us miss John Paul

even some of us non-Catholics..

[ElboRuum]

3. I know what you mean.

In a lot of ways Pope John Paul II represented the best of the Catholic faith. A truly kind and decent man with a worldly view of peace and brotherhood. Oh, sure, he was not perfect by any means, but with him at the helm, Catholicism was forward-looking and not averse to change where appropriate.

[YOY]

14. Amen to that. Pun intended.

n.t.

[olegramps]

102. You are obviously unaware of the facts

With all due respect, you are solely unaware of the facts regarding John Paul II. Firstly, he was the major author of the encyclical Humane Vitae that rejected the Birth Control Commission appointed by John XIII. He had been appointed a member to the commission but boycotted it when it took the final vote in which they voted to rescind the church's condemnation of contraception. In this regard he even lied about both his reason for not attending and his major input regarding the document. He said that he and his staff had a little input, but his secretary gushing over the fact that they had contributed the majority of the text bragged about their influence on Paul VI to reject the commission's recommendation because the papacy's authority would be undermined. I will just add in closing that he recognized Opus Dei, a secret cult of radical extremists that engaged in self torture. It is too bad that far too many Catholic know so little about John XXIII and his attempt to bring the church into the 20th century and how Paul VI and John Paul II worked to overthrow his efforts.

[Bucky]

198. What a constructive way to begin a dialog.

[PassingFair]

294. How dare he bring up FACTS...

so UNCONSTRUCTIVE of him...

:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

300. He was also openly hostile to liberation theology, which opened the

door to the murders of many, many clerics in Central America - including the Maryknoll nuns and Archbishop Romero in El Salvador.

[dmallind]

4. Why? He was theologically very conservative

A nicer guy with more charisma than the current incumbent sure, but equally as strict and orthodox in dogma and social issues. His response would doubtless have been the same to such a resolution in the UN.

[ElboRuum]

22. Weeeeellll...

He may have been silent on it or at least more diplomatic. JPII understood the world around him was changing and that Catholicism had to grow into it to remain relevant, even if the reforms necessary went against his conservative interpretation.

[Goblinmonger]

47. You do know that JPII

had Ratzinger as his right-hand man. Tells volumes.

[ElboRuum]

53. Yes, I do.

And maybe that indeed does tell volumes (maybe it doesn't, the whole point of the post should be taken as "be careful with that broad guilt by association brush, it's wide and you often get more paint on yourself than on your target")... What are in those volumes, however, do not contradict the fact that JPII was, like the pontiffs before him was an agent of change in the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith, like our own democracy, has shifted position many times. This, even though the dogma claims infallibility of the papacy.

Ratzinger, though "right-hand-man", seems alien in certain crucial respects to JPIIs general attitude toward necessary change within the church. It is clear that Ratzinger is definitely more of an Opus Dei type, clearly a departure from JPIIs inclusionary efforts (which I believe were primarily motivated by the departure of Catholics from the faith). Was that a cynical act? Perhaps. But I believe those efforts, primarily those looking to mend fences with leaders of other religious faiths and to address the necessary issues of a world, in its better formula, not bound by theocratic edict were genuine, even though Catholic dogma has very distinct and clear language against some of these issues.

We could debate the legacy of JPII all day, but I have great respect for the man and believe that he did his noble best to bring the Catholic church forward in time, even though its dogma and those who believe that the dogma should be strengthened in its literality have been pulling it back.

[musette_sf]

82. i disagree that JP II

brought "the Catholic church forward in time".

backwards is more like it.

[ElboRuum]

84. And that's what makes America great.

Disagreement. Love it.

[musette_sf]

87. so you're okay with the continued discrimination in the RCC

against women as full citizens of the Church.

SO glad that you "love it". :eyes:

SOME of us don't feel acknowledged and respected by the RCC. JP I was going to change that. JP II institutionalized women's inferiority in the Church to a degree that is FAR too oppressive in modern society.

[ElboRuum]

111. No. I'm okay with disagreement.

:eyes: right back atcha!

[olegramps]

116. You need to become better informed on Vatican II and its aftermath

John Paul II was closely associated with Opus Dei for a number of years before he became elected pope. Prior to his election he was observed praying at the grave of Leo Jozef Escriva the founder of Opus Dei. Two pope before him, Pius XII and John XXIII had refused to recognize his attempts to have his society of radicals declared a personal prelature that would be answerable to solely to the pope. He not only recognized this desire but had him canonized as a saint. The proceeding were not without intrigue and several witnesses who had a extended association and were less than admires were denied the opportunity to testify at the proceeding. John Paul II also appointed two Opus Dei cardinals and several bishops as he attempted to destroy the doctrines of Vatican II. You should avail yourself of the documents and many of the prelates of Vatican II and you will be amazed just how progressive they were. Many of those bishops were amazed that Paul VI and John Paul II became so opposed to what they had envisioned of a progressive church. Those such as Cardinal Suenens, who had been entrusted with heading up the preparations for the council, could not believe that they had been betrayed. You can find extensive material at the Suenens' Center at John Carrol University.

[ElboRuum]

121. This is the third post in the series.

Could you at least put these on a single thread and maybe wait for me to respond?

I know you want to make hay out of this, even though the OP makes no apologies for any of the shenanigans of the Catholic Church (TM) itself.

But if we must we must.

[defendandprotect]

243. Correct there was a right-wing coup on Vatican II ...

and at least one or two Popes who supported birth control being

left up to members' personal conscience passed away rather quickly.

Yes ... Opus Dei is back -- evidently they helped bail out the Vatican

re the Bank scandal with substantial amount of money.

This Pope is also planning to turn the RCC to Evangelicalism.

Evidently, many people who support the RCC know little of its condemnable

history---

[dflprincess]

296. I realized JPII was even worse than I thought when my grandmother -

who was very devout and rarely questioned anything out of Rome said to me "I don't think this Pope (meaning J2P2) likes women at all." I figured if even grandma thought he was sexist (and that's what she meant, not his preference) he was worse than I thought.

[musette_sf]

305. yes, JP II, the jolly old sexist

and Benny Ratz, lover of cats and hater of women and gays.

all this JP II lurve here makes me sick. i would love to come back to the Church if they will come to me. women priests, celibacy as a choice (maybe by religious order?) not as a requirement, and respect of women's privacy. this is not much to ask.

[defendandprotect]

248. Going backwards, especially into denial ... isn't "change" ---

[LaPera]

260. Hmmmm.

[olegramps]

106. You are very misinformed

He wanted to turn back the clock and he especially opposed one of the major doctrines laid down in Vatican II. That was the concept of collegiality. That is the the bishops must be consulted in all major decisions. This concept he totally rejected reversing this and once again making the Pope the sole authority.

[defendandprotect]

247. Wasn't he the first CIA Pope .... ? And, BTW ..Allen Dulles' nephew

last I heard was a higher up in the Vatican.

The Vatican is still seen as having avenues for intelligence the CIA

still envies.

[JackRiddler]

29. Wotjyla = Ratzinger

Please don't fall for charisma. Wotjyla was a reaction and a giant step back from the tiny opening provided by Vatican II. Under Wotjyla the role of the Inquisition was reinforced and Ratzinger was put in charge of it. Ratzinger wrote the major doctrines for Wotjyla, including the 2000 declaration that all other religions are false. Ratzinger was Wotjyla's obvious successor. Nothing has changed, only the face has become more obvious.

And this is nothing against Catholics; they are obviously the first and greatest victims of this "church."

[emilyg]

61. Yes we do.

[musette_sf]

81. some of us do NOT miss John Paul

and the theological fundamentalism (much of it concerning women and gays) he revived, with the help of Pope Ratzo who at the time was JP II's Cheney. the RCC needs to admit women as full citizens, respect women's right to privacy, and forget the celibacy nonsense. we WERE actually on the way in that direction till JP I keeled over conveniently to allow fundie JP II in.

[roguevalley]

93. I miss the last pope I could love, John XXIII. THere are a percentage

of all religions that are jar heads. To blame all the participants of a group for the actions of the stupid ones is stupid. Am I to blame for the actions of the yellow dogs? I am a true believer in the party, in what it means to be a liberal. Do I have to bear the brunt of the George Wallaces?

I agree with the OP. Sort out the shit from the shinola.

[FloridaJudy]

173. I agree

John wasn't perfect, but I think he made an effort with Vatican II to bring the church closer to meeting the needs of the people.

[defendandprotect]

252. The internationally "Beloved" Pope John XXIII ...

Pope John XXIII was turning the church into a democracy --

and gave the RCC a compassionate and humane face --

Pope John XXIII told Catholics to use their own personal consciences to

decide for themselves whether or not to use birth control --

Essentially, Pope John XXIII kicked Papal "infallibility" out of the church --

[Spectral Music]

147. and George and Ringo

:p

[RFKHumphreyObama]

174. Pope John Paul II rocked and I say that as a non-Catholic

Yes, I disagreed with him on some issues and disliked the way he appointed hardliners to the Church hierarchy. But he was also very progressive in many areas -his willingness to wholeheartedly embrace interfaith initiatives, his condemnation of the second Iraq War and his outspoken and consistent opposition to racism. Heck, he even apologized to Australia's indigenous people for the Church's role in the Stolen Generation before the Australian's government apologized for their own role in the event. I miss him

[Why Syzygy]

2. google

"black pope", and then tell me anyone should associate themselves with that organization.

[ElboRuum]

7. You absolutely miss the point.

Say what you want about "Catholicism" the faith, with all of its past and present ugliness, you will get no argument from me either for or against. That (as I clearly wrote) is NOT what I'm defending.

Catholicism is not some "organization" you "associate" with. The faith is a heritage characteristic present from birth, like your ancestry. People are born into this faith and grow up within it. That said, most Catholics can name several things they disagree with regarding the church leadership and their policies and decrees. But it is the FAITH that is of importance to them, not the papacy. I don't expect any Catholic to self-excommunicate (as if such a thing were possible) because they disagree with the leadership, because it does not fundamentally change their beliefs. They should not be made to feel "anti-progressive" because the leadership of the church is hopelessly backward.

[MedleyMisty]

17. Umm - there's nothing that says you have to believe what your parents believe

Religion is a choice. You can't help your skin tone or where you're born or what gender you are or your sexual orientation or how much money your parents have, but beliefs are something you choose.

[ElboRuum]

21. Religion is a choice?

Not in Catholicism or Judaism. That's there from birth.

I think you mean "faith" is a choice. The Catholic church would still consider me a member of the faith because they retain the right of excommunication, even though I am an atheist.

Please, just keep drawing the inappropriate equals signs between religion, faith, and belief if you want to keep confusing yourself.

[crim son]

26. Oh, nonsense.

Meaning, I was baptized at birth, raised as a Catholic, and as a young woman decided I didn't agree with a number of the Church's basic positions. Sure, I could "pick and choose" but that would mean I wasn't a Catholic, in my own view. I can't go to a Church whose Father denounces gay rights; I just couldn't do it.

I'm now "spiritual" or whatever you want to call it. I pray and I worship at home. I refuse to be a hypocrite... and I imagine it's people like me who offend you. Oh well.

[ElboRuum]

37. I'm really not that easily offended.

I too fell out of the faith and the belief. But are you willing to decry all those who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ in the faith that they were raised in even if they DON'T agree with the decrees of some fancy hat half-a-world-away as hypocrites? That's YOUR choice. But if you do offend me, you do so because the choice you made becomes the LITMUS TEST for everyone else. Be like me or I condemn thee. How "spiritual". How Old Testament.

You don't score points with me as some hyper-evolved person because you left the faith on principle. I left the faith because I just don't think there is a God, you did because you were dissatisfied with their positions. Fine. But lambasting all of those who didn't make your choice as hypocrites, firstly, does not hold water, and secondly, does not represent any view I'd call charitable.

Oh. Well.

[crim son]

78. First, it was a personal decision to leave the Church, and

had nothing to do with "scoring points" with anybody - I don't know where you got that from unless I've offended you somehow, heh. And second I said that, in my opinion, supporting and defending Catholicism by ignoring its deep flaws is hypocrisy in this wise... Eh, what's the point? I used to be on the other side of this argument, and I'm aware you know my reasons as well as anybody, having defended yourself against them. Thank the Deity that religion cannot be foisted on us by anybody other than our parents, yes? Else you'd be wiccan and I'd probably be speaking in tongues.

[polmaven]

85. You are aware

that Catholicism is not the ONLY Christian Faith choice, aren't you? And yes, it IS a choice.

Many Protestant denominations hold very different views when it comes to this kind of discrimination.

[ElboRuum]

114. So the answer for Catholics...

...on DU, in order to avoid this irritating persecution, then, is to "jump ship" to the nearest friendly Christian-flavored religion?

Wow. I didn't know that religious choices came that easily. Why bother with that whole conversion issue, then? Why not just be a cafeteria Catholic? Save quite a lot of time and trouble, if you ask me.

Are you seriously suggesting to me that people take something as personal and relevant to them as their faith and treat it like its ordering off a menu?

[defendandprotect]

257. "A cafeteria Catholic" is one who uses their own personal conscience ....

as recommended by Pope John XXIII in Vatican II --

[defendandprotect]

256. Yes ...we should acknowledge that kids are dragged into this stuff ...

way before even the age of reason --

before their own consciences can be developed --

Early brainwashing is the way religion has to go --

cause if you give kids a chance to think for themselves,

it's over for the church ---

[keepCAblue]

277. Is there a genetic basis for "Catholicism" ???

No, there is not. So it is not an immutable trait. Religion--be it Catholicism, Mormonism or Scientology--is a choice.

[ImOnlySleeping]

309. People leave religions all the time

The one defining characteristic of catholicism is that catholics view the pope as god's infallible messenger. If you are going to pick what things you agree with (same with picking and choosing which of the words of god you believe) just drop out of it. It's not for you. If you're going to accept the religion, accept it 100%.

[WillParkinson]

316. There from birth?

How so? Is it in the genes? Is it like eye color? From birth is not logical. Religion is a choice. I might have been baptized, but I am not Catholic.

[Why Syzygy]

25. You sound confused.

You're saying Catholicism is a birthright (given by rite of birth) and that there is no escape (self-excommunicate)? That isn't "faith". That's a curse. There sure is a way out of the Catholic church. Millions have left it. Faith has nothing to do with church membership.

[ElboRuum]

40. I'll repeat myself.

Religion != Faith != Belief.

According to the Catholic faith, you cannot "self-excommunicate". Please attend the statement. I was talking about the religion, you are talking about the faith. And in both cases, you are saying nothing about belief.

[RaleighNCDUer]

303. If a catholic decides to walk away from the church

the concept of 'self-excommunication' becomes just a meaningless babble. The religion only holds such power as you grant it. When a person walks away, what difference does it make what the religion thinks?

[KitchenWitch]

311. I have both belief and faith but although I am a witch

I do not really subscribe to any one religion. So they are not equivalent, but thanks for playing anyway.

[Donnachaidh]

34. heritage characteristic? Bollocks

That's yet another line of brainwashing perpetrated by the Catholic Church to keep it's parishioners from straying.

As a family historian I *know* that just because one generation is Catholic, it doesn't follow that your *ancestry* was entirely Catholic. A Catholic *may* believe that, but that is only because family members who have left the church and gone into other non-Catholic churches historically have been *forgotten* because they were considered sinners.

[ElboRuum]

39. You miss the point.

Religion != Faith != Belief.

[FiveGoodMen]

163. You miss this point: If your church is full of shit, leave it.

Yes you can.

[ElboRuum]

172. Why should they?

Did the individuals do something wrong? If not, why should they feel obligated to leave it?

Well, maybe you're right. Now since ALL religions are IMHO full of shit, when is this mass defection to atheism going to take place?

[FiveGoodMen]

194. If your job sucked and you could just get a better one, wouldn't you?

You make it sound like leaving a church would hurt the leaver.

Not at all.

When someone tries to shovel shit into your mouth, spit it out, knock the mother-fucker down, and get out of there.

[ElboRuum]

200. Personal religious beliefs != career choice.

Most people have pretty strong feelings about this.

"You make it sound like leaving a church would hurt the leaver."

I'm not making it sound like that. I am saying EXACTLY that. To many people, their religious identification is as important to them as their national identification (despite the fact that it clearly isn't to you). In your surmise that it's "no big deal", we could just as easily substitute one's national affiliation and say "What the hell is the problem? If your country is being a big fat shitwich, fuck it, just move to another one. There are 200+ more to choose from."

[FiveGoodMen]

230. "their religious identification is as important to them as their national identification"

That may be true, but I'm arguing that it shouldn't be.

If there is a God, surely he's not tied to one particular church.

If the church one is attending appears not to be reading their own Bibles, then devotion to God should = moving to a church that pays better attention to what he said.

If people are more attached to their preacher than to the God they worship, then I have no use for them.

The comparison with national affiliation isn't really valid. It's difficult -- sometimes impossible -- to get citizenship in another country and you have to move away from everyone you know to do it. Switching churches just means you drive somewhere else on Sunday morning.

[Two Americas]

236. identification

We don't identify with our country based on some intellectual exercise.

"If the church one is attending appears not to be reading their own Bibles, then devotion to God should = moving to a church that pays better attention to what he said."

Health care workers are in favor of good health. That does not mean they only hang with healthy people so they can identify with health. To the contrary, they go where the sick people are.

No longer being a Catholic is not a matter of "switching churches" as though it were an exercise in consumerism.

"If people are more attached to their preacher than to the God they worship, then I have no use for them."

Are you more attached to your government than you are to the ideals of your country? Why do you continue to call yourself an American? Why do you comply with a government that violates those ideals?

[FiveGoodMen]

254. Wrong on every count.

"We don't identify with our country based on some intellectual exercise."

Yes, we most certainly do. Identification with something is all in the head. That's different from being identified for legal purposes, but identifying is most certainly in your mind and there alone.

"Health care workers are in favor of good health. That does not mean they only hang with healthy people so they can identify with health. To the contrary, they go where the sick people are."

But they don't depend on those sick people for health care advice (the way church-goers depend on the clergy).

"No longer being a Catholic is not a matter of "switching churches" as though it were an exercise in consumerism."

Sure it is. Lots of people have done it. You don't even have to show ID or take a test. If you're unwilling to switch, that's your business, but you most certainly can.

"Are you more attached to your government than you are to the ideals of your country? Why do you continue to call yourself an American? Why do you comply with a government that violates those ideals?"

You're not even trying now... It is precisely because I'm more attached to the ideals than the actual government that I come to a site devoted to changing the government in order to make it fit the ideals.

I don't really 'call' myself an American. Much of the time that's a depressing fact. However, citizenship isn't an easy thing to change, as I pointed out earlier.

I don't comply with the government when it violates those ideals except insofar as they have guns, tasers, police, judges, etc who can force me to. That is not true of the church.

[Two Americas]

264. ok

"Yes, we most certainly do. Identification with something is all in the head. That's different from being identified for legal purposes, but identifying is most certainly in your mind and there alone."

In that sense, everything is. That doesn't tell us anything. There are bonds of affection, most importantly with the people, that leads us to identify with groups or with the nation.

"But they don't depend on those sick people for health care advice (the way church-goers depend on the clergy)."

You sure are determined to identify a "they" here, and assign the same negative qualities to all of "them." All priests are bad, or all Catholics, or both?

Church goers are not depending upon the clergy for "advice."

"Sure it is. Lots of people have done it. You don't even have to show ID or take a test. If you're unwilling to switch, that's your business, but you most certainly can."

We sure are becoming good little sheep, while calling it "individual choice." So unless someone is forced to do things, those things are therefore easy?

"It is precisely because I'm more attached to the ideals than the actual government that I come to a site devoted to changing the government in order to make it fit the ideals."

Right. You work within the system. Same reason many stay in the Church.

"I don't comply with the government when it violates those ideals except insofar as they have guns, tasers, police, judges, etc who can force me to. That is not true of the church."

If the Church cannot compel anyone to do anything, then why the necessity of demanding that people leave it?

These arguments contradict each other - either the Church is dictating to people or it is not. You say that it is easy to leave because they have no power to stop anyone. Then what is the problem with people staying? You justify being complicit with other immoral organizations for the sake of self-preservation.

So morality, and taking stands, depends upon ease and convenience?

[FiveGoodMen]

271. I'll just take one...

"So morality, and taking stands, depends upon ease and convenience?"

Weren't you arguing that it's too much trouble to leave a church you've grown up in? Despite the fact that their leader is doing something immoral? Which side of this argument are you on? Is this a 'Duck season/Rabbit season' thing?

----

No, I'll take two...

"But they don't depend on those sick people for health care advice (the way church-goers depend on the clergy)."

You sure are determined to identify a "they" here, and assign the same negative qualities to all of "them." All priests are bad, or all Catholics, or both?

The 'they' in question came from the following line:

"Health care workers are in favor of good health. That does not mean they only hang with healthy people so they can identify with health. To the contrary, they go where the sick people are."

You don't get to use the word 'they' and then call it inappropriate when I use it back.

[Two Americas]

279. the "side" I am on

The argument is absurd, and I am not on either side of it.

I am objecting to the group being judged by the individual and the individual being judged by the group.

"If you are a Catholic, then therefore you are to blame for what all Catholics do or say."

"A Catholic Bishop said this, therefore all Catholics must be supporting that."

[FiveGoodMen]

288. But that's not what I've been saying.

All Catholics are not responsible for what the Pope or some other leader say or do.

But they can object, and if it gets bad enough they can walk away. They don't have to give up on their God, but they might very well look, listen, and decide that his 'representative' doesn't know shit from Shinola.

I'm not condemning those who disagree with Ratzinger but stay with their church. I'm offering encouragement to anyone who's fed up with Jesus' words being ignored and or twisted: Go find a better church; if there is a God, he'll understand.

I am, however, heaping massive shit on anyone who agrees that homosexuality should remain a crime anywhere in the world.

[Two Americas]

327. very good

No problem then.

[ElboRuum]

320. Jeebuz.

That may be true, but I'm arguing that it shouldn't be.

How the hell can you argue that reasonably? You have a fact in front of you, and your argument is that it shouldn't be a fact?!?

If there is a God, surely he's not tied to one particular church.

Really. Here's another uncomfortable fact for you, nearly EVERY major religion believes PRECISELY this "chosen people" concept as part of its dogma.

If the church one is attending appears not to be reading their own Bibles, then devotion to God should = moving to a church that pays better attention to what he said.

Only problem is, that as per the second uncomfortable fact, leaving the church for another is pretty much a ticket straight to asbestos underwear land.

If people are more attached to their preacher than to the God they worship, then I have no use for them.

If people are more attached to their self-righteousness than to the humanity they desire to impugn by it, then I have no use for them. See? I can be dire, too. It's easy. You just take some personal point you feel strongly about, attach something that says "agree with me, or else you are dead to me" and you're there. It's decidedly authoritarian and has the aroma of blithe groupthink, but that's about par for the course when people let emotion intrude on reason. It blinds them to the facts, too.

The comparison with national affiliation isn't really valid. It's difficult -- sometimes impossible -- to get citizenship in another country and you have to move away from everyone you know to do it. Switching churches just means you drive somewhere else on Sunday morning.

Actually, it is valid. The problem here is that by refusing to accept the facts I have elucidated here, your bias against believing that this should be the fact blinds you to understanding the very real connection people have to their faith, their religion, and the community that forms around them.

You're going around in circles here. You presume a conjecture based on an argument that a fact shouldn't be a fact, and base your conclusions on convenient dismissals of these facts which might inconveniently refute your whole line of reasoning, if it could be called such. Thus, in your mind, the conjecture persists and the cycle continues.

I'm here telling you like it is. You want to do some hating because you think people are ignorant, stupid, and have a shitty moral compass or whatever other fatalistic philosophical transgression you have identified them possessing? Fine. Both lesser and greater people than yourself have done precisely that and found that they slept very well, although I'm sure that those who served as the targets for that sentiment wished they hadn't slept at all.

[rrneck]

215. Is faith possible without religion? Can one's beliefs be redirected

to something other than that which is described by the tenets of a particular religion?

If a particular religion can claim you regardless of your predilections that sounds more like a cult, or a corporation protecting market share.

[ImOnlySleeping]

310. Your bad math

Religion requires faith and if you don't believe the tenets handed down by your religion, get out.

[ElboRuum]

321. Sorry to break it to you.

Religion requires faith? Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[NBachers]

306. 3 Cents

I grew up Catholic; my Chicago Irish-Catholic mom made my dad convert before she'd marry him. I quit going to church when I moved out and Mom couldn't make me go anymore. Until then, I went every Sunday.

I don't really have any bad memories of Church; whenever I get back to my home town of Spencerport, I stop in and it's still there like it always was. Built by farmers in 1912 when they brought their field rocks down to the village square in their horse-drawn wagons.

Here in San Francisco, as in many towns, the Catholic schools are good educational schools. My local brother-in-law had attended the local schools, and helped get my son enrolled. He attended Catholic school from K thru 12.

The school was like a United Nations of races and religions; they taught the kids about all the major world's religions, and gave them a liberal, well-rounded, community-service-oriented education.

But what I noticed, more than anything else, is what a great community organizing body our local parish is. Common people, involved, committed, and accepting. Anyone interested in improving the neighborhood or community had an outlet, and everyone was welcome. It's not done by evangelists; it's done by people from all origins and walks of life. Whatever abilities you have or don't have, you can make a difference.

So, anything you want to criticize the church for is true. But I guarantee you that local parishes are are some of the best community organizing groups you'll ever see. Criticize the Vatican if you want, but accept the personal changes the parishes are creating in the community.

[tom_paine]

5. Excellent post. I wholeheartedly agree. K & R.

Not even Catholic myself, so it's not a "he's on my team" thing.

Nope. Sometimes when a person is right, he or she is just right.

And that is your OP.

:toast:

[Common Sense Party]

6. "minds are supposedly open"?????

:rofl:

[ElboRuum]

10. I sense you are amused by that...

...I wish you weren't, but unfortunately you have every legitimate right to be.

[mopinko]

19. ditto that

:rofl:

seriously, tho, as someone also born catholic, there are a lot of great people in the church who actually follow that jesus fellow, and not the guys in the funny hats. and there are many great traditions of enlightenment, peace and progress within the church. this edict will hold about as much water as the birth control doctrines, to say nothing of choice.
it's a big church. target the guilty. if you can't sift through that much, then no, you do not have an open mind. and practicing catholics are as guilty as all american are of bush's crimes.
get off it.

[Gorobei]

274. Second that and would add

That whatever the decrees that come from the top, the people on the front lines of the Catholic Church and it's charities and the monastic orders are doing good works every day and have been for ages. It is pointless and destructive to paint with a broad and dare I say, intolerant brush.

Day to day the average lay catholic and tens of thousands of nuns and missionaries do real work to end poverty and promote social justice on the front lines of the issues based on their faith and using the organization and funds that the Catholic church provides.

As mopinko says above, they could give a rats patootie what the guys in the funny hat say, they know how to live their faith and condemning them is wrong.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. If you worked for Blackwater as a file clerk, would you still be complicit in war crimes?

Would it be fair to paint you, as a Blackwater employee, with the same brush used to paint the Blackwater mercenaries who have committed atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially if you knew full well what the company was doing to pay for your salary?

This ain't the dark ages anymore, as you said, but that information seems not to have penetrated to the highest levels of the Church hierarchy. Maladict and his staff have been working double overtime to reassert Church control over secular governments and reimplement medieval theology upon the world. They make no secret of this agenda, as they issue frequent doctrinal position papers on various aspects of this plan.

I say: anyone who supports this agenda is guilty of complicity, and should be treated as co-conspirators.

[peace13]

12. If you work for someone who does illegal things and you know it....

then you are complicit in those crimes. Just as all Americans are guilty of murder for our reckless actions in Iraq. People need to start speaking our like they will be held responsible. Then and only then will these crimes cease.

[Rebubula]

36. Hmmm..

"Just as all Americans are guilty of murder for our reckless actions in Iraq"

So...are all Muslims guilty of murder for 9-11 or so-called 'Honor killings'?
All white people responsible for Jim Crow laws?
All Japanese guilty for Nanking?
All black people guilty for genocide in Rwanda??

I do understand your point, but knowing about it and actively supporting it are two VERY different things.

I do not claim any responsibility for the war crimes in Iraq or elsewhere. I knew about it and I protested, wrote congress and the media and voted for progressive, anti-war candidates.

[peace13]

45. Suit yourself.

I do all of the things that you do. We still hold peace vigil twice a week. It is not my get out of hell card free.

[FiveGoodMen]

164. "are all Muslims guilty of murder for 9-11 or so-called 'Honor killings'?"

No. Just the ones who supported it.

"Just as all Americans who continued to support Bush are guilty of murder for our reckless actions in Iraq"

[Gorobei]

276. But the logical extension of your argument

and what the OP is objecting to is the idea that because of 9-11 or because of an Imam's fatwa calling for someone's death all Muslims are evil if they don't renounce their religion.

Are you prepared to make that statement as well?

[FiveGoodMen]

285. No. I don't think all Muslims are evil because one of their leaders declared a fatwa

But I am critical of anyone who thinks the fatwa is a good idea. (Given the harsh responses to dissent in certain parts of the world, I'd understand if the objections are silent!)

I don't think all Christians are bad people, but I do think that anyone who believes that Jesus is God shouldn't sit still while his name and image are used to start wars, tell lies, corrupt governments, or take away people's rights. Those are the kind of people -- and churches -- I'm knocking.

When any church's leadership starts advising things that are clearly out of line with the teachings attributed to their God, then it's time for the flock to tell the leaders to fuck off. The history of religion is all about people seeing a problem and breaking away from it to better follow what they think is righteous. There's no reason to think it shouldn't happen again.

People are in charge of their own minds. In this country, they're free to speak their minds on these subjects without getting punished. So when you're in a church and the church just clearly doesn't get it ... yes, you can move on. You can stick with your God and dump his errant 'representative'.

[Raster]

13. I heartedly agree! I believe those that will defend the RCC's stand on gays are not gay.

So their hetero asses aren't on the line. Funny that.

[mdmc]

253. Lots of gays don't seem down with the whole gay agenda either

or at least I know three gay people that oppose gay marriage... Two voted Obama, the other voted Barr (he was a Ron Paul supporter).

[ElboRuum]

18. Exactly.

Now ask Catholic DUers whether they DO support this agenda.

That's a fair question. If they say yes, then go ahead and assert the co-conspirator persecution if you must (I'd hope we'd have a more evolved dialoge than that, but I'm not holding my breath waiting). But to blanket accuse everyone who remains a Catholic as a de facto supporter of these asinine policies which carry ALMOST NO WEIGHT amongst the American laity, is just as asinine as the policies themselves.

Now, let's just truly address your position. You said:

"Would it be fair to paint you, as a Blackwater employee, with the same brush used to paint the Blackwater mercenaries who have committed atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially if you knew full well what the company was doing to pay for your salary?"

This is NOT a fair question because the church isn't paying a Catholic a damn thing to remain a Catholic. Being a Catholic isn't a job. The apples and oranges aren't easily compared. Let me rephrase it for you and you see if it would be a fair question in more reasonable terms:

Is it fair to paint all people of the Islamic faith as complicit in the acts of its extremist few? By your conjecture, anyone who practices Islam is a de facto terrorist. I doubt you would agree with this conjecture, but it is exactly the one you are proposing, that anyone who practices Catholicism after this is guilty of complicity in the act.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. The Church IS paying Catholics, with a "get out of Hell free" pass

"If you do not do as we tell you and believe what we order you to believe, you will burn in Hell for ever and ever and ever and ever.... Be good little sheep and don't even think of leaving -- better yet, don't think at all -- and you will avoid eternal damnation and the fires of Hell and instead go to a wonderful place, a truly marvelous place and experience joy and peace and happiness."

That does not make adherents any less complicit.

[ElboRuum]

30. I noticed something...

You are hysterical. No really. In the clinical sense of the word. Not in the "hey, you are teh funny" sense of the word. In addition to being anti-religion, you are also being anti-common-sense. Please stop. I do beg here. If you think that Catholicism is a Get Out of Hell Free pass, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.

You didn't address my main point. How is holding any member of any faith complicit with and responsible for the actions of either that faith's leadership or other members of that faith fair or reasonable? This is what you suggest.

[TechBear_Seattle]

63. So passive approval of the leadership is not complicity?

Remaining silent to injustices perpetrated by your acknowledged spiritual shepherds is not wrong? Continuing to acknowledge your religious leaders as such despite their insistence that their bigotry is a required part of your eternal salvation is not immoral?

Please explain how I am the one being anti-common-sense, and how my pointing this out is "clinically hysterical" of me.

Also, you would seem to have forgotten all of your catechism if you think that Catholicism does not consider itself a "get out of Hell free pass." Remember that the whole point of Christianity is to get into Heaven and avoid Hell: that is fundamental premise of Jesus' birth, teachings, torture, execution and resurrection. From its very earliest institutional foundation through the Great Schism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation to the present day, the Roman Catholic Church -- almost every historic church, in fact -- has maintained that they, and they alone, are the path to Heaven and that everyone else is going to Hell. That doctrine is exactly WHY there was a Great Schism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Only by being a good, obediant Catholic can you be saved; that has been their position for at least 17 centuries.

[ElboRuum]

80. Ye. Gods.

"Remaining silent to injustices perpetrated by your acknowledged spiritual shepherds is not wrong?"

Who says they are silent? Ask some DU Catholics what THEY think. Geez.

"Also, you would seem to have forgotten all of your catechism if you think that Catholicism does not consider itself a "get out of Hell free pass.""

Have I? You CONVENIENTLY left out the part about REPENTANCE. Now who is forgetting their catechism? Hmm?

"Please explain how I am the one being anti-common-sense, and how my pointing this out is "clinically hysterical" of me."

Fine. Here goes.

"Remember that the whole point of Christianity is to get into Heaven and avoid Hell: that is fundamental premise of Jesus' birth, teachings, torture, execution and resurrection."

No. The whole point of Christianity is to walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. To take in the message, and act on the philosophy of tolerance and humility. Only organized religions with political ambitions have perverted that message, this lead to the Great Schism, the Inquisition, the Reformation, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

And precisely this is where you fall off the logical wagon and land in the hysterical ditch. You equate the practitioner with the religion. You might as well say that every Catholic is a Torquemada simply because that is a relic of the religion's history. And you actually ARE saying it, that because every DU Catholic hasn't sent a scathing letter requesting excommunication from the church, that they are somehow complicit in the asshattery of the leadership. The assertion bears no sense, common or otherwise, and is motivated, and this is just a guess mind you but the behavior fits, by an emotional response based upon your own narrow view of the church and its dogma moreso than any point of reason or basis in fact as to what DU Catholics may otherwise think about this.

[donco6]

115. Actually, it's quite logical.

"And precisely this is where you fall off the logical wagon and land in the hysterical ditch. You equate the practitioner with the religion. You might as well say that every Catholic is a Torquemada simply because that is a relic of the religion's history. And you actually ARE saying it, that because every DU Catholic hasn't sent a scathing letter requesting excommunication from the church, that they are somehow complicit in the asshattery of the leadership. The assertion bears no sense, common or otherwise, and is motivated, and this is just a guess mind you but the behavior fits, by an emotional response based upon your own narrow view of the church and its dogma moreso than any point of reason or basis in fact as to what DU Catholics may otherwise think about this."

The "Catholic as Torquemada" is a logical straw man, of course, so a little "falling off the wagon" there on your part.

But the fact remains, that people who allow themselves to remain part of an organization that's doing something they disagree with are actually providing tacit approval to those actions. It's really quite common sense.

[ElboRuum]

117. How can it be my straw man...

...if you erected it?

"that people who allow themselves to remain part of an organization that's doing something they disagree with are actually providing tacit approval to those actions"

Really. So, every American who has issues with what the country has done over these past 8 years should move to some other nation because by staying we are actually providing tacit approval? What sense is this? Certainly not common.

Forgive the pun, but your issues with Catholicism shouldn't be a Catholic's cross to bear.

[donco6]

125. Yet another straw man.

Did I say "move to another nation"? No, I did not. You've exaggerated to the nth degree to give yourself an easier target to knock over (i.e., straw man). I said that those who choose to remain part of an organization that's doing things they disagree with are giving that organization tacit approval. Simple common sense.

You, conversely, did say: "You might as well say that every Catholic is a Torquemada simply because that is a relic of the religion's history." Another wild exaggeration . . . which is not at all what the poster was saying.

Look, you do whatever the hell you want. Stay with the church. You're the one who has to live with yourself.

[ElboRuum]

132. I did not exaggerate at all.

I simply used your own criteria against you.

You claimed that membership in a group cannot be condoned when the group in question acts in an improper manner, because to do so is to tacitly condone the action. I then postulated that by substituting another group for your group that your conjecture deflates. This is not me erecting a strawman for easy chopping. This is your conjecture, and it fails the test of reason.

And I'm not Catholic, BTW.

[donco6]

144. Then live free and die happy.

It's my sincere wish for you.

[ElboRuum]

150. Will do.

[skepticscott]

267. Are we missing something here?

Even if voluntary membership in a religious organization doesn't make you complicit in everything they do per se, when that organization passes around a dish and says, in effect "Give us money to support our agenda" and you freely and willingly give it, with knowledge of what the organization uses their money for, then you damn well are complicit.

[donco6]

113. I'll interject.

I would certainly question the ethics of someone who stayed in a group that thought those things were OK . . . yes, I would.

[ElboRuum]

153. I know you would. You've made that clear...

Thanks for your concern.

[HelenWheels]

49. The sacrament of Confession

is the Catholic's get out of hell free card. Commit any sin, confess it, and you are heaven bound.

[ElboRuum]

55. A common misconception...

The Sacrament of Penance is NOT a Get Out of Hell Free card. One of the primary tenets of the Catholic faith (as with all Christian faiths) is that of omniscience (knowing/seeing all), omnipotence (affecting all), and omnipresence (being all/everywhere). This leads to the "catch" of the Sacrament of Penance, which is that while you can hide your true intent from everyone (including your priest), you cannot hide your true intent from God. God knows if you are truly repentant or if you're faking it for the benefit of your religious obligations. The Sacrament means NOTHING if you aren't truly repentant.

That's why I think it's important it called by its actual name, not "confession". It is true that you confess your sins in the Sacrament of Penance, but if you are not repentant (i.e. serious about not doing it again, changing your attitude, whatever) it doesn't get rid of the sin, because you had no intention of avoiding its committal in the future. There's more to it that just "confessing". The Priest is only the facilitator, he provides the forum and performs the absolution, but God only "counts" it if you mean it.

[HelenWheels]

187. Disagree

I was taught by the good nuns (for 18 years of schooling) you could be absolved from sin by confession whether or not you were sincerely contrite. You could also be absolved by sincere contrition if you were not able to get to confession before you died.

[mopinko]

302. a rap on the knuckles with a ruler for you. you were not paying attention.

you absolutely had to be truly repentant to be forgiven. period.

[TechBear_Seattle]

71. I'll have to go with ElboRuum on this one

The sacrament of penance (also called reconciliation) is kind of like brushing the teeth of the soul (well, actually brushing the teeth of the substantia, but we needn't get into the fine points of the neo-Platonism which the ancient churches adopted from pagan Rome.) It serves to clean off the plaque build-up and is not a substitute for a full dental cleaning, which comes first with being validly baptized and then regularly receiving the Body of Christ as defined and celebrated by the Church.

But keep in mind that most Christian baptisms are not valid according to the Church, so those of us who were given a Protestant baptism are probably (as of Vatican II) damned to Hell regardless, unless we become Catholics in good standing. Non-Christians revert to the pre Vatican II sentiment, which replaces "probably" with "most definitely."

[Lost-in-FL]

240. Now I know why going to church felt like visiting the dentist. nt

[Dorian Gray]

60. Being Catholic

doesn't mean that you are not "going to hell." There are plenty of sucky Catholics who perpetrate evil, despite being on the "rosters" of the church. Being a part of the faith in no way is a "get out of free card." That's ridiculous.



ETA: Though, I will admit some of the more ignorant adherents (my Mother In Law) might see it that way.

[TechBear_Seattle]

73. Church doctrine has been very, very clear on this for centuries

Being a member of the Catholic Church is not a guaranteed path to Heaven, true. But it is the ONLY way to get into Heaven; non-Catholics are automatically barred and thus are automatically condemned to Hell. If you are an obedient child of the Church, receive the Church's baptism and confirmation, regularly take the Church's eucharist and keep your soul clean with regular confession to the Church's clergy and perform the penance the Church's clergy give, then, and only then, can you be saved from everlasting damnation. All others need not apply.

This doctrine was the whole point of the Great Schism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms against the Cathars, Bogomils and other "heretics," the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation and (in theory, at least) the Spanish and Portugese conquests of the western hemisphere.

[Dorian Gray]

98. Even if true

which it is not so clear (as the Catechism of the Catholic Church implicitly states that there is a normative necessity to be Catholic in order to obtain salvation, but they also leave open the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics. It's made clear in the Catechism and other official church teaching.


Regardless, none of that has to do with what you stated above. The get out of free card implies that just by virtue of being Catholic they are promised salvation. There are, of course, people who might believe that, but it's not official church teaching. People who remain Catholic for that reason alone are ignorant about their responsibilities as a part of the Catholic Church.

[TechBear_Seattle]

101. That changed only in Vatican II, and only just barely

If you dig down into it, you will find that the Catholic Church acknowledges, albeit very grudgingly, that other traditions which are part of the Apostolic Succession might -- MIGHT -- be valid and therefore allow their adherents to be saved. Such traditions would include most but not all Orthodox churches and off-shoots of the Catholic Church that split because of political differences but not over matters of "essential doctrine," such as the Church of England and its descendants in the Anglican Communion.

Beyond that, Catholicism still holds that the vast majority of Protestants and all non-Christians will end up in Hell forever and ever unless they convert to the One True Church. For centuries, the Mass had prayers which condemned "heretics" such as Protestants and which called for the conversion of Jews, Muslims and all other non-Christians. Vatican II merely removed these prayers from the Mass; the doctrines behind them remain very firmly in place.

Regarding my use of hyperbole, will you agree that I fell into error only by adding "for free"? That still does not change the point I was making in any meaningful way: the Church still "pays" its members for obedience by offering them what it calls the one and only path to salvation.

[olegramps]

119. Brush up on your knowledge of the church's doctrines

If you were to openly oppose doc tine as expounded by the magistracy you could be subject to excommunication. Several theologians found this out when Paul VI and John Paul II hauled them before Ratzinger for censoring by the renamed "Holy Office." It isn't anymore enlightened than it was during the Dark Ages when it was condeming women to death for witchcraft.

[ElboRuum]

124. Sorry, make that the fourth in the series.

I'm not a bloody practicing Catholic sir. So pardon my ignorance on the matter. What is the point you are trying to make here? That the Catholic church and its leadership has done some non-progressive things?

Well, gee, duh!

Really, please, get to what any of your 4 (probably more since I've typed this) posts is supposed to cure me of...

[Chulanowa]

155. Catholics are just the flavor of the week around here...

"Is it fair to paint all people of the Islamic faith as complicit in the acts of its extremist few?"

We have a fair number of people on DU who do nothing but what you describe there. We have an entire forum branch that's pretty much dedicated to that concept, if only in execution rather than intent. Whenever some psycho freak from Pakistan engages in psycho freakery, you can bet there's going to be a hundred-message post about how evil and backwards islam is, even if the reason the guy did it was because he's an asshole who refused his meds.

[Soylent Brice]

56. excellent point.

Good German, Bad German

Good Catholic, Bad Catholic.

either way, why defend a religion that instills hatred?

is it progressive to support a repressive religion?

[ElboRuum]

72. Is it progressive to dictate what is and isn't progressive?

As someone else on this board some time in the recent past once opined "We Don't Need No Stinkin' Progressive Manifesto".

I wasn't defending the religion itself anyway. I pretty much said precisely that in the OP. Though it seems that those people who aren't willing to throw out the Catholicism with the Papal Bathwater, apparently, need some defending around here. They're mostly good people with progressive ideals despite papal edict, and shouldn't have to take insult that they are somehow complicit in this latest Benedictine yap-flap and are hypocritical because they don't immediately renounce their faith, giving the big fat upraised middle digit in the direction of Rome.

Some people have the nerve to cherish their faith even if the Big Vatican Kahuna is determined to make an asshat of himself and the rest of the leadership. How dare they?! BTW: dripping with :sarcasm:

[Diclotican]

89. TechBear_Seattle

TechBear_Seattle

Adolf Eichmann, who was leader for the "Jewish question in the third reich" was never as we know it part of the "endeloslung" as in commandant in any of the death camps who the german build in Poland, The Baltic states and in some part of Russia but was after the war, and the knowledge of mr Eichmann's duty in sending the train moving the jews to their death was more clear the center of a 30 year hunt for Justis. And if I am not totally wrong the Israel managed to kidnap him, and send him back to Israel to face trail for his crime in the war.. Even that he newer personally murdered a single jew in the war, he was in the end executed and the corpse burn to ashes and spread for the wind, so no one can claim the body after...

And to claim as many in Blackwater truly would do if they ever was to face a trial was "we was just following orders".. After WW2 The French, The Britt's and the american together with the russians hanged people who claim that... And even if you have just ben a file clerk in Blackwater, you still have some responsibility to speak out if you do not accept what came with that job.. And even that a file clerk are not out there, and shooting civilians, he HAVE some responsibility to do the right thing in the end.. Nobody is over the law, but often the Small ones is who is punished, the bigger fish, like the leadership in Blackwater would more than possible be free for many year ahead yet.. As many in the SS was it after the ww2, because the american have another, more important thing to do, spy on the russians... But many of the individuals in SS both big and small fishes was indeed in the end taken into custody, and get a fair trail where the guilt or not guilt was made clear....

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Diclotican]

90. TechBear_Seattle

TechBear_Seattle

Adolf Eichmann, who was leader for the "Jewish question in the third reich" was never as we know it part of the "endeloslung" as in commandant in any of the death camps who the german build in Poland, The Baltic states and in some part of Russia but was after the war, and the knowledge of mr Eichmann's duty in sending the train moving the jews to their death was more clear the center of a 30 year hunt for Justis. And if I am not totally wrong the Israel managed to kidnap him, and send him back to Israel to face trail for his crime in the war.. Even that he newer personally murdered a single jew in the war, he was in the end executed and the corpse burn to ashes and spread for the wind, so no one can claim the body after...

And to claim as many in Blackwater truly would do if they ever was to face a trial was "we was just following orders".. After WW2 The French, The Britt's and the american together with the russians hanged people who claim that... And even if you have just ben a file clerk in Blackwater, you still have some responsibility to speak out if you do not accept what came with that job.. And even that a file clerk are not out there, and shooting civilians, he HAVE some responsibility to do the right thing in the end.. Nobody is over the law, but often the Small ones is who is punished, the bigger fish, like the leadership in Blackwater would more than possible be free for many year ahead yet.. As many in the SS was it after the ww2, because the american have another, more important thing to do, spy on the russians... But many of the individuals in SS both big and small fishes was indeed in the end taken into custody, and get a fair trail where the guilt or not guilt was made clear....

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[onehandle]

9. Many Catholics are fighting from the inside. Progressive Catholics were here before...

...the current vocal minority of right-wingers.

The natural stream of the church is Progressive. Many Popes have been change agents. The current age of insanity will pass.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

11. The "Interpretation" of Vatican II is said to have ended with John Paul II

Now it's a matter of figuring out how to put all those reforms to practical use, particularly Lumen Gentium, the Church's constitution.

[hendo]

15. Excellent post

It is a shame that some people here just don't get it. They are so intollerant of anything they don't agree with, practically fundamentalist in thier own anti-roman catholic (anti-religious) beliefs. In the end they are no better than the fundamentalists who want to condemn anyone who is Muslim because of a few fundamental preachers and terrorists.

[hendo]

16. Excellent post

It is a shame that some people here just don't get it. They are so intollerant of anything they don't agree with, practically fundamentalist in thier own anti-roman catholic (anti-religious) beliefs. In the end they are no better than the fundamentalists who want to condemn anyone who is Muslim because of a few fundamental preachers and terrorists.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. I don't think it's just Catholics. Just use the word "prayer" on this newsgroup

and see what comes bubbling to the surface. Mind you, I was the one who had to fight off all those people before the election because they didn't want to hear that politics was being preached from the pulpit. Then all the anti-gay marriage referendums passed and suddenly they became believers.

I think we're sensing a backlash.

[HamdenRice]

23. Catholic Worker? Catholic Liberation Theology?

These things mean absolutely nothing to certain types around here.

[ElboRuum]

24. I know.

"Catholic" = "Papist Puppet" apparently. Sad, that.

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. My issue is not with the individuals working for change

But rather, with the vast majority of rank-and-file who hear the words and do as ordered. Or worse, who are too apathetic to listen but continue in their blind support with time and money.

[HamdenRice]

33. What percentage of Catholic use birth control?

If you know the answer to that question, then you should also know that the stereotype of "the vast majority of rank-and-file <Catholics> who hear the words and do as ordered..." is utterly preposterous.

Yeah, those Latin American Catholic peasants ... doing as ordered.

[TechBear_Seattle]

79. Yes, "the vast majority of rank-and-file who hear the words and do as ordered..."

You seem to have missed the rest of my post, about the members who do not listen but continue to support their leadership anyway.

In the 80s, AIDS groups used the slogan "Silence = Complicity." I think that slogan applies with regards to members of the Catholic Church who remain members yet stay silent when the hierarchy demands that they be bigots.

[Two Americas]

169. American citizens

You must be talking about American citizens.

"The vast majority of rank-and-file hear the words and do as ordered."

Are you ready to disavow your affiliation with America? Why did you continue to support "your leadership" during the Bush years? Perhaps you spent those years in prison because of your refusal to comply in any way with a murderous and corrupt regime, in which case please accept my apology.

Of course you no doubt spoke out against "your leadership" but so do many Catholics.

[Gorobei]

284. Support their leadership?

Their leader is their God. Not the dudes in the funny hats. You don't vote for pope, or bishop or even parish priest, it is a grossly undemocratic institution but you exaggerate the control that the faithful have over the church bureaucracy.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

35. That's no true.

It is not a "vast majority" who do as ordered. Have you actually seen Catholic opinion polls on abortion, birth control, and gay marriage? Roughly the same amount of Catholics are for those things as the general public is. And catholics are more likely to vote Democratic than the general population.

[calico1]

41. You know very little about how most

Catholics live their lives.

[TechBear_Seattle]

75. Then please, educate me

From where I am standing, I see an organization whose leadership is ordering its membership -- not merely asking, but blackmailing on pain of eternal damnation -- to support bigoted measures, and which demands whole nations kow-tow to its bigotry. I see members who either do as ordered or who ignore the demands while still handing over money and providing other resources to this very same leadership.

What am I missing?

[HamdenRice]

146. Have you ever heard of the Protestant Reformation?

No?

How strange. Because it happened half a millenium ago.

Even though the Catholic laity did not formally participate in it, believe it or not, it had a tremendous effect on the consciousness of Catholics.

Not every Catholic believer, even the most fundamentalist ones, believes that whatever the Catholic hierarchy says will send them to hell actually will send them to hell.

And I'm not even Catholic, but I know this.

[TechBear_Seattle]

159. Apples and beef jerkey

The topic is present day Roman Catholics, not the descendants of heretics (according to the still current view of the Catholic Church) that lived centuries ago.

[Two Americas]

168. projection

From our employers and from the state, for example, we all "hear the words and do as ordered" and are complicit is very real crimes. Those dictating to us in those contexts have the power to directly harm us in very real ways. That is where people are "hearing the words" and "doing as ordered."

The Church has no power to force the laity to do anything and is not issuing any orders to Catholics.

I think that many "progressives" are actually authoritarians, and resent any competition in their quest to be busy bodies and control and dictate to people and punish them in various ways.

Whether it is your family, your workplace, or your country, you - just as all of us do - stay and fight rather than taking an adolescent, self-serving and simplistic view and walking away.

Why would anyone want the liberal Catholics to give up the battle and leave the Church? That makes no sense. There are many Catholics here, and millions who voted Democratic. Who is it that are you berating? Are all liberal Americans now to be bashed because Bush was in office and we are all therefore "associated" with his administration? Are all Americans to be bashed for what the Bush administration did?

[anonymous171]

109. EXACTLY! nt

[Mari333]

31. american catholics are often a bane to the Holy See

I was also raised a strict Catholic. my mother still is one, in fact, she follows the tenets of Opus Dei.
When I was younger I tried to re-enlist into the Catholic church and change it from the inside. for years.
I did try but was thwarted at every turn. Altar girls, birth control, even taught preschool religious studies, and when I told the 4 yr olds that they were 'born divine and beautiful' one day, a number of parish people reminded me of original sin. I ignored them.
My sons all went to catholic school, and I was asked to write and direct a play about Jesus' resurrection and death.
I did, but I wrote it as a mythological example of the inner journey of releasing of the ego to be reborn as divine light.
You can only imagine the reaction of the ladies in the church.
They pretty much branded me a heretic and stoned me.
So, alas, with heavy heart I realized that my time spent there may have been fruitful to a few, but I was up against a lot of self loathing and guilt. so I left.
when I was a little girl I asked the nun why I couldnt be the Pope. she pretty much let me know that girls are not as divine as boys.
that pretty much cinched it for me back then.
Good luck to all the Catholics who work within the system, tho. I already did my time.

[olegramps]

148. Females are definitely worth less than males. God said so.

In Numbers 3:15-16 women and girls are not even to be counted as human beings in the census, only males are counted.
We are informed in Leviticus that they are worth less than 50% of a male. Babies not 1 month old and fetuses are not worth anything. You have to over 1 month old to be worth anything. From 1 month to 5 years and are a male your are worth 5 shekels if a female then 3 shekels.

So stop your bitching. We have it straight from God that women are inferior creatures.

[OnionPatch]

32. I've always noticed

that Catholics usually seem to do their own thing regardless of any ridiculous decrees from the leadership. For example, many Catholics I know use birth control, get divorces, etc. and yet go to mass regularly. My ex, a Catholic, once went to confession when I was living with him. I was curious and asked him if he would tell me what he confessed. He said, nothing much, really, he took the Lord's name in vain and argued with his mom. I asked him if he mentioned that he was living in sin with a woman and he said, "F__ No! That's none of their F__in business!" .....Gotta admire the independence. :)

[MiniMe]

38. What cracks me up is the annulments after the divorce

My cousin got married, a big mistake from the beginning. The marriage ended after 6 months, and the marriage ended up being annuled in the church. I don't have a problem with that one. However, she met somebody else who was divorced and had a daughter. No problems there. But she insisted that he get his first marriage annuled before she would think about marrying him. The husband had been married for at least 7 years, and they had a child together. But he managed to get the marriage annuled. I'm not catholic, I don't understand why it is so necessary. But how could a marriage that lasted as long as her hubby's first marriage did and produced a child be annuled?

[moc]

59. As a Catholic, the annulment idiocy drives me insane.

I was just talking about this with my mom this weekend. My SIL (on dh's side) got married to a guy who'd been married before. He had two daughters about age 9 and 4 at the time. He got his first marriage annuled so he and SIL could be married in the church. :wtf:

Then I heard the ultimate in annulment hypocrisy this weekend. My sister is married to a guy who's also Catholic, and his family of origin is seriously dysfunctional. His dad seems like a sociopath who very likely sexually abused his two sisters, but who now have some sort of weird over-identification thing going on with their dad. Their dad used to be a deacon in the church. He travels all over the country for work, and he's been having a long term affair with another woman that he even lived with as a wife in these other states. My sister's MIL finally got sick of it and divorced him. Well, I heard this weekend that my sister's FIL wants to seek an annulment so he can be a church deacon again. An annulment of a marriage that lasted almost 50 years, produced 3 grown children and 7 grandchildren? Give me a break! :eyes:

[OnionPatch]

167. Wow, I didn't know you could annul if you had children.

I did end up marrying the boyfriend mentioned above, but unfortunately, it didn't last long. He was able to easily get the marriage annulled but I thought it was because we didn't have any children. :shrug: So what is the status of the children in the eyes of the church in this situation? Seems so bizarre to me.

[BReisen]

233. Annulments

The question that is asked and answered in the Church's legal system is whether the marriage was a sacramental marriage. It's not saying that the marriage didn't exist or that the children are somehow illegitimate or anything like that.

Things like addiction, or mental illness, or anything else that can make a person enter into a marriage in a mindset where they are not able to understand fully and accept fully the sacrament of marriage are grounds for an annulment.

[BReisen]

234. And

believe me, lest I come across as totally naive, I understand that some people pay to get annulments and these rules are not always followed, but the concept is to determine whether or not the marriage was a sacramental one.

[On the Road]

42. I's Amazing That a Movement

that shows such concern about respecting cultures and beliefs in general shows such scorn for longstanding fundamental beliefs within their own culture.

Provided that Catholics and evangelicals respect people's freedom and civil liberties, they are perfectly free to hold their traditional beliefs.

[tavalon]

43. They're venting some steam, not always vented in the right manner,

but, man, we would all have coronaries if we didn't allow at least one other person on the internet to be wrong.

[ElboRuum]

66. Heheheh. True.

Are you a fan, too?

[tavalon]

162. Oh yes!

I'm pleased to be able to continue the meme.

[K Gardner]

44. As a 'lapsed Catholic' myself, may I give a hearty K&R? Well said.

[bvar22]

46. K&R....

...for a well written post.

Unfortunately, DU has been swarmed by groups of low information screamers who post impulsively without much thought.

Sad.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is becoming more difficult.
Thanks for the wheat.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Do you say the same about the bashing of Mormons?

Scientologists? Even if you do, most don't. Do you respect the views of the religious right and give them the same respect you demand here for Catholics?

[ElboRuum]

64. You are right to ask the question.

I don't believe that attacking the people who ascribe to faith is valuable, or even sensible. People have their beliefs, they are their own, whether they came about them through their own devices or had them handed to them by an organized religion (or even an unorganized one).

I may disagree with the faith of the Mormons, but no one who is a Mormon is forcing me to be a Mormon, or believe that Jesus specifically blessed Utah.

I may disagree with the faith of the Scientologists, but no one who is a Scientologist is forcing me to be a Scientologist, or believe in Xenu.

But if you are given to believe in things you can't prove, are willing to take an oral and written mythology as fact, then we already are on pages too dissimilar to find any agreement. But never once will I look upon YOU as an idiot for believing in it, because everyone that takes a religion to heart has some Flying Spaghetti Monster that they have to philosophically contend with, and that's got to be hard enough. You don't need me stomping on your beliefs, and I wouldn't want to even if I felt even the slightest bit compelled. It's just plain morally incorrect.

Where I draw the line, however, is where religion is brought to bear directly upon political matters, as the religious right has done. Like I said, you can believe in anything you want. Devils, angels, demons, spacemen-gods, monsters, wraiths, ghosts, sorcery, mana, ogres whatever. You cross the line when you start to make public policy out of narrow private systems of belief. But still I do not ridicule the individual who believes in the faith that spawns the religion that oversteps its bounds to make policy.

Catholicism, for example, is fair game. It puts itself on the global stage and as such must bear the brunt of public opinion both for its policies and against. Catholics, themselves, are not fair game. They are not to blame for the actions of those governing their faith, nor should they feel compelled to divest themselves from their personal relationship with God and all of the rituals that go with it because someone on the other side of the globe does or says something irretrievably stupid as spokesman for the faith.

[TechBear_Seattle]

189. So when people act in a bigoted manner and support lies and hate, however tacitly...

They must be excused and allowed when it is the result of their faith? Why should religion be given a free pass not given to secular groups?

[ElboRuum]

203. Answering Question with Question.

Should all Muslims give up their faith because some are terrorists acting upon fatwas issued by mullahs, because of the "tacit approval" given by mere continued membership?

If not, why should Catholics give up their faith for similar reasons of not wanting to give "tacit approval"?

And as far as the "free pass", since when does this even APPLY to secular groups? In secular groups of all sorts, does the action of one person within that group (or its leadership for that matter) necessitate the responsibility of all others as being complicit if they don't divest themselves from the group? If I don't like how my bowling league is run, I have two choices, I can give it up completely as some childish statement of displeasure, a tantrum if you will, or I can be an adult and do my level best to change what I can from within where I have much more leverage as a member than I would as an outsider.

Moreover, as I said to someone else, a person's religious identity can be as important as their national identity, and just because the USA has acted abysmally over the past 8 years due to its intellectually dyspeptic, obstinate, warmongering leadership does NOT mean one should pack his/her bags and move to one of the 200+ other countries he/she has to choose from. No, you work from within for change even if you CAN'T change the leadership.

It isn't as easy as you seem to suggest for most (even if it may be for you) to go down to the Religion Boutique and pick out a different flavor of Christianity or perhaps another religion entirely off the rack.

[Two Americas]

206. strange notion of bigotry and hatred

Would you disown your family because of the actions or statements of one person? Your country? Your place of employment? Your political affiliations? Your community?

This convoluted thinking - that it is OK to hate haters, and it is OK to be bigoted against bigots - and any and all people who can be associated with the haters and the bigots - is itself the wellspring of bigotry and hatred.

[WhollyHeretic]

221. "Would you disown your family because of the actions or statements of one person?" That is an

absurd comparison. We are talking about groups with institutionalized bigotry. The Catholic church actively works to promote bigotry. So there is a degree of culpability to people who support and donate to such a group. The comparisons you gave don't hold water.

[Two Americas]

245. oh really?

And America is not an example of a "group with institutionalized bigotry?"

Every organization in European society throughout the ages shares the same contamination with the same prejudices and bigotry. I have no idea where you would find an organization to belong to that was free from bigotry and prejudice. It would not be the Democratic party, that is certain, as this thread indicates. And while some organization you are associated with might not be bigoted in one area, but be bigoted in another.

The Catholic Church does not "actively work to promote bigotry" and that does not make all Catholics a fair target for abuse in any case.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Just an observation on house keeping

Last week I read about some church that organized and stood against a Fred Phelps event. I was delighted. I wrote to them, and said, I have been waiting for you for decades, welcome, thank you for doing your duty and cleaning your own house at long loving last.
I say the time wasted explaining that all people of faith are not Phelps or Ratzinger should be spent as that church spent it, in showing that they are not Phelps. More of that sort of action and there would be no need for outsiders to come and clear the money changers from the temple.

[springhill]

51. I am sorry.........

but I disagree..........after watching the movie "Deliver us from Evil" concerning Father O'Grady and how he was moved from church to church when they knew he was a rapist, well it is just sickening. And the coverup went all the way up the hierarchy...the church is all about power. Now, granted, there may be a lot of catholics who aren't aware of the extent of the abuse and coverup, but how can you stay in a church that is so blantantly sick? Everything the church did was to protect the monsters who were raping young kids. That is beyond sick. In the movie, they speculated that there are probably tens of thousands of rapists (that's what they are) roaming the catholic churches.

Here is a few paragraphs of a review:

This is not a flashy documentary with lots of charts and graphics, but it allows the poor souls destroyed by Father O'Grady's actions to tell their stories in their own words. Now in their forties, O'Grady's victims candidly speak out about what happened to them and how it deeply impacted their lives, forcing them to question their own faith. The hardest interview to watch is that of the father of one a female victim who breaks down on camera about how O'Grady destroyed his family. Wanting nothing to do with the movie, Catholic officials' only response comes via taped depositions at court trials regarding Father O'Grady. Seeing all that pain interspersed with the dishonest testimony of those who are supposed to be impervious to temptation and sin makes this movie as emotionally stirring as "Capturing the Friedmans."

As stories unfold about O'Grady abusing his position by molesting his young charges, you might still be unconvinced until you hear from the offender himself. Seemingly without a modicum of guilt or remorse, O'Grady cheerfully tells the camera how he's stimulated by the thought of naked children, a creepy confession that sticks with you for the rest of the movie, making you wonder how Berg could spend so much time in the presence of a monster who could cause so much pain in people's lives. She drives home the point by showing shots of O'Grady in the vicinity of kids, having been allowed to roam free in a country sans Megan's Law, which means there's little to stop him from running rampant. Considering his past, it's too disturbing to even imagine.

<snip>

The last part of the movie deals with the unrepentant O'Grady trying to find closure, as he vainly reaches out to his victims in hopes of meeting and reconciling with the people whose lives he's ruined. Not surprisingly, they decline. At the same time, the victims try to get a letter to the new Pope, who ironically is the same man who was in charge of investigating improper sexual behavior by priests while he was a Cardinal.

<snip>

The Bottom Line:
"Deliver Us From Evil" is a heartbreaking film, even horrifying at times, but it's exposure of how the Catholic Church covered up internal sex crimes is so disturbing that once the shock wears off, you're likely to get very mad about how something like this could have been allowed to happen. Obviously, it's an ongoing issue that needs to be dealt with, but if nothing else, this documentary might offer some succor to those who feel they've been betrayed by their own faith.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=16981

[progressoid]

94. yep

[Vektor]

52. My parents are liberal Catholics.

Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and very, very, "church every Sunday" Catholic. Apparently, their Church doesn't preach too much in the way of bigotry or social condemnation. It's a real tiny church in a real tiny town, and does whatever it can to make everyone feel welcome. They talk a lot about helping those less fortunate and loving thy neighbor, but tend to stay away from the fire and brimstone stuff. (Or else I know my parents would not attend.) They have a lot of fundraisers and spaghetti suppers to feed the community.

I asked my Mom if any of the socially conservative dogma has ever come up at her church, and she said "No, not really, but if It does, I'll be the first to speak up about how that's no way to make people feel welcome."

I asked her if she has ever had any of the anti-choice/homophobic crap thrown at her from other Catholics and again she said "Not very often, but if they try, I shut them down real quick by reminding them that I don't recall hate being one of the principles of Christ, but if they are that concerned about it, maybe they ought to go to confession and admit their prejudices, and ask for forgiveness."

My parents are pretty cool Catholics, I must say. ;-)

[moc]

62. Your parents sound just like my parents. As a matter of fact, they get more liberal

as they get older. They are also very strong Catholics - never miss a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation even when they're traveling; do the whole "no meat on Friday during lent" thing, Mom prays the rosary, and they do Perpetual Adoration once a week from 1-2 o'clock in the morning.

And yet you should have heard my mom last week ranting and raving about the homophobes who voted for Prop 8 - why did they care? Who did it hurt if gays could marry? etc etc. She was fit to be tied.

My parents are pretty cool Catholics too. :-)

[Vektor]

157. Same with mine...

They get more liberal as they get older too, which is both interesting and cool.

Your parents also sound like fine folks. :-)

[springhill]

176. Your parents no doubt are very cool............

however, the catholic church they belong to is very sick. I'm sorry, they should get out.

[Vektor]

181. Their particular little church...

is in a rural community of about 2,000, and seems to be completely outside of the whole Catholic loop. Though I don't practice any religion, I did go to the church once with my parents just to check it out, and it seemed more like a community meeting hall than anything else. There really wasn't any preaching, condemnation, or dogma in the sermons...it was pretty innocuous. :shrug:

[Luciferous]

54. Great post nt

[Midlodemocrat]

57. Thanks for this. Great post.

[Nye Bevan]

58. Agreed. Just as most followers of Islam do *not* want to blow stuff up and issue fatwas

most Catholics do not want gays rounded up and sent to prison.

[Dufaeth]

188. The difference is...

There is central leadership that binds all the Roman Catholic church.

[bmbmd]

65. I am stealing this.

"Many if not most Catholics have come to embrace progressive ideals AS BEING THE EFFECTIVE AND TRUE path to righteousness, where the church continues to back the wrong horse."

[ElboRuum]

68. Technically, it's not stealing if you have my permission.

And you do.

[bobbolink]

67. You think that's bad? Some DUers applauded Elton John saying ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE KILLED.

How "progressive" is *that*?

:cry:

[ElboRuum]

69. It isn't.

It's patently ignorant and based in retributive anger.

[bobbolink]

77. Indeed. The oppressed of yesterday become the oppressors of today.

:cry:

It never ends...... :cry:

[Deja Q]

134. In which way does the pendulum do

So long a distance that the ball drops off. :(

It's not as much reverse oppression as it is unmitigated hubris and hypocrisy. People forget WHY they fight and think that shouting buzzwords is more than enough. That's why I don't support most of the causes I used to. They're phony and they can't even be bothered to see it.

[Nye Bevan]

88. Sir Elton said that?

Well that didn't stop him kneeling in front of the supreme head of the Church of England in order to get his knighthood. Hypocrite.

[Deja Q]

131. Not as much "progressive" as they were "tolerant"

:shrug:

Still, the amount of people getting knighted - from people saying Christians should be killed right down to TV producers who gleefully put scenes of "rimming" on national television as some pathetic shock-jock antic; either the Queen's got a severe case of dementia or the people handing out the noble titles are on mind altering drugs, forgive me.

:shrug: :shrug:

Anyway, when did Sir Elton make that comment anyway? And don't worry, I for one am not applauding. :)

[donco6]

161. Uh . . . no he didn't.

Here's his quote:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9037

Here's the larger statement in context from the actual interview in the Observer Music Monthly, as Shears said he likes integrated dance clubs with both gay and straight people, and John replied:

I just find it more human. We should all be together. I've got this really naive idea of what life should be like - it's an idealistic idea but it's completely integrated. We can't keep thinking of gay people as being ostracised; we can't keep thinking of Muslim people as being because of the fundamentalism that occurs in Islam. Muslim people have to do something about speaking up about it. We can't judge a book by its cover.

From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate.

The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave; why aren't they coming together? I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts: instead of more violence why isn't there a . It's all got to be dialogue - that's the only way. Get everybody from each religion together and say 'Listen, this can't go on. Why do we have all this hatred?'

We are all God's people; we have to get along and the have to lead the way. If they don't do it, who else is going to do it? They're not going to do it and it's left to musicians or to someone else to deal with it. It's like the peace movement in the Sixties - musicians got through by getting out there and doing peace concerts but we don't seem to do them any more. We seem to be doing fundraisers for Africa and everything like that but I think peace is really important. If John Lennon were alive today he'd be leading it with a vengeance.

_________________________

It's really quite unChristian to bear false witness.

[saltpoint]

298. I read with interest dongo6's post downthread on Elton John's comments.

Are these the comments you are referring to? If not, do you have a link to the interview where he calls for the deaths of Christians?

If they are the words you refer to, John makes several strong points, I think. More peace concerts, not fewer, would be great.

[saltpoint]

308. That's' donco6' and not the way I spelled it. Apologies.

And i'm truly wondering if your comment on John banks off the passage donco6 cited.

[Cleita]

70. The Church will end up being the church of celibate men in black robes one

of these days if it doesn't change with the times. No one else will be part of it. I personally will not miss it myself, but for those who want it to survive, it will have to change to following more the teachings of Jesus and less the edicts of Popes.

[Bobbie Jo]

74. Nicely put....but I'm just tired of the Christian bashing free-for-all in general

...and the ridicule directed at (me) and others as if we're some kind of idiots because of our faith. You will never see me go out of my way to mock someone (much less create a post for the purpose) based on their atheism.

There are people in EVERY group (yes, even the GLBT community) who commit error, or behave badly and don't represent the group as a whole.

Actually...the word stereotyping comes to mind. Sound familiar?

I certainly don't subscribe to many of the ideals of "the man-made church," so don't presume they speak for ALL Christians ALL OF THE TIME.

That we're treated as imbeciles here is getting beyond irritating.

Thanks for the post.

[bobbolink]

91. It's not accepted here against people of color. It's not accepted here against gays.

It's not accepted against Muslims or Jews.

WHY is it acceptable for "progressives" to bash Christians and also poor folk on a supposed "Liberal" website?

[Bobbie Jo]

123. You noticed too huh?

I can't keep up with all of these double standards, ifs, thens, etc....

[bananas]

158. DU jumped the shark.

[LostinVA]

76. I'm an ex Catholic, too -- and I am always defending RCs on here

As does my wife.

I especially hate the "pedophile priests" comments whenever the Church OR a priest is mentioned in ANY way. UGH. I have known many Religious, some very well, and the huge majority of priests are great guys -- hardworking, compassionate, smart, and whom would never, ever molest a child. Most are also gay.

Pope Rat sucks, but there are many great people in the Church -- including Midlodemocrat.

[Midlodemocrat]

83. Why thank you, dollface. Very nice.

:hug:

[LostinVA]

86. MrMidlo owes me $50

:pals:

[hlthe2b]

92. Excellent. I too will defend practiicing Catholics, though I

can not and do not defend the actions of Catholic hierarchy--especially the Vatican.

[JerseygirlCT]

107. I suspect few here would!

But that's really the point, isn't it?

Broad brushes usually miss, and only end up making a big mess.

[BlooInBloo]

95. (shrug) Religion = cancer of the mind....

So I guess I wouldn't be your best choice for an ally. :P

[AntiFascist]

96. I am against the policies set forth by the Pope and the Vatican...

not Catholics in general. That being said, there are plenty of Catholics who sported Yes on 8 signs.

When I say that I hope that the Catholic Church will "eventually go away" I hope and pray that the Catholic church will undergo fundamental transformations in such a way that it will become unrecognizable, an "enlightenment" if you will.

A deep understanding of past transgressions would go a long way:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1983/07/willbedone.html

[TexasObserver]

97. Right. And belonging to the KKK doesn't mean one hates Jews and Blacks.

The Catholic church is the enemy of goodness. It matters not that many members and lower echelon church leaders are decent people. That's true of the GOP and organized crime, too.

The Catholic church is run from the top, not the bottom. Its leadership is a disgusting bunch of old rightwing men who lack any sense of goodness, spiritually, or decency. How anyone can defend that church is beyond me. There's nothing progressive about it. The RCC has been complicit in some of the worst atrocities in the history of the world, up to and including the present.

You sound like a guy who left a country club because it wouldn't allow blacks and Jews, but you defend those still there, and might occasionally want to play a little golf there.

[ElboRuum]

110. Man, this is getting tiresome.

"The Catholic church is the enemy of goodness."

Really? That's just amazing to me. One would think, then, that Catholics would be evil incarnate. After all, they belong to the religion that's just the enemy of goodness, don't they? But you know what's remarkable? They aren't. No lie. Most Catholics might be called kind and decent, and there are some here on DU you may want to talk to about this.

"It matters not that many members and lower echelon church leaders are decent people. That's true of the GOP and organized crime, too."

Really, it doesn't? Did you even read the OP, sir/madam? Did I not say that I was not about to attempt to come to the defense of the Catholic church? Did I not say that I was coming to the defense of those who, of late around here, have been openly challenged to completely renounce their religion and faith because it annoys and confuses people claiming to be "principled" and that those who continue to be Catholics are hypocrites by definition?

DUers, of ALL people, should understand the intellectual dangers of blanket generalizations and condemnations.

Look, I don't know what axe it is you have to grind, nor do I care what irritations you have with the Catholic church, but as I said before to many others, this ISN'T ABOUT THAT. This is about the predilection of late here on DU of taking Catholics to task over what others have done in the name of their faith, including the leadership. If they had a vote in what happens in Rome, then MAYBE I could see how people around here would be rightfully outraged at Catholic individuals, but as it stands, there is no cause for that kind of incivility. It is awfully presumptuous of them as well to insist that remaining Catholics in the face of this is somehow a statement against their "progressivity quotient". If someone told you that you needed to renounce the faith you held your entire life because it wasn't "progressive" and it was the "enemy of goodness" and if you didn't you'd be a hypocrite and no better than the faith itself, I'd like to see your reaction.

[TexasObserver]

118. It's a hate group.

It hates homosexuals. It hates people who favor abortion.

It is a force for evil, and that makes it evil.

Your rationale is the same one used by lower level Nazis to explain their loyalty to their superiors and country. I'm sure many of such German soldiers were not inherently evil, and may have tried to avoid doing evil personally. But they belonged to a hate group, and their role was supportive of that.

The problem here is your refusal to see the Catholic church for what it is.

If a priest is good 99% of the time and molesting children the other 1% of the time, is he good or evil?

If the church covers up that priest's crimes 99% of the time, is it good or evil?

[ElboRuum]

141. Did I once. In the OP. Defend the Catholic church?

Did I?

[olegramps]

183. That is the problem!

"If they had a vote in what happens in Rome, then MAYBE I could see how people around here would be rightfully outraged at Catholic individuals, but as it stands, there is no cause for that kind of incivility."

The Catholic Church is an ABSOLUTE Hierarchy in which the pope is invested with Peter's keys to heaven. "What ever should you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." This is such a fundamental concept of the infinite power that the pope inherits, the crossed keys are a major symbol of the papacy.

During the course of Vatican II the conscience of the individual was of primary concern and a greater emphasis was placed on the importance of one's own conscience. This concept has been under attack by the Vatican most especially during John Paul II's papacy. In regard to birth control he stated emphatically that those people who were practicing it were not loyal Catholics and were in a state of sin.

Several theologians attempted to question this position and were hauled before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and their license to be theologians was rescinded. An example was Fr.Curran. My point is that under strict Catholic theology, no one has the right to question what the pope has said and to do so in regard to Catholic doctrine could result in excommunication. You either take all of it or none; there is absolutely no matter of choice.

You fail to understand the very basic war that has gone one in the church for centuries has been the bishop's authority being made subservient to that of the papacy. The sharing of authority with the bishops, which is referred to as "collegiality" was regarded as the major accomplishment of Vatican II, however, this concept has been rejected by both Paul VI, John Paul II, and now Benedict. As Cardinal Suenens put it, "with the Pope, not under the Pope."

Sorry, but you can't make up your own mind on matters of doctrine and remain a Catholic in good standing. Let me just add that the matter of the infallibility of the pope was a matter of great contention during Vatican I. Many of the bishops did not accept this and in fact left before being forced to vote on it. John XXIII was well informed about the proceedings of Vatican I and it was know that Vatican II was to be a general reexamination of the authority of the papacy that had grown at the expense of the authority of the bishops.

An extreme example would be that in 1949 Pius XII declared that any Catholic who belonged to the Italian Communist Party was automatically excommunicated. As the Catholic historian Father Thomas Bokenkotter remarked in his history of the church, Pius XII "carried to new heights the almost mythical exaltation of the monarchical papacy and continued to centralize power in the Curia at the expense of the bishops an extreme papalism that would soon bring a reaction." That reaction was John XXIII's convocation of Vatican II which has been resisted by his successors. It has always been about power. "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," writes John Emerich Edward Dalbert-Acton, 53, April 5 to Cambridge University professor Mandell Creighton. Lord Acton is a liberal Roman Catholic and a leader of the opposition to the papal dogma of infallibility. When John XXIII was asked "are you infallible" he remarked, Infallible?, Infallible", no my name is John.

[ElboRuum]

204. Hey, olegramps!

Do you even know what we're talking about?

Yeah. It's about non-Catholic DUers piling on Catholic DUers as though they're some sort of moral criminals. It kind of says so in the OP. How about, for a change, for a little bit of a lark, why don't you tell me where do you stand on that? You want to weigh in on that issue for us? Does that have no place in DU? Or is it open season on Catholics around here?

Or are you content to give us more of your theological musings and Catholic historical dissertation?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

171. Oh for fucks sake

[anonymous171]

99. American Catholics have a history of disobeying the Vatican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)

[Witchy_Dem]

100. The thing about message boards and opinions

is just that.

[Joanne98]

103. But what about The DeVinci Code? Are they still trying to kill the bloodline?

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Kicked, recommended, and amen.

Enough already.

[Truth Teller]

105. I do recognize there is good and bad to every organization.

But this is over the line. No one can support this church in good conscience. Not after this.

[donco6]

108. Poor babies.

You're so persecuted. And it's Christmas already!

:sarcasm:

[Bobbie Jo]

122. .

:eyes: ....a few of these "poor babies" have been quite sympathetic to the plight your group of "poor babies" for some time.

:sarcasm: What the hell ever that means.

[donco6]

128. Hopefully, they now have the sense to get out.

Now that they know the official church position on Opposing Execution for Gays versus The Possibility of Allowing Gay Marriage (they'd rather gays were executed than married), perhaps they'll rethink their affiliation.

[bobbolink]

130. Orrrr..... maybe they'll get a load of the prejudice against them, and stop voting for

all the Democratic party causes and candidates.

Wouldn't that be happy?

Amazing. Two months ago you wanted EVERYONE to vote... and vote for YOUR candidate and beliefs. Many of these Catholics did just that, as they have for decades.

And now you are this ugly towards them.

Aren't you just proud of yourself?

[donco6]

138. If that's the case, fine.

If they voted because they believe in the ideas and policies of Obama, great. If they are going to change their mind because I don't support their church's wrongheaded position on opposing the outlaw of gay execution, then they probably weren't really allies to begin with.

[bobbolink]

140. So, now YOU'RE the PURIST, and want people out of the party?

[donco6]

143. If they believe gays should be executed, sure. Why not?

I mean . . . really.

[bobbolink]

156. When you can speak logically, then it will be time to continue this.

Until then, go see what Elton John had to say....

Attackking the people in your own party is really BRILLIANT.

[donco6]

160. I'm simply pointing out RC Church error in opposing legislation . . .

. . . that would outlaw stoning gays to death, hanging gays, torture, imprisonment - all because the Church maintains that it MIGHT lead to recognizing gay marriage. If that's wrong, I can't afford to be "right".

[Two Americas]

283. the leadership is wrong about this

In my opinion, the one person who spoke on this is wrong. If he in fact accurately represents the official Vatican position on this, then the Church is wrong about this. I would expect that millions of Catholics agree with me on that.

[donco6]

319. I would hope you're right. Positionally, however, he is speaking for the church.

It's pure speculation to believe he is not. And there have been many days for the church to have made a correction to the statements, which they have not done.

[Two Americas]

328. two Churches, really

The real Church is the people, in my view. The leadership explores and interprets doctrine. It is an evolving ongoing discussion over the centuries. It isn't a corporation or a government organization with a dictator controlling every aspect of people's lives. The priesthood and hierarchy are supposed to be servants, to God and to the people. They aren't leaders in the way that secular leaders are. Nor are there widespread or massive attempts at controlling or suppressing people's thinking, for the most part. The examples of suppression and control are the exception, but they make the news. Unlike much of modern Protestantism - and almost everywhere else in modern society - the discussion within the Church is more the asking of questions than it is passing down of dogmatic answers.

I find more tolerance of dissent, less anti-intellectualism, more commitment to social justice, in that Church - the people - than in any other organization in modern American society. Very little that happens in that Church is dictated or controlled from above.

As modern American citizens, we are looking over our shoulders and living in fear and being controlled by the government and corporations a thousand times more than any Catholic ever fears or is controlled by the Church leadership.

[Bobbie Jo]

149. Wow....who in the hell thinks that?

"they'd rather gays were executed than married" Really?

[donco6]

151. That's the official church stand.

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/12/catholic-church-against-making-gay.html

The Catholic Church a body that has been staunchly opposed to the death penalty does not want to include international protections by the United Nations for gay people who face death penalty charges in countries where homosexuality is illegal. The Vatican is voicing opposition and plan to go against the French proposal that is introducing this piece of human rights resolution.

"This week the Vatican's permanent observer to the United Nations, said the Holy See would oppose a resolution that would protect gays from being killed, just because they are gay because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

The French resolution, scheduled to be proposed this week, recommends protecting Gays and Lesbians from being jailed or killed because of their sexual orientation and is being introduced to the UN on behalf of the European Union.

[Bobbie Jo]

152. That = "they'd rather gays were executed than married" Really?

C'mon man....really?

[donco6]

154. That's what it says. Read it yourself.

There's a reason papers in France are calling the church's stand "alarmingly anachronistic" and "grotesque".

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL2243948.html

Franco Grillini, founder and honorary president of Arcigay, Italy's leading gay rights group, said the Vatican's reasoning smacked of "total idiocy and madness".

"The French resolution, which is supported by all 27 members of the European Union, has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is about stopping jail and the death penalty for homosexuals," Grillini told Reuters.

[Two Americas]

165. how about your "affiliations?"

Now that we know that the US commits war crimes and tortures people, among many other despicable things, I would suppose that that you are ready to surrender your affiliation with the US and renounce it, and attack the country the way you are attacking the Church?

Perhaps you should rethink your affiliation with America. Perhaps you should rethink your affiliation with the Democratic party as well, since the Catholics whom you despise sop much are the backbone of the party.

Maybe you were never really with us, since you hate millions of Democrats.

Are you not allowing yourself to remain a part of organizations that are doing things you disagree with and actually providing tacit approval to those actions?

[donco6]

177. Go ahead and stay in. It's your conscience.

If you want to support an organization that would rather see gay people executed than risk seeing them married, that's up to you.

[olegramps]

184. You don't comprehend the situation

Only the Vatican has the power, under the pope, to determine policy. No Catholic, bishop, priest or lowly member of the laity has any say in the policies or doctrine of the church. That is the crux of the problem. The same thing that was inherit in monarchies and resulted in such flagrant abuses of power that they were overthrown and replaced with democracies. The Catholic Church is not a democratic organization, it is an absolute hierarchy in which all power is invested in the pope. If you choose to remain a Catholic after attaining the capacity to make your own decisions then if you choose to be a Catholic then you choose to recognize the absolute authority of the pope and must be subservient to the pope. Got it! What the hell do you think the Reformation was all about?

[Two Americas]

166. no such position

The Church's position on the death penalty is unambiguous, and is the opposite of what you are claiming here.

[donco6]

178. You may want to catch up.

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/12/catholic-churc...

The Catholic Church a body that has been staunchly opposed to the death penalty does not want to include international protections by the United Nations for gay people who face death penalty charges in countries where homosexuality is illegal. The Vatican is voicing opposition and plan to go against the French proposal that is introducing this piece of human rights resolution.

"This week the Vatican's permanent observer to the United Nations, said the Holy See would oppose a resolution that would protect gays from being killed, just because they are gay because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

The French resolution, scheduled to be proposed this week, recommends protecting Gays and Lesbians from being jailed or killed because of their sexual orientation and is being introduced to the UN on behalf of the European Union.

[Two Americas]

190. that link doesn't work

I am aware of the news story.

[donco6]

193. New Link

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/search/label/catholic

[Two Americas]

246. thanks

I will read up on the issue today.

[Two Americas]

261. nothing has changed

Nothing has changed about the Vatican's position.

Opposition to the death penalty. Opposition to persecution and abuse of GLBT people. And, as always, sex sanctioned only within marriage and for the purpose of procreation. Nothing new there.

I can't see where the justification is for a new attack on all Catholics.

[donco6]

270. Then, have a blessed day. n/t

[bobbolink]

129. How very .......... "progressive" of you.

What other groups do you harbor prejudice against?

[donco6]

133. No prejudice at all. Just cold, hard facts.

When the church takes an official stand of opposing legislation that would outlaw executing gays because of the vague possibility that the same legislation MAY make gay marriage legal (which is a complete stretch, as it's not mentioned anywhere in the documentation), then it's time to judge them. They are wrong and flat-out evil. And those participating in this are tainted as well.

[bobbolink]

139. Facts.... just like James Dobson "facts". You're absolutely NO different.

Prejudice is prejudice, and it's time to act like the "progressive" you claim to be.

Calling people evil is NOT in the Democratic tradition.

It's also a personal attack.

[donco6]

142. Alert me, then.

It's hardly progressive to turn a blind eye to those who oppress people, as the RC Church has done in countless instances. In fact, a true progressive would join me in pointing out their evil.

[Gorobei]

290. Jeez it's people like you

that give credence to the ideas about gays that the right wing are always throwing around. Talk about having an aggressive hateful agenda.

If you are asking for tolerance and equality kindly extend the same courtesy to your fellow man.

[donco6]

318. Point out the hate, then.

I'm really curious what you believe to be hateful.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

175. Uh huh.

Sure. :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

213. love you!

[donco6]

282. BLUSH

Love you more.

[Qibing Zero]

112. Whoa Whoa Whoa

Despite the fact that I think the reason for this type of thing is based off of having a mind enslaved by religion in the first place, I won't extend that sentiment to all individuals who simply attend church.

However, and this is a big one, if people are actually giving money to the church, this is totally different. Giving money to the church is no different from funding any organization which also discriminates against gays - it makes one implicit in their agenda and there's simply no explaining that away.

[OhioChick]

120. Good Post and Amen! n/t

[rainman99]

126. When they quit hating other people, I'll quit hating them. Period.

[ElboRuum]

136. Do they hate other people?

At least those here?

[Deja Q]

137. In other words, the hate never ends.

Have fun. You must be loving every minute of it.

:popcorn:

I love my hate too. Mostly because others did it first, and even then I'm prepared to let it go. Can't you with yours?

[FreeState]

145. The only way to fight hate is with love IMO n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

170. Don't hate the people. Hate their ignorant and bigoted fairy-tales.

[Bobbie Jo]

180. "Fairy-tales?" Please....what derogatory term may we use to describe your beliefs?

How bout we just hate YOUR ignorant and bigoted attitude?

[Exultant Democracy]

201. Sorry anything that says being gay is evil is a fairy-tale, how else would you describe it?

Myths, fairy-tales, religions all make believe stories made up by people when magic was the only way to explain the mysterious world around us. "Look at the world it's big, must have been made by magic... Hey do don't do that thing I don't like or god will caste a spell and drown you in a flood... Gays are evil our magic book told us so, we know that even though it has been translated and over and over again and that numerous version of it exist, that through the power of jesus magic everything it says is literally true even the parts that contradict each other."

[Bobbie Jo]

235. I didn't ask for further explanation, just an equally offensive derogatory term...

to summarize your belief system.

[donco6]

272. You'll have to come up with one on your own.

I can't think of one.

[foxfeet]

334. Well, gee. "Error" and "heresy" come to mind.

And the RCC never asked for anyone else's input on the use of those terms.

[Jamastiene]

127. Individual Catholics who do not agree with the anti-gay

stance of the church are fine in my book. Do I believe all Catholic people are anti-gay? No, I know better. I disagree strongly with the leadership in the Catholic church along with other churches and non church related groups that bend over backwards to attack gay people at ever turn, but the individual Catholics (and others) who disagree with them for doing that are actually allies, imho.

[etherealtruth]

135. Though, I have traveled far from my RC roots ...

I credit Catholicism with my liberalism (along with my parents who also equate their very populist views with their Catholicism). I grew up in a church that stressed social justice ... my mother's parish continues to stress social justice.

I won't deny that I have major differences with the Catholic hierarchy .... but American Catholics tend to be reflective of the population in general.

Folks, the most liberal people I know ARE Roman Catholics.

[Creideiki]

295. As long as they're like you

Social justice for racial minorities. Social justice for the mentally handicapped. Social justice for (some) religious minorities.

No justice for sexual minorities.

That's what I'm seeing from the Catholic church heirarchy.

There may be individual Catholics who disagree, even claim to not agree with their leadership. But they don't stand up and start voting with their feet. They did once with the sex abuse scandals and finally got the leadership to pay attention. Until they vote with their feet on social justice issues, the leadership will not pay attention.

[BrklynLiberal]

179. K&R

[davidthegnome]

182. Fantastic post

I'm a lapsed Catholic myself, and you've said a lot of the things I've been thinking. You simply did so in a manner far above and beyond what I could have done. Well done, well said.

[Gman]

185. Catholic bashing: Free Republic and Democratic Underground are just alike

That's the one thing where it's hard to tell the difference.

[saltpoint]

186. I could definitely see palling around with Francis of Assisi.

Insightful self-realized grown-up problem-solving, get-it-done, alms-for-the-poor kind of individual.

People and animals loved him. Always a good sign.

He seemed to set out to do genuine good for others and accomplished that goal on a sustained basis. Not bad at all.

That model is the one the Catholic Church should consider elevating.

Often instead we get the poopy-heads who want to withhold communion to John Kerry. I don't want any truck with that.

[bobbolink]

196. The issue here isn't the leadership. The issue here is it becoming not only acceptable, but

popular to bash people of faith.

Here on DU... the "bastion of liberals".

We should be able to speak out on ALL leadership, including the leaders of the Democratic party. Yet, we can get banned for doing so.

We should be able to speak out against "experts" who promote garbage against poor folk. But we'll be bashed for doing so.

There is much to speak out against ANY religious leaders about! ALL of them.

BUT.... treating other DUers with disdain because they don't have the proper lack of faith is just.... prejudice.

Pure and simple.

[saltpoint]

291. Hi, bobbolink. I'm inclined toward Francis because long, long before

he was "Saint" Francis, he was a snotty rich kid with fancy duds.

In renouncing material possession and privilege, he "embarrassed" his father by disrobing in the village square. It proved a point at that moment no doubt and it also made history. Not a bad afternoon's work.

And you know where I stand on duds, fancy or otherwise. :evilgrin:

When a religious hierarchy does something strong and good for people, poor or not, I'm all for it. The OP is never stingy about acknowledging Good when and where it occurs.

At the same time and for all time, it was a religious hierarchy, after all, who hired Paul to persecute Christians; a religious hierarchy who tried to burn the urtexts of the various communities; it was a religious hierarchy who decided that women could not become priests; it was a religious hierarchy who decided to burn witches in Europe; and in more current times, it is a religious hierarchy who decided John Kerry cannot receive communion.

I do seriously have a wide-spread and deeply-felt objection to a hierarchy who would deny its flock communion or burn a woman alive.

It's far more seldom the rank and file of a religious tradition who commands the burning fires. It's far more likely that it's the leaders. You better believe it.

[Two Americas]

191. earth to Democrats

Two of the most stalwart and reliable groups supporting the party happen to be associated or "affiliated" with the Catholic Church and with the churches in AA communities. Both traditions have long been involved in the battle for justice. Yet we are seeing ALL Catholics bashed on this thread, and we see all religious people bashed elsewhere.

How is it different to stay in the churches and work for change, then it is to stay in the party, or in the country as far as that goes, and work for change?

Zealous and hateful anti-religion bigotry is not only inconsistent with the principles and ideals of the party, it is stunningly stupid and self-defeating tactically and strategically.

[Lars39]

192. What change can really be reached when Catholics do not get to choose

their own leaders?

[Two Americas]

195. not that kind of "leader"

You don't choose the owner of the company you work for either. You don't choose your teachers and professors. While we do have some semblance of elections for selecting the politicians, that does not translate into any power to speak of.

Amazing how compliant and groveling people are to agents of the state and the corporate world - we wouldn't want to get too radical would we? - apologizing for and defending those who have real life and death power over us, and yet hold a completely different standard about this when it comes to bashing other people.

The Pope can't make anyone do anything who has not voluntarily agreed to his authority. I would rather have that situation, then to "get" to elect the Pope and give him coercive power over us.

Maybe the only way that people can conceive of any organization is as bullies with life and death power over people, and a submissive and powerless herd. I do think the American public, especially the educated and informed, who should know better, is yearning for strong man rule - so long as the strong man "shares our values."

Here is a thought - "get to" means have permission. If you have to seek permission, if you see rights as privileges granted by the powerful, that is the opposite of rights and is not democratic.

Many dictators have been "elected." Many right here today want us to see the recent elections that way - "you made your choice, not be quiet and obey."

[Lars39]

202. He holds your soul for ransom.

Obey or else...that is not going to change unless the members stop giving the church money.

[Two Americas]

205. I think Luther already stole your thunder

You are promoting warmed over Protestant individualism, and making religious rather than political arguments in response to political arguments. No one is defending Church doctrine. At issue is whether millions of people should be maligned and attacked using that as a pretext. "They are affiliated!" and "they give money!" are the tenuous connections justifying blaming the group for the actions or statements of individuals.

Why are supposed anti-religious people so obsessed with debating religious ideas?

Do you think that according to who spends money, and how much, that the teachings would change? I realize that many here support a "one dollar one vote" approach to politics and government, now that our team raised more money, but I don't think it applies here.

Funny how when people are challenged for bigotry here, they do not deny that they are being bigoted, they argue that the bigotry is justified.

[Lars39]

211. Excuse me...I don't appreciate you labelling me a bigot.

I don't understand the allegience to an organization that holds that much control over a person, yet the members are essentially powerless to change the leadership of the organization. Puzzling over how the Catholic church operates is hardly being a bigot. Asking that the membership do more than shrug at the leadership's stances is probably futile, but that hardly makes me a bigot.

[Two Americas]

214. I have explained that

We have been over those points.

I am not calling you a bigot, I am saying the attacks on all Catholics are bigoted.

[Lars39]

217. Perhaps it's in the way that it's couched:

Maybe asking all Catholics to really look at what they are condoning by their silence and acquiescence is the way to phrase it.

[Two Americas]

223. already do

Why do you assume that this is not the case?

If your charges were even remotely accurate, Catholics would not have voted Democratic.

[Lars39]

225. Some Catholics were being threatened with excommunication for voting

for Democrats.

[Two Americas]

226. that would be bad n/t

...

[bobbolink]

197. So, did you choose the leadership of the US in the last 8 years??????

[Lars39]

199. The Catholic church doesn't even pretend to welcome input.

The comparison isn't even close.

[Two Americas]

216. not true

You assume that the Vatican is the Church, and projecting a government and corporate model onto the organization. Even were that true - that we can judge all Catholics by what the Vatican says - it is not true that input is unwelcome. I find the Catholic community much more open to input than the Democratic party, for one example, and I encounter much more group think and anti-intellectualism and intolerance of dissent among Democrats than among Catholics.

[Lars39]

222. So what input from the members has resulted in major change within the last few years?

And I mean change as in from the top leadership, not whatever a congregation can slip by those higher up the chain.

[Two Americas]

228. that is your agenda

For most Catholics I know, feeding the hungry, taking care of the poor, and fighting for social justice are the priorities.

If you want to change the Church leadership, if that is what you think is important, you should join the Church and fight for that.

No one "up the chain" is watching anyone or telling anyone what to do, except those who voluntarily submit to that. If the Church has such draconian and dictatorial powers over everyone as you imply, how come so many are dissenting? The majority. Too bad that isn't the case with the government, where those up the chain really are watching us and threatening us, and really can harm us, and really are engaged in horrific things. Easier to bash Catholics I guess, than to go there.

How come there has been no major change in the Democratic party? Why is the party still in bed with the wealthy and powerful few, and still not taking very strong stands against the right wingers? How come so many Democrats embrace right wing ideas and concepts? Given all of that, why are you still affiliated with the Democratic party? Are you not complicit and compromised?

[Lars39]

231. Gay rights *is* part of fighting for social justice.

You've tap-danced all around the issue.

[Two Americas]

238. no I haven't

It hasn't come up.

I disagree with many in the Church on that issue.

However, I disagree with the US government on almost every issue, and disagree with the modern Democratic party on many issues. What is the difference?

[donco6]

273. So, because we don't leave the US when we disagree . . .

with the government, we cannot condemn the Catholic church when it opposes a law that would help end capital punishment for gays around the world?

I don't get it.

[Two Americas]

278. of course not

That was an extreme example. The point is that no organization or affiliation is perfect, and associating with a group does not make one responsible for every individual in the group, nor for the current leadership and everything they say.

[donco6]

280. But it's gotta weigh on your conscience just a little? No? n/t

[Two Americas]

286. a lot

Of course.

Weighs on my conscience to contribute to and participate in the whole modern capital driven American success model, which is almost impossible to avoid, and for which one pays a heavy price for opposing or resisting.

Weighs on my conscience to contribute to, work for and vote for Democrats, too. The Democratic party has been pretty damned wishy washy at best on a wide range of issues, including GLBT rights and protections. Is staying and fighting "condoning?" Hard to say, right? No easy answer.

[donco6]

289. Actually, I'm relieved to hear that.

And I can agree at this juncture. Thank you.

[Two Americas]

331. you make some good points

Thank you for the discussion and for considering my point of view. Much appreciated.

[Creideiki]

301. Gay people have an "agenda". Religious people have a "vision".

Right?

Pretty insulting.

How about accepting that part of the Catholic agenda is to persecute sexual minorities? Just one small part of the negatives to the Catholic agenda, by the way. They do some other things that are pretty disgusting--their anti-birth control at any price just part of it, even though everyone with the slightest ability at rational thought knows that it increases incidence of HIV in the population.

[Two Americas]

332. what an insult

Of course I didn't say that. You must know that I did not.

[T Wolf]

207. My ex-catholic wife condemns JPII because he did try to reverse the progress that had been

made under John 23rd. The policies of the church drove her out.

Now, Pope Adolph II is continuing the REgressive movement.

People who stay in the church are, by definition, condoning the policies of the group to which they belong. It is a free choice - and they have chosen bigotry and hatred.

[ksimons]

208. bush as pope

I'm not catholic, but I'm guessing it might be like being judged by the world as 'American, like Bush' just because he is our President (voted in too, mind you) and we are all judged by his representation, even if we are not of his thinking. Yet we do not leave our country, even after a repeated election of him, even after his judgement has us invading a country, having 2 wars, blatantly acting out, etc.

Again, I'm not catholic, but could see how someone in a religion is inadvertently judged by the leadership at the top, even if they don't hold the same views. Can someone leave the church if they don't like the leadership? Sure. So can Americans leave their country. Does it make them better people? I dunno, but it doesn't change the fact that they are not necessarily endorsing everything said or done by their leaders just by the fact that they are a member of their constituents.

Just throwing some thoughts out there. Not trying to judge either way. But I can see both sides.

[Divine Discontent]

209. God bless us, everyone. eom

[Pithlet]

210. Can't rec anymore, but will give a kick.

:kick:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

212. being against equal rights is "high crime against progressive" whether you use or religion or not

is immaterial. also supporting a bigoted agenda is supporting and abiding bigotry.

i find it difficult to beleve you dont get that

[LynneSin]

218. Consider this - Joe Biden is a practicing Catholic

and ironically here in Delaware, the Catholics love him. He's always a part of the Italian Festival each year which includes one of those parade marches of the Saints (he even stopped at my hosue to say hello)

Nice post.

[bobbolink]

239. And so was Kerry, and DU went ga-ga over Kerry.

Now there are many DUers ready to cancel the NECESSARY votes of Catholic Dems!

Somehow, the logic has been skipped over for the hatred value.

[closeupready]

219. If, as Catholics are taught, the body is a gift from God, and the mind is part of the body,

then to surrender thinking to earthly fallible men in the Vatican and, for example, to approve of homophobic laws because "the Church says I have to" - to follow their hateful doctrine as if a zombie is to, in fact, be hateful yourself.

[rasputin1952]

220. I grew up in NY, I knew people of many faiths, the vast majority

of them good people, regardless of faith...or lack thereof.

In every belief system, (or system that deplores beliefs systems, which in fact is a belief system in itself), there are always people who go to extremes. They should be avoided. But the millions who go unheard, unseen, about their daily lives, often doing great good, far outnumber those that are little more than hypocrites and fanatics...(once again, regardless of the system they purport).

I am thankful that those that do good walk among us, quietly making lives just a little better, often placing themselves in danger. There are millions upon millions of people of faith that would never accept the hatred, the ignorance and the bile that is spread by a few...I grew up among many of these people, I saw what they did, and they helped shape my life.

To find fault with individuals is one thing...but anyone who would try to blame an entire group for something...leaves what we call humanity, and enters a dark area we call bigotry. It is sad how easily it is to fall into that trap, and devastating when one realizes they cannot extricate themselves from it.

[dakota_democrat]

224. Well said, Elboruum

I especially liked this quote:

"I have read several threads commenting to the effect that any Catholics which remain Catholics after this abominable decree by the Vatican against the GLBT community are, by association, complicit."

We all stayed Americans while Bush ransacked our nation for 8 years, would that make us complicit in his actions? Fuck no.

But taking cheap shots at Catholicism has become one of DU's most popular sports, so that makes it perfectly acceptable, right?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

227. Our government has not, as a rule, supported the GLBT community...

but I haven't heard anyone suggesting we should leave the country.

The Catholic Church is not my cup of tea; but for those who have the patience to press for change in the church, my hat's off to them. It took 300 years for the Vatican to acknowledge that Galileo was correct about the earth orbiting the sun. I'm guessing it'll take at least that long for them to come to their senses with regard to same-sex marriage...and maybe more splits within the church, too. But if not for those who stick with the church in spite of its foolishness, there would be no change at all.

[WhollyHeretic]

232. I have seen that idea repeatedly in this and other threads but it is a failed comparison.

Being a member of a church is a voluntary act. People are voluntarily supporting and donating to an organization that actively works to deny people rights. There are no laws saying they have to do that. They won't be thrown in jail if they don't tithe. If you leave the church you do not have to give up your home, family(as long as they're not assholes), job and everything else in your life and move to a foreign land, if you can get a country to let you in. It's just a little bit different.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

241. For those who believe, the Catholic Church IS a home...

and many of them would be giving up family, and it would be upsetting to them even if they were assholes. I'd be willing to bet that there are many who would just as soon leave the country than expatriate their souls from their spiritual haven...especially those who have little in the way of material wealth.

Like our government, there are people within the Catholic Church who are working for change...sometimes risking excommunication for the sake of helping the Catholic Church evolve.

[rtassi]

263. When I was a Catholic teen ... ( a long set up - sorry)

My parents and I belonged to a renegade Catholic church in Pacifica Calif, who's pastor, after leading an extremely progressive church, was discovered to have been secretly married, and had fathered a son, which led to his ultimate ex-communication, and the eventual breakdown of our community. Our church, and a majority of our parishioners, were progressive, or at the very least liberally tolerant, and mostly democratic. Young seminarians from Palo Alto were also part of the mix, and encouraged the community to become involved in the war protests of the sixties, boycotting manufacturers of the war machine, organizing, and participating in numerous and dangerous civil disobedience. We had progressive music that featured rock/pop/folk music of the time. I was once arrested in Washington with 250 young clergy who occupied a senators office and refused to leave without our voices being heard on war appropriations. At the encouragement of one of our young priests, I "borrowed" my fathers boat, and became part of a flotilla of small vessels attempting to keep the USS Coral Sea in SF Harbor, missing the low tide she required to exit under the Golden Gate Bridge. We transported water, food, and blankets to the native Americans who occupied Alcatraz Island .. I could go on and on with tales, but then, I should get to the point.

All of us then, knew all to well of the historic corruption of our church. We understood better than most, and recognized with a high degree of honesty, the absolute hypocrisy of many of our leadership, and yes, the inherent evil that existed within. But, we were also participants of a movement within the church to bring about what we believed could be a permanent and enlightened change. Many were intellectuals, many more of us were just regular people, who knew right from wrong, and could smell bullshit from a mile off. We were not intimidated by any priests, arch bishops and especially not by the pope. The corruptions, evils, and hypocrisies, were painful to us all, but never diminished our desire to make our church and our world better ... not just for Catholics, but for all people.

We stayed, we remained Catholics, not because we moved in "lock-step" with the pope, but because we refused to allow a corrupt history to tarnish the words and works of Jesus Christ. Nobody believed that we had a get out of jail pass ... frankly I had never been to confession ... didn't believe in the need to go through a priest, in an effort to confess my "sins" to God. Most of us believed that our faith was only relevant if we matched it with good works ... and our "salvation" was only possible if we learned to love unconditionally. When I was a Catholic, that would have included persons of the same sex who wished to marry ... and we would have never given a "rats ass" what the pope thought!

Peace,
rt

[Kajsa]

229. Damn! I WANT to recommend this

over and over if I could.

Too late- :(

Excellent,ElboRuum!

Thank You for clearing out the fog and haze
and showing exactly where this type of thinking
ends up- in the recycling bin.

It's toxic, narrow minded and not for me.
'With us or against us' is the mantra of the other side.

We are better than that, and if I may be not so humble,
more intelligent.

Thanks for posting this excellent OP.

:) :thumbsup:

[zogtheobvious]

237. I'm with the GLBTs, and I also agree with you, BUT--

This is a tricky issue, because I've decried the blame-game that the Repugnicans are so good at playing, but the Vatican was wrong. Yet, your point is valid: so are those who blame the entire Church for this. See how tricky it is? I can barely form a coherent paragraph on the subject! ;)

As it happens, that's not really my point; your subject heading is.

We are Democrats. We welcome diversity. Diversity of race, of sexuality, of opinion. The Vulcans of Star Trek say it best: IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infintie Combinations... it's a philosophy they embrace almost religiously, as do Progressives in general.

Yet, you can't believe you actually have to defend your viewpoint on DU.

My friend, don't look at it as defense... it's debate. It's healthy, it's wonderful, and it's something our nation has sadly been lacking in the last eight years or so.

Embrace it, ElboRuum. You will find that folks here would welcome your opinions and statements. Debate your viewpoint; and even if I did disagree with you, I would defend your right to make your points.

To do anything else is... well, it's Rovian.

We've had enough of that.

[Mithreal]

242. Catholic haters are so 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, ... century.

Amen : ) I am not a Catholic either and I think I am agnostic but your op deserves to be noticed.

Authoritarian patriarchal religions are anti-Progressive, sure, but religion is personal and should stay that way. Catholics are not all tainted by their associations. Maybe all the folks in Ted Haggard's former church are gay because he was outed in disgrace, right? There is no such thing as guilt by association when it comes to faith. There is nothing rational about religion, however, unless you believe some of the recent brain science that suggests we are hardwired to believe in make-believe.

Religion should keep its filthy paws off our democracy and politics. If one finds comfort in those filthy paws, good for him or her, more power to ya.

Catholic haters, get over it. If you hate the politicking then fine, I am with ya there. If anyone thinks all Catholics are guilty by association then grow up and buy a clue, that is sloppy thinking.

[Lost-in-FL]

244. Real Catholics are to follow the Pope and the decisions of the church.

You can't pick and choose. If you don't agree with the Pope, maybe you need to choose another church were the bending of the rules is fine.

I am only saying that those catholics supporting LGBT are not good catholics.

[pnwmom]

304. Who are you to define what a real Catholic is? Catholics are taught to

follow their individual conscience. You must have missed that somewhere in your Catholic education, if you are any kind of Catholic at all.

If you're not Catholic, then you have no business expounding on what a real Catholic is.

[Lost-in-FL]

307. How dare you change dogmas based on your individual conscience?

RCC has established dogmas and you should not dispute those as a catholic. The Pope has full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, matters of faith, morals, and in Church discipline. His word is INFALLIBLE. Take it with him not with me. I am just telling you what the RCC tells its follower. This "individual conscience" meme is too modern a concept for the RCC. Who are you to dictate what is good or bad?

[pnwmom]

314. You obviously are not a Catholic, so it's ridiculous to tell someone who

did receive a Catholic education what I am supposed to believe.

No, the Pope's dictates are rarely infallible -- and by rarely, I mean that a Pope has only spoken ex cathedra (with infallibility) two times in the entire history of the Church.

And within the Catholic church there is a wide range of opinion on the authority of the Pope and the clergy in general, with the view you express representing only the extreme far right of the spectrum.

Recently, when one priest in S.C. tried to tell his church members that they should go to Confession if they voted for Obama (since Obama is pro-choice), that priest was immediately overruled by the head of the Diocese.

http://www.cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=10210

Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Msgr. Laughlin said that Christ gives everyone "the freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith."

"Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion," he said.

The diocesan administrator also urged Catholics throughout South Carolina to unite to support Obama and other elected officials "with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child." He invited people to pray for the new president and his administration as they take office Jan. 20.

[apocalypsehow]

249. anti-Catholic bigotry is perfectly acceptable here, and even tacitly encouraged, so I just put all

those threads on ignore.

When the topic is my Church, it's like a Klan or Know-nothing convention in progress here, and the hate is palpable and completely unchecked. In such circumstances it's not wise to argue with the mob, just ignore it. So that's what I do.

[mdmc]

250. There is lots of support for human rights within the church

My own priest, during mass, came out in support of gay marriage, and directly controdicted whatever higher ups were spewing hatred.

I am know in the real world as a gay rights advocate. Sure my church doesn't support gay marriage, but it also doesn't support divorce.

Lets let civil unions be legal, and marriages can be whatever dogma the spiritual community cares to assign to them.

[Deep13]

259. You mean individuals allow their humanity to override actual Church policy.

If the Church's power had not been stripped by liberal political reform, your priest (and you) would have been burned at the stake for saying that.

And their opposition to divorce to the point of interferring with actual civil authority makes it worse. According to the R.C. Church which you apparently support, a woman who is beaten within an inch of her life has nothing better to expect in this world than that. More than anything, it is the misogyny of religion that makes me know it is evil.

[mdmc]

281. I'm not saying that some of the RC dogma is wack...

but ya take what ya can get from it...

I would be very comfortable bringing a battered women to my church to help her. Why would the RC church not want to help an abused women?

Now, as far as the whole women can't be priest thing .. that is just wrong..

[Deep13]

317. "Why would the RC church not want to help an abused women?"

Good question. The reason of course is because of the dogma that only the afterlife really matters and that material comfort and pleasure are somehow "sinful" whatever that means. It is better to stay married to a monster than it is to offend god by getting a divorce.

In your example, once the abused woman is patched up, she would be sent right back to her abusive husband to be battered some more. What is more, she herself will be guilty of sin if she does not immediately forgive him, despite her traumatized condition.

It's not that some of the dogma is wack. It is irrational ab initio because it is founded on a lie. And your cafeteria attitude would be impossible if the churches had not been stripped of their temporal power by political reform.

[mdmc]

330. perhaps they will be stripped of more power in time

and eventually the church will be completely doing the will of God for true. Or, if there is no God, the church will be doing good things and not being evil.

peace and low stress...

[Hekate]

251. Righteous rant. Too late to recommend, but definitely kicked.

:thumbsup:

Hekate

[KoKo]

255. Try being a Female on DU...and you would understand how it works. n/t

[Deep13]

258. It isn't the dark ages because we won't allow that...

...not because the R.C. Church has voluntarily let up on oppressive actions. To the degree that it can still control and oppress people, it does.

I am not going to harass anyone for being Catholic. Since you brought it up, however, people who support the R.C. Church in any material way do as a point of fact support the corrupt and immoral practices of that church as well as its backward dogma of self-loathing. Without the voluntary complicity by those who pay the tithes, the R.C. Church could not cause so much harm in the world. Any other group that did what the Church does would be called a hate-group. Claiming a divine warrant for their oppression and interference makes it worse, not better. As citizens we are all responsible for our own actions.

[LaPera]

262. My only duty as a Catholic is to procreate.....

bring about more Catholics for the largest & richest "Christian" religion in the world.

As an Italian Catholic baptized in Mission Dolores in SF....I grew up knowing what I wanted and what I was meant to do, to simply produce more Catholics...and there were so many sweet, lovely beautiful young catholic girls everywhere in San Francisco, who lucky for me, felt the same way....but always obeying & respecting Catholicism never to use a condom nor abort.

To be honest I sometimes thought what strange illogical request constantly being brought forth to all of us by our Pope, interpreting it all, for me to follow.

But then out of nowhere, instantly changing like a chameleon.

So I knew this must be a sign from god, for me to continue my quest to produce more Catholics, and like myself Catholics who ask no questions and blindly obey....and I must say I love my duty (I realize there is a small technicality here called marriage, but I can let that slide for the overall good of my faith & religion) and I will continue to do so. And why I believe in my church teachings, which includes an insanely strange mythical imaginary purgatory, because I have faith.

If it wasn't for my faith and self proclaimed duty, I'm sure I'd conclude that Catholicism is a pile of shit, a completely controlling ridiculous religion, meant to accumulate more power & riches through control.....using convoluted logic & the bible to do their dirty work.

But I know I'll never come to that conclusion, because I love my duty so very much!

[Cetacea]

265. Catholics were a huge force in the anti-Vietnam war movement.

Lest we forget. Let's just demonize everybody and get it over with!

[Enthusiast]

266. Agree, wholeheartedly!

Lapsed here, also. There must be tens of millions of lapsed Catholics. We are free thinkers! We don't fall in line with every Papal decree.

[Barbarien]

268. Choice

Look, Elbo, I agree with you that American Catholics don't generally march in lockstep behind the Pope. Thus, it's inappropriate to assume that all Catholics agree with the church's positions on things like women's rights, reproductive choice, or homosexuality.

That said, it remains wholly legitimate to ask why people who consider themselves progressives continue to support such an institution. If you're giving money to the Roman Catholic Church you're supporting an organization that has some very disturbing views. (At least, they're disturbing to gay folks like me.) Granted, some of the money may be used for very worthy charitable causes, but some of it is going to support a hierarchy that is, in my view, socially reactionary and that promotes the subjugation of women and the demonization of gays. Obviously, people can make the choice that the good done by the church outweighs the bad, but let's not gloss over the fact that in supporting the church you support *both* aspects, not just the good.

And I personally don't buy the argument that sticking with the church is an effort at changing it from within. The Roman church is not, has never been, and never will be a democratic institution. Its policies are set by a bunch of right-wing old men in the Vatican who answer only to the Pope, another right-wing old man. Their authority is supposedly granted by God and is in no way dependent upon any form of popular consent. And in fact, Benedict XVI has publicly stated his preference for a smaller but "purer" church, one of which dissenting Catholics are no longer a part. So his response to criticism of his preferred doctrines is, in essence, "get out."

Bottom line -- progressives can certainly choose to remain in the Roman church, but they have to do so with the knowledge that they're helping to support an institution with profoundly reactionary views.

[dballance]

269. If we can blame Mormon's then we can blame Catholics.

If you are a practicing Catholic who attends mass and gives money to the church then YES, YES, YES. You are complicit in the effort to deprive people of their civil rights. It's just that simple.

[donco6]

275. Welcome to DU.

I agree.

[ElboRuum]

325. Read the OP

Since you're apparently new here and may not have had time to soak up all of the fracas around here of late, allow me to background. Catholics on DU have been the subject of a grotesque amount of attack, vis-a-vis the recent papal edict, suggesting that any Catholics who remain Catholics are by definition anti-progressive and by implication "deserve what they get". Now, of course, we would never tolerate speech here which would take all believers of Islam to task for the actions of the immoderate members of their faith. But apparently, being Catholic is now a high crime in the eyes of some DUers.

The OP is an appeal to the better sensibilities and conscience of DUers done with hope that people could be persuaded to act in their better humanity rather than saying, "dems da rules". Most have responded favorably. Others have not.

Nevertheless the rules are quite clear on this.

From the http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html">detailed Rules page

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

<---snip--->

With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are welcome to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, but they are expected to do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. As a general rule, discussions about ideas are usually permitted, but broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people — either religious or non-religious — are not. If you are easily offended by discussions about religious beliefs, or if you take pleasure from offending or ridiculing people with different beliefs, or if you consider progressive people with different beliefs to be your enemy or your inferior, do not participate in religious discussions on Democratic Underground.

That said, Welcome to DU :hi:

[fedupinBushcountry]

287. Very well put

You are so right "Catholics, in general, don't like such fundamentalist rhetoric. They've had to actively parse the meaning of their faith because of the grotesque hypocrisies that the papacy has historically clung to tooth and nail, so rote edict and decree doesn't sit well with th

I don't practice anymore but I am still that Catholic girl who went to Catholic school for 12 years and was taught to help and care for others and that we all were created equal. Nothing will change that especially not some Pope sitting on his throne at the Vatican. He may be the head of the church but he will not control my faith.

[ToolTex]

292. Love your rhetoric, but I remember the head of the LDS church saying jump

and watched as his flock in mid-air ask how high.

Your words are hollow to those of us that your church would allow to be killed without a pulse increase of one beat in an hour!

And you call for playing nice?

Frak Right Off

[saltpoint]

293. In my hometown the Catholic schools, while fewer in number than the

public schools, were decidedly the superior schools.

The 18-year olds graduating from the Catholic high school fared better year after year than the 18-year old graduating form the public schools on SATs, other college-entrance requirements, and as far as we all could tell, on career opportunities.

IMO the objection to the Catholic Church is not directed at whoever's teaching a third grade class in Dayton or an 11th grade History class in Green Bay.

And the objection neither is directed against the woman or man who decides to renounce material pursuits and joins a cloistered community of service and prayer.

The objection appears almost entirely directed at the autocratic, top-down, because-I-said-so hierarchy, which century after century seems wildly discordant with the way actual human beings live.

[depakid]

297. When the "faithful" stop actively interefering with womens' health care and impoverishing peoples

around the world with their dogma regarding birth control- then perhaps they'll be entitled to a modicum of respect.

Until then, they deserve to be decried and riduculed, right alongside ANY other fundy that would force their irrational beliefs down everyone elses' throats.

[sohndrsmith]

299. I'm curious about the first sentence of your post:

What do Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and The Easter Bunny have to do with Catholicism?

I have no problem, and heartily respect people's faith and spirituality under whatever label they view that for themselves. What I have problems with is when really ugly things are defended under the guise of "religion". I don't understand that, personally. If religion is ugly, violent, bigoted, (insert any words that may apply through the ages), then - I guess I do have a problem with it. I wouldn't single out Catholicism, though... on that. But I think it's the distortions that taint the concept, not the concept itself.

It's a pretty confusing issue, for me.

The only time I ever attended church in the first 2.5 decades of my life was for an Easter Mass with my girlfriend and her family when I was in grade school. Ironically, her family happened to include her dad (obviously) who, also ironically was one "Fat Tony" Salerno. I had no idea who the heck he was... until he was in the news a few years ago.

I love celebrations, holidays and traditions, some have religious origins/connections, some don't. I don't understand (based only on what I have seen in my own life, personally) is when there is a hypocrisy or sense of "greater person-hood" when one identifies themselves through and/or is active in a particular religion. I don't think the label automatically gives someone a moral/ethical leg up over others - actions that are moral/ethical are what gives someone integrity... when they don't jive, I think it's a little annoying.

I may have a naive perspective on this, and I've left a lot out of the issue (it's a huge one).

[ElboRuum]

323. Well...

This says it all. "Things That Are Ludicrous To Believe In, But Which I Still Believe In Anyway." God was the first one nixed from that list. It has nothing to do with Catholicism, other than to document my dismissal of said religion and the faith around which it is formed.

[PinkoDonkey]

312. Thanks for the post

I've lurked here since 2003 or so. The Catholic-bashing never seems to get old. Look at all the trouble you stirred up!

Just one thought to contribute (sorry if this is a repeat--started to skim some of the above): the Democratic party is not ideologically pure and has had a terrible past associated with genocide against native americans, slavery and jim crow. It continues to support discrimination against GLBTs and has not taken a unified stance against the death penalty. Yet many progressives continue their voluntary association with this party. I know this is not a perfect analogy, but perhaps for some it may illustrate the position that many progressive and liberal catholics are in.

[bluedawg12]

313. Do you have ANY date to back up your opinions about Catholic attitudes?

You said:

>>This ain't the dark ages anymore.

Catholics have, in the last century in this country, openly disagreed with and thumbed their nose at some of the more backward policies of the church.

The Pope, while the leader of the faith, doesn't wield the power Torquemada had during the Spanish Inquisition. Many if not most Catholics have come to embrace progressive ideals AS BEING THE EFFECTIVE AND TRUE path to righteousness, where the church continues to back the wrong horse.

<snip>

Catholic if you're pro-choice and what not. But by and large, Catholics don't want too much truck with that. Catholics, in general, don't like such fundamentalist rhetoric. They've had to actively parse the meaning of their faith because of the grotesque hypocrisies that the papacy has historically clung to tooth and nail, so rote edict and decree doesn't sit well with them. <<

Doesn't look like much of a rebellion against Papal authority from here:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15039

World: North America
Poll: US Catholic attitudes towards their Church

A Georgetown University poll shows that Catholicism is the religion chosen by most Americans. Younger generations tend to be believers, but less observant.
Sunday, April 13, 2008By Spero News


More than eight of out of ten Catholics are satisfied with the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI, according to a poll of Catholic adults in the United States.

More than seven out of ten are equally satisfied with the leadership of the U.S. bishops, a14-point jump, from 58 to 72 percent, since 2004.

The same poll found that among those who attend Mass at least once a month, Millennial Catholics (born after 1981) pursue religious practice with fervor akin to pre-Vatican II Catholic (born before 1943).

However, 36 percent of Millennial Catholics (2.7 million individuals) attend Mass at least once a month compared to 64 percent of pre-Vatican II Catholics (5.5 million individuals.)

The results are found in “Sacraments Today: Belief and Practice among U.S. Catholics,” a report from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). The Georgetown University-based researchers polled 1,007 self-identified adult Catholics in February 2008 and compared responses from pre-Vatican, Vatican II (born between 1943 and 1960), post-Vatican II (born between 1961-1981) and Millennial Catholics.

Data on the Millennial generation show young Mass-attending Catholics more akin to pre-Vatican Catholics in regard to religious beliefs as well as practices.

<snip>

Agreement with Church teachings is, again, often relatively high among the oldest Catholics, the pre-Vatican II generation. To a lesser extent this is also true of the Millennial generation, currently in their mid-20s and younger.

Agreement with Church teaching is typically lowest among the generation of Catholics who came of age during the changes associated with Vatican II and among post-Vatican.

[ElboRuum]

322. Who said there was a rebellion?

What is it with people that they think that every disagreement has to result in a "rebellion?" What, are we going to blow up the Death Star next?

Asking an American Catholic if they are satisfied with the Pope is similar to asking if they like their water wet. What's not to be satisfied about? What control does he have over their lives that would cause dissatisfaction?

[bluedawg12]

326. Your right, people satified with their leaders aren't rebellious against them.

Rebellion an act of rebelling against an established government or ruler. 2 defiance of authority or control.

Refusal to accept some code or convention of behavior.

[ElboRuum]

335. You are missing the point.

American Catholics, by and large, do their own thing, motivated more by their local parishes and their own personal codes of ethics and morality, than by who the Pope is or what the dogma of the Church is. They know better than anyone how wrongheaded the Catholic Church can be. To say that American Catholics have "leadership" speaks to a specious relevancy which does not exist in the way that you seem to want to think it does.

If American Catholics were more progressive than their leadership and used their own minds and the upbringing they've had, not only as Catholics, but as people at large, then you would have to stick to hating the Pope or the Catholic Church, and couldn't cast that big hate blanket over everyone.

But please, go on. Foment hate. That's so progressive. That's so what Jesus would have done.

[bridgit]

315. "Can we act better?"? Sure, its encouraged. But I still like the nice pope, he was nice...

[mtnsnake]

324. If I had it to do over again, I'd be born into any religion but Catholicism

Where else can you go to Hell or Purgatory for watching a movie with cuss words or for looking at pictures of naked women or for taking the Lord's name in vain? Where else can you go to church and listen to the priest, actually the monsignor of the church, scold and demoralize a lady in the front row for crossing her legs in church (When I was a kid a priest actually told a lady in the front row she shouldn't have her legs crossed. The lady quietly got up and walked out.)?

[BoneDaddy]

329. I hear ya

"Liberals" (not true liberals in my book) are often the most aggregious of shoving their "belief system" down someone else's throat and have no tolerance for anything other than their own tribal thinking.

[mmonk]

333. All those nasty Catholics like Kucinich, Kennedy, Kerry, Biden,

etc., what will we do about them? They are guilty by association and should be removed from office.