General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat people here who demand Catholics leave their church don't understand.
Please forgive me for bringing up the Catholic topic, but with the selection of the new Pope a little less than a week ago, I wanted to put in my two cents while there was still some newsworthiness about the story and before my thread gets locked and I am forced to post it in a forum that--face it--barely any of you would ever read.
But in many threads, I noticed a good amount of either non-Catholics or longtime former Catholics very angry at the church (for reasons usually justifable, I would add) demanding currently active Catholics on this board (which as we all know is comprised of Democrats, liberals and progressives) leave the church, or at least cease participating in the church or donating money towards church related causes. Usually, this is on the grounds of either the Church's atriocious (and sometimes criminal) handling of the well-publicized sex abuse scandal, or based on the generally conservative (at least socially conservative) outlook by a majority in the ranks of the Church's heirarchy.
Again, for the most part, the criticisms voiced are typically valid and well founded. But I do believe those persons demanding that us active Catholics who also call ourselves liberals or Democrats leave their Church in protest don't fully understand the context from where most Catholics are coming from. Especially in light of the reforms enacted after the Vatican II council, where lay persons were encouraged to take a more active in participating in the religion. (Contrary to what some might think, Vatican II was more than just about having masses said in the native tongue as opposed to in Latin; it was intended to change the entire outlook lay Catholics took towards their faith.)
Very few Catholics consider themselves Catholic because of the heirarchy. Very few of them have a close enough relationship with their bishop to voice their concerns to him. I suspect a good many of them might not even know the name of their bishop. And while the excessive majesty of the Vatican may be cool to look at (and I'll freely admit, watching live the announcement of the new Pope was really, really fucking cool to watch with all the pomp and circumstance surrounding it), it's not the selling point for the faith. And it may in fact be rather counterproductive due to its ridiculous excess.
But in the end, that glaring disconnect that the ordinary Catholic may have with the heirarchy is not that big a deal. Because most Catholics identify with their church on a very local level. They know their local pastor who they can approach on a regular basis. They get to see and converse with people that they know they will get to see on at least a weekly basis. And the local church will provide services to the community, valuable ones. My home parish in Maryland, for example: it ran a homeless shelter. It had a pre-school. It had a youth group. It had a community center, with a gym and a theater. You had CCD. With the litugy itself, you could be a lector. You could be a Eucharistic Minister. Just about any social event or group or activity imaginable, it provided. Yes, the masses on Sunday are what brought people together ultimately, but people found meaning in their faith beyond that one weekly hour with all these activities and groups.
The heirarchy? Most ordinary Catholics view it as necessary structure to keep the faith doctrine focused and organized, but that's about it.
So I'm telling you now, asking Catholics to leave their church is a non-starter. People generally have very positive feelings towards their local parishes and they are not going to want to leave them behind and scatter. My mother was very involved in our hometown parish, and when she moved out of state, she would tell you that leaving her parish was hands down the most difficult part of moving. Probably even more difficult than leaving our house where me and my sisters were raised. Whatever qualms a given Catholic might have with the actions of a member of the heirarchy, or a direction the heirarchy might take, is far overshadowed by their emotional tie to their local church. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is.
So why not then individual local parishes "secede" from the Church? That way, some might say, the social structure of the parish is kept intact but it is free from the control of the dysfunction of the heirarchy. Well, I hate to tell you, but that's not going to work, either. Besides the fact it would be incredibly burdensome to do logistically, having countless little splinter churches out there that run the risk of diluting the Catholic identity, especially when it comes to faith doctrine and matters of liturgy. People would quickly lose interest. Despite all its misgivings, the heirarchy does serve some useful function in creating a sense of cohesion, nothwithstanding all its other problems.
So what can be done? Well, members of individual churches need to capitalize on their sense of community. Not all churches have parish councils, but they ought to, to give a better voice to the layity. Individual Catholics need to come together and discuss some of the issues they know are important but for whatever reason the heirarchy is not keen on discussing, at least publically. And some sense of consensus should be brought forward from parish to parish and grievances should erred publically. So if enough parishoners want a better means to ensure abusive priests are not sheltered, that gets put forward. If parishoners want the bishops to consider ordination of married persons and women, that gets put forward. If parishoners wish the bishops to quit wasting their time on silly lawsuits over contraception coverage, that gets put forward. And so forth and so on. But really the only thing we are missing right now is a better voice from individual lay Catholics. If we find a way to better publicize the direction we want our Church to take, mark my words, the heiarchy will have no choice but to listen.
And it should also be noted that the individual parish priests--who deal with lay parishioners and ordinary matters on a daily basis--may actually be more receptive to new ideas than one might think. I could see as mere matter of practicality that a good number of priests would actually be fine with expanding the priesthood to women and married persons, for the simple reason that the current shortage of priests willing to take a vow of celibacy has created an overwhelming burden on the priests who are there to perform more and more services for their respective parishes. I would suspect they would think the more help, the merrier.
Pope Francis, the new pope, is a Jesuit. One thing you may not know about the Jesuits is that they are bound by a sense of duty where if they disagree with the position of the superior, they must speak up and say so. So let us active Catholics seize the opportunity of our new Jesuit Pope and do what the Jesuits do.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)a cafeteria catholic. Your local church seems very active in helping the community. But not all local parish are like that because honestly they can't afford it. I lived in many different states and found the only thing that really binds us all is the tradition of mass. I like that. But the church is only as good as the parish priest is. The parish priest also must be able to give a decent homily.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)People are blaming the latter in this case, not the former.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)As an example of this, take a look at the ongoing disastrous policy of closing and combining parishes. I have read figures suggesting that 30-40% of the people in the parish that is closed cease to be active Catholics. (sorry, but I can't get Google to give me a link.) I know that when my own very active Vatican II style parish was closed, only about 10-20% moved on to the new combined parish. I think about half moved on to another very small parish, in effect creating their own new parish.
Note that I said "Vatican II style". Some parishes are collaborative efforts between pastor and people. Some are dominated by the pastor. The fun really starts when a domineering pastor is assigned a parish with an active laity!
LiberalFighter
(50,825 posts)There is a reason imo that churches are able to exist. It is community. It is support. It is socializing with supposed liked minded individuals. It is strengthened when they meet on a weekly basis. They develop friendships and are involved in activities outside that may or may not be connected with their church. It is what bonds them together.
People find a need to develop those relationships especially if it is from birth to grave. It makes them feel more like they belong.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Can't you speak up and demand that the pedophilia be stopped? If you think that it has been, what is the factual basis for such belief?
May I suggest that maybe it would be a good idea that good Catholics speak up and demand accountability.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there are those who spend more time criticizing Duers who object to the pedophilia than they do criticizing the Church-protected pedophilia.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)To the end?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)and to find another path...????
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)that they are on. They may never see it and may never find another path.
Some who are satisfied with the path that they are on will spend more time playing the role of victims of those who are opposed to church-sanctioned pedophilia. They will spend more time criticizing those who are opposed to such pedophilia.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)One's own path is the only one they should concern themselves with, the only exception being one's own minor children.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)If their individual influence could change the church into not harming others, then fine, continue to do that, but it hasn't at all, the new guy is just as conservative as the old guy, so after all these many centuries, when do we get to hold people who are on a path where their support is harming others responsible for that support?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Some are trying to change their church from the inside.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Or to ask that we see such efforts rather than see defense of leaders who say hateful things about us?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)People have a right to stay with their church if they want. Many RC faithful do not agree with the leadership yet still hold the leadership in high regard. Asking questions is fine but some people here have just been out-and-out mean to catholics this past 2 weeks or so.
It will take time to change the church and liberal Roman Catholics speak out on issues all the time. They may not get the attention the bishops get but they do speak out.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)to change things one needs a vote or a mandate or an outcry.
i dont see much of any of these things
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
LAGC
(5,330 posts)When the church quits butting its head into world politics, then it becomes none-of-our-business.
What the Church does affects all of us, not just those inside of it.
If the Church isn't willing or able to change, it needs to get used to the criticism.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Nobody here has any right to expect anyone else here to leave a religion, join a religion, believe in a god or not believe in a god. Criticize the church as much as you please. I'll join you. I'm not Catholic. I just don't like bullying, wherever I see it. Telling people they have to convert or else they're not really Democrats or that they're hypocrites? That's bullying. And bullshit.
May I remind you how many Hispanics are Catholic? And how large the majority was that they voted Democratic? That means they voted against the Church. Most Catholics do. Keep this up and you can kiss that majority goodbye. And all the progress we've made.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)What DU catholics are upset about is that others are telling themthey should or must leave their church.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)I have not attended Mass in decades, and I'm grateful that I never held the position of being an altar boy.
Pedophilia is inherently wrong. It cannot be excused on any level.
Excuse me for noticing but when you say, "People here do speak up about the scandal," I noticed that you didn't say "DU Catholics here do speak up about the scandal." And you didn't say "A great many DU Catholics here do speak up about the scandal."
When anyone says that non-Catholics are telling Catholics "they should or must leave their church," based on my experience, I see that as a diversion. Let's assume that one or two, or even more, have said that. My answer is "So what?" If there had been a diligent effort to clean out the problem, no one would be saying that at all. And if there had been a diligent effort, all Catholics would be able to point to the diligent effort.
In addition, while many people are revulsed by the pedophilia, I have not seen a wide-spread effort on DU to demand that Catholics leave the Church. A few isolated comments by a few DUers does not mean that there has been wide-spread DU criticism.
I left the Church long before this pedophilia was known. If I hadn't, I would have been relentless. I certainly wouldn't have cared as to whether the feelings of a few DUers were hurt.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)churches response to the pedophilia scandal. I also do not think it is just a few posters saying they must leave. All of the Roman Catholics I have met here are shocked and saddened by the scandal.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)Fr. Roy Bourgeois, the Maryknoll priest who founded School of the Americas Watch, was excommunicated last year for participating in the symbolic ordination of a woman.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)Edited to add: The irony is pedophile priests aren't automatically excommunicated. The priest who sexually abused boys at a school for the deaf in Wisconsin wasn't excommunicated or defrocked the way Fr. Roy was.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)There's enough self-righteousness in that post to fill a cathedral.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)the twins of her rapist were aborted.
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz excommunicated all the people in the diocese of Lincoln, NE who were members of such groups as Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood, and the Hemlock Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)(And it was not the result of speaking out, but of an abortion.)
Again, please show me where any lay Catholic has been disciplined with excommunication for speaking his or her mind.
A priest might be ex-communicated for speaking out. A theologian might be excommunicated for the same reason. In both cases, that's because they're considered to be teachers.
But not an ordinary lay person. So I'd be interested to know where you're getting this.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)And, how is the church supposed to be changed from within if members of the clergy can't speak out without fear of excommunication?
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)said it had not.
And again, the issue was an ACTION, not speech.
The Church can be changed from within by its lay members, even if the priests might be disciplined for speaking out.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)I gave you two. I'm done with you. I have absolutely no patience for the deliberately obtuse.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)The person who wrote this piece called for precisely that, and yet you seemed to miss the point entirely.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Did you miss the 9th paragraph?
Another poster, to whom I responded, indicated that speaking up in an unauthorized way could get the speaker excommunicated.
You ask "How do you know how much individual Catholics are speaking up?" I know from reading the OP and other comments, and I know from the ongoing reports of pedophilia from time to time, I know that individual Catholics are not speaking up as much as they should be.
Even on this board, there are some who have spent more time speaking up and claiming to be victims of religious discrimination than the time that they have demanded the pedophilia be stopped and the pedophiles be prosecuted.
Are you one of the victims of religious discrimination? How much time have you spent demanding that the pedophilia be stopped and the pedophiles be prosecuted?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Deep13
(39,154 posts)I only talk about people declining to support the RC Church on DU where such discussions are implicitly invited. I point out the option of of leaving to those who express dissatisfaction of the Church to me, but not being one to tilt at windmills I don't go around trying to convert people.
Yes, its difficult but if you think the practices and rules of the church are reprehensible, then supporting it financially makes a person partly responsible--that's just how it is.
In point of fact, millions of Americans and even more Europeans have already left the RC Church and others too for a variety of reasons.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)empowers the global religion and the Vatican, is no excuse.... Then they must learn and become less ignorant. Sure here in the states being a catholic is really quite a joke, but there are women and children suffering worldwide because of the politics of the Vatican. It's just not the casual relationship those sheeple of whom you speak have chosen to condition themselves to. They need to be rattled. I was mortified when the priest pedophile scandals and cover-ups didn't end the church right there. But in no way does any catholic get a pass in my book. Guilt by association, a chosen association. Any good they perceive doing through the church could be done directly or through many other available means. Their goodness does not rely on that specific vehicle to be accomplished.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)but those who want others to stay out of their personal business about who they love or choose to marry, about what they do or do not do with their own bodies etc. should not be eager to tell others what faith to be part of or not part of, what church to belong to or not belong to, or how to work for changes they would like to see their church embrace American Catholics are notably more liberal on social issues than most large demographic groups. But that isn't good enough for you.
Do you also want all good Democrats to boycott all deep red states and not contribute a dime to the finances of those regressive state governments? That would not only include moving out of those states for those who contribute to their ongoing regressive policies with their tax dollars on a daily basis- the shutting down of abortion clinics, banning of gay marriage, finding ways to send public money to private charter schools, draconnian drug laws etc It would also mean not buying gas while travelling through those states, or buying through any online business based in those states etc.
When so called progressives start telling other people who agree with them on the issues what is an acceptable or not acceptable way to go about their lives, it is no better than setting up our own morality police.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)If the church is going to influence the politics of those who chose to marry whom they love, et al, then of course those that are being discriminated against have the right, nay the obligation, to speak up and condemn that entity and all who support it, just like we do with the NRA.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)interest group. And even with the NRA we seldom condemn all NRA members, instead Democrats go on TV and cite statistics that show that a majority of NRA members support common sense gun control rather than blast all NRA members. We tend to concentrate our fire so to speak on the NRA leadership.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)And like the NRA keeps watch on many aspects of the single issue. The churches single issue is supposed your soul.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Kinda hard to do so for ones that ban same sex marriage. I happen to live in one of only a handful where it is legal, per state law.
I also live in a state where abortion is protected, explicitly, by state law, so if Roe V. Wade ever was overturned, abortion and other forms of family planning would remain entirely legal here.
I will continue to suggest to individuals that belong to the Catholic church to consider abandoning it. Unless and until the official church position comes about on interfering with these social issues, like equal protection under the law for same sex couples that wish to marry, the church has chosen its hill, planted its flag, and should expect all the slings and arrows that will forthcoming as a result of that position.
If individuals do not like it, and happen to support things like abortion and same sex marriage, if they really do happen to be left leaning politically, rank and file democrats, or even progressives, then yes, I think they should consider if the Catholic Church is the right place for them, and I don't consider it anti-Catholic to point that out.
The church has an official position on these topics. They are antithetical to democrats and progressives' party planks.
I will not apologize for pointing that out, and suggesting an alternative. (Withdrawal from the church) It is, of course, only one alternative.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)But at the risk of oversimplifying I never mind anyone asking me to coonsider anything in good conscience. I never mind anyone respectfully asking me to rethink this or that about my behaviior or life choices. I mind it when people condemn me for not taking the course of action that they think is the proper one after being asked to look at it again. Especially when in the larger picture I more often than not am an ally of their cause or causes - which hjappens to be the case for lay American Catholics.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'YOU ARE EQUALLY GUILTY' type posts directed at those that do not support the Church's position on the issues I mentioned, wherein those posters were members of the church and tithed to the church. I don't think that's entirely fair, some people within the church are working hard to change it, and that's not nothing.
So I agree with you.
The NRA comparison earlier was quite apt. I am no longer a member, because I just couldn't fucking take it anymore, but many members of the NRA are not members of the political wing (NRA-ILA) but rather are members to gain access to a particular gun range that requires it, or access a safety course, or even to become firearm safety instructors themselves. They are simply outvoted by certain elements within the NRA that pursue political ideology.
So the comparison was good, and again, I agree. I don't smear people for being members of the NRA, but I do encourage them to evaluate whether it is the right place for them. Particularly if they do support individuals rights to own firearms, as the NRA actually tried to spike the Heller case early on. They didn't want it to go forward. Etc.
So yeah, I see where you're coming from.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If you want to be left alone to do as you wish, your church must first leave others alone to merely love one another. Right now your leadership meddles and libels and trash talks me and my family every damn day, and they do not get to spew at my loved ones with impunity.
To ask that others treat your Church better than the Church treats them is the antithesis of what the golden rules suggests is the best way.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but just because its hard to do, doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Stay in your churches or whatever but don't pretend you are not supporting a misogynist homophobic church that covered up for child abusing monsters.
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)well said.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)Is going to mass considered "support"? Is taking the Eucharist "support"?
Is agreeing with the basic principles of the religion regarding forgiveness, concern for the less fortunate, etc. "support"?
Please proceed and define "support" for me because you really aren't coming off all that clear here.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)you support it.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)Funny thing, because when I go to mass and I hear the words of the liturgy and I hear the words of the homily and the prayers, the need to cover up child abuse or lawsuits about contraception or what have you are really not the first things that come to my mind. I'm thinking about how those words affect my belief and my every day life. Because that's what religion--if you so choose to have one--should be about.
Occasionally, I might think that it might be nice to have those words spoken by a woman or a married person for a change, but other than that, none of those issues that go beyond mass and my local parish really come into play.
And as I mentioned down thread, very rarely are the hot button politically tinged topics such as abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, etc. actually mentioned at mass. There's no mention whatsoever of them in the liturgy itself, and the typical priest's homily usually does not address them but instead talks about basic faith tenants and doing good in the world.
The notion that actively worshiping Catholics are nothing more than braindead sheep who recieve week-in and week-out ultraconservative marching orders from their local parish priest is nothing but a sheer fiction.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I note your previous post mentioned forgiveness. But you sure are slow to forgive and quick to find the offense you seek to find. Funny.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)Taking issue with another posters thoughts is not the same as, I don't know, having a spouse cheat on your or someone stealing your wallet or what have you.
Forgiveness implies a personal transgression against you.
Stating an opinion that you believe to be incorrect and that you wish to correct or counter is a triviality. It doesn't even rise to the level of a personal transgression, hence there is no "forgiveness" of which to be spoken.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)a misogynistic and homophobic institution but you alway dont want to be called out on it.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)And misogyny or homophobia play no role whatsoever into my religious beliefs regarding why I choose to identify myself as a Catholic.
Hence, there's nothing to be called out on.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)you still support an institution that does not support us.
again, i am not demanding that you leave your church, because i dont care what you do. you're not my family or my friend. however you seem to think that i should not have a right to have an opinion that what you are doing adds to my oppression, and you don't have that right.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)You're not "demanding" I leave the church.
You're just implying that should I choose to stay, I am by proxy a homophobic misogynistic enabler of child abuse by virtue of the fact that I spend an hour a week at the church of my choice on reasons that have nothing to do with homophobia, misogyny or enabling of child abuse.
Gotcha.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)support institutionalized homophobia & sexism, when you have choices not to.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)
I can either be against homophobia and sexism, or I can be a Catholic.
That's what you're saying.
JVS
(61,935 posts)And when some of your money goes to planned parenthood, and some of your money goes to fund some lawsuit so that women have a harder time getting birth control. Then you are doing things that work at cross-purposes.
JVS
(61,935 posts)the organization's actions?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)By showing up once a week to contemplate your personal religious beliefs?
As I said previously, very rarely do politically charged topics get mentioned during a priest's homily, and they're no where to be found in the actual liturgical text. So what's that got to do with anything?
JVS
(61,935 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I think a similar argument can be made for the NRA though. There are liberals in the NRA, and any change in the NRA will come from them.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)I think the only thing Catholics here are asking the bashers is to respect that - obviously you bashers have every right to bash, just respect that most of us are well aware of the sins of the church, and don't need to be reminded of them 24/7 - it actually gets a little insulting.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)"The crazies and child-molesters in the hierarchy have no effect on my local parish with the nice pastor and great community."
Bullshit.
That pastor, while he's a nice guy, got put there by the diocese, and the hierarchy can reassign him whenever they want. He has to do what he's told, and follow orders from Francis on down. If Francis (or previously, Maladict) orders he condemn homosexuality, he's going to condemn homosexuality. If Francis says tell women to submit to men, he's going to tell his parishioners that.
Furthermore, people think that what they put in the collection plate stays in the parish. While most of the money raised from offerings goes to upkeep of the church, and to various charities, a piece of it goes upstairs to the diocese hierarchy - maybe 8% or so, depending on the parish. How do you think that anti-gay-marriage initiatives across the nation got funded? Sure, some of that may have come from wealthy right-wing donors, or from RCC investments. But some of that money came from parish collection plates. Sure, there are lots of left-wing Catholics who support GLBT and women's rights, but when they put money in the plate, that money is used to push the opposite agenda. Remember, When you put money in the plate, you're bankrolling hate.
OK, but what about the charities. First of all, why can't you donate to them directly and bypass the church? Second, what do we see from Catholic charities in particular? Hospitals that get nasty towards GLBT patients or their families, or get ugly with women exercising reproductive rights or try to get an abortion, even for medical reasons. Adoption agencies that would rather see children parentless and institutionalized rather than let them be adopted by a same-sex couple. Are these the kinds of charities you want your money funding?
If you want to associate yourself with the world's biggest conservative organization that promotes anti-GLBT bigotry and discrimination against women, that's your choice, but don't expect me to shut up about it.
mrs_p
(3,014 posts)but want to clarify that there are diocesan parishes and there are parishes run by specific orders. So, in the Jesuit parish where I grew up, the priests were decided on by the Jesuit order, not the diocese. In diocesan parishes, the Bishop assigns the priest.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)having been raised religious and involved in my local church from a very young age. I engaged in all sorts of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance to stay in my church for a long time, because it was tradition, it was community, it was familiar, it was comfortable.
I'm not suggesting or telling people to leave the Catholic Church (or any other religions), people will do what they do. I'm trying to change the perspective of those who choose to remain with a religion they fundamentally disagree with.
Plenty of Catholics HAVE left the Catholic Church, just to rejoin other churches that still provide them with that same sense of community they had before AND also have official positions that align with their beliefs. And plenty of Protestants have done the with their churches.
So why not then individual local parishes "secede" from the Church? That way, some might say, the social structure of the parish is kept intact but it is free from the control of the dysfunction of the heirarchy. Well, I hate to tell you, but that's not going to work, either. Besides the fact it would be incredibly burdensome to do logistically, having countless little splinter churches out there that run the risk of diluting the Catholic identity, especially when it comes to faith doctrine and matters of liturgy. People would quickly lose interest. Despite all its misgivings, the heirarchy does serve some useful function in creating a sense of cohesion, nothwithstanding all its other problems.
You see, it HAS worked. That's what the Protestant reformation worked. Of COURSE individual parishes could secede. The whole Episcopalian Church has broke away from the Anglican Church. The Methodist Church is schisming over gay marriage as we speak. You complain about "diluting the Catholic identity" while simultaneously saying there IS no Catholic identity, all the members have different beliefs and quite a few disagree with the fundamental beliefs of the heirarchy. And people don't quickly lose interest, UNLESS the only reason they were part of the church to begin with was for very superficial reasons (not related to the beliefs or community). The heirarchy DOES create a sense of cohesion, but of course that's what's causing so many Catholics to leave, because they don't identify with the heirarchy.
Essentially, people who choose to go to a church and stay in the church only because of the tradition and community it provides (and that is exactly what you're talking about), even while opposing the fundamental beliefs of the belief system, are engaging in cognitive dissonace and intellectual dishonesty.
When they choose to identify with an organization that is fundamentally bigoted and actively working to spread that bigotry, they are making a trade off. Sure, they may be identifying with and supporting indirectly a bigoted organization, BUT they like the tradition and community the organization provides to them personally. But quite a few on here won't admit that that is exactly the trade off they are making. There are plenty of ways to try to rationalize away identifying and supporting a bigoted organization, and we've seen quite a few in your post.
You can say that you don't identify with the heirarchy, just your local organization. You could say that local organizations can't survive without the heirarchy. These are not good rationalizations. They don't refute the fact that people are identifying with, and, in some indirect ways, supporting an organization that spreads homophobia and misogyny in a trade off for tradition and community. There ARE other ways to have tradition and community.
It seems some would rather like to cover their ears and pretend this wasn't the case. Or just scream "bigot!" nonsensically at anyone who points out these inconvenient facts, attacking the messenger so to speak. Religion has gotten a pass for a VERY long time, as a matter of tradition and community, but it shouldn't. Yes, liberals who identify with a bigoted organization, religious or not, are engaging in cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty of some sort, and pointing that out isn't bigoted.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Yes, going to church means being part of a community, even for atheists and agnostics.
UU is the only church I could go to and be honest with myself because it's not Christian and I'm not Christian. I don't have to swear that I believe anything--no skydaddies, no god.
www.uua.org
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)with being intellectually honest with themselves and not engaging in cognitive dissonance, UU is a good choice.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I went to a lot of other Christian denominations and even a couple of synagogues (tried to convert to Reform Judaism twice, was turned away by the board of directors (rich doctors) once because I was unemployed---sheesh!!).
So I went back to the UUs as the only place I felt comfortable. I met my hubby at a UU church 19 years ago.
Unfortunately I live 150 miles from a church and the nearest UU fellowship is 80 miles away.
UU churches and fellowships vary a lot in their "feel" and membership. One UU church in West Houston is rich and conservative. It's called "The Icebox" because it is extremely unfriendly.
Besides, it has ugly pseudo-Frank Lloyd Wright architecture.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)is merely enabling the cesspool to remain and expand.
It's just too bad that you can't look up and see that.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)Human beings are not myopic beings. We are not limited to focusing on single things.
I do see that. I think you are the one who lacks understanding on how to approach things.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Your entire post is about how followers can't really change the Church, but leaving it is unacceptable.
So of course your reply is that you want to clean up the cesspool, but you can't clean up the cesspool, but you wish somebody would clean up the cesspool, but the members that allow the cesspool to exist can't be held responsible for the cesspool...
And this is why religion is so destructive, it not only allows the complete disregard of reality and logic, but requires it.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)I didn't say followers can't really change the Church.
I said any effort to change the Church will have to come from the ground up, from the Catholic laity, and the only stumbling block to advocating for such change is to find an efficient means for concerns to be voiced so that they are not lost in the mix.
It's not impossible for this to be done. It's not a walk in the park, but certainly is possible.
But it appears you'd much rather selectively read things I wrote and claim I said things that I never said. Talk about a disregard of reality and logic.....
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)doctrine focused and organized, but that's about it."
"Well, I hate to tell you, but that's not going to work, either. Besides the fact it would be incredibly burdensome to do logistically, having countless little splinter churches out there that run the risk of diluting the Catholic identity, especially when it comes to faith doctrine and matters of liturgy. People would quickly lose interest. Despite all its misgivings, the heirarchy does serve some useful function in creating a sense of cohesion, nothwithstanding all its other problems."
Yes, I did. You have spent several hours writing nonsense intermixed with circular logic in an attempt to justify your own complicity. The fact that that escapes you demonstrates your inability to discuss this issue with any rationality.
Thankfully this will not be news very much longer and you all can go back to rationalizing in your own little bubble.
Edited to add: More evidence of the perversity of this monstrosity. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2541819
Buh-by 
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)I.e., If each little parish in each town splits every which way, the Catholic Church ceases to be the Catholic Church.
I never said, as you so snidely claim, that the Catholic Church is incapable of change, or that lay Catholics are incapable of demanding change. Or else, things such as Vatican II or a changing perspective on science would never have occurred.
But whatever, you seem keen on painting me as an irrational fool.
Buh-bye, indeed. And it's "bye", bye the way.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I will extrapolate from your position and apply it to another group. This parable will out hypocrites because what it reveals asks of them what they would ask of my Christian brothers. If you believe what you preach you will immediately give up a membership important to you, if you are a hypocrite you will be angered by the extrapolation as told in this whimsical tale....
There is an organization, that kills children on a regular basis with bombs. Their pope-king likes to joke about this claiming once in jest he can murder his daughters boyfriends on a whim.
This pope-king claims, the right to put anyone in prison, indefinitely with no proof required. this pope-king at the same time decided that his wealthy friends that commit treason and torture are forever above his law, yea even unto the bankers of the temple that commit fraud, launder money for Drug cartels. and handle the finances of terrorist that have declared war upon us, even unto they shall the right of royalty to be above the law be granted.
This religious leader is fond of keeping lists of those he shall kill in his royal sport, and verily, his lawyers have dusted these lists with their magicks so that it may never be called a crime. When the pope-king and Eric the earl of justice enjoin the hunt, they leave the crooked banks unmolested as they see them and judge them good and noble predators of the forest.
They move on in the joyous hunt for more fitting game, there is a herd of the the elderly and sick attempting to poach the medicine of the forest that truly belongs to the Dukes of pharmaciasa, for even tho these poachers grew these medicines on their own land. only the Dukes of pharmaciasa may give the aid of medicine, and only when their profits are paid as tribute and they have a complete monopoly under the pope-king, the poachers rightly have their lands confiscated and rights taken from them. they are fitted in the shameful robes of orange which is the color of thieves and murderers and given sentences to live out their shame.
I say unto you as Robin of Moxy, you shall throw off the chains of this corrupt Pope King and leave his party at once or you are responsible for all evils of the land committed by this Pope or his corrupted above the law clergy.
You must denounce all of the realm and choose a new party or you are supporting the elite that has decreed itself above the law, as well as all the deaths and seizures of peasant property that were taken by the parties claim of infallibility and divine right.
I am Robin of Moxy, and I decree that you must denounce and hate this party and I also say, that any that stay in the party are evil by my decree for supporting them as they do.
And I will keep placing the sins of all the evils of the party on your head. and shall pummel you with the blame of your parties worst offenses, forevermore, It is your fault for not choosing a party that is without sin.
I will hound you and hound you until you curse this party for whose every evil you will be held to blame, because you didn't want to find a new party that is free of all sin, also for your overall bad manners and I just don't like you. so there.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I registered as a Democrat in 2002, after the judicial coup, in order to be able to vote in the primaries. I am not a follower of anything,
I advocate ideas, and occasionally individual people, not ideologies other than Egalitarianism if you choose to define that as an ideology. I study and learn in order to form my opinions, and am always ready to change that opinion when new facts come to my attention.
I have nothing against the President personally and believe him to be a good guy, however I also believe him to be a bad President at this point in history because of his wrong headed ideas on capitalism in general and business in particular, his anxious willingness to compromise any principle or sell out any ally, and his steadfast refusal to lead. I also voted for him, twice, for one reason only, the alternatives allowed to us would have been worse.
I believe the Democratic Party to be thoroughly corrupt and consequently captured by people that place their own agenda and interests above that of the nation's.
I believe that America is the embodiment of Krishnamurti's profoundly sick society and, although it is far from the worst nation on earth, that much of that sickness is due to our religiosity.
When a person or group's fantasies are allowed to be considered in any way equivalent to reality, as best as reality can be determined, it always ends badly.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)to be important to our species at this time in history, I think humans need myth to be happy at this point in evolution, in fact I think myth is necessary for further evolution.
I will admit to having been influenced greatly by Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung and Alan Watts.
I would never begrudge someone their myth, nor would I place the sins of the father at the feet of the son. That is why I hate to see all Catholics or Jews or buddhists, or Muslims judged as some borg like entity, they are each individuals and I have met very few of any faith that appear to be evil, but all hierarchies do appear to corrupt over time, these things appear cyclic, and it is not we the outsiders that will bring the changes they need, it will come on it's own from reformers within.
thank you for the thoughtful reply, as for the parties, they each serve the same corporate masters and play games passing the ball back and forth to use whichever party will be most helpful installing a particular piece of the rising Oligarchy they are constructing.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Have you read The Evolution of Consciousness by Ornstein? If not, I'd recommend it. I think it ties into this topic because of this ongoing, worldwide conflict of mythologies and the end of, in practical terms, human evolution. In it deals with how our brain likely came to be and more importantly, how it really works.
We are the only animal on earth capable of self evolution, and ironically that capacity makes natural evolution less likely as that same capacity ensures that we will not survive long enough for the natural process to matter.
I don't begrudge anyone their mythology or fantasy of any variety, but I do draw the line at their insistence that I accept them as being anything more than fantasy, let alone allow then to impose them into my life. This whole argument boils down to one small sect demanding universal respect for their detrimental, offensive meddling on a societal level based on nothing but their wishful thinking and gullibility.
Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu, it doesn't matter except insofar as the willingness of their adherents to resort to force, physical or otherwise, to impose their beliefs on others creates suffering and especially ignorance.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I thought it was titled "The psychology of consciousness", in any event I need to re-read it.
I have always been fascinated with the nature of consciousness itself. Perception, it's limits, how much of what we perceive is actually just what is left after most is filtered out, or even filled in by our minds from nothing.
I believe I was sidetracked by trying to understand altered consciousness, particularly what one can perceive when the filters are partially, or almost completely bypassed. Then I got into Leary and McKenna and of course, you can imagine the experiments I involved myself in. I will say this, without the filters I can see where madness or enlightenment might lie, and they may even be the exact same thing.
You are right about religious meddling and forced proselytization, that can be dangerous to a society, it can even be murderous as history clearly shows us, I have a tendency to treat the adherents with kid gloves and look suspiciously at the leadership, but that is a bit naive on my part, as often the neophytes can be more dangerous than the leadership, your point is well made.
Edited to add, I have not read that title, "The psychology of consciousness" is a different book, same author, as I found out by following your link, I now look forward to re-reading the former and reading for the first time the latter!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I began my college career in biology and his assembly of research is really, I thought, quite enlightening, When you're dedicated to the study of any science, you tend to get caught up or bogged down in the nitty-gritty and detail of what is before you at that moment, but he looks at some interesting facets and anomalies that are overlooked (at least they were in my classes) because they are not immediately relevant to the matter at hand.
For instance, at no time in my studies did any professor ever ask or answer the question of why did we evolve these ridiculously over-sized brains tens of thousands of years before they were necessary? We just went through the evidence and history and noted that they did.
As for this topic, I'm just old enough to have lost much of my tolerance for watching people make the same mistakes over and over and over again, and I found this OP to be typically condescending and assumptive. The title alone is pretty much guaranteed to get a response from me.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The eight circuit model of consciousness, I can find none of my books or notes from that time.
but I was able to find a brief description of the model and the proposed eight circuits.
https://sites.google.com/site/psychospiritualtools/Home/other-practices/the-8-circuit-model-of-consciousness
You likely already know of it, or will find it at least interesting
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)got around to actually learning what it is they are famous for doing (except for Leary's other fame, of course). Thank you, again.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)As I said in an earlier post: "Non-Catholic Americans are in no position to condemn their Catholic countrymen for 'enabling evil' and the like."
Bake
(21,977 posts)They have no business demanding other DUers to do ANYTHING. Plain and simple. None of their business.
Bake
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Having been raised and educated in the Church, while being non-practicing/agnostic all my life, I've certainly had serious beefs with religious authority. But I don't feel it's my place to tell anyone else what to do.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and actually I have not seen all that much demanding of DU Catholics to leave the church (there have been countless threads and I have not followed most so I could be way wrong) but an interest in how DUers can both be progressive and be a member of such a backward organization when it comes to human rights.
So I believe that a lot of this upset is guilt... yeh, guilt for not being able to explain why belonging to an organization that is hateful and bigoted should be given a pass. Or high discomfort. There is no answer that makes any sense when you are looking from the outside in.
If one is a Catholic and doesn't believe in the Church's teachings of bigotry and sexism and homophobia and all that rotten mess of ugly, are you really a Catholic then? If you use contraception and don't hate gays, are you really a Catholic if you are going against the word of the Pope who supposedly has been chosen by god?
Do you believe in heaven and hell and how does that stand with your standing if you don't follow the Church's rules. Will you still be able to go to heaven, or maybe you don't believe in that part either.
From what I have seen here, the church is mostly a community club for people who don't really believe all that nonsense, but find it a nice place to meet regularly.
Nothing wrong with that I suppose. But you have to take some lumps for it.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)is that I don't know my local pastor at all.
Of course, I never goto mass either, so that may be a factor.
as a Protestant, I find Catholic services to be very non-social, that could be because I am living in a city (as I have since college graduation) where none of my close relatives live. I could see that maybe if I grew up here that my family (and by extension my self) would know and be known by many of my fellow Catholics (if I grew up Catholic, which I did not). However, being from out of town does not leave you isolated at a Protestant church. They typically will socialize after their services.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Every house of worship needs someone at the door to greet people and be friendly. If they don't notice you are there you will probably not come back.
At two different synagogues, the only people who greeted me were spies who were trying to subvert the Jewish faith--both of these people were Jews for Jesus!! Now that is a real problem!!
One was in Houston, the other was in New York City.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)is not really much socialization
I mean, they do the passing of the peace at every mass I have been to, but that does not mean a heck of a lot. "Peace be with you, stranger" still leaves you a stranger rather than a member of a family.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I said that a lot of churches and synagogues don't even greet you at the door or acknowledge your presence. That is sad.
Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)
Puzzledtraveller This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hekate
(90,616 posts)Bless you for being a peacemaker -- and I mean that.
Hekate
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)was organized somewhat like the Catholic model with bishops and another that is far more democratic. I agree with this based on my experience (grew up in a parsonage):
So what can be done? Well, members of individual churches need to capitalize on their sense of community. Not all churches have parish councils, but they ought to, to give a better voice to the layity. Individual Catholics need to come together and discuss some of the issues they know are important but for whatever reason the heirarchy is not keen on discussing, at least publically. And some sense of consensus should be brought forward from parish to parish and grievances should erred publically. So if enough parishoners want a better means to ensure abusive priests are not sheltered, that gets put forward. If parishoners want the bishops to consider ordination of married persons and women, that gets put forward. If parishoners wish the bishops to quit wasting their time on silly lawsuits over contraception coverage, that gets put forward. And so forth and so on. But really the only thing we are missing right now is a better voice from individual lay Catholics. If we find a way to better publicize the direction we want our Church to take, mark my words, the heiarchy will have no choice but to listen.
That is really the key. Americans in all religions are ready to take this kind of responsibility. I think that Europeans, those who do not yet view religion as completely hopeless, are getting there.
Perhaps you can change things from within without losing the things you love about your church.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)...somehow make it OK to support a church with more snakes and rats than the sewers of Calcutta?
Why are you not up in arms to get ALL the priests prosecuted?
Or how about the seedy financial dealings the Vatican has done for the last 1000 years?
What makes the pope such a "follower of Christ"?
Does the priests, bishops, cardinals and the popes who live in mansion somehow equate to the notion of Jesus? Have the Church ever followed the demands from it's prophet in chief?
And why are all the Christian sects so obsessed about sex and sexuality while trying to give the impression that puritanism and intolerance somehow make ones prejudices tolerable?
Why take advice from a bunch of old men in outrageous outfits and dresses whom have never had sex (unless you count the choir boys they molest off course)....?
"Find it necessary to keep the faith doctrine focused and organized" seem to be somewhat less than democratic in any case. This means in practice a dictatorship with unwanted consequences.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)and Iraq war apologists. Absurd to say the least
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)You are of course right. No one is saying that the policies toward gays and women shouldn't change but to tell Catholics they must leave the church is ridiculous. You have some very good ideas in there about how Catholics can take action and can actually take a more active roll in having their voice heard.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I want you and other Liberal Roman Catholics to stay and make life HELL for the patriarchy!
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)Hell, my sister's even more liberal than I am, and she's constantly expressing her anger at the heirarchy for their position on women's ordination. But all in the same she's also involved in her own parish.
As someone said a few posts up, "it's complicated."
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)The problem with Catholics who consider themselves liberal, progressive, all those nice things, but who stay in the Church and are not working actively to change things are, in the end, consenting to what happens.
And of course, the reality is that the laity have almost no influence on how the Catholic Church behaves. It has been priests protecting pedophile priests, bishops and Popes collaborating with the worst regimes out there, and so on.
Even though I feel almost no urge to find my social group within any religious context, I understand because I know how social we humans are. For a large part of human history what is called religion has been a foundation of almost all cultures and societies. Even the officially atheistic Soviet Union simply replaced the role of churches with state-sanctioned organizations.
The essential problem I have with all organized religions is that in the end they all say, "We have the truth." Okay, I know that UU doesn't quite say that, and many denominations are willing to tolerate (notice that word) a lot of belief diversity within their ranks. For me, in the end, I prefer to think for myself. I don't demand that Catholics leave the Church, but I do question why so many choose to stay, when staying implies consent to everything that is done in the name of the Church.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)The problem is delivering the message from the rank and file. That's why I suggested the focus be on organizing lay Catholics from the ground up (i.e. from the local community) to better deliver a message to the heirarchy. That's the only way the heirarchy is going to embrace change.
But I'll tell you right now, the only way I'd leave the Catholic Church is if they repeal all the Vatican II reforms, since I grew up in a post Vatican II church and that's the religion I identify with.
But all the current dysfunctions of the church? I'd much rather stay and fight the good fight for reform, while still identifying myself as what I am: a Catholic.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and...honestly? Saying "the Catholic Church has been complicit in covering up the crimes of paedophile priests! If you had any moral consistency you'd leave!" to someone who was born and raised in a Catholic family, who had catechism and confirmation and Mass every Sunday and whose entire relationship with the concept of "god" has been filtered through a Catholic lens...and who furthermore, since we're probably talking about Irish and Hispanic Catholics, at least in the US, likely has a great-uncle, or great-aunt, or distant cousin, some family member, who's been a priest, a nun; someone for whom the Church has been part of both the fabric of their daily lives and a central and essential part of their identity...saying "you should just walk away, really" is kind of like saying "but the US government has tortured prisoners. You should renounce your citizenship, how can you continue to be part of such an obviously evil country?"
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I was born & raised in a Presbyterian Church, did Sunday school, was baptized, confirmed, etc.
And I walked away. It's a hell of a lot easier than emigrating.
It's not impossible.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)The issue is with *demanding* that others do likewise. That's what inspired the OP.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)into some religion, that's sad, and definitely not a good reason to continue to maintain cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty with yourself. Child indoctrination is a form of child abuse.
And this "leaving the country" analogy is just a symptom of the mental hoops and intellectual dishonesty people who associate with bigoted religions must subject themselves to in order to excuse themselves.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)I did say "I was raised Catholic and I left and it was not a big a deal at all a lot", but most of this doesn't apply:
to someone who was born and raised in a Catholic family: Half-Catholic family really. Even the Catholic half wasn't particularly stable or good at keeping members in the church.
who had catechism and confirmation: Confirmation yes, but based more on a generic Christian education than catechism
and Mass every Sunday: Closer to every other Sunday.
and whose entire relationship with the concept of "god" has been filtered through a Catholic lens: Not all the case, since half my family wasn't Catholic at all and even my mom had no problem going to non-Catholic churches sometimes.
...and who furthermore, since we're probably talking about Irish and Hispanic Catholics: I'm not one
likely has a great-uncle, or great-aunt, or distant cousin, some family member, who's been a priest, a nun: Nope.
someone for whom the Church has been part of both the fabric of their daily lives and a central and essential part of their identity: Not really. Just a quaint relic of my childhood I put no value in today.
So yeah I'll admit my background is quite radically different.
hue
(4,949 posts)I haven't read all the threads to be sure but if You are accusing someone pls let us know with actual quotes who has asked You to "leave their church".
I was born & raised a catholic and was witness to and involved with many abusive situations/experiences of which I don't care to share at this time.
Nonetheless, I see no saving grace in the fact that Pope Francis is a Jesuit. One of my historical heroes, Giordano Bruno, was judged during the Italian Inquisition by a Jesuit who was actually canonized a saint in 1930. His name is Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (Wiki reference: Saint Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (Italian: Roberto Francesco Romolo Bellarmino; 4 October 1542 – 17 September 1621) was an Italian Jesuit and a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. He was one of the most important figures in the Counter-Reformation. He was canonized in 1930 and named a Doctor of the Church.)
Giordano Bruno believe and taught that the stars were other suns and that matter was made up of smaller particles. He proposed that new math need to be developed in order to prove the motions of the celestial bodies and believed that the universe was infinite. For this Giordano Bruno was charged with heresy and burned--stripped naked--at the stake.
Galileo Galilei knew Bruno and was questioned by the Inquisition 16 yrs after Bruno.
There are many other brilliant scholars and innocent ones who have suffered and died well before their time d/t the catholic hierarchy which systematically covered up their crimes throughout the ages.
The catholic church has never apologized for Giordano's execution. Each year many hundreds of people bring flowers to the statue of Bruno in Rome at the Campo de' Fiori where He was executed.
Only about 1/3rd of Italians actually call themselves practicing catholics. I think they've had enough of the catholic hierarchy.
But as for me and practicing catholics; Go right ahead! Stay in the catholic church and practice all You want!! I have no problem with it, and feel I have no right to tell You what to do!!
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)Much to the effect that if I were to remain a good liberal/progressive, I'd best leave my relationship with the Catholic Church behind.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Down thread you say it has been 'insinuated' here you say it was 'said more than once'. No examples to define that which bothers you. Several have asked that you support your assertions with more than your own rewordings of things you claim to have seen or inferred on DU. But you don't and that says much.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)....on this thread alone, Posts 8, 13, 17, 28, and 75, all say as much. (And that's just in this post).
Sure, it's veiled in a whole backhanded, "Sure, stay if you want....but your continued participation in the Catholic Church is just enabling child abuse/sexism/homophobia etc." But those lines are pretty easy to read between.
Then you have this whole gem of a post a few weeks back:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2377766
d_r
(6,907 posts)but i believe if you want to make something better you dont leave it. you stay and work harder. why should anyone give their church to people they dont agree with. stay and make it better it is no more theirs than yours. let them get mad and take their marbles home while you stand your ground.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)The Catholic church is indeed an easy target, and it is easy for some to target the members. Official church doctrine does not coincide with the beliefs of many of the people who reside here on DU. But to lay the sins of the "church" on the people of the church is insensitive and ingenuous. There are many things the church does on the local level that are key to the beliefs of the people who belong, because that is where they can exert some kind of influence. There are many things the church does that are not what the people who belong to it are in favor of, because they have no way to influence those actions. Of course and unless they run away and dump the church. I would go so far as to say that would be cowardly. There is no way to "fix" the church if you don't belong to it. I dare say that those who say to leave the church ought to leave the US (if they live here) for the same reasons, unless of course they believe in the recent wars we have been involved in, or believe that unions should not exist, or any of a number of things that go against the grain. Things are not going your way, leave. It is not what I believe. I believe in sticking around and fighting from the inside out. So should I lay the sins of America on all Americans? I don't think so.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)thank you for posting it!
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Afraid to or unable to leave it, indoctrinated into the organization, support it no matter what. Exactly like a cult, as a matter of fact.
And again, religion has absolutely NO claim to good works. No one needs religion to start an organization to help people.
http://www.weareatheism.com/resources/secular-charities/
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)No one's taking attendance at mass. Countless people have ceased being practicing Catholics for whatever reasons, and no one's gone after them, threatening their safety or well-being.
I could easily stop going to church--it would give me an extra hour of my weekend that I guess I could be doing something else. If I stopped going, I pretty much guarantee I wouldn't see the parish priest at my doorstep, demanding to know why I wasn't there.
I was raised Catholic. In college, I could have easily stopped practicing if I wanted to; I couldn't say that my parents forced me to go. I choose to remain a practicing Catholic. I liked the religion, I liked what the tenants of the faith stood for. Some of the public pronouncements of the church I agreed with and strongly supported, others not so much. But the latter circumstance was not enough to drive me away. It only put me in the position where I, as a practicing Catholic, would demand reform from within.
Furthermore, I don't think anything I said implied that you need to belong to any religion in order to do good deeds or be a moral and just person. That's pretty much the furthest thing from what I believe. But if I want to do good things as an expression of my faith, I'm perfectly okay in being allowed to do so without being made to feel guillible or like a sheep.
Whatever.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I left long ago. I've never been much of a believer, but I sent my daughter through our parish school. We stopped attending mass when she was in 6th grade. A few of the teachers gave her shit about it, but no one made any demands of us. A decade later, I still occasionally get something in the mail from them. I figure they're just reminding us that they're still there and we're always welcome.
Cult, my ass.
eallen
(2,953 posts)Tommy Carcetti talks about the community activities of local churches, and the social ties Catholics have to those. A previous poster spoke about the familial and social problems that would come in leaving Catholicism.
I guess I just don't get it. Catholicism is a creedal religion. The Catholic Church is not a nation or a corporation or a club, but an institution built around an ideology. It seems to me that someone should adhere to it if -- and only if -- they believe it was founded by God, they believe that papal succession is ordained by God, they believe that the Pope is infallible when speaking <i>ex cathedra</i>, and they believe the other major tenets of Catholicism. If you don't believe all that, how can you continue to support the Church?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)....it's in response to the numerous posts here that insinuate that my continued participation in the religion of my choice renders me an accessory to a crime or automatically in agreement with stated positions of the heirarchy.
I like the religion itself. I like the social aspect of it too. I don't see eye to eye with everything put forward by the heirarchy or everything that the heirarchy does, but to me that's just an invitation for me to be an advocate for change. I choose not to run away, because that's not what I feel like doing.
It's pretty much as simple as that.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's a trade off few are willing to actually admit. They like the tradition or social life or don't want to rock the family boat and in exchange for that they must associate themselves witha bigoted organization. Quite the trade off, especially considering you don't need it to be socially involved or be a part of a community.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Sounds like the latter.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's perfectly relevant criticism to tell someone who identifies with a bigoted organization by choice that they disagree with that they are engaging in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. Everyone who says they belong to bigoted religions while not actually believing the religion is engaging in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, though few people like to aknowledge those points.
I don't know how that's "passing judgment". You'll have to explain your points better.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)It seems dissonant and dishonest to you. It doesn't to them.
The hierarchy is bigoted, the lay membership is not, at least in the US, to judge by polls and voting patterns, which strips the hierarchy of any real power to determine American social policy. Politicians only listen to votes. A plurality of Catholics vote Democratic.
I would also point out that your interpretation of what the religious belief is, is false. The belief is subject to debate, and not determined by the leadership at the top of the church, no matter how much they claim it so. The dissonance lies in the gap between congregants and the Vatican in their views of the Christian faith, but the congregants have not sacrificed their right to their own belief.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I left as a teenager in the 60s while still at Catholic School because it as a FARCE to pretend to believe in what you don't believe. Tough, if Catholics don't like that. I, and others, cannot do that? If you don't agree with or believe in a particular political party, you cannot leave? Whyt should it be any different? At least you can CHOOSE as a adult to belong to a polticial party. What choice do you have as an infant being baptized into a religion by your parents?
Don't tell me I cannot leave the Catholic Church if that is what I so choose. If the Catholics here on DU, consider this to be Catholic bashing, MEA CUPLA. If you didn't go to Catholic school and had to take Latin, LOOK IT UP.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)All I said is that I don't want to leave the Church, and I don't agree with the position put forth here by some that your conscience as a liberal demands you leave the Church if you want to remain true to your principles.
You didn't want to be Catholic, so you left. Cool. No skin off my back. Believe what you want to believe, do what you want to do.
I was raised Catholic. Upon reaching adulthood, I could have left. I didn't. I choose to stay. I still choose to stay despite my misgivings with some of the hierarchy's positions on various matters.
Both acceptable positions in my mind, if you ask me.
Nothing I said suggested someone cannot choose to leave the Church if that's what you want to do. No one is stopping you.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
Ian David
(69,059 posts)They have church on the radio and TV and everything now, too.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Keep your church out of other people's business if you want others to leave you to yours.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)After all I did a huge "I quit so anyone can" kick but I didn't really take into account that I grew up in a rather conservative area, that my family went to a large cathedral that was kind of detached from the community there, that my family didn't really rely on the community too much, and that we weren't fully committed to Catholicism being a mixed marriage with my mom perfectly willing to go to a Lutheran church instead sometimes (even if my Lutheran father didn't go, which he rarely did) and that I went to a public school.
In fact my mom began to drift toward the Lutheran church nearby (very close to our home, only about a block) because she preferred the community there and hence basically de facto converted. But she was never much of a sectarian or one who cared too much about denominations. I was actually turned off not just by the conservatism of the church I was in, but also lots of Catholic theology I'm quite uncomfortable with (transubstantiation, most of the Mariology, praying through the saints all being good examples) and that's a big role in why I just couldn't be Catholic. But I'll now admit my background is not the same as plenty of others.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)I didn't read your entire post - it got me when you said:
But in many threads, I noticed a good amount of either non-Catholics or longtime former Catholics very angry at the church (for reasons usually justifable, [sic] I would add) demanding currently active Catholics on this board (which as we all know is comprised of Democrats, liberals and progressives) leave the church,
WTF?
The Liberal movement is about TOLERANCE. If someone is applying a litmus test to you because of "guilt by association", then I have to question whether or not that person truly understands what it means to be Liberal. Because that sounds like a Conservative to me.
"You believe differently from me, therefore you are wrong". That is NOT a Liberal point of view by any definition I have ever read.
I think that you have helped to expose a bunch of people who are NOT Liberals trying to pose as such.
Thank you!
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)it's not about tolerance of bigotry though, for example. Yes, you can be intolerant of certain things and be a liberal. Yes, you can disagree with others and be a liberal. Kinda comes with the territory, given that liberals have certain stated preferences, there will be things they think are wrong and they don't tolerate.
That said, litmus tests are always silly, as it simply comes down to people trying to define an ideology, which is impossible to a degree. However, broad consensus usually does the trick. If someone comes on here claiming to be a liberal, for example, and spouting white nationalist propaganda, quite a few on here wouldn't consider them a liberal.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I don't simply have a problem with the sex abuse scandals or the reich-wing mentality. I have a problem with the whole set of superstitions that any religion involves.
Even if you had a modern attitude towards gay people, married priests, women priests, contraception of any kind OK, and some relaxing of attitudes on abortion (I simply cannot imagine them ever giving up on that) then you'd still have something that tells people to give money to a supreme being that theoretically controls the universe, who does not excercise that control to prevent evil, or simply doesn't have the ability to see all that much wrongdoing.
Frankly, I sincerely hope that what Catholics find is a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" thing that propels them a bit farther on their journey to live in the world of scientific reality.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)....since there have been so many responses to my OP, both negative and positive.
I can only speak from personal experience, but I have been going to mass almost every week for over three decades now. During that time period, I've been a member of several different parishes in various locales. There were multiple different pastors (head priests) at those parishes, and even more priests in general (associate pastors, visiting priests, etc.) who have celebrated mass on any given Sunday. Now the one point in the mass where the priest gets to wing it, not go off a script, is the homily (i.e. the sermon after the gospel reading.) Speaking only from personal experience, but still I think it's telling that over the past 30+ years of me being a Catholic:
There might be a homily on the topic of abortion maybe once a year, if that. That it might be mentioned on occasion is not all that surprising, since the church leadership has been very vocal on that topic (regardless of whether you agree with their position or not), but it's not a subject that is repeated all that frequently.
I never remember there ever being a homily on the subject of contraception. At all.
The only time I remember the issue of same sex relationships ever being brought up in a homily was in a beautiful sermon where the priest argued that there should be more tolerance and acceptance of those people who are gay. Basically it was the exact polar opposite of what a bigoted or homophobic screed would be.
I have never, ever, ever heard a priest give a homily where he has advocated the congregation to either vote for or against a specific political candidate. Never. I would have certainly remembered that as well, because I would have personally given the priest a piece of my mind had he ever tried to do something like that.
(Now, note I'm not saying that there are priests out there who may have given a homily on the above matters at some point in time. I'm sure someone will pop up and talk about the time he/she heard some priest rail against gay marriage or contraception. But given the rarity that I've personally ever come across anything of the sort in my many years as a Catholic, I seriously believe any such instances are quite the exception and not the rule.)
On the other hand, I've heard homilies over the years on occassions which have spoken against war, the death penalty, which have advocated for helping the less fortunate. I once heard a homily that said universal health care should be considered a fundamental human right. I've heard homilies where the priest has actually been critical of those in church leadership.
But the fact of the matter is that, if you go to mass this coming Sunday at any given church, chances are very high you will probably hear a homily about something as simple as forgiveness or helping the poor and less fortunate, or strengthening your faith, or not being too caught up in material wealth. Hardly inflammatory stuff at all. Actually some very great and positive stuff. Nothing that could be considered divisive or hateful in the least.
So what am I saying here? I'm saying that that's the Catholic Church that most ordinary rank and file Catholics come across. Most Catholics could care less about reading papal decrees, but they will be much more likely to listen in to what their local pastor has to say. And the notion that Sunday after Sunday, Catholics world wide are being subjected to harsh indoctrination of ultraconservative principles--that's ridiculous.
There's a reason why Catholics in America are representative of such a broad political spectrum, from conservative to moderate to liberal. While the Church may take an official stance on some politically charged topics, for the most part what gets communicated to ordinary Catholics on a weekly basis is not that but instead ordinary advice on life and faith. So individual Catholics will inevitably take positions on those political topics as whatever they see fit for themselves. But your ordinary Catholic Church in America is not like some of the most radical fundamentalist evangelical Christian churches that really serve as little more than a front for GOP talking points. (And I'm not just talking about preaching social conservatism; I'm talking about preaching things like how tax cuts are good or how gun control is bad or how lassiez faire capitalism is God's work, etc.)
I think people who think your ordinary Catholic Church serves as a local indoctrination center for ultraconservative thought might actually be pleasantly surprised at what they might find.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)My husband and I asked the priest about the contraception issue and told him right up front we would be using contraception no matter what the Vatican said. He said that while it is the Vatican's stance to oppose contraception they realize that people have to make decisions based on what is best for their family. He had absolutely no problem with it at all.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)You're not ever going to hear a woman speak. Well OK you will, perhaps reading selected verses or making some type of announcement about Bingo night or whatever, but never give a homily or her own serious thoughts.
Even in my conservative hometown the homilies mostly were apolitical, to be honest I don't remember most of them and found them quite boring. The most political charge done I remember was a screed against physician assisted suicide at a time when Jack Kevorkian was big in the news. But yeah finding out the church was against any type of birth control, even for married couples was a shock to me, and honestly I think that made it all the worse. If it had been something I was aware of at a young age but eased into with "But you know most people don't follow this" I might've accepted it a bit better. Being hit with at age 12 a side note in a CCD class (the only time I ever heard of it being spoken off in religious education) is a tad different and shocking and shook my already weak faith in the institution.
But at the end of the day, you have a discriminatory institution where only one gender is able to give their views on things, and that's something I just can't handle or accept. And it bugs me because while I hear of people fighting for women's ordination and protesting things like the all male conclave, that doesn't change the fact that the equal opportunity doesn't exist RIGHT NOW and if some woman in the church did want to actually become a priest/pastor she would no choice but to leave. I think of a friend of mine who was raised in a rather conservative Protestant church and wanted to be more active but was told the most she could be was a children's pastor, which she left behind as a pastor today in a non-denominational church. And if she had been Catholic, she would've have had to do the exact same thing.
Ultimately fundamentally that's just too much of an obstacle for me to overcome, and it's why I simply can't be comfortable involved in this type of institution in any way. So for me, leaving is also the only option.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Also, everywhere there are priest shortages you will find lay women and men giving homilies.
So your blanket statement is wrong.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)So I'm not familiar with how things change. Fundamentally though the whole ordination policy, which also results in an all-male patriarchy and leadership, just strikes me as so fundamentally unfair. I'm pretty proud of the fact that of the two pastors who held me when I was baptized the second time, one was a woman (and not just that, but one from a family of Vietnamese immigrants who was raised Buddhist and became a Christian at 19), something that I know could never happen in a Catholic church and obviously didn't when I was a baby.
Like I said here, there are plenty of people on a completely different wavelength in regards to this, like myself. For me and so many others quitting the church really was just like switching from Coke to Pepsi or vice-versa, such a non-issue. Just how connected others can be can be easily missed. But for those of us without such a connection, any type of injustice becomes pretty irreconcilable.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)My mother, a lay Catholic, was actually allowed to perform Eucharstic Services on days where the priest wasn't available for daily mass. (A Eucharistic Service is essentially the same thing as a mass with the key exception that the communial hosts have already been previously consecrated--i.e. blessed by a priest--and not by the celebrant of the service.) She said all the prayers, gave a sermon, etc.
Of course, she belonged to a parish with a rather progressive minded (not to mention overworked) priest. I don't know if that would have flown in a parish with a more conservative minded pastor.
And as has been pointed out by some others, there are times where either a nun or a female representative of a church related organization have been invited to speak in lieu of the priest's homily. So you do have times where a female does speak on substantive matters before a congregation.
But I know that's still little solace. And the hierarchy's continued obstinance to consider female ordination (not to mention the ordination of married persons, although that might change sooner than later) is one of the most maddening aspects of the hiearchy to me, given the basic lack of any scriptual authority for it. I hope it will change and I will continue to advocate for such a change. The opening up of the clergy to a wider range of candidates will only go to help address the ongoing issues of sexual abuse in the ranks, not hinder it.
As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who has chosen to leave the Catholic Church because they believe their differences with the hiearchy to be too great. Religion to me is a deeply personal matter involving one's closest held beliefs, and whether one wishes to remain in a religion or leave it is always up to him or her. The fact that my differences with the hierarchy are not enough of a hinderance to me does not mean that it is likewise for another person.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)
xfundy
(5,105 posts)has demanded that anyone leave their church.
Some have, rightfully, pointed out the multitude of child-rape cases in the Catholic church, as well as every other denomination.
Some have rightfully pointed out the hypocrisy in your church, as well as most others.
You want to be a drama queen, please go right ahead and put on your Prada shoes.
I'm really tired of hearing how those of us who question those in "authority" in various religions want to take total control of the rest of us through infiltrating government are somehow against individuals who cling to your, or any, religion.
How different is your organized religion's goal of subverting the rest of us from that of the Taliban or the Southern Batshits?
Get over yourself, girlfriend. Get down off the cross, somebody needs the wood.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)It's been insinuated over and over here in recent weeks. Including on this very thread.
Your very childish response basically says as much. Essentially I've been told, "Oh, sure stay. But if you stay, your mere participation in the Catholic religion (which could be construed as simple as attending Sunday mass) is enabling child abuse/sexism/homophobia, and you're nothing but a big ol' hypocrite."
Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Jesus said 'let your yes mean yes, your no mean no'. Demand or insinuation or perhaps your own inference? Jesus said to be slow to take offense, quick to forgive and he demanded, he did not insinuate, that our words must be precise direct and honest particularly when offering 'witness' about others. Your OP says that others demand and that they don't understand, Jesus said their faults are only your business if you are without sin.
Are the teachings of Jesus no longer suggested reading in your faith?
It would be very easy to claim the reverse, Tommy. That RCC folks are demanding that gay people either bow to the bigotry of the Pope or keep quiet about the insults he levels at us, or that we should all leave DU. You seem to insinuate that simple defense of our families against the vicious words of Francis is an insult to you and to all Catholics.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Thank you for saying this so eloquently. I've been reading some of these anti-Catholic posts and becoming increasingly upset and angry.
I consider myself an 'estranged' Catholic.
I got a good education in Catholic schools. They taught me to reason and to question everything. This was after Vatican II but before the pall of orthodoxy settled heavily over the church. Some of the ability to reason and think for myself and the strong ethical sense the nuns and priests instilled made me see that the high officials in the church were doing things that were the opposite of the Christianity I had been taught. Eventually, after disappointing decision after disappointing decision by the Catholic heirarchy, I decided that I could no longer be a part of this church. The straw which broke the camel's back was the decision that Catholic missions and hospitals in Africa would not distribute condoms to prevent the spread of AIDs.
It was not an easy decision for me, but the important thing is that it was MY decision. I have met many good people, over the years, nuns, priests and laypeople who are good Catholics and moreover good human beings. These people, not the Popes and Cardinals are the Church.the I would never, ever, consider criticising anyone who chose to remain in the church.
My mother was a religious woman who went to mass every Sunday and every holy day of obligation, played an active role in the church. The child molesting scandals deeply saddened her but still, she held to her beliefs. I know that if she were here today she would be excited and hopeful at the sight of this new Pope.
I've been following these threads with a mix of fascination, disgust and finally anger. You see, folks, when you go on and on about Catholics being dupes and fools, you're talking about my mother, and that, my friends is very, very personal.
Tikki
(14,555 posts)on their own realization of what they can live with and what they can't live with.
The lists of the good and bad of the church are all over this site if one needs reminding.
Tikki
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....they didn't acquit themselves very well during WWII.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)nt
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)I.e. of the unintentionally hilarious "Chick Tracks."
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And a racist.
So you might want to find a better source...
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)If there's a more reputable source, I'd be happy to consider it. This just doesn't seem all that widely regarded, however.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...if you have better sources, let me know, I'll be happy to consider them.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)....I really don't have the time to read a 197 page book whose author has been widely criticized and whose publisher is, well, Jack Chick.
This is pretty much straight from the horse's mouth, so I'm more inclined to believe it:
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=2068
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)The only reputable information I found were that Jesuits were disfavored and even persecuted by the Nazis.
I'm not dismissing any other possibilities, but I'm not sure where you are coming from.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)anyone demands that someone leave their religion then it is a violation of freedom of religion and that means that it can and does effect anyone. No one should demand this of fellow DUers as some kind of litmus test for membership. We are looking a bit like the gop right now.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Ireland
Boston
Chicago
In just these three examples, church support, church going, and numbers of people who refer to themselves as catholic are dropping fast and furiously.
Once people realize that the crimes committed by the church members were covered up as a matter of policy, or that documents were shredded, lies told in court, and witnesses and miscreants transferred to keep them away from courts and prosecutors, this welcome trend will grow.
