RCUSA doesn’t seem to have a problem with GOP catholics who go counter to doctrine.

BAck in 1960, JFK explaiend how it’s supposed to work:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured—perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President —should he be Catholic—how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

In the past I have identified myself here as an ambivlent Christian, but a Christian nonetheless.  I certainly respect those who don’t share my views, Amanda first and foremost.

As a Christian, what really pisses me off about Bishop Tobin’s actions is that he presumes that ANYONE is worthy of receiving communion.  Maybe this is just because I’m a Protestant, but I look upon Communion, and, thereby, the love of God, expressed through Jesus, as something nobody is truly deserving of, but which God makes available to us anyway.  That’s why they say Grace is amazing.

I don’t care if Tobin is a fucking bishop.  Nobody is qualified to decided who is good enough to receive Communion, including him. 

Tobin can kiss my ass. 

And I mean that in only the most, loving, Christian way.

I certainly respect those who don’t share my views, Amanda first and foremost.

Oops.  Clarification: I don’t mean to say I don’t respect Pam or Auguste or Jesse.  I just thought of Amanda first because she has been rather outspoken on this subject in the past.

This is utterly unheard of.  This bishop needs a session in the woodshed…a long session.  If I represent a constituency that is pro-choice, especialy if they are pro-choice by a large margin, I am bounden as a ‘representative’ to follow those views, regardless of my personal views or those of my chosen faith.

Now faith is supposed to be, in my mind, a private matter, and once church crosses over into state, as the Church has, all bets are off.

Absolutely agree.  Good luck in getting anything done about it, however.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops may be one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in America, largely because they are exempted from many of the public disclosure rules imposed on other lobbying organizations.  They really shouldn’t be able to get away with this stuff, but they are, and have been for a long, long time.  They avoid crossing the line on candidate endorsements by giving anti-endorsements to candidates and politicians that they oppose.  Instead of saying “You should vote for anti-choice Republican candidate Johnny”, which they can’t legally do if they want to retain their tax exemption, they say “A vote for the candidate who supports abortion rights would be a grave sin”.

“If I represent a constituency that is pro-choice, especialy if they are pro-choice by a large margin, I am bounden as a ‘representative’ to follow those views, regardless of my personal views or those of my chosen faith.”

And of course, in states where a majority are pro-life, the representatives are bounden (sic) to be pro-life, and you would have no issue with this?  One of the driving forces behind our representative government was to sometimes put a brake on the wishes of the majority.

Sorry, but the Catholic Church should be treated like Branch Davidians until they allow Cardinal Law to be extradited back to Massachusetts to stand trial for his complicity in all that child abuse that he certainly abetted.

Just an addendum to my previous post… the USCCB is so powerful that they have essentially been given the pen to directly impact legislation.  The vile Stupak-Pitts Amendment which was squeezed into the House HCR bill at the last minute a few weeks ago was all but written by the Catholic bishops.

“‘’While I greatly respect the Catholic Church and its leaders, like many Rhode Islanders, the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic,’’ Kennedy wrote in a letter to Tobin.”

Actually, yes it does.  That’s part of the problem.

Sorry, but the Catholic Church should be treated like Branch Davidians until they allow Cardinal Law to be extradited back to Massachusetts to stand trial for his complicity in all that child abuse that he certainly abetted.

Agreed.

But it won’t happen.

The Catholic Church has 2 things that the Branch Davidians didn’t have:

1) 20% of the U.S. population considers itself Catholic, a larger group than any other single Christian denomination (or any other religious affiliation) - it’s easier for the Feds to play hardball with a group of 100 people than a group of 67 Million people;

2) $$$$$, and lots of it.  Despite the financial woes many archdiocese have expressed in light of the legal settlements they’ve had to pay out to sexual abuse victims all over the country, the American RCC is still a fabulously wealthy institution, with billions of dollar in assets and property all over the country.

ummali wrote:

Nobody is qualified to decided who is good enough to receive Communion, including him.

The Church has rules on who can validly receibe the Eucharist, rules which fall into two main categories:  Does the communicant believe the theology associated with communion—primarily the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Host—and does the communicant have a mortal sin on his conscience for which he has not received reconciliation.  To knowingly receibe the Host invalidly isw considered another sin, that of blasphemy.

In most cases, the person who wishes to receive the Eucharist is the one who knows whether he can receive validly; my priest wouldn’t know if I had a mortal sin on my conscience.  But in some cases the priest would know, such as the case of a civilly remarried Catholic who has not received an annulment.  In the case of a politician who votes to support abortion, such information is public.

What I do not understand is why such directives to nominally Catholic politicians haven’t been far more widespread.  Theologically, the priest who allows a person known to be receiving invalidly is participating in the sin of blasphemy himself!

There are many churches in America which would welcome Representative Kennedy.  If he doesn’t like Catholic positions, he should consider another church.

Why should this be any different from the anti-communion orders that the bishops issued for all the legislators who voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq, after the Pope called it out as evil?

oh, wait.

<blockquote>It’s not unheard of, Magis. The Bishop of St. Louis did this to John Kerry in 2004.<blockquote>

Ahh, yes, Archbishop Raymond Burke… he was none too popular here, even among many of Catholics, for a multitude reasons, including telling the locals that they should not receive communion if they voted for Kerry.

He also royally pissed off a working class Polish Catholic neighborhood when he threatened to seize their church and sell it, despite the fact that the church was incorporated as a private entity whose business affairs would be governed by an elected board, not the archdiocese.  Burke made a public spectacle of the whole affair, claiming that Canon Law gave him the right to seize the property, but he got trumped by American Law, so he wound up excommunicating the entire parish board and the priest who continued to have mass at the church, and told all of the parishioners that they would be sinning if they continued to support the church.

He was run out of St. Louis last year… but the Palpatine wannabe in Rome took care of him.  He’s now at the Vatican serving as Papa Ratzi’s highest ranking official on Church Law - basically the RCC’s equivalent to the Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Voting to allow other people to make the choice for themselves is not the same as having an abortion yourself, and even further from abducting pregnant women in the street and forcing abortion on them.

Please, the biggest incident involving sexual sin in the New Testament is Jesus interrupting the stoning of the woman caught in adultery. He didn’t dispute the charge, just told everyone to take a hike unless they were perfect, then told the woman to go on her way.

Apparently Jesus wasn’t able to validly receive the Eucharist either. (Though I suppose the Gospel is mute on whether he ate with them; just says he gave it to the disciples.)

Can’t speak for this particular bishop beyond the certain conviction that he ain’t perfect, but as an organization, the Church better not be throwing any stones over taking a tolerant stance to sexual immorality!

This has little if anything to do with abortion. If it did, Tobin would have excommunicated Jack Reed, one of the Senate’s most avid pro-choicers, along with Kennedy. The fact that he didn’t reveals Tobin’s true motives - he’s trying to gain political power by appealing to the religious right, nothing more.

A friend of mine has a rich uncle who regularly gave his church five-figure donations. One year, he informed his parish priest that he was tired of donating money for the legal defense of pedophile priests, and he would give his annual contribution to the St. Vincent de Paul Society until the situation straightened out.

As Pam’s e-mailer (and, indirectly, DTG in STL above) state, money is the only thing that will get these people to listen.

Jeff: The bishop has not excommunicated Mr Kennedy.  Telling him that he should refrain from receiving communion is not the same as excommunication.

Lymis wrote:

Apparently Jesus wasn’t able to validly receive the Eucharist either.

Sorry, wrong answer.  Jesus forgave her sin, and told her to go and sin no more.

The key document, if anyone cares to read it, is the Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Public Life.

I’m with Dana @13 on this one, really.  Religious organizations are entitled to their own rules about who is allowed to participate in what function, and to enforce these rules.

The thing that has always really puzzled me in this regard, though, is the much bigger phenomenon of holiday Catholics—folks who identify as “Catholic” but only go to church on holidays, and don’t really practice the teachings and beliefs of the church.  Having been raised a Catholic myself, I feel pretty safe in saying that this is actually the majority of Catholics, who when pressed will tell you that, e.g., the birth control pill is just fine, or feel perfectly free to watch movies that their priest has strongly told them not to.

Elizabeth:

The Bishop of St. Louis could not withold communion from Sen. Kerry.  It’s bad enough, but this is one step further.  It is de facto excommunication.

Why should this be any different from the anti-communion orders that the bishops issued for all the legislators who voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq, after the Pope called it out as evil?

oh, wait.

Yep.  The conservative Catholics who run around calling us liberals “cafeteria Catholics” need to take that log out of their own eye first, especially the ones like Fat Tony who support the death penalty in clear violation of the church’s actual view.

Cutting off the money supply is a great way for elderly relatives to protest if they can’t give up the comfort of going to Mass.  It’s probably even better than getting them to stop going altogether since the church will still have to pay for electricity and heat for the church without getting the money to do so from the parishioners.

I just went and read up on that church seizure mentioned by DTG, above.  It is interesting to note that as that parish and its neighbourhood declined there wasn’t a jot of help from the archdiocese.  When through community effort and community they partially revitalized their neighbourhood to the tune of the properties now being worth over $9m dollars the archdiocese suddenly got interested and demanded the buildings and the money even though they didn’t own them.

Everything you need to know about the RCC right there, especially when apologists want to wave off the sins of the rapacious past and say, “oh, that’s old history, the church doesn’t do that any more”.

It’s a bit like the child molestation settlement in LA, isn’t it?  There was remarkably little comment on the fact that the LA church, faced with almost three quarters of a BILLION dollars worth of payouts was able to come up with the cash by selling off assets and lands just in the LA area.  Not bad for a religion based on a poverty-advocating itinerant carpenter.

I’m with Dana, too.  The Catholic Church has worked very hard over 2k years to say “our way or the highway” in deliberately conflating dogma and doctrine and organization.  Catholics should vote with their feet and money.  (They are already doing this, in part; the congregations are aging as fewer and fewer young people put up with this.)

And shall we mention the profit motive that dare not speak its name, the Catholic Church’s deep involvement in and massive income from healthcare?  I know that my non-Catholic doctor is based out of a Catholic hospital—how about yours?

This is utterly unheard of.

Actually, I vaguely remember around election time that some Catholic church was telling people that they shouldn’t take Communion if they voted for Obama, because he’s pro-choice.  Then there was the ex-communication of everyone involved in helping a 9 year-old rape victim get an abortion.

Murderers and rapists are welcome in their church, but anyone who doesn’t do everything in their power to outlaw abortion is shunned.

I feel pretty safe in saying that this is actually the majority of Catholics, who when pressed will tell you that, e.g., the birth control pill is just fine

Absolutely correct… not just a majority, a supermajority.

According to a 2005 Gallup Poll, 78% of American Catholics support allowing Catholics to use birth control.

Religious organizations are entitled to their own rules about who is allowed to participate in what function, and to enforce these rules.

Umm, nobody said that they shouldn’t legally have that right.  However, we are entitled to criticize their rules, which is what we are doing.  They can do whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept it.

catgirl, in fairness to Dana, I think that’s his point, too.  The Catholic Church has rules.  If most of its laity disagree with those rules they can and should go.  There’s no point in staying if you can’t change it and don’t believe in it, so the argument goes.  The RCC likes to have it both ways: to say that “the Church” isn’t just the organization and the hierarchy yet the laity are to be silent sheep in the face of that hierarchy.  It won’t be until they face empty coffers that they start to rethink their views.

I’m really glad to see that grandmother take a stance and stop donating.  It’s also encouraging to think that the church is in trouble because so many Americans are leaving it.  However, America isn’t the only country in the world, and the Catholic church still has a huge following, especially in South and Central America.  It’s the state religion in some countries.  I just don’t think we should be making funeral plans yet.

seeker6079 @ #26:

The St. Stanislaus debacle may have been the most controversial event during Burke’s tenure in St. Louis, but it was only one of many that drove tons of St. Louis Catholics away from the church.

In 2007, he threw a hissy-fit because Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital held a charity event at the Fox Theater with Sheryl Crow as the headline act.  Since Crow is pro-choice, Burke threatened to resign from the hospital’s BoD unless her invitation to perform was rescinded.  Thanks to Bob Costas and the rest of the BoD, they basically told Burke to piss off, so he resigned and stormed off like a petulant child.

In 2008, during the presidential primaries, Saint Louis University men’s basketball coach Rick Majerus publicly supported abortion rights and stem-cell research at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries.  Since SLU is a Catholic university, Burke tried to strong arm the university president, Fr. Lawrence Biondi, into forcing Majerus to resign.  Biondi has never been one to be pushed around by the STL archdiocese - Burke’s predecessor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, unsuccesfully tried to get JP2 to intervene and stop Biondi from selling the university hospital in the 1990s.  Majerus was a very high-profile acquisition for SLU (he had previously led the University of Utah to the NCAA Finals in his last coaching job), so again, Burke was told to piss off and he went whining about it.

I haven’t been Catholic in forever, but Burke’s incessant whining was pretty unavoidable in the news here, as he was always freaking out about something or other.

We can haz end to tax echzemptun plz?

I’m really glad to see that grandmother take a stance and stop donating.  It’s also encouraging to think that the church is in trouble because so many Americans are leaving it.  However, America isn’t the only country in the world, and the Catholic church still has a huge following, especially in South and Central America.  It’s the state religion in some countries.  I just don’t think we should be making funeral plans yet.

Yup.  While their numbers have declined in the United States in most of Europe, they’re still growing elsewhere, not just in Central and South America, but in Africa and Asia as well.  One of the possible candidates (called “papabile”) to succeed B16 when he kicks the bucket is Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze.  Yes, it’s possible that the next pope may be a black man.  Should it happen, it would hold some symbolic meaning, but not much hope for a shift in the RCC’s ultraconservative doctrine.  Arinze is so damn conservative he makes Alan Keyes look like Stokely Carmichael.  He would be a likely shift rightward from both JP2 and B16.

I have no idea how long the RCC will live on for, but with 1.1 Billion members worldwide (roughly 1/6 of earth’s total population), it’s still by far the world’s largest Christian denomination, and is not far behind all of Islam (Shia and Sunni combined) in total adherents.  I imagine it’s the wealthiest religion in the world, as well -  the Vatican itself is considered to be the world’s most valuable art collection, more valuable than even the Louvre.  Needless to say, we’ll all be long since dead before the Catholic Church goes away completely.

DTG:
I have seen mentioned that the RCC’s problem is that it’s membership (and outlays) are going up in third world countries but its membership (and income!) are going down in the first world.  (There is also the fact that only the first world is holding the RCC to account for clerical misconduct: billions out in child rape cases.) 

I recall reading a good breakdown of it years ago (sorry, no link) where the author posed the rhetorical question of how much longer (at a purely fiscal level) the church could afford to drive out the folks who are paying the bills.

I have no idea how long the RCC will live on for, but with 1.1 Billion members worldwide (roughly 1/6 of earth’s total population), it’s still by far the world’s largest Christian denomination, and is not far behind all of Islam (Shia and Sunni combined) in total adherents.  I imagine it’s the wealthiest religion in the world, as well - the Vatican itself is considered to be the world’s most valuable art collection, more valuable than even the Louvre.  Needless to say, we’ll all be long since dead before the Catholic Church goes away completely.

I wonder how much money they can raise if they were based primarily in South America and Africa, however?

We can haz end to tax echzemptun plz?

The biggest obstacle to that happening is the fact that the RCC has edherents on both sides of the political aisle, more so than most of the fundie evangelical denominations.

The RCC holds some liberal positions - it supports universal healthcare in principal (that is, universal in everything women’s reproductive rights), it supports the rights of labor unions, it opposes the death penalty, it opposes pre-emptive war, and it supports a humane immigration policy.  Most self-described liberals who still consider themselves Catholics do so because they share these positions… I believe that’s a big part of why the Kennedy family still considers itself strongly Catholic.  I could be wrong on my numbers, but I believe there are probably almost as many Catholic Democrats in Congress as there are Catholic Republicans.  The Vice President is one, as is Senator Kerry, as are six of the nine SCOTUS justices, including the newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor.  And one year ago, Barack Obama beat John McCain by 9 points among Catholic voters, 54%-45%.  The RCC has managed to infiltrate BOTH of our political parties in a way that no other religion has.

As such, I’m not holding my breath on them losing their tax exemption status anytime soon.  They may have the safest tax exemption status of any religious group in America.

One additional thought:
It may not matter for religions like Islam, Judaism and Hinduism, for example, to have vast numbers of adherents with no money.  It does matter—and matter a great deal—for the RCC, which is not only a religion, but a state with a rigid organization to maintain, an organization which is actually integrated with its religious message. 

Put another way, you can’t have a poor Catholic church.  You can have a mosque pretty much anywhere you can have a room and an imam, for example; you can’t have a Catholic church with an ordained priest to perform the sacraments held necessary for salvation.

The RCC holds some liberal positions

It just doesn’t put any weight or money or manpower behind any of them.

  The RCC holds some liberal positions

It just doesn’t put any weight or money or manpower behind any of them.

Ding ding ding.

When was the last time you heard of a right-wing or hard-right catholic being denied the sacraments because he advocated the death penalty, or was against health care, or voted for a war of aggression?  (Sound of crickets chirping.)

Exactly, Seebach, exactly.

Yeah, what Seebach said. They only find motivation in fucking people over, never for raising people up.

the American RCC is still a fabulously wealthy institution, with billions of dollar in assets and property all over the country.
You should see the nice houses they have up here!

While I greatly respect the Catholic Church and its leaders, like many Rhode Islanders, the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic,’’ Kennedy wrote in a letter to Tobin.”
Actually, yes it does.  That’s part of the problem.

Actually, not so much.  Conscience is primary, and while Asshole Bishop can deny communion, he can’t matter of fact KNOW that Kennedy is a sinner.

You think formerly excommunicated Richard Williamson thought himself a sinner, even while excommunicated?  No, he believed he was right and all would be well with God when he died.  And looky!  Re-communication!

JPII was a horrible man.  His name is a lie, since he was a conservative reply to the liberal policies enacted by John, Paul and promoted by John Paul I.  Calling himself JPII was a political move, and he worked his damnedest to revoke V2.  He got some just deserts with his Parkinson’s, b/c instead of being allowed to die in peace, Ratzi was there using him as a prop to continue the Correctors’ reformation.

Thing is, as shitty as the Catholic Church is at teaching the faith to its adherents, American Catholics can read.  Liberal ones are used to shrugging their shoulders at the conservatives, who are just as much “cafeteria Catholics” as any other (Latin Masses?  Seriously?  and they claim they’re NOT picking and choosing?)

I have personal experience with the runnings of the richest parish in the Chicagoland area.  George put two complete assholes in charge, men who were either perverts or embezzlers on top of being Corrector types.

Donations plummeted.

Rome finally made George listen to the parishoners and give them an old fashioned, pro-V2 priest.

Hateful authoritarians can work on poor illiterates.  Once you have to deal with people who expect to be respected as well?  The money can go away quickly.

Rome is about the money.  Individual parishes can still be run by good men who actually believe in loving your neighbor and enjoy caring for the sick, but as for the hierarchy?

Get back to me once Law has been returned to Boston and had his luxury suites and stipend stripped away.  He abetted the rape of children.  He deserves to face the music.  Strip the Chicago Archdiocese from George: he refused to follow the rules set down by the USBCC, refused to listen to a NUN who reported abuse, and at least 2 more children were abused because of it. 

Won’t happen, of course, since the hierarchy of the RCC is going the way of the GOP—>weeding down to the “purest”.  The liberal Catholics are enabling them b/c they love the Church, the community, the traditions, the schools, and the ideas.  But there is only so much anyone can take, and demanding respect instead of earning it is going to be the downfall of the USRC.

I don’t think they care.  I think they’re happy with a smaller US church, just so long as the $$$ keeps rolling in

“Judge not lest ye be judged, unless it’s about abortion in which case judge like a motherfucker.”

Extortion: what Jesus would do.

I find it hard to get myself worked up over what one Christian does to another.  I just wish they’d leave the rest of us alone.  Patrick Kennedy, if he is a believing Catholic, is just as misguided as the members of the local hell and brimstone snake handling bible thumping churches in my area.  The basis of his faith is the same as their’s, a belief in a creator and ruler of the universe that doesn’t exist.  Their little inside struggles over which verses of a book written by ancient herdsmen for a handful of desert tribesmen is relevant only in how much their beliefs affect the rest of us.

I am so tired of people trying to run my life according to their superstitions.

I like the fact that Patrick Kennedy willingly reported what the bishop said to him publicly and without shame.  But I wonder how all this will play in Rep. Kennedy’s district?  I understand that Rhode Island is overwhelmingly Catholic.  On the other hand, they voted him in knowing his pro-choice stance, so I imagine this won’t hurt him terribly.

Latin Masses?  Seriously?  and they claim they’re NOT picking and choosing?

Poseurs.  Masses should be in Aramaic.

Magis wrote:

t’s bad enough, but this is one step further.  It is de facto excommunication.

No, not by a long shot.  Certain Catholics cannot take communion—the best example here would be remarried Catholics—but they are welcome in church.  Excommunication is entirely different; someone who is excommunicated isn’t welcome on the property.

If Representative Kennedy went to his parish priest, went through reconciliation, and changd his positions, he’d once again be eligible for communion.  Someone who has been excommunicated must have that ban lifted by the diocesian bishop.

To be more precise, a bishop can delegate the power to lift an excommunication, and certain orders, like the Redemptorists, who normally work in out-of-the-way missions, have the authority to lift an excommunication.

No, not by a long shot.  Certain Catholics cannot take communion—the best example here would be remarried Catholics—but they are welcome in church.

No cookies, but they still want your money and your ass in a pew. Nice.

If you are cut off from holy eucharist, you’re pretty much ex’ed out of communion, now aren’t you?  You’re splitting hairs.  What’s next, an interdict on any state not electing the candidates of the Church’s choice.

Magis, it isn’t splitting hairs; excommunication is a very specific thing.  You apparently know something about the subject, since you seem to know what an interdict is.

I work in a Catholic church as a musician, and I enjoy tithing 10% of my pay to LGBT causes.

Oh, and I also give to Planned Parenthood.

Dana:

I still say pedantry.  I cannot feel I’m a Catholic if I cannot participate in the central sacrament.  Just because they deign to let me sit in their church and give them money every week doesn’t mean I feel that I have a communion with Christ.  How DARE they!  Kennedy should nail a 96th Thesis on their effin’ door.

I still have a great love in my heart for Holy Mother Church but I refuse, just refuse as a matter of conscience, to let them dictate political policy to me or any of my representatives.  “Render unto Cæsar what is Cæsar’s and unto God what is God’s.”

Comment #32: catgirl on 11/23 at 01:56 PM

However, America isn’t the only country in the world, and the Catholic church still has a huge following, especially in South and Central America.

I really don’t think that Latin American Catholics in general are more observant than American ones.—just more socially conservative, which makes them look like they’re more observant.  In my experience from growing up in a Latin American city, the “cafeteria Catholic” phenomenon is also very common there; people will go to church because they recognize some authority in the institution, but pick and choose which parts of the teachings they agree with, and will often express disagreement with church teachings and policy.

Magis:  So why aren’t you a Protestant?  The Episcopalians would love to have you, I’m sure.  Why is it that you have so many arguments with the Church, yet feel bound up in her?

This seems to be a Catholic phenomenon: for Protestants, when they disagree with the church in which they were reared, they usually stop calling themselves whatever denomination they used to hold.  But Catholics, for the most part, still say they are Catholic.

I find it hard to get myself worked up over what one Christian does to another.  I just wish they’d leave the rest of us alone.  Patrick Kennedy, if he is a believing Catholic, is just as misguided as the members of the local hell and brimstone snake handling bible thumping churches in my area.

I disagree with this assertion.  While I don’t consider myself a Catholic or Xtian anymore, I don’t think you can put people like Patrick Kennedy (or his late father, Ted) in the same box of crazy as assholes like Pastor Hagee or Bill Donahue.

If by “leave the rest of us alone” you think you’re speaking for the majority… you’re wrong.  We’re decidedly not the majority, here, or almost anywhere, if “the rest of us” refers to atheists and agnostics.  Christians make up 33% of humanity (RCC + all other denominations).  Muslims make up roughly 25% of humanity.  3 out of every 5 human beings consider themselves adherents to some Abrahamic religion.  “The rest of us” are extremely outnumbered.

I disagree with most of the teachings of the RCC (and all organized Christianity, for that matter), but that doesn’t mean I see every person who considers themselves a member of any Christian religion an automatic foe.  And I don’t think Patrick Kennedy is “just as misguided” as a lot of the hateful leaders running the RCC, or any Xtian denomination for that matter.

The vast majority of people are neither all bad nor all good.  The world just ain’t that black and white.  While I may consider the Kennedy family’s strong allegiance to the RCC a strike against them, I believe that strike is mostly outweighed by many of the good things that they have done (well, several of them anyway).

I like the fact that Patrick Kennedy willingly reported what the bishop said to him publicly and without shame.  But I wonder how all this will play in Rep. Kennedy’s district?  I understand that Rhode Island is overwhelmingly Catholic.  On the other hand, they voted him in knowing his pro-choice stance, so I imagine this won’t hurt him terribly.

American Catholics are not as uniformly Republican as many other denominations are…

Case in point, 54% of American Catholics voted for Barack Obama, only 45% voted for McCain.

The institution and hierarchy of the RCC is decidedly a very socially conservative organization; it’s members in America are not nearly as conservative as the institution they belong to.

DTG puts his finger on it.

Really, the current command structure of the RCC vis-avis- the laity is fascinatingly comparable to the current makeup of the US Senate and media compared to the public: as the public has drifted left in it social and economic views the boss and propaganda classes have drifted to the right and sought to “lock in” their power and views as they do so. 

Would there have been a public call for better health care in the 50s?  No, but there is now.  Had there been such a public call would, say, the Eisenhower administration have been its implacable opponent?  Probably not.  Likewise, take a look at birth control as just one example: the public is FAR more in favour of it now but the RCC is full of JP2 and Ratzi clones; back in the 60s there were enough (now-extinct) liberal bishops and cardinals to get it close to being approved.

Magis:  So why aren’t you a Protestant?

I didn’t say I was still a Catholic.  I said, I have affection for the Church.  As far as being an Episcopalian, et. al., why does one have to identify with a sect to accept Christ?

‘Kay, then.  I’m a feminist, queer-huggin, jesus guy.  We (I) meet at my breakfast table every morning.  The RCC can have me back when they deserve me.

“Now faith is supposed to be, in my mind, a private matter, and once church crosses over into state, as the Church has, all bets are off.”

But the personal is political, remember?  You’d have to remove most of the commandments to make religion fit into that tiny box of “no political beliefs.”

If I can decide what’s good and evil, I can decide in my church of oldfeminist that, if you speak out against the superiority of cats to dogs, I can refuse to give you the sacrament of OF.  If you did it in a book, to all your friends, or from the Senate floor, wouldn’t matter.  If you aren’t in good standing with the OF church then you can’t be married in the OF church and your kids can’t be baptised OF.  And so on.

If you don’t like it, then you can leave the OF church. 

The problem isn’t that the RC church can call down the wrath of God and threaten you with going to hell to try to force you to do things you don’t want to.  I could do the same thing with my church of OF.

The problem is that people listen to that bullshit, because religions got to them before the age of reason. 

The answer isn’t to demand that the RC church not ban someone from Mass.  It’s to get people to realize that it’s bullshit.

I’m not at all convinced about making churches pay taxes, because then they’d think they deserve something for the money they pay.  If you think clamoring for anti-abortion laws is bad now, imagine when the RC church can say, “we give you $XXXX and you give us DEAD BAYBEEEZ!”

I still say pedantry.  I cannot feel I’m a Catholic if I cannot participate in the central sacrament.  Just because they deign to let me sit in their church and give them money every week doesn’t mean I feel that I have a communion with Christ.  How DARE they!  Kennedy should nail a 96th Thesis on their effin’ door.
Comment #58: Magis on 11/23 at 04:40 PM

So many Catholics are like battered spouses.  I love them, feel bad for them, but I don’t have to believe the stories they tell themselves in order to accept the hopeless situation they’re in.

It’s not your church.  It’s their church, that’s how they dare to do it.  If you think it’s your church, think again.  Who’s giving money to whom?  Who makes the rules and enforces them?  Just because you can “cheat” by using BC doesn’t mean you won.  You mouth the platitudes and you’re still the “bad girl/boy.”

If you don’t like it, then join a church that has a different hierarchy, or doesn’t have a hierarchy at all, so you and the other members get to decide who is in and who is out, or decide not to leave anyone out.  Call it the real catholics or open source catholic church or something.  You’d have millions following you within a week.

Until Catholics who disagree with the hierarchy grow some hair and, en masse, tell Daddy they’re leaving, they’re perpetuating their own misery.  And that of their children, if they have any, because they’ll grow up thinking that God has these strange rules about their body.  And that is the less-excusable part.

If you think some guy telling you you can’t take Mass means you’re not communing with Jesus, but you disagree with that guy’s opinion, then vote with your feet.  [The character of] Jesus wouldn’t stand for it, so why should you?

Yes, it would be hard.  Do you think it’s better to enable the power-hungry jerks that infest the RC hierarchy?

I should add that the “you” above refers to Catholics in general, since Magis isn’t a Catholic.

Well, Old….

How’s that for cross-posting?

Again….

I disagree with most of the teachings of the RCC (and all organized Christianity, for that matter), but that doesn’t mean I see every person who considers themselves a member of any Christian religion an automatic foe.

Come visit the atheist thread below.  I think you may be in the minority, at least from what Opo and I have been getting.

I disagree with most of the teachings of the RCC (and all organized Christianity, for that matter), but that doesn’t mean I see every person who considers themselves a member of any Christian religion an automatic foe.

Come visit the atheist thread below.  I think you may be in the minority, at least from what Opo and I have been getting.

I read the post, which was very good, but haven’t really perused the comments.

I don’t have a simple view on this stuff.  I no longer consider myself a Xtian, but I am not on any sort of mission to disprove the existence of Jesus, or even to try to prove that everything Xtians believe is wrong (though I think many of the things that they believe are wrong, and I have huge problems with efforts to impose religious dogma on society as a whole)

I don’t have a fundamental problem with theism, but I have many issues with the majority of organized religions, which is why I belong to none.  I do not claim to believe in God, nor do I claim to not believe in God.  When someone asks me whether or not I believe in God, my answer is “I don’t know.”  Just as much as I have doubts about God’s existence, I also have doubts about God’s non-existence.

The reason I don’t claim to be an atheist is because I can’t say with certainty that I absolutely don’t believe in the existence of some greater unseen force in the universe.  By the same token, I would not feel comfortable telling any atheist that they are wrong, because I don’t know that they are wrong.  Sometimes I don’t believe there is a God, other times I do think there is a God, and most often I think that it is possible that there is God, without definitively believing that there absolutely is or there absolutely isn’t a God.  Or even Gods.

As such, I consider myself an agnostic… maybe there is a God, maybe there isn’t.  For me, I don’t feel comfortable with having an absolute certitude about the matter.  Others, whether they be avowed atheists or devout Xtians, may feel completely comfortable with their non-belief or belief.  Which I have no problem with, otherwise I would have few friends.  The only thing I don’t like is being told that I must either believe or not believe.  I say bullshit.

For all that we have discovered through science and reason throughout our history, there is so much yet that we do not know or understand, so much yet to be discovered.  Many of these unanswered questions will be resolved through science and reason, but I don’t think we’ll ever hit a point in which we possess absolute human knowledge of all things in the universe.  So while I don’t belong to a religion and don’t have any specific concept of God that I pray to or worship, I’m always open to the possibility that everything I think I know may be wrong.

All of the God stuff could just be a bunch of fairy tales that people use as a means of coping with the emotional struggles of being a human being.  Maybe it is.  While I’ll always criticize the many injustices I see perpetrated through organized religion, I’ll never begrudge a person their right to believe in some concept of God, if they really think that having that belief will make their life more bearable.  Just don’t tell me that I have to believe what you believe, and we’re good.

So the RCC is an anti-woman, anti-gay hate organization. Whoda thunk it?

I applaud Bishop Tobin.  I am sick to death of politicians who try to pass themselves off as authentically Roman Catholic while public flaunting there dissent with basic Church teaching.  Grandma is free to stop donating, and I quit giving to the Bishop’s appeal because of the way the Church has handled the sex abuse crisis.  Instead, I have increased my giving to my parish and to Roman Catholic causes and groups tha I am am comfortable with.  That means groups which are authentically Catholic and uphod publically and privately Church teaching. 

There is obviously a lot of misunderstanding of Church teaching and the difference between what is prudential and what is not.  Hence the failure to understand that Church teaching on the death penalty is not a dogmatic teaching which must be accepted.  Of course, most of the readers and commenters here are anticatholic in their views and the vitriol towards the Church is quite out in the open.

Hence the failure to understand that Church teaching on the death penalty is not a dogmatic teaching which must be accepted.

The Just War doctrine isn’t a dogmatic teaching, either, just something JPII came up with on his own so you could ignore it when he said that the Iraq War is not a just war and should not be supported by any Catholic?

Face it, dude.  You’re just as much of a cafeteria Catholic as you accuse the rest of us of being.  You pick and choose what to support just as much as we do.  The only difference is that you’re a hypocrite about it.

Of course, most of the readers and commenters here are anticatholic in their views and the vitriol towards the Church is quite out in the open.

Yeah, we tend to have a problem here with the coverup of the rape of children. We understand not everyone agrees on the basic morality of rape, as there are some who do continue to associate with criminal organizations. But it is a free country.

The bottom line about all this is that the Roman Catholic Church thinks it can have it both ways.  Funding primarily from German and American Catholics, and growing ranks of congregants from the Third World, Africa and Central/South America in particular.

But they can’t.  American and German Catholics are increasingly wanting a more inclusive church focused on grace.  Potential congregants in the Third World are made up increasingly of folks who want a more strictly defined refuge, in part due to who they follow in particular as their Bishop or local priest, in part due to the maelstrom much of daily life in the Third World has become for so many.

The Roman Catholic Church, unlike the Protestants in general (of which I’m one), has tended to accept many paths within the church itself without drawing too close attention to it.  But the current leadership seems very determined to move away from this attitude, towards one and only one acceptable path for the faith without exceptions, and they think they have the cards to pull it off.

Personally, I think they’re whistling in the dark. 

I think the optimistic path is a southern-oriented church who has to devour itself over time to survive financially, with ugly battles throughout North America and Western Europe over allocation of assets and congregations moving towards the Episcopalians or asserting a Catholic faith independent of Rome.  It will take a couple of decades for it to complete the process, but I believe it’s coming.

Similar story:

My mum did this back in ‘04 after all the crap being spewed against Kerry—the “no communion” type stuff.  She was pretty darn stuck in Catholicism, since that was the culture she was brought up in.  She forced me to go to church for several extra years after I wanted to quit because, “I promised blah blah blah when you were baptized!” and she would tell me in a nyah-nyah tone that “You’ll always be Catholic because you were baptized Catholic! (haw haw)”  She would try to get me to go to church even after I’d quit going—do things like wake me up early on Sunday and ask if I wanted to go, even though she knew I didn’t.  Just to bother me.  She wasn’t a full-blown, 10 kids rabid crazy Catholic, but your average “missing church is a sin but condoms aren’t” type of American Catholic. 

And then five years ago the church officials started pulling crap with John Kerry and she got pissed.  She tends to overreact to things that make her angry (spoiled upbringing, so she’s pretty selfish and gets totally POed when she doesn’t get her way) so she said that if Bush won the election it was proof there was no god and she would never go to church again. 

So she hasn’t been to church in 5 years.  Instead of $20 a week to the church, she gave bunches of money to and PP and NOW and whomever else, since the RNC doesn’t like women having rights.  It’s kind of funny because she hates most women and thinks people who get abortions are her intellectual inferior (“Well, *I* never had a condom failure, so only STUPID people have condom failures!”), but supports those organizations nonetheless. 

Well anyway, I was proud of her for casting off the shackles of Catholicism.  And now she never bothers me about church anymore.

”Hence the failure to understand that Church teaching on the death penalty is not a dogmatic teaching which must be accepted.”

How convenient

”This seems to be a Catholic phenomenon: for Protestants, when they disagree with the church in which they were reared, they usually stop calling themselves whatever denomination they used to hold.”

Not really

In theory, Protestant denominations are not hierarchical, so you can just go to a different congregation or if most of the congregation disagrees with the pastor they fire him and get a new one, or if the congregation disagrees with the larger organization they don’t have to follow its dictates.  Even when the majority of Baptist congregations opposed slavery, and the SBC was formed to support it, they were still Baptists

In practice, American Protestants don’t bother to switch congregations if they disagree – They just ignore what they don’t like, they are as much “Cafeteria Protestants” as American Catholics are “Cafeteria Catholics”

But they can’t.  American and German Catholics are increasingly wanting a more inclusive church focused on grace.

I can’t speak for German Catholics, but grace is one of them wacky Protestant things that American Catholics don’t hold with.  It’s the whole “grace vs. works” debate between Protestantism and Catholicism and Catholics always come down on the side of works.

Of course, there is a long-standing historical tradition of the laity ignoring the priests entirely and doing what they want.  But that doesn’t make it dogma.

Except that it is.  Conscience is primary.  The reason the laity ignores the hierarchy is b/c the hierarchy is made up of men who are fallible.  80% of Catholics use birth control, not just b/c it’s convenient, but because it makes sense.  They don’t believe a bunch of celibate men really understand what sex is about, how important it is to a successful marriage, nor how expensive in time, money and emotional support each child is. 

It’s because they believe the men in albs are wrong that they use birth control.  In their own consciences, they know they are clear of sin, no matter what the bishops say.  That’s dogma.

They can still be excommunicated, but if your conscience is clear, God will know and still let you into heaven.

It’s why “cafeteria Catholics” exist—and yes you conservatives, you pick and choose just as much so accept that fact that you are cafeteria Catholics.

They are ALL cafeteria Catholics.  and Kennedy can find a parish where a priest will be happy to give him Communion, because there are still liberal Catholic churches that believe in justice and equality.

So… how much are papal indulgences selling for these days?

Did anyone already suggest that municipalities take away funding they give to the Catholic church and redistribute it to non-profit organizations? Here in DC the Catholic diocese is threatening to stop doing as Jesus said and feed the poor because the DC city council thinks gay people are human beings who should get married if they want to. I am pushing for the DC city council to call their bluff and give the money they usually funnel to them to other charities that feed to ridiculously large homeless population in this city. I hope this is something that can be done nationwide because their wallet is the only place the Catholic archdiocese will actually feel the pain.

Of course, most of the readers and commenters here are anticatholic in their views and the vitriol towards the Church is quite out in the open.

One wonders why a progressive would have animosity towards an organization that collaborated with Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, supports Latin American right-wing dictators, excommunicates Liberation Theology priests who actually do something Jesus-like while bending over to get Pius X people back in and electing an Hitler Youth pope, kept my people in colonial bondage until the 70s by collaborating with the Anglo colonial government of Canada, provides protection for pedophiles, and through state corruption received extra government money by taking all the kids in their church-run orphanages and throwing them into church-run mental health asylums.

(That last one should read ‘all the kids in Quebec’s church-run orphanages’... for all I know, the only equivalent outside Quebec is Ireland’s Sisters of Magdalene.)