quote:Originally posted by katharina: The Catholic church is not the only religious organization out there. It isn't only Catholicism or nothing.
Personally, I think it's much easier to move from religion to atheism. It's a tectonic shift in how to view the world, with clear and immediate differences in philosophy and consequence.
But moving from one religion to another? On what basis do you change your opinion? At some point, the believer would have to come up with a rationale for rejecting her old religion that somehow doesn't also apply to her new religion.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath, but whatever works for you, Lalo.
What baby is there among all this bathwater? There are good elements to the Church -- the Jesuits, the Missionaries of Charity -- but nothing that can't be better performed by a secular, accountable organization.
If nothing else, you should see the Church hierarchy as a vicious leech on whatever good comes out of the Church. Good things can still be done without Catholic dogma attached to it.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Here I would, again, disagree. Catholic dogma, when we get it right, can be wondrous. Our doctrine is not all bishops and Popes.
Apprently, the "doctrine" is that people who try to help a 9-year-old incest victim get a medically-needed abortion are denied communion. The kinds of men who would impregnate a 9-year-old girl are allowed to serve it.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Here I would, again, disagree. Catholic dogma, when we get it right, can be wondrous. Our doctrine is not all bishops and Popes.
I'm Catholic, at least by birth and culture. And I'd argue that a huge part of our religion is tied up in Church hierarchy -- and even more so in stupid mandates against birth control, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and so on. Hence why the Catholic League, for example, spends so much time and money lobbying against gays and abortion.
I really dislike Sarah Silverman, but she made a good point in a recent standup. If the Church really cared about Christianity... why don't they sell the Vatican? In other words, if the Church really believed in all that "wondrous" doctrine you celebrate, why isn't it a more Christian institution?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say to both of you that that is not, by a long shot, the whole of the Church. Yes, no question, there is plenty that we need to fix - I would say the same for just about any organization - but that is not all we are.
I don't know that we are going to agree on this and that is okay. If you like, I can refer you to some Catholic organizations that are doing good work. Again, if you have found something that works better for, that is great.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would say to both of you that that is not, by a long shot, the whole of the Church. Yes, no question, there is plenty that we need to fix - I would say the same for just about any organization - but that is not all we are.
I don't know that we are going to agree on this and that is okay. If you like, I can refer you to some Catholic organizations that are doing good work. Again, if you have found something that works better for, that is great.
So because there are some good elements within the Church, it's worth saving the enormously disproportionate corruption attached to them?
Let's say this is your political party, completely hijacked by corrupt bureaucrats and caught in a huge child-rape scandal. Would you still vote for them? If this were your university, would you transfer out? If it were any organization but a religious one that attacked children and protected their rapists, wouldn't you decry it as corrupt and demand reforms that, if enacted, would essentially destroy and redefine the existing institution?
Your answer is exactly why I want to see the world move away from religion. Blind loyalty like yours -- seriously, "Yes, no question, there is plenty that we need to fix - I would say the same for just about any organization"? -- ensures that no reform of consequence will ever come to the Church.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is as disproportionate as you think it is. Clearly. People who care and who work to change the institution and more likely to make real change than those who abandon it. I did not, for example, leave my country when we screwed up; I did what I could to correct it. And changing religions is not like changing political parties or universities. And I think you know that.
Have you been reading what I have written here? Did you read the article that I quoted? What makes you think that my loyalty is "blind"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I'd say it is a very good bet that boots, along with many other people, don't agree with your view of the extent of this problem.
For example, the idea that every priest is either a child molester or is complicit in the cover-up for them appears to me to be either ridiculously hyperbolic or downright delusional.
The Catholic Church is facing a serious problem and the hierarchy appears to be taking a very wrong path with it, but, while I doubt anyone would see me as a blind defender or either the Catholic Church or its high officials, I don't see this as anywhere close to being a situation where "burn it to the ground" is a reasonable solution.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is a serious, deep-rooted, and tragic problem. I think that the clericalism and secrecy that allowed this problem to fester is also an enormous problem. And I understand the anger that would inspire the "burn it to the ground" attitude. But I don't think that Catholicism requires either clericalism or secrecy and that it can and will flourish without them while keeping that which is good. It won't be easy, but there are good people - like Fr. Doyle who are working tirelessly for this. He is as much the Church as any of the bishops.
I should add for full disclosure that Fr. Thomas Doyle is my cousin.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, kmbboots, I admire that you've been keeping a very level and compassionate stance in this thread, so I apologize for injecting unnecessary snark.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No problem and thanks. It is, clearly, not a true statement but when the cover-up goes all the way to the top, it does "infect" the whole Church. There are a lot of angry Catholics (and ex-Catholics) out there and they should be at least heard.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: In any case, looking at your posts on this thread, it doesn't look like we disagree on much. You want civil justice to try these priests rather than backroom Catholic tribunals. You want massive internal reform of the Church, which I feel is the next best alternative to the Church becoming irrelevant to the modern world. And your main issue with me is that you feel that the vast majority of priests don't know about the molesters among them. Right?
What I want clarification on is your suggestion that if the church excommunicated every pedopriest, there would be none left. it implies that the church has literally nothing but child molester priests. what's the deal with that and why is it worthwhile dialog on the church? :/
quote:As far as I can tell, you're offended by the thought that this scandal extends beyond a tiny minority of molesters.
No, I acknowledge the systemic and institutional nature of the church's dysfunction and I too question through what indolences and malaldaptive processes reach so far as to make it so hard for them to make these changes when they are very greatly vital to the church's credibility and future as a social institution
quote:The Church is unfixably corrupt, and dreams that it'll reform itself are naive.
I don't believe that at all. It's not like the church has been in worse places than this, historically. More corrupt, more abusive, etc. Was it an unfixable institution then?
quote:For god's sake, look at Benedict's railings against liberals to get an idea of his desire for reform. The only solution I see is European -- that someday soon, the world will abandon religion and this corrupt institution will fade into irrelevance.
This is, for sure, the only solution you can conceive of?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pope Benedict, facing the worst crisis of his papacy as a sexual abuse scandal sweeps the Catholic church, declared today he would not be "intimidated" by "petty gossip"
At this point the church would probably be better served with total silence if this is how they're going to handle it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Lalo, I'd say it is a very good bet that boots, along with many other people, don't agree with your view of the extent of this problem.
For example, the idea that every priest is either a child molester or is complicit in the cover-up for them appears to me to be either ridiculously hyperbolic or downright delusional.
The Catholic Church is facing a serious problem and the hierarchy appears to be taking a very wrong path with it, but, while I doubt anyone would see me as a blind defender or either the Catholic Church or its high officials, I don't see this as anywhere close to being a situation where "burn it to the ground" is a reasonable solution.
Of course not every priest knew about molestation, but it's a far more significant number than only those directly caught committing or covering up rape. And the higher up you go in the hierarchy, the more likely you are to find people who've committed or covered up rape.
Here's Andrew Sullivan on the subject. If you read his blog, there's a number of entries on the coverup, the faux-outrage of the Church against the "liberal media," and so on. Warning: he's angry about this as only a gay man can be.
But even this long-running child-molestation ring aside... why not burn the Church to the ground, metaphorically? Boots, I don't mean this as a rude question: what moral guidance has the Pope ever provided you? What role model does he play for you? What value is he, or any of the Vatican, in making the world a better place?
My mentor as a teenager was a saintly teacher at my high school, the most devout Catholic I've ever known. Easily the most patient man I've ever known. I baited him constantly, and he always responded calmly and with good humor. I suspect that when you think of Catholicism, you think of him. People like him (and you, I imagine) who are decent, loving, and dedicated to improving the lives of people around you. That's a huge part of what individual Catholic communities are about, and I think that's what you want to preserve.
But there's an enormous disconnect between you and the bureaucrats who run the Church. Honestly, I think the problem is that people identify with Catholicism, and attacks on the Church are internalized -- and rejected -- as attacks on individuals or communities. Likewise, these identity politics compel believers to subscribe to mandates against birth control and homosexuality that they wouldn't necessarily believe in without Church dogma.
Whether you have anything to do with it or not, corruption is very much a part of Catholicism. And since the Church is not in any way a democracy, you have almost no voice in who leads you or protects the priests who rape your children. Faced with an unrepentant Church of repressed old white men wearing bling, I can't imagine you wouldn't choose the (difficult) path of re-evaluating your identity and your religion.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodness, Lalo! The Pope isn't the Church. The Vatican isn't the Church. The Bishops are not the Church. Corruption is part of power
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is just more of kmb's usual response to any criticism of her religion: Anything she does not like is not part of it. It's a very complete form of No True Scotsman.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Catholicism after the religious wars is defined by taking the Pope as its highest authority. You can't reasonably throw that out and still call yourself a Catholic; it's like throwing out celibacy and still calling yourself a Shaker. What you've got isn't Catholicism, or even Christianity, it's a vaguely Jesus-flavoured assertion of superior spirituality.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which religious wars? And, no, the Pope isn't the highest authority or even the head of the Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The religious wars that ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. I think you'll find that your interpretation of Catholic doctrine is the one which historically had fewer guns backing it. And before you object to that metric for deciding who is right, consider that when you abandon reasoning and evidence, as you claim to have done, as your principle, then any dispute of sufficient importance to at least one of the parts must be settled by force. The issue of whether the Pope was head of the Church has, indeed, been settled that way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am reasonably confident that Jesus is the head of the Church. And no need for guns as I don't need to convince you. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes. The next time Jesus gives actual orders or defines Catholic doctrine, be sure to notify everyone. In the meantime, rather than play games with words, how about looking at your church as it actually exists in consensus reality?
As for guns, I believe you may find that a sufficiently vehement denial of Catholic doctrine would lead to you being denied the sacraments, perchance even excommunicated. You would then have the choices of giving over your beliefs, lying about them (as you are doing right now, by omission), or getting some guns together and enforcing your point of view on the church. Or, of course, you could insist that you're still a Catholic except for those minor things like going to confession and suchlike details. Actually that would probably be your approach; it's not as though you believe anything, so why not?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am reasonably confident that Jesus is the head of the Church. And no need for guns as I don't need to convince you.
In another era, not long ago in the long history of humanity, your church would have tortured and burned you alive for your rejection of papal theological authority, as it did to lots of innocent people. And you think that's a joke?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may quickly note that if it is true, that as KoM notes that kmbboots isn't actually Catholic (which has some merit I think), then it hardly makes sense to vent emotions of anger at her.
It would almost be like venting your anger toward the Chinese at Blayne or something. Stick to the calm reasoning.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Here I would, again, disagree. Catholic dogma, when we get it right, can be wondrous. Our doctrine is not all bishops and Popes.
Apprently, the "doctrine" is that people who try to help a 9-year-old incest victim get a medically-needed abortion are denied communion. The kinds of men who would impregnate a 9-year-old girl are allowed to serve it.
In my book, swbarnes just won the thread. hard. What else is there to say, beyond what he said? I'm not saying other religious hierarchies aren't guilty of exactly the same problems. The Krishnas definitely are one. Quite a few religious groups, in general, have been.
That says something about, not just religions, but hierarchies, in my view. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'll correct that by saying that, while the Pope et al are certainly part of the Church, they are not more the Church than the rest of us.
Better?
wow, no, that's not true. like, not at all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I may quickly note that if it is true, that as KoM notes that kmbboots isn't actually Catholic (which has some merit I think), then it hardly makes sense to vent emotions of anger at her.
It would almost be like venting your anger toward the Chinese at Blayne or something. Stick to the calm reasoning.
Honestly I've never gotten the logic for the anger that a lot of the evangelical atheists here seem to show towards people who believe in religion. Why would you be angry at these people?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, my beliefs haven't changed and were quite clearly expressed to my catechists before I converted to Catholicism. None of them had a problem endorsing my reception into full communion. Believe me, there are a whole lot of good Catholics ahead of me in the excommunication line should it come to that.
swbarnes, yes, torture and burning alive was bad. Still is. It was hardly the unique province of the Catholic Church, however, nor was it a uniquely religious punishment. And what I think is silly is KoM's assertion that I would need to take up arms to force my beliefs on anyone. Why, I wouldn't even resort to re-education camps.
steven, yes the situation with the nine-year-old was indeed wrong and tragic and horribly misguided. I believe I said so at the time. So did a lot of other Catholics.
Mucus, thanks (I think) but it is okay. As I wrote, lots of anger needs to be expressed and if I can help with that, great.
Samprimary, "For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body. 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now they are many members, but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 Nay, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary: 23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked; 25 that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26 And whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof. "
MrSquicky, I think that I get it. Faith is dangerous. Faith could be, just as easily - maybe more easily, and certainly has been and will be again used for evil purposes as good. There is no shield against faith in the wrong things, so faith in the right things is also dangerous. If I were an entirely different person, faith could lead me to be a freakin' Hutaree militia member. Of course, if I were inclined to be any kind of militia member, I could find a way to justify that, faith or no faith. Was it Steven Weinberg who said that good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things, but for good people to do evil things requires religion? Or something like that. There is some truth in that. But not the whole truth or even close.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I hate to put this so callously, but these are words in a book which in some ways define the intent of catholic hierarchy. The Pope is a person who is very much so observably and demonstrably in charge of the organization and wields massive power and influence of an organization which is quite obviously run by humans and as such experiences the travails and pitfalls of human error, greed, pride, fallibility, etc.
In spite of poetic resolve (which I think is loosely translated there anyway — 'for the body is one member, but many' only implies that anyone is part of the body of the church, not that all parts of the body of the church are of equal measure in the church, every body is part christ, etc) to identify each member of the church as an equal part of the church, it's only true in the same sense that the CEO of a company is 'not more the company' than a mailroom employee at a subsidiary in Tulsa.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: ... Why would you be angry at these people?
Depends on the person. Depends on the issue. I think you're going to have to be a lot more specific if you want anything better.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: swbarnes, yes, torture and burning alive was bad. Still is. It was hardly the unique province of the Catholic Church, however, nor was it a uniquely religious punishment.
You haven't understood anything. You trying to tell us what your church really is, when we can see the millions of faithful today, and the charming things that your church did over the course of most of its history, it's just not going to work. Obedience to the hierarchy is central to the history of the Catholic church, so much so that they tortured and burned people like you who denied it. That's the history. Those are the facts. You smile about it, as if the idea is so unthinkable as to be a joke, but it's not.
quote:steven, yes the situation with the nine-year-old was indeedwrong and tragic and horribly misguided. I believe I said so at the time. So did a lot of other Catholics.
You seem to be under the impression that your personal disavowal of a position means that it's not really a position of the Catholic church, even when it explicitly affirms it.
That's just not true. There are many, many people who disavow the noixious claims of the Catholic church. They call themselves something other than Catholic. If you take the label, you have to take some of the responsibility. You keep saying that the Catholic church is more than the hierarchy. Well, Catholic beliefs are more than the intersection of official doctrine and your personal beliefs.
quote:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body.
This quote does not help you. If the eye can't be an ear, then the laity can't set doctrine like the Pope does. And if foot is limping, it's not the place of the ear to decide to cut off the foot. That's the brain's job, so to speak, and the ear needs to accept the brain's decisions without question, or the whole body fails.
You couldn't have picked a quote that more thoroughly embodies "You have a place, don't you dare step out of it" if you tried. This is what the hierarchy quotes to the laity when telling them to shut up and fill the offeratory.
quote:Of course, if I were inclined to be any kind of militia member, I could find a way to justify that, faith or no faith.
However, if you strove to believe in things only to the extent that they were falisifiable and well-evidenced, if you constantly reality-checked your beliefs, and occasionally threw away beliefs you discovered to be erroneous, the odds of you believing something destructively wrong would be far, far smaller. Some of those beliefs might be a bit unpleasant, but they would be correct, as opposed to pleasant and wrong.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I may quickly note that if it is true, that as KoM notes that kmbboots isn't actually Catholic (which has some merit I think), then it hardly makes sense to vent emotions of anger at her.
It would almost be like venting your anger toward the Chinese at Blayne or something. Stick to the calm reasoning.
No, she's Catholic -- or believes she is, anyway.
Swbarnes just nailed it exactly. KMBBoots, you seem like a really nice person and a really nice Christian, but you're not Catholic. In fact, the religion I've heard from you so far is... Protestant.
That's totally cool, but let's call a spade a spade. You're not Catholic, even if you want to identify as one.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
St. Paul was still Catholic when he disagreed with St. Peter (and won that argument. Hildegard of Bingham was still Catholic when she defied the canons. Yves Congar was still Catholic when he argued for ecumenicism. John Courtney Murray was still Catholic when he fought for a different relationship between Church and State, The laity that rejected the Arian heresy, still Catholic. The overwhelming majority of American Catholics who disagree with the official teaching on birth control and divorce, still Catholic. The list is as long as the history of the Church.
There is more to the difference between Catholic and Protestant than just the Pope. I am considered Catholic by my priest, by my sponsor, by the candidates and catechumens that I have mentored and by the Catholics that I, personally, have sponsored. Really, I, with the blessings of my parish, helped to teach others what being Catholic means. So, yes, I am responsible for what my Church does and responsible for trying to make it better. So go ahead and "yell" at me. Yelling is okay.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's Andrew Sullivan on the subject. If you read his blog, there's a number of entries on the coverup, the faux-outrage of the Church against the "liberal media," and so on. Warning: he's angry about this as only a gay man can be.
Actually the impression I've gotten, having read him for years, is that he's as angry about this as only a Catholic man can (and should) be. His sexual orientation has nothing to do with his posts on this subject, but his deep love for the Church most definitely does.
What this tells the congregation is that the Catholic church cannot be trusted with your children and seems more annoyed and embarrassed than anything else by this fact. I would expect the leader of my church to be horrified, desperate to make things right, but the pope seems anxious to put it all behind him... which was the problem in the first place.
After Katrina, one writer accurately pegged why Bush's response bugged him so much. Watching the horrible scenes on TV he was desperate, anxious to do something, anything to help, and he never got that impression from Bush. He wanted to know that his president was on the phone screaming at people. Never mind that it might not have been necessary or prudent, he wanted to know that his leader was just as appalled and concerned as he was and in public anyway, it just wasn't there.
Personally I have no problem believing that kmbboots is Catholic. But I really don't think the pope is, anymore.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One question: how are other crimes handled by the church? What if priests steal, or rape adults, or kill? Are they shuffled away or given to police?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's just not true. There are many, many people who disavow the noixious claims of the Catholic church. They call themselves something other than Catholic.
I've been frankly baffled by kmbboots's religious ideas before too, but this particular line seems pretty silly to me. Disavowing bad things the Catholic Church has done promptly makes one cease to be a Catholic?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No; saying "That is not Catholicism" of anything that one happens to disagree with, in defiance of the church's hierarchy redefines Catholicism to the point where it is useless as a definition. If we're going to use the word at all, it should have some meaning. If it has meaning, then kmb is not a Catholic any more than I am; if it is just a meaningless noise, then why bother? I assume kmb would agree that the Irish terrorists who blow people up in the name of 'Catholicism' are not actually Catholic; but if the only criterion is to be self-identification as such, then how can you exclude them? I might as well claim to be Catholic on the grounds that I don't believe in God and eat meat on Fridays!
quote:St. Paul was still Catholic when he disagreed with St. Peter
No he wasn't; there was no Catholic church at the time, so neither of them were Catholic. They were Jewish heretics.
quote:Hildegard of Bingham was still Catholic when she defied the canons.
Dude, she disagreed with her boss about where to place a monastery. Let's see her argue a point of doctrine.
quote: Yves Congar was still Catholic when he argued for ecumenicism.
He suggested that the Protestants might have some decent points, and was removed from teaching or publishing.
quote:The overwhelming majority of American Catholics who disagree with the official teaching on birth control and divorce, still Catholic.
No they're not. The Church hasn't got around to excomming them yet, presumably on the grounds that they would stop tithing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure the IRA are (mostly) Catholics. DO you think that they are (were, really at this point) bombing anything over Catholicism, you are confused or misinformed about Northern Irish history.
As for my examples, at the time those things were points of doctrine. Serious doctrine. Things change, which is kind of my point.
You know that "no true Scotsman" thing is a multi-edged sword.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Can I claim something like "Muhammad was the one true prophet of God" and still assert credibly that I am still a Catholic just because I desire to consider myself a Catholic? Can I excuse this by saying that doctrine will or may change to fit my view in the future?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. But then that's not really a credible example, since that is one of the fundamental beliefs of a completely different religion. Of course you're aware of that and it's just a rhetorical tactic, but it's still not valid.
'The Pope is wrong about sexuality' would be somewhere on a continuum away from...shall we say completely orthodox Catholicism? But 'Muhammed is the one true prophet of God' must surely be as far along that continuum as it's possible to get.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, are you already Catholic? Baptized, confirmed all that? If yes, I would say that you were Catholic, but quite possibly heretical. If not, and you were a candidate or catechumen, I would suggest that you talk it over with a priest and/or your sponsor.
Also, what Rakeesh wrote. I am not sure if saying that Mohommed was a true prophet would be heretical as it isn't something I have delved into very deeply. This is, as best as I can come up with, "official doctrine" on Muslims.
quote: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.
quote: That's just not true. There are many, many people who disavow the noixious claims of the Catholic church. They call themselves something other than Catholic.
I've been frankly baffled by kmbboots's religious ideas before too, but this particular line seems pretty silly to me. Disavowing bad things the Catholic Church has done promptly makes one cease to be a Catholic?
It's not about disavoing actions, it's about rejecting fundamental claims.
Here's some:
"the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church...It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others".
"The lay apostolate, individual or collective, must be set in its true place within the apostolate of the whole Church. Union with those whom the Holy Spirit has appointed to rule the Church of God (cf. Acts 20:28) is an essential element of the Christian apostolate."
"As for works and institutions of the temporal order, the duty of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is the teaching and authentic interpretation of the moral principles to be followed in this domain."
That's pretty explicit. This not a "You are free to believe whatever you want" document.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nor is it a "the Pope is always right" document." The teaching authority of the Church is not just the Pope and, in fact, requires that teaching be "received" by the whole Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No. But then that's not really a credible example, since that is one of the fundamental beliefs of a completely different religion. Of course you're aware of that and it's just a rhetorical tactic, but it's still not valid.
'The Pope is wrong about sexuality' would be somewhere on a continuum away from...shall we say completely orthodox Catholicism? But 'Muhammed is the one true prophet of God' must surely be as far along that continuum as it's possible to get.
The thing is, there's no such thing as orthodox Roman Catholicism. (Disregard the American political movement.) If you're Roman Catholic, you do as a Roman Catholic does. If you don't, you're not Roman Catholic.
The Church doesn't do this fuzzy-wuzzy whatever-works Protestant nonsense. It's a clear identity with clear rules of behavior. Some orders are more conservative than others, but nobody has the power or authority to challenge Mother Church.
Boots is a really nice person, but she's a Protestant who thinks she's Catholic. Maybe she really likes her religious community; maybe she really likes that cool incense thing; maybe she thinks because her local community doesn't contradict her beliefs, Catholicism's cool with fuzzy-wuzzy-disregard-the-Vatican theology. But she's just not Catholic.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So, yes, I am responsible for what my Church does and responsible for trying to make it better. So go ahead and "yell" at me. Yelling is okay.
By the way, acting like a martyr is kind of obnoxious. Nobody's yelling at you. Nobody's even been rude to you, as far as I've noticed. I think you're a nice person, but your odd condescension detracts from otherwise good impressions.
You're severely incorrect about Catholic theology, and (presumably out of love for your local community) you insist that the Church's child-rape circle has "plenty that we need to fix - I would say the same for just about any organization." I think you're a nice person. You just don't seem to have applied critical thought to any aspect of your religion.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I don't knwo what your experience with Catholicism is but it is significantly different from my experience and the experience of almost every Catholic I know. In my parish and others, priests and nuns and laity. I gave examples of good Catholics - ones who became saints even - and who challenged the Vatican. At one time, for another example, the Vatican insisted that women religious be cloistered. Mary Ward challenged that, was imprisoned as a heretic and is now on the path to sainthood. And women are no longer necessarily cloistered.
ETA: Lalo, I apologize if I gave the impression that I think that people are "yelling" at me. I was responding to someone else who suggested that folks shouldn't vent their anger at me.
If you think that I take the child abuse scandal lightly, you have not really read what I have written. And whether you approve of my conclusions or not, I have spent decades contemplating the question of authority in the Catholic Church before a year of formal instruction before converting. And my "local community" is one of the oldest and most respected in my (large) city. I trust the judgment of the priests there and other priests I know.
ETA again: I am sorry that your experience with the Church was so bad.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'll correct that by saying that, while the Pope et al are certainly part of the Church, they are not more the Church than the rest of us.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
