This is a request - Moderators, feel free to lock this up or something after it gets some views and/or someone does what I am asking.
Today something awful happened to me. One of my Christian Acquaintences started a debate with me, saying i should not wear a Cross because I Am not a Christian. well, I was a bit PO’d, and I started explaining how he was wrong, then he starts quoting… JACK CHICK to me! Ach! Stunned, I slowly walked away, his accusation of how the Pope was an evil man because it says in the book of Revelations or something was ringing in my ears. While I learned long ago to not care about what dear Mr. Chick says, the fact that there are common people espousing this sickened me some how.
The Straight Dope’s purpose is to fight ignorance. having seen success with the “Ask the Gay Guy” “Ask the Black Guy” and the “Ask the Muslim Guy” threads, I ask for a preferebly practicing and serious Catholic straight Doper knowledgeable about the Church to Start an “Ask the Catholic guy/girl” thread, In order to put to rest any misconceptions about the RCC. I would, however I confess that I believe that Others here better me in knowledge of the church, and I really don’t have the time. I really feel this is necessary, and that people need to be aware.
Well, why can’t this be an “Ask the Catholic” thread?..so here it is…if someone has some questions on Catholicism, please post them and I and many others will attempt to answer them as best we can.
There are a number of knowledgable Roman Catholics here - however, I’ll happily volunteer my services. I’m a practicing Catholic, in union with the Holy See, active in parish life and and active member of the Knights of Columbus to boot. I also studied canon law, although it’s been a few years.
If this gets out of hand, I guess I could start a new thread, but as Neurotik suggests, I see no reason this couldn’t be the thread - at least for now.
I’m a lapsed Catholic - ex-altar boy - with several relatives in the clergy. I’m lapsed because after traveling round the world and seeing so many different religions with incompatible truths, I concluded that either one was right and the rest were all wrong - or they were all wrong. Hello atheism. Anyway, questions I’ve never been able to work out…
What’s the problem with contraception that works? By allowing the “rhythm method”, the Church concedes that people can have sex for pleasure rather than procreation. So what’s the problem with the pill or a rubber?
What’s the problem with women? They can’t become priests. And priests can’t marry, which must be linked to the apparent disproportionate number of pederasts among them.
I’ll attempt to answer your question Hemlock but stay tuned for Bricker to come in and tell me I didn’t quite get it right
The rythm method is approved because it is natural. Namely, you don’t have to do add something (other than a good idea of what the date is) in order to use that method. It runs along the lines of, well, God gave us the fertility cycle (non-science name) so I suppose you can use it.
The argument against women in the clergy boils down to, IMO, “we’ve done it that way for 2000 years and it’s worked fine so back off.” Preists can’t marry because they are supposed to be married to the Church and give their congregation their full and undivided attention. Plus, unofficially, I think it’s a matter of economics, there is no way a preist could support a family on what they are paid by the Church and the Church doesn’t want to up the salaries. But that last part’s my opinion.
I hope Bricker or someone comes in to clarify/refute what I said because I made some broad, sweeping generalizations on Church policy. Just thought I would help get the ball rolling.
Neurotik - many thanks. Yes, the pill is an unnatural form of birth control, but then the Pope’s car is an unnatural form of transportation, and candles are an unnatural form of light. It seems to me that sex is the hang up. I’d be interested in Bricker’s views.
Hemlock, it’s true that the Pope’s car is an unnatural form of transportation, it is also something that is not, in and of itself, a method for preventing human life. Artificial contraception is. That’s the hangup for the Church, which still subscribes to the “greatest good for the greatest number” theory on population, but weights the equation towards the greatest number.
I think the point is that there’s a sanctity to the sex act that’s absent from things like transportation and light. It’s the union of man and wife thing…from the catechism:
Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter–and apeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and the will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul. It demands indissolubility and faithfulness in a definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.
Italics theirs. I guess that’s not that satisfying. If you’re really interested, you might consider buying a catechism (I stole mine, but that’s another story…). The answers may be strange and obscure, but it’s pretty comprehensive.
What is your opinion regarding the Pope’s health? Should he abdicate? Similarly, if the Pope gets worse and is bed ridden and with life saving devices, who is in charge if that situation lasts a very long time?
Sort of back on topic again but off on a tangent a bit… I’ve never got out of my head some preacher who pointed out in a sermon in school Chapel (fairy evangelical C of E) that the cross is in fact an “instrument of torture.” So I guess if it holds no religious significance for you Jesus-wise, then that’s what you’re hanging round your neck.
I think he drew a comparison between having a tiny gold electric chair hanging around your neck, had Jesus lived in today’s world. I know that went through my head anyway.
But it’s a free world, and if you want to wear it for fashion’s sake, or you just like the shape/style of it, then wear it.
Istara, what martinez was saying was that one of his “Christian” (i.e., Protestant fundamentalist) acquiantances said he (martinez) wasn’t a Christian. In fact (unless I’m misreading the OP totally) martinez is a Catholic. Some Protestants claim Catholics aren’t Christians, but this is of course nonsense (I say, as someone who is not and never has been a Christian of any variety), and Catholics have just as much reason to wear that particular instrument of torture and death as anybody.
Christians are not the only folks to use the cross in their symbology; they aren’t even the first.
Anyway, try quoting this bible verse to your friend next time:
Actually, that passage pertains to hypocrisy, as evidenced by the context (and verse 5 in particular). It isn’t meant to be a blanket condemnation of judging people’s actions.
Having said that, if the OP is a faithful account, then the offending person clearly displayed a lack of tact.
Isn’t that a Bill Hicks rant? Along the lines of, yeah, when Jesus comes back he’s really going to want to see a whole load of crosses. Kind of like going up to Jackie Kennedy and showing her you’re wearing a miniature high-powered rifle round your neck and winking knowingly and saying “Thinkin’ of Jack…”
