# Catholicism would be pretty cool, if it was just totally different **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholicism-would-be-pretty-cool-if-it-was-just-totally-different/300233 "2005-04-20T14:56:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholicism-would-be-pretty-cool-if-it-was-just-totally-different/300233/61 "2005-04-20T21:22:31Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > The problem is that the Church sees homosexual sex and fornication (remember, the Church isn’t anti-condom, it’s anti- “the belief that wearing a condom makes fornication safe, which leads to an increase in fornication”) in the same vein as segregation and the second Gulf War. No, they don’t see them in the same vein. The church is more than happy to support those behind the war, as long as those same people will keep them uppity gays in their place, loved :rolleyes:, but second class. As for segregation, when they finally stop trying to kill off the Africans that they can’t convert, through criminal (my definition, so don’t go all Bricker on me) misinformation, then I’ll take your word on it. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone would refuse the Church’s help in stamping out segregation or ending the second Gulf War, but again, you can’t tell the Church, “we’ll take your help on the stuff we both think is bad, but we’ll keep right on doing the stuff on which we disagree.” I’ll gladly make that trade. The church stays out of everyone’s business but the church’s, and I’ll let the church decide to cover their own members in poo without taking any issue with it. Deal? I didn’t think so. You know what’s bad? Until the recent Pope threads, I didn’t hold the Catholic church in any different light than just about any other religion, including those mild-mannered Methodists, as all churches have doctrines that I find silly, abhorrent, or both. The fact that there is such a large number of people willing to support them so blindly, even in the face of that bullshit they pulled in Africa, makes me reconsider that. They just might be evil after all. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholicism-would-be-pretty-cool-if-it-was-just-totally-different/300233/62 "2005-04-20T21:24:37Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > **RTFirefly,** you’re reading me wrong _and_ I’m doing a poor job of separating “me” from “my Church.” > > I’m saying that the Church, in believing it holds moral authority and full communion with Christ, pretty much excludes the personal beliefs of the individual should they differ with what it sees as Christ’s teachings. > > I’m saying that there is a slippery slope involved with inviting the Church into a moral argument when you want it on your side, because if you allow that the Church’s authority through Christ is justified in opposing one thing, then you’ve opened a door for it to exert moral authority. OK, I see your point here: that if you’re invoking the RCC’s moral authority, you can’t turn it on and off as you see fit. If you were against the Iraq war, as I was, making a big deal of the RCC’s solidarity with my position isn’t honest if I’m going to turn around and ignore that authority with respect to, say, AIDS prevention. Likewise, if GWB wants to invoke the RCC’s moral authority on issues such as abortion or sexual abstinence, then he’s being similarly dishonest if he blows it off on Iraq. I’m good with that. > [@](#): > > As far as “not really Catholics any more,” I was being a trifle facetious. But the Church does believe that, through careful study and prayer, you will recognize that its position is the correct one. That’s why it’s the Church’s position. I mean, you wouldn’t expect the Pope to think, “I firmly believe this to be directly against God’s will, but as long as nobody does their exegesis correctly, we’re in the clear.” What I’d expect is that - with limited exceptions - the Church would say, “we’ve looked at this every which way we can think of, and we’ve prayerfully considered the consequences of what we’re going to say, and to the best of our fallible human ability to discern, we believe this is where one must stand, to stand on God’s side.” Emphasis on _fallible._ Because as long as we’re human, that’s what we are. Rites and conclaves and funny hats don’t change that. So questioning is necessary, because those laying down the edicts don’t necessarily have it right. God’s will may be perfect, but those who are trying to make sense of it - no matter how spiritual they may be - aren’t. As **Miller** just said, even the Catholic Church changes. Catholics didn’t used to be able to eat a hamburger on a Friday; now they can. Were they right before that change was made, or right afterwards, or right for the times, both before and after? If they believe Christ is on occasion speaking directly through them - that the Pope, or the Church, has the gift of prophecy - then they should be clear about that\*. (As I recall, they’ve got a mechanism for just that: the Pope can speak _ex cathedra_, which IIRC has been done just once.) But what Wojtyla did instead was to intimate that his authority was beyond question pretty much anytime he made moral pronouncements - yet without claiming to speak as a prophet. Best of both worlds. > [@](#): > > Put simply, I’m not taking a position on the Church’s rightness or wrongness- I’m looking at the dispute pragmatically (or as a boxing analyst would) and I’m just saying that one cannot expect to take the moral high ground with or have it acknowledged by an institution that believes to impart its authority directly from God. To the extent that I invoked the RCC’s moral authority in the past, it was in a manner consistent with what my words suggest above - of a Christian church with the history and tradition it has, with considerable capacity for wisdom, but no guarantee of rightness with respect to particular doctrinal points. That said, I think I’ve been consistent in cheering it on at some times, and desiring its correction at other times. Because that’s how _I_ viewed _it_. That it doesn’t view itself the same way I do, doesn’t bother me. But I think it _is_ fair for me to question it, to find out whether it’s as intellectually and theologically self-consistent as it would like to believe itself - and point out where the holes seem to be. I think it’s appropriate for outsiders like me to point out its very real changes of direction. And as a fellow-Christian, I believe my moral responsibility to my brothers and sisters in Christ doesn’t yield to denominational divides: the Church is as _God_ sees it, not as we define it. The RCC may have been around a long time, but it does not contain all wisdom; others who are not Catholic may have words of wisdom it needs to hear. \*FWIW, I believe in the possibility of an honest-to-God gift of prophecy. Of course, I also believe it doesn’t come and go at the bidding of any mortal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholicism-would-be-pretty-cool-if-it-was-just-totally-different/300233.md?page=3)