:mad:
I thought it was down to individual priests being overzealous.
Thanks for learnin’ me somethin’.
What? So “I trust my opinion” has more weight than repeated arguments showing how that opinion is incorrect?
So you’re saying that if I, as a non-Catholic, want to disagree with some policies of the Catholic church, I have to disagree with all of it and immediately discount any of the parts that it does get right?
That’s just stupid. That’s as dumb and pointless as saying “fuck the church!”
Hell, if Anne Coulter came out in support of same-sex marriage, I’d even be in agreement with her. I wouldn’t use her words as basis of my support, but I also wouldn’t be forced to say, “Well, fuck that. I guess I’d better find a girlfriend.”
So, what’s your point? That I shouldn’t bother to argue for my own beliefs? That I shouldn’t try to persuade other people to see things the way I do? I don’t believe that Catholics are brainless automatons who can only parrot the position of the Vatican. They’re as capable as independent thought as anyone else, and I think that most of them, if presented by a stronger argument, are more than able to change their mind, even if doing so puts them at odds with their religion. Are my arguments that persuasive? Probably not, but that’s no reason not to try.
Yes, actually, they are. There are a lot of Catholics who disagree with the Church on a variety of issues, and still consider themselves to be faithful. And if it should come to pass that there are more of them then there are people who agree with the Church’s stance on that issue, the Church’s stance on the issue is going to change. Protestations of its worshippers aside, the Church is a human organization, and its rules and customs were created and enforced by humans. Which means they can be changed by humans, too. It’s hardly unprecedented. They don’t, after all, still burn Protestants at the stake.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure I can. I’m glad to have the Catholic Church’s support in ending the death penalty, because I’m very much opposed to that practuce. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop having sex with my boyfriend. Agreeing with the Church on one issue doesn’t mean I have to agree, or even respect, them on all issues. And the same goes for people who are actually Catholic, too, not just heathens like myself.
So what you’re saying is that it’s fine for Catholics to question the Church, so long as the end of the questioning is agreement with the Church. Not just on some set of basic beliefs found in the Creeds and the Catechism, but on every last thing the Church has taken a position on. And if they don’t, they’re not Catholics.
Are you sure this is Church doctrine? I think that would be a tough one to back up.
Seems to me that you’re setting up a double standard here.
Because of how the RCC views things - regardless of the lack of grounding of that view in reality - they have the right to be a buttinski into everyone else’s lives, agitating for laws that restrict what the rest of us can do.
But it’s dumb of the rest of us to agitate in return for the RCC to change.
Am I reading you right, or can you distinguish your position from my summary?
No, but I can expect that they will focus on their own congregation and stop lobbying to kill rights for ALL gay people to support their bigoted religious perspective.
Lord Ashtar, it’s interesting–I said similar things to people who expected me to tell Saddam Hussein what a very bad man he was. “Challenge him all you want,” I might have said. “Just don’t expect Hussein to take advice on how to run Iraq from an American.” The Pope ain’t gonna listen to an atheist, I agree; Hussein’s not gonna listen to an American. (Well, he will now–I was talking during 2002).
Nonetheless, I think that in significant fashion the Catholic Church has some significantly negative effects on the world, and I think it’s productive to discuss these effects. Not because the Pope reads this messageboard and is gonna see the error of his ways, but because some Catholics do, and maybe they’ll get where I’m coming from, or maybe I’ll get where they’re coming from. And that’s valuable to me.
I’d love for the Catholic Church to conform to my moral code, but I don’t think that’s likely. I might, however, convince some other folks to behave in a fashion I consider ethical; or someone else might give me a new perspective on ethics.
Daniel
There is a difference.
One is working on stopping oppression and what they do where gays and lesbians are concerned INCREASE the oppression.
That you are oblivious to it amazes me.
For someone using a Kevin Smith reference, you surely don’t seem to have his understanding about the paradoxes of Catholicism or the hypocrisies.
Not to speak for HSHP, but it means that your argument (assuming you mean to persuade, not merely vent) will have to either
A) Grant Catholic presuppositions about the authority of church, tradition and scripture; the responsibility of Catholics to submit to that authority; and base your arguments on use of those that authorities, not just your own reasoning. Your or my logic, however compelling we find it, is nearly meaningless on its own to someone operating in a Catholic worldview.
or
B) Question those presuppositions, which amounts to questioning Catholicism … which lead to this thread’s title.
And this is a fine and worthwhile thing; the problem comes when people are arguing from what they percieve to be nearly self-evident truths (such as “what other people do is none of my business so long as it doesn’t affect me”) when in fact the other person does not share those assumptions.
The point of difference lies not over comparatively small questions of “is X a sin,” but entirely different conceptions of what the world is and what human beings are.
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.
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.”
Mockingbird, I’m not sure I understand what you mean- the Church has spoken up for humane treatment of gay people. It opposes gay marriage because marriage is the province of the Church, but that’s a discussion best suited for another thread.
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.
There’s a difference to YOU. Not to the Church. And in the Church’s eyes, it’s right and you’re wrong.
Again, this is your opinion and it differs with the Church’s. Which side do you think the Church is going to come down on? Its own or yours?
I’m not oblivious to it at all. I recognize it. I acknowledge it, and I have been spending my posting time (albeit sometimes poorly) saying that the Church doesn’t see it as hypocrisy and is going to continue to act as though it is not.
Umm… just because Kevin Smith agrees with you and is famous, that doesn’t make him right.
And just because I think his movies are funny doesn’t mean I think he’s a good Catholic or a thourough scholar. He’s neither.
I used to attend services at Grace Cathedral when I lived in SF. It is a lovely Church - but I think of the Episcopal Church as Catholocism Lite. Even the Anglican rosary is truncated.
There are certainly Church organization that more approximate the gnostic tradition - but none of them have the breadth and influence of the Catholic Church. It causes me to wonder how the world today might be different.
Well, what other possible way could I argue any particular issue with a Catholic? I can try to show how that person is incorrectly interpreting Catholic doctrine, or I can try to show that Catholic doctrine is incorrect. What else is there? What form of argumentation are you excluding as invalid? What could option C possibly be?
So much for Christian love from either you or your oppressive bigoted church.
It oppresses, you deny it, and then defend it.
In two centuries I’m sure they’ll do an about face on it as they did in the late 19th century with slavery.
It’s sad how many Catholics will follow the dogma.
But that’s the problem.
Going either of these routes with the Church is like fighting the Black Knight.
or there’s
It’s maddening. But it’s very hard to argue with people who are convinced that they’r enot only right, but backed up by God.
I’m sorry… what?
Where in any of my posts have I expressed MY opinion? I’m just pointing out where the Church stands.
Oppression? Where have I either denied or defended oppression?
Look, I get that you want to be persecuted, but I’m not the one doing it. Just because I say “Look it’s raining,” that doesn’t mean I’m to blame for your being wet.
Wha? Is this some kinda non-sequitur? Blacks knights where poor beginners, who could not afford to spend money on hiring people to polish their amour. What is so impossible about fighting a well taught, but inexperienced fighter?
Happy, at one point it was Church doctrine that Protestants were to be burned at the stake. This is no longer Church doctrine. How, exactly, do you think this happened?
Religions can and do change with society. It usually happens at a slower pace than the rest of society, but it happens, and it happens because individuals within the religion have consciences that are seperate from the religion as a whole. If enough people within a religion can be convinced that a particular teaching of that religion is incorrect, sooner or later, that teaching will be modified or discarded. No, it’s not easy, and yes, there are going to be reactionaries who will resist any change simply because it’s a change, but the majority of people in any major religion, Catholicism included, are still free-willed individuals who are more than capable of making up their minds without, or even in opposition to, the precepts of their religious instruction.
He’s talking about the Monty Python sketch.
Not the current pontiff, IIRC. He stated once that gays shouldn’t be surprised when they’re harassed, abused and assaulted when they demand civil rights.
People can disagree and still be Catholic. They profess belief in the Nicene Creed? Isn’t that what’s important?
To say otherwise is to use the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
At one time, suicides automatically went to Hell, according to the church. No one who committed suicide could be buried in consecrated ground. They were considered forever damned. Now that we know more about mental illness, however, the church has changed its stance on that.
I’m not expecting the church to change on a dime. I AM expecting it to listen. Okay, let’s take the popular Biblical analogy of the shepherd and his flock. For centuries, a herd and its descendents have been grazing on the same area. But over time, the field has become barren, rocky, and infested with gopher holes. If several lambs start crying because they turn their legs by stepping in the holes, should the shepherd listen to their cries? Or should he say, “Shut up, you stupid sheep-just ignore the holes, ignore the pain, this is the way we’ve always done it.”
Now, I’m not crazy about the Biblical reference to shepherds and sheep, because the latter tend to be rather stupid. (Although they are pretty damned cute). But in this case, I think it fits.
According to the above definition and using the latest polls on the matter, the number of “real Catholics” in the US has dropped precipitously:
.
Fine by me as I think organized religions belong in dustbin of history.