Do Catholic's face discrimination in the US?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by BrotherCadfael *
**OK, how does this differ from the “hate the sin, love the sinner” position (with respect to homosexuality) that people have been pillorying on these boards since the Santorum story broke? **

So do you have a problem with “I don’t like Bush, but I’m not unAmerican”, too?

[tomndebb]

I think that refering to the Roman Catholic Church as the “RCC” is chic-flip, and shows a lack of respect for a venerable institution.

As you wish. I find that typing RCC saves me the dual hassle of typing out Roman Catholic Church every time I am posting on the subject while protecting me from charges that the Church of Rome is not the only catholic (or even Catholic) church in existence–a charge that does get leveled on these boards, from time to time.

Inasmuch as I am a devout, practicing member of said institution/organization/world-wide conspiracy, it is not as though I am attempting to disparage it.

(I have never encountered the neologism “chic-flip” and am not sure that it is applicable. It seems to mean that the usage is casually dismissive (and while my usage is casual, it is not dismissive) and that the speaker is being “cool”–a charge that has never been successfully lodged against me in my life.)

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Milum *
****.

• I think that refering to the Roman Catholic Church as the “RCC” is chic-flip, and shows a lack of respect for a venerable institution. **

I’m another practicing member of said church that uses that term (And I’ve seen many an article in Catholic newspapers or textbooks that use the same abbreviation)

[Milum]

** Calling the Roman Catholic Church “RCC” is chic-flip.**

It was just an opinion.

But while I got you on the horn answer me this…

Acording to the rules of the RCC can we snake-handling, tongue-speaking, Bible-belting Baptists get to heaven on the first try?

If we can’t ain’t that kinda exclusionary?

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Milum *
Then Desmostylus said: Well, Milum might come back later to address the issue when he doesn’t have his friend Jack Daniels with him. Then again, he might not.

Then again Milum might.

You might want to try again without Jack’s pals.

** “Chinaman’s Chance” of going to Heaven:* In the California Goldfields of the eighteenth century, back when you americans discriminated against chineese immigrants, chinamen were not allowed to file a claim. As in " Joe, you don’t have a chinaman’s chance of registering your claim."
Its a “saying” for goodness sake!

Right. :rolleyes: Or you could recall that many old sayings aren’t used anymore because of their racist terminology.

** Excommunicaion for marrying outside the church.* the structure of the Catholic Chuch is such that they can excommunicate whom the hell they please,

Bullshit. I await proof from you that the Canons of the Roman Catholic Church state that one of the grounds for excommunication is “Because we want to kick you out for no other reason than we want to.”

however when I married into the Catholic Church in the sixties my shy, blushing, Catholic bride was saved from the shame of excommunication when I signed over the souls all my future children to the Church by promicing to raise them Catholic.

More bullshit. And this time, you proved that you knowingly posted a lie earlier in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that your wife was not subject to excommunication for marrying you. The issue, as far as the RCC is concerned is: (a) is she eligible to have a church rite (the RCC is big on rites), and (b) if so, will she ensure the children of that union are raised as Catholics?

• I think that refering to the Roman Catholic Church as the “RCC” is chic-flip, and shows a lack of respect for a venerable institution.

TDB (Too Damn Bad). There are plenty of outfits that are referred to by their initials in common parlance.
[ul]To name a few:
[li]LDS[/li][li]AFL-CIO[/li][li]ACLU[/li][li]USA[/ul][/li]
If you deign to respond to this one, don’t post that which you know is false. You will notice that I didn’t miss catching you on that stunt already.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Milum *
**
Acording to the rules of the RCC can we snake-handling, tongue-speaking, Bible-belting Baptists get to heaven on the first try?
**

Yes. But not if you own a Nascar cap.

[Milum]

Be aware beagledave no one I know owns just one NASCAR cap.

Now Monty Monty Monty, why do you say “Bullshit” so much? Are you angry? At me? I’m not mad at you although you said (without thinking) that I knowingly told a lie. You are a young fellow so I’ll forgive you and carefully explain…

Any un-answerable organization that utilizes a catchall sin called “heresy” can bend semantics to their whim and pleasure and excomunicate willy nilly. In my case in the late sixties in was through the stated threat of** excommunication**. After my acquiiscence allowing the Catholic indoctoration of my future children the threat was lifted. In 1970 the Catholic Church reversed their stance and simply made marrying outside the church a minor crime. But since you believe urls and writings more than you seem to believe people…

Crimes Connected With Marriage.
Catholics are under an** excommunication** latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary:

. . . (2) who contract marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all children or any child be educated outside the Catholic Church;

… (4) who, being parents or taking their place, knowingly present their children to be educated or trained in a non-Catholic religion
_ _ Those mentioned in numbers 2-4 of the preceding paragraph
are moreover suspect of** heresy** (c[anon] 2319, °2)."
(Bouscaren, p. 920.)

Although a Southern Baptist, I attended Mass with some regularity during the years of my childrens growth. I still miss the time-structured ries and rituals of the Church. Two of my boys were altar boys although the Priest was a queer.
Everyone knew it, it was a running joke. Evenso he was a good man and harmless.

Today, sadly, people don’t like to laugh at odd folks, they just like to hate.

Is this Bullshit, Monty?

[tomndebb]

Acording to the rules of the RCC can we snake-handling, tongue-speaking, Bible-belting Baptists get to heaven on the first try?

Sure. As can Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

The last Catholic priest that claimed that only Catholics can get to heaven was excommunicated for refusing to back down from that position.

[Guinastasia]

Oh, and Milum? The California goldfields-don’t you mean the nineteenth century?

[Monty]

Milum: I used the term “bullshit” because it is the most apt word in the English language for the bullshit you’ve been slinging here.

This may have escaped your notice; however, I’ll remind you of it: I actually do understand the written English language. You have yet to show either of your assertions are based in fact. You have actually managed to show that both assertions are know to you to be false.

[Monty]

I can’t let the lie slide, Milum. I don’t care what you’re telling yourself. What I care is that you expect at least one other person–me–to be so freaking stupid, inane, and utterly devoid of intelligence to believe what you posted. And all of this after I already asked you to provide proof of your assertion.

You offered up this tidbit, which I shall explain to you on the off chance that you will recognize what a fact is:

Any un-answerable organization that utilizes a catchall sin called “heresy” can bend semantics to their whim and pleasure and excomunicate willy nilly. In my case in the late sixties in was through the stated threat of excommunication. After my acquiiscence allowing the Catholic indoctoration of my future children the threat was lifted. In 1970 the Catholic Church reversed their stance and simply made marrying outside the church a minor crime. But since you believe urls and writings more than you seem to believe people…

I hear from you an assertion that you (“In my case…”) were threatened with excommunication. This is interesting because you state that you have not been a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I’ll be charitable, given your demonstrated, shall we say, creative use of the words of English in this thread so far, and go ahead and grant that you meant in your wife’s case. I asked for proof from that church’s canons that she could be excommunicated for the mere act of marrying someone not a member of the Roman Catholic church. You have yet to provide that proof. I also hear from you a further assertion that the RCC changed its canonical stance. I now ask for proof of that assertion.

You then toss up this quote from canon law:

Crimes Connected With Marriage.
Catholics are under an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary:

. . . (2) who contract marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all children or any child be educated outside the Catholic Church;

This is not what you asserted. You said that Catholics could be excommunicated merely for marrying someone outside of their church. This says no such thing.

And you continue digging your hole with this:

… (4) who, being parents or taking their place, knowingly present their children to be educated or trained in a non-Catholic religion

Ditto. You’re digging one mighty deep hole here. This is not addressing marriage, it is addressing child-rearing.

_ _ Those mentioned in numbers 2-4 of the preceding paragraph
are moreover suspect of heresy (c[anon] 2319, °2)."
(Bouscaren, p. 920.)

Hie ye to a dictionary of the English language and look up the word “suspect” and then compare it to the word “guilty.” When you’re done with that, look up “ladder” for a description of the implement you will need to get out of that hole.

[Monty]

I suppose I should be happy that Milum says I’m a young fellow. It’s been a few years since I’ve qualified as young.

[Dragonstar]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3833462.html is a link to an article condensing the Popes Ecclesiastica Eucharistia; reminding Catholics that you’re only supposed to take Communion if you follow the rules. All the rules.

[Milum]

• You have actually managed to show that both assertions are know to you to be false.*

THUS SPAKE MONTY

Thats not debating Monty, that’s cuss-fighting!

Here’s the way we debate in Alabama…

Tommndebb:Can Baptists get to heaven on the first try?
Sure. As can Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

Milum: Great! but why then do lazy people bother learning their beads and doing all that other Catholic stuff if they are going to heaven anyway?

Tomndebb: Ha ha ha, you got me there Milum, I guess its back to the drawing board for me. Ha ha ha.

• Get it Monty? Information was exchanged without the involvement of egos and both parties will go forth fully armed and become better people.*

[burundi]

originally posted by Philly Style
I have never seen the Baptist Church ridiculed anywhere but Hustler Magazine.

Maybe this is a regional thing. Living in North Carolina where Baptists are pretty thick on the ground, I’ve heard the Baptist Church come in for its share of ridicule. Could be that where you are there aren’t enough Baptists to be make fun of.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Milum *
In 1970 the Catholic Church reversed their stance and simply made marrying outside the church a minor crime. But since you believe urls and writings more than you seem to believe people…

Crimes Connected With Marriage.
Catholics are under an** excommunication** latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary:

. . . (2) who contract marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all children or any child be educated outside the Catholic Church;

… (4) who, being parents or taking their place, knowingly present their children to be educated or trained in a non-Catholic religion
_ _ Those mentioned in numbers 2-4 of the preceding paragraph
are moreover suspect of** heresy** (c[anon] 2319, °2)."
(Bouscaren, p. 920.)

You’re way out of date. The current code of canon law was promulgated in 1983, and does not contain a canon 2319.

The current canon law does not provide an excommunication under the circumstances described above.

Can. 1124 Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church.
Can. 1125 The local Ordinary can grant this permission if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:
1° the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptized and brought up in the catholic Church;
2° the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party
3° both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.

And that’s it.

• Rick

[TearsOfGlass]

I personally dislike pretty much all religions because, to methey seem to do nothing, but convince people that they deserve better treatment then others, that others not like them should be punished, and the like. I really dislike the Catholics though for a lot of reasons. For one thing, the pope is a joke. He has been calling for peace and such in the world, which I agree with, but he seems to find it ok that other’s in his sect are ok with molesting alter boys and the like. Also, I tend to see the Catholics as a large hate group at times. Sometimes, it seems that all they are out to do, is tell others that their ways are wrong and evil, just because they don’t agree with everything they say. I don’t believe in a “God” myself so, in my opinon the Catholics are just following a small group of people, including the pope, who want to control people’s lives.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by TearsOfGlass *
Sometimes, it seems that all they are out to do, is tell others that their ways are wrong and evil, just because they don’t agree with everything they say.

So … you’re telling us that Catholics are wrong - and possibly even evil - because you don’t agree with everything they say?

And they’re wrong, and evil, because they don’t agree with everything you say?

Gotcha.

• Rick

[astorian]

It’s worth asking what constitutes “discrimination.”

Now, I happen to be both a Catholic and a conservative Republican. Are my beliefs mocked on a regular basis? Sure. Do I get angry when I hear my beliefs ridiculed on TV? Sure. Have I ever had people get in my face and insult me, and trash all that I hold sacred? Of course. Now, does any of this constitute “discrimination”?

Nah, not in the same sense that a black man faces discrimination. Nothing I’ve experienced constitutes discrimination in any meaningful sense. After all, I could very easily avoid such ridicule by abandoning my political and religious beliefs. So, it would be ridiculous for me to compare any hostility I perceive to that faced by black Americans.

There’s a vast difference between a Klansman insulting someone for his ethnicity (which can’t possibly be changed) and an atheist attacking me because he finds my beliefs (which I could change in an instant) repulsive.

[tomndebb]

Originally posted by Milum:
Tomndebb: Ha ha ha, you got me there Milum, I guess its back to the drawing board for me. Ha ha ha.

When scripting lines for other people, those lines will more likely appear humorous if you don’t pattern your writing style on that of Jack Chick.