Say wha… I think someone is using words that do not mean what he thinks they mean.
And what’s most mind-boggling is that they cop this 'tude in defending the ostensibly more “progressive” and “less feudal” no-kneeling school of thought. Motes, beams, etc.
Watch it! We Episcopalians are vicious. We’ll talk about you over cocktails in a minute! 
What I find most aggravating about the situation is that, if this priest were hit by a bus tomorrow and they had to replace him, a new priest might decide that kneeling is just fine, and welcome everyone back. Since the church hierarchy says, “you have to do whatever the current priest says” the congregation should be trying to replace the priest. We can do that in the United Methodist church. If enough members of the congregation have a problem with a minister, she or he will be gone after the next annual conference. Guess it doesn’t work that way for Catholics since the option of replacing Father Tran isn’t even mentioned.
I don’t think it does work that way. That’s what Qadgop meant by “hierarchical,” i.e.* “top down.”
For instance, my Catholic friends tell me that they aren’t much into Bible reading. They don’t need to, the priest will tell them what they need to know. Of course, most of them are fallen-away Catholic so they might be a little biased.
Probably not. I’m sure the diocese knew that the deceased previous pastor was a traditionalist. (The reporter was too ignorant to discover whether the previous priest was following the norms to celebrate in Latin or whether he had made up his own little rituals.) The current priest was almost certainly sent in to “straighten things out”–and has bollixed the assignment. If the current pastor got hit by a truck (or shot by a parishoner), the diocese would almost certainly again send someone who had instructions to “bring them up to date.” (With luck, the next guy would be a lot more appreciative of the attitudes and backgrounds of the parishoners and not make stupid declarations of “mortal sins” and “rebellion,” but he would still have a mandate to bring the parish’s liturgical celebrations in line with the current rubrics.)
Seems to me like the ultimate posture of submission would be “on your knees, body down, chest and face on the ground, arms up behind you spreading your ass cheeks.” Of course, the adoration part gets a little sketchy, but then I haven’t been in a church in a while.
No, no, Cervaise, you heard it wrong, it’s “Roman Catholic”, not “Roman Chimpanzee” 
I’m well aware that strongly religious people tend to be thugs; that’s why I only talk about it online. I don’t think my treating the religious like barbarians qualifies as respect however.
Like most human beings, strongly religious people tend to react with a tit-for-tat attitude towards callous and derisive insults hurled at what is important to them. We are, though, under obligation (and not merely Christians, but most major faith traditions) to behave towards you as we would wish you to behave toward us, no matter how strong the provocation. But that’s fighting a human instinct (or at minimum social conditioning), as I’m sure you’re aware.
You are correct, though: nobody would easily mistake your behavior towards anyone with religious faith for respect.
With regard to the broader issue, let’s place a little context. First, social custom (“etiquette” in the anthropological sense) is a strong bonding mechanism. If it is your wish to be accepted as a part of the group by a tribe which rubs blue mud in their navels, then you are wise to rub blue mud in your navel. (Whether this is a good idea in a broader context is moot: the issue is, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do.”)
To quote a rather unusual ad campaign I saw a while ago, “If you knew for a fact that Jesus Christ was going to show up, flesh and blood, at the church down the street next Sunday, wouldn’t you try to be there and see Him? Well, [picture of Host and chalice here], He is!” The doctrinal beliefs of churches professing the Real Presence is that Jesus becomes present, by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, at the consecration of the communion elements, under the forms of bread and wine. The accuracy of that belief too is moot; we are exploring their social behavior.
Now, if in fact Jesus is one’s Lord and Savior, and He is present in the Eucharistic elements, then those elements become deserving of utmost respect, because in point of fact (or rather of firm belief), they are in fact His Body and Blood. This has led to some rather extreme practices among some devotees of Eucharistic adoration. But at absolute minimum, one must understand the consecrated bread and wine to be deserving of respect as things set apart as holy. Even persons who do not share such beliefs would normally treat them with respect out of courtesy for the beliefs of those who do.
Hence, up until the 1970s, Western churches which professed belief in the Real Presence tended to require kneeling communion of their members, as a mark of such respect. (Ybeayf can fill us in on Orthodox practice if he chooses.) The more modern trend is to receive communion standing, respectfully, hearkening back to the practices of the early church and emphasizing the forgiven, sanctified nature of the members, in contrast to the contrite humility underlying the kneeling.
As Tom~ notes, the Catholic custom is to enforce a particular mode of practice by canon law. In my own Episcopal parish, one may receive standing or kneeling, and provision for communicating people preferring each is made by the ministers of the communion.
“Tit-for-tat” does not mean that you assault or kill someone who doesn’t respect your beliefs. Religious people certainly don’t respect mine, yet I’ve never attacked one. They obviously expect me to be more civilized than they are.
Except that I despise the whole concept of holiness.
If I was at a funeral or a wedding, sure. Outside of formal occasions, no. Besides, I’m a terrible liar; no one would believe it if I tried to fake respect; I’d just come across as disrespectful and dishonest.
It’s not about what you think. You don’t have to respect something to be respectful and polite.
So am I to understand that religious people have literally and physically attacked you in the past? :dubious:
No, that scenario was proposed by DocCathode.
So let me get this straight.
Cathloics used to told to kneel during parts of their service. To not kneel would be a sin. Now they are told not to kneel, if they do it is a mortal sin. :smack:
So were the kneelers for all those years sent to hell, or are the non-kneelers now going to hell?
Program, Program get your program. You can’t tell the sins without a program. :rolleyes:
And those are several illustrations of why it’s hard to take stuff like this seriously.
In fairness, Catholic dogma is rather different to other Christian denominations’, which can be a bit more woolly, Jack Chick aside.
After a Vatican council, or indeed at any other time, Il Papa can suddenly decide thou shalt not make duck noises lest thou shalt be hellbound, and thou therefore mustn’t do it therefrom. Those who made duck noises in the past are retrospectively cast into brimstone, unless enough novenas etc. are said for their souls.
I believe the Vatican is currently seriously considering whether or not to declare Limbo non-existent, and all those millions of poor unbaptised dead babies’ souls are suddenly whisked away from their floating around straight into heaven - I presume.
Which seems a bit odd to this atheist: if one chooses such a belief, surely it does exits or it does not; to me the only other option is that the Vatican is working on pure speculation.
So in conclusion, I started this post trying to be more understanding, and ended up agreeing with you. Carry on.
Well, I was beaten up in Catholic high school, does that count?
If no religious person has actually physically attacked you, how are they being hypocritical below?
By this you then mean they verbally attack you? Obviously you verbally attack them, too (we can skip the part where we look at your comments in threads to show this, I presume.) If that’s what you meant rather than physical assault, you’re not being more or less civilized than they are, and you’d be hard pressed to prove they expect you to be more than they are…they think they’re following the golden rule, after all, not making excessive one-sided demands. Delusional, you might make a case for with some individuals.
Anyway, things like the article linked in the OP only serve to make me surer that organized religion and church-going is not for me. I’m happy enough being vaguely Christian and leaving it at that.
If you are not Catholic and a member of this diocese, than what business is it of yours?
Maybe ‘respecting religion’ should include minding your own business. This is their debate, and their problem. It doesn’t seem to be your debate but yet, you have a problem with them, or is it that you have a problem respecting religion?
deR trihS
The standard reason to treat people with respect is to be treated with respect in return. However, that reason fails when you don’t care if the people in question treat you with respect. As you obviously do not care if religious people respect your views, that reason fails.
Are religious people more violent in generaL? Not that I’m aware of. But mockery of any strongly held belief tends to result in violence.
Why do you assume that religious people do not respect your views? There are a few well respected atheists right on the SDMB. Speaking for myself, how somebody came to their beliefs on religion is more important than what those beliefs are.