I wasn’t talking about this guy, but the move to try and get Catholic leaders to condemn Kerry en masse.
What, you don’t know? Yet you want to make such an assertion in GD? That’s a tad misplaced, don’t you think?
Huh, that’s weird. Seeing as I’ve been a Catholic my whole life, and a fairly devout one at that, I’d have to heartily disagree. With nearly everything you’ve said in this entire thread. I hate to use an appeal to authority, but I’d have to say my limited experience trumps your wild guesses.
“Uniquely pervasive”? No more so than any other organized religion. No more so than any other interest group people devote a goodly amount of time to as well. The Catholic Church has an influence on people who want to be influenced by the Catholic Church, pure and simple. By limiting that influence, you’re crossing a fairly sacred line into meddling in the personal beliefs of the citizenry - a much more egregious violation then that by a private entity (the CC).
No, they don’t. I’d suggest next time you’d like to make similar claims you back them up before you post.
I’ve just mailed out a filing charging George Bush with the possession of child pornography. I await people’s support in complaining that the New York Times refuses to cover this shocking event.
Munch:
Try telling a kid who is being raised Catholic that the Church is just a lobbying organization and you don’t have do do as they say and see how his parents react. Of course other organized religions have their pervasive influence, but the CC has a “chain of command” that most other faith systems (not just religious organizations) lack. I’m a little bit taken aback that Catholic doctrine–from Papal infallibility on down–should be dismissed by its defenders as flimsy fluff that no one in the real world should take seriously. Perhaps someone can clarify for me the theological implications of denial of communion, excommunication, and heresy charges (the CC may be stopping short in Kerry’s case, but the potential is there for this stuff to be a real political weapon given the justification that’s being made of his “sin”).
Sure, I’ll admit that at the end of the day the CC has no genuine, substantive ability to coerce, but if this were still the Middle Ages would you agree that the CC shouldn’t be meddling in politics? The fact that the CC has been able to, for example, keep contraceptives illegal in Ireland so far into the modern era testifies to its enduring power.
No one has claimed that Catholics (at the least) should not take seriously the pronouncements of the church. Why are you making that claim?
Rather, several of us have pointed out that the church is not, indeed, attempting to wield its power in the way that you so fear.
Papal infallibility is a rarely-used (exactly twice) method of proclaiming dogma that has not been invoked in any aspect of the discussions of modern morality.
Excommunication is an attempt to point out to a person that they have put themselves outside the church, separating themselves from the spiritual benefits that the church can provide. While two bishops in the U.S. have made threatening noises about excommunication and denial of Communion, 176 other diocesan ordinaries (with their several hundred assistant bishops) have declined to say any such thing.
There has been exactly one accusation of heresy (by a layman with an apparent political agenda) that has not been supported by any church leader and that does not actually meet the tests of what heresyt actually is.
If you want to fear Rome dominating U.S. politics, that’s fine, but I would suggest waiting until there is actually some evidence that that is actually happening on a church-wide basis, rather than getting all excited by the actions of three individuals, even if all of two of them happen to be bishops.
Huh? I’m not even trying to tell *you * that the CC is just a lobbying organization. Lobbying organizations are not tax-deductible non-profit organizations, which the church most definitely is. As I’ve said several times in this thread, they can try to influence their members, but their lobbying efforts are seriously limited.
So you want to punish them because they have their ducks lined in a row? Only the unorganized may involved themselves in the political process to the extent the law allows?
Huh (again)? Where is anyone dismissing the CC as “flimsy fluff”, or that no one should take them seriously? (And as tomndebb mentioned, you should do a bit more research on papal infallibility - that word does not mean what you think it means.)
First you say that the CC has to much influence. Now you’re saying they don’t have any (substantial) influence. Then you want me to pretend its the Middle Ages. Make up your mind.
Cite? A quick google search reveals several sources within Ireland where you can buy condoms. When you come back, maybe you could start posting facts?
Tomndeb:
fine, I did backpedal, but that’s not nothing. The potential is there and cause for concern.
Munch:
Punish? My point is simply what with all the talk of patriotism, it’s patriotic to be concerned about the threat of an unusually powerful foreign organization coming between the voters and the officials they elect to represent them.
No, I said they can’t physically punish you. Back in the ME they could. To what extent should a Catholic fear being denied communion, excommunicated, or charged with heresy? If a lot, then I’m right for being concerend as an American, if not much, then why did you say “where is anyone calling it flimsy fluff?”?
Are you saying the CC has had little influence over the availability of birth control and abortion in predominately Catholoc countris throughtout the last century?
To flog it a bit:
Munch:
Earlier you said:
I just substituted “lobbying organization” in my analogy to make it more generic. Why the nitpick?
As for nitpicks:
I am aware that PI has very seldom been invoked. I said “papal infaliibilty on down…” meaning the whole range of Catholic doctrines in which the clergy play key spiritual roles or Catholics rather than just act as teachers or guides as in other denominations. This has the potential to give a smal decision-making body a great deal of power and influence. I say it’s fair game for them to go after the masses one individual at a time to get them to vote a certain way, but were there to be any serious effort to apply Church sanction to an elected official or candidate in response to the policies they support, red flags should go up since not all of their flock is Catholic. (Somewhere along the line I got the impression that the bishop of Kerry’s own diocese was considering denying him communion, but I’m really only interested in the rhetorical culture-war implications and am not really worried.)
Of course I cannot provide a determination of just how much authority Catholic officials supposedly potentially have in a way that one could for someone who wields the civil law (and so my debate opponents can go a long way in minimizing it). But the CC does present itself to its followers as a body that rules with law. The very idea of putting a candidate on trial for heresy can mean one of two things, and I’ll leave it to the class to figure out what those two things are.
The potentil is infintesimally remote in a nation with a long tradition of pluralism and anti-Catholic persecution. It is even more remote in a country where the Catholics, themselves, act in ways that display frequent disagreements with church policy.
I suspect that I cannot calm your fears (or “concerns”), but I am quite capable of laughing at the expreession of your concerns with the tolerant amusement with which I used to smile over my young son’s concerns for tornadoes that were reported several states away.
It is “possible” that the Religious Right will band togther and order George Bush to initiate Armageddon.
It is “possible” that corporations or unions will begin ordering their employees or members to vote for particular candidates.
It is “possible” that various ethnic leaders will order their co-cultural citizens to vote for selected candidates.
Until such time as you see any of those scenarios successfully engaged in U.S. politics, I suspect that you have rather more to fear from apathy, ignorance, an entrenched two-party system, and a host of real issues than with U.S. Catholics robotically carrying out the agenda of the National Council of Catholic Bishops (who, as I have already pointed out, have their own problems reaching consensus on many issues).
Yes, the RCC is based in Rome. But each diocese in America is an American entity. THOSE are the organizations you’d be punishing. Care to explain why?
Your concern here is admirable, but entirely misplaced. tomndebb’s tornado analogy is spot-on.
No, I’m saying that your post was riddled with error that could easily have been corrected with a 3 second Google search, and those errors permeate the tone and veracity of the rest of your posts.
Because “lobbying organization” is more specific than it is generic. It may have been a difference you were not aware of. i just recently completed a degree on the topic, so I’m probably just a bit more sensitive to the field. No biggie.
Here’s the problem. You’ve yet to display or provide any evidence that this is true. Potential is one thing - chance for success is another. The potential might be there, but the chance for it happening is nearly 0.
This may be my biggest pet peeve on the SDMB. If you’re going to hint at something, have the guts to say it. Otherwise, it’s just an empty statement.