Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[SpiritMeadow]

I suppose it is human nature to get annoyed at persons who disagree with you on matters you may prize very highly. So the attitude of “Shoo, go away, ya bother me” which you mentioned is understandable. However, I don’t think it is an attitude to be indulged . If a Catholic truly believed that the Church has the Truth and the Real Presence, it would be uncharitable, if not downright heartless, to encourage others to leave the Church. A much tougher road, but perhaps more in tune with Christ’s love, would be to work and pray to bring cafeteria Catholics around to orthodoxy. I can’t help but think there is a bit of selfishness in the desire to expel anyone who doesn’t measure up to our own personal standards.

But note, please, that I too am not a member of the Catholic Church, at least not in good standing. I lost my faith in it about nine months ago, although I still have a fondness for the Church.

Dale it probably would not be politic of me to criticize the internal issues that confront the RCC. I know that we have learned from our mistakes, hopefully. While many who approved Robinson’s ordination would not change their mind, many do now see that it was handled poorly. In our parish we surely are taking the same-sex Iowa Supreme court case carefully and slowly step by step. We are trying to not debate, not judge, and not argue, but simply to first provide information, then provide teaching, and then well, we will see. We are hoping to develop a forum teaching study this fall. That is our next step. Our bishop has been helpful in his guidance and frankly, most of us feel quite good about how things are going.

Gentleness, and loving listening are very important. I do agree, we wish everyone to come to the table, not just those who agree with us.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think you (or someone) mentioned the fact that the Pope sent a telegram to Obama the day after his election. I found this:

Pope Benedict sent his congratulations Nov. 5, referring to the “historic occasion” of the election, marking the first time a black man has been elected president of the United States.

• from catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805743.htm

So I would conclude that the telegram doesn’t in fact indicate support or like-mindedness, but was simply to mark the “historic occasion”.

As a matter of fact, I didn’t mention it at all, but the Allen article you linked to did, and as you said referred to his election. I recall it being noted elsewhere as well that this in itself was somewhat unusual since the Vatican usually waits until inaugeral (sp) day to do that.

 

[Peter_J]

the anti-abortion group found it more persuasive to use the term pro-life, and to refer to pro-choice people as pro-abortion.

Yeah, we anti-choice people really manipulated the English language when we decided to start calling pro-choice people something other than “pro-choice”.

But seriously, just think about this logically for a sec. If you heard the term “pro-choice”, you wouldn’t even know what issue was being discussed, if it weren’t for the fact that society has conditioned us to automatically associate “choice” with abortion.

If you’d prefer to say “in favor of the legality of abortion” rather than “pro-abortion”, then I certainly don’t have a problem with that. But please, don’t insult our intelligence by expecting us to say “pro-choice”.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yeah, we anti-choice people really manipulated the English language when we decided to start calling pro-choice people something other than “pro-choice”.

But seriously, just think about this logically for a sec. If you heard the term “pro-choice”, you wouldn’t even know what issue was being discussed, if it weren’t for the fact that society has conditioned us to automatically associate “choice” with abortion.

If you’d prefer to say “in favor of the legality of abortion” rather than “pro-abortion”, then I certainly don’t have a problem with that. But please, don’t insult our intelligence by expecting us to say “pro-choice”.

Peter you can deny the history of the anti abortion group all you want, but it is well documented that they made the change to "pro-life and pro-abortion with the design to win adherents, and they were successful. Pro-choice advocates simply turn back the tables.

And I didn’t invent by any stretch the term pro-choice. It is replete throughout the media coverage, and the literature. It is not insult to anyone’s intelligence, those who support choice are in fact pro-choice. It means exactly what it says. It is honestly descriptive.

Pro-abortion is exactly not accurate and does not properly and honestly describe the group. And I will continue to object to its use. Feel perfectly free to substitute pro-Roe/wade if that suits you and you find choice a bit uncomfortable.

 

[mark_a]

As an Episcopalian, we have such a strange set up, that minorities that are unhappy with the majority of their congregation, have alternatives that allow them to remain in the some sense Episcopalian or Anglican. I don’t see this alternative for the RCC.

Thank God!!

 

[Ridgerunner]

At core, both sides are reading, studying and praying. Both feel in their hearts that their version of reality is correct. They believe they have the facts to back up their position. Given time, and lots of writing I can show you a senario about same-sex relationships that are not in opposition to the scripture as we understand it today. You may not agree with the analysis, but those who do struggle and ponder just as deeply in coming to their conclusion as you do to yours.

The problem is when we simply don’t allow that there is another reasonable side, and give permission to hear and really listen. Most people are willing to let people be once they feel they have had a fair hearing. I guess my issues are always that each side tends to vilify the other as “evil” rather than as honest, decent, caring Christians, doing their very best to follow the Lord.

I would say there is no chance you could persuade me that homosexuality is consistent with the scriptures, so perhaps we should just leave that one aside for some other thread.

I am not arguing that it’s impossible for a person to ponder through things and study and read and do all that and come up with conclusions that are contrary to the clear teachings of the Church. Of course people can, and manifestly do. The fact that you are a Protestant at all amply testifies to that. This thread is not about whether Protestants or Catholics are “right”, so I’ll leave that one aside as well.

The point you seem to be making, though, is fundamentally a Protestant one. However fully it may be consistent with Protestantism, it isn’t consistent with Catholicism. The Catholic Church is not accepting of the notion that it’s okay for me to “reinvent the theological wheel”. If, as a Catholic, I believe the Church has teaching authority; an authority which it claims, and that is of an entirely different character from my own conclusions; however erudite I might think they are, or however earnestly I might think them, then it isn’t given to me to simultaneously dissent from the teachings of the Church and claim that I am being a faithful Catholic. I might remain, subjectively, a member of the Catholic Church and truly intend it, but I have, in fact, placed myself outside of it, objectively. Perhaps I will return to full fidelity, and perhaps I won’t. But in the interim, I have divorced myself from it, however little I may wish to think of it in that way.

 

[mark_a]

I hear you about the “middle of the roaders” who are involved in other issues. I’m one of those too. I get my “conservative credentials” questioned all the time when I side with the church on immigration justice against the ‘build a wall’ folks, get called a commie when I suggest we might spend less on health care if we adopt a two tier system (universal basic coverage and insurance required for advanced treatment), a socialist when I describe Distributism as superior to laizse faire capitalism… I don’t think that’s mostly the case though. Most people without an opinion just haven’t bothered to develop one. (IMO!)

I know what you mean. I caught the dickens for saying “Just because George Bush is right about abortion doesn’t mean Saddam has WMD”.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter you can deny the history of the anti abortion group all you want, but it is well documented that they made the change to "pro-life and pro-abortion with the design to win adherents, and they were successful. Pro-choice advocates simply turn back the tables.

You cannot seriously be claiming that the term “pro-choice” came first, and then the term “pro-abortion” came along later?

And I didn’t invent by any stretch the term pro-choice.

And I didn’t invent the internet. So what’s your point?

It is replete throughout the media coverage,

You’re telling me!

and the literature. It is not insult to anyone’s intelligence, those who support choice are in fact pro-choice. It means exactly what it says. It is honestly descriptive.

Pro-abortion is exactly not accurate and does not properly and honestly describe the group. And I will continue to object to its use. Feel perfectly free to substitute pro-Roe/wade if that suits you and you find choice a bit uncomfortable.

So now you’re just going to put words in my mouth? My problem with the term “pro-choice” isn’t that it “makes me uncomfortable”, but that it’s biased and manipulative. (Perhaps you didn’t see this part of my last post: if you heard the term “pro-choice”, you wouldn’t even know what issue was being discussed, if it weren’t for the fact that society has conditioned us to automatically think of abortion when we hear the word “choice”.)

Boy, I thought you were better than this (thought perhaps I shouldn’t have).

 

[Ridgerunner]

I find fundamentalists dangerous, whether Protestant or Catholic, Christian, Muslim or Jewish. It is a mindset that is set in stone, based on psychologically personal needs, and often does deteriorate into violence to attain it’s goals. It doesn’t need to of course, but there are examples in every faith, Christian and not, where fundamentalists have determined that it is their duty under God’s call to force people into their definition of orthodox behavior. If it were nothing more than someone stubbornly claiming that every word of the bible was exactly written by God and mean what it meant in English (usually the KJV for reasons unknown to the rest of us), then I would be happy to let them live in that fairy tale, But unfortunately they often decide I gotta live in their world to, and they are prepared to try to force me to do that. I object, quite simply.

I know a lot more Christian fundamentalists than I know Catholics or mainline Protestants. I live in the Bible Belt, and grew up with them all around me. When I was growing up, the socioeconomic structure was dominated by members of the mainline Protestant churches, and Fundamentalists were not particularly approved of by those on the “peak of the pyramid”, any more than Catholics were at the time. So, perhaps for that reason, I didn’t have any fear of Fundamentalists. In fact, I rather liked them. They were no threat to me, Catholic though I was.

Certainly there were, and are, the fire-eaters. But at least where I grew up, such people were in a distinct minority. Most Fundamentalists were, and are, humble people; kindly people who really believe in God and really mean it when they study their bibles and try to get closer to Jesus. While I certainly didn’t accept (and still don’t) many of their biblical interpretations, I did and do admire the earnestness with which most of them really are seeking the truth. What they’re doing when they crack their brains over some biblical passage or other, (which they sure do) and then come up with some absolute or other, is to get to the truth; one truth, not some “maybe truth” that might be this way or that. Like Flannery O’Connor believed, I think most of them are nowhere near as distant from the Catholic Church as they often think they are.

Now, of course, the socioeconomic situation has changed, and nobody’s “on top” in that way. But Fundamentalists remain Fundamentalists, for the most part, even so. There are bad ones, just like there are bad Catholics and bad Episcopalians. But by and large, Fundamentalists are good people, in my book.

My parish grows about 5%/year through conversions. Virtually all of them are former Fundamentalists. It might be off-putting to some to say this, but if you ask any of them about their conversion (and most are happy to tell) it’s almost always one or both of two things. First, since they have struggled all their lives to be “close to Jesus” the Eucharist (believed literally) fills that longing in a way that nothing else can. Second, since they really do care about “truth” that’s immutable, the Church provides relief from interpretations that vary.

 

[jpaul1953]

Recently, say over the past few weeks, a couple of Roman Catholics have expressed the opinion that the American church will split. Clearly the majority of RC’s, if one believes polling, both by independents and the UCCB itself, most Catholics for instance voted for Obama, and support various liberal issues. They practice birth control at a very high rate, and so forth.

Additionally, a larger number of RC’s on this forum have publically said that they wished that Catholics who don’t agree with their views of dogma (which they of course claim is the Church’s) would leave the church, even if it meant a majority of the American church left, leaving a very small RCC in America.

My question is how could this happen?

It seems to me that generally speaking when a minority is dissatisfied with the majority and the manner in which they operate, it is the minority which leaves. It certainly can’t force out the majority I wouldn’t think.

When so many here think that most of their brethren are “poorly” catecized, have poor priests who come from liberal seminaries and Cathollc colleges and universities, where most religious women are thought poorly of as being “liberal” etc. I can’t figure out how the minority can leave the church either.

Clearly the ultra conservatives here wish to remain aligned with Rome, and they would never consider any alternative that I can think of. Yet how can they remove the majority from the Church?

Or do most Catholics conservative or otherwise disagree that the liberals should get out of town?

I’m just wondering what Catholics think on this issue, or if they think about it at all.

As an Episcopalian, we have such a strange set up, that minorities that are unhappy with the majority of their congregation, have alternatives that allow them to remain in the some sense Episcopalian or Anglican. I don’t see this alternative for the RCC.

Dear Anglican,

Just because Catholics voted for Obama doesn’t make them anticatholics. It makes them ignorant Catholics and ignorant voters. Most Catholics voted for Obama because he would end the war, help American families, lower crime, and unite America. They did not vote for him because of his stance on abortion. Abortion is the law. Catholics have been unsuccessful in getting this law changed.

And who are you to say the majority of Catholics are immoral, to say the least. Catholics voting for Obama does not equal immorality, unless you believe all catholics follow the news minute by minute to become educated voters (I wish). That means you must see Obama as immoral. Well, good for you. I agree with that and did not vote for Obama. he seems to be quite bright and quite a nice guy, but I do not like his views. BUT he is our President and I will respect him. He has a job that most would not want for any amount of money.

Remember, only God knows the heart of man. Not you and God

jpaul1953

 

[GodIsGracious]

Just because Catholics voted for Obama doesn’t make them anticatholics. It makes them ignorant Catholics and ignorant voters. Most Catholics voted for Obama because he would end the war, help American families, lower crime, and unite America. They did not vote for him because of his stance on abortion. Abortion is the law. Catholics have been unsuccessful in getting this law changed.

It does not make them ignorant, and I’m fed up with those statements. I could just as easily say that Catholics who voted for McCain are ignorant. He wanted to continue the war, continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and continue to abuse the resources we have left. You think that he was going to stop abortion? Or get it outlawed? That’s incredibly ignorant. The neo-cons have been dangling that as a carrot in front of the religious conservative to get their vote. In the whole time that the republicans were in control (since Clinton) they did nothing significant to change it. And don’t tell me it’s because democrats blocked legislation. They most certainly were able to get other legislation through that’s helped to put us in our current condition.

Frankly, to vote for someone who would incite the racism the Republican ticket ignited in people would be against what I learned as a Catholic. I think many conservatives got blinded by Obama’s pro-CHOICE stance and couldn’t see the hope he was looking to instill and inspire in people (rather than hate, war, and continued crushing of the poor by McCain). Many people saw that. Just because someone voted for Obama doesn’t make them ignorant. An Obama voter can make the same claim for a McCain voter.

 

[Eleve]

And who are you to say the majority of Catholics are immoral, to say the least. Catholics voting for Obama does not equal immorality, unless you believe all catholics follow the news minute by minute to become educated voters (I wish). That means you must see Obama as immoral. Well, good for you. I agree with that and did not vote for Obama. he seems to be quite bright and quite a nice guy, but I do not like his views. BUT he is our President and I will respect him. He has a job that most would not want for any amount of money.

Remember, only God knows the heart of man. Not you and God

Where did you get any of this in SpiritMeadow’s post?

 

[Peter_J]

Good question, Eleve.

 

[manualman]

The label “fundamentalist” is one I struggle with. At the heart of the issue, ANYONE with firm religious conviction is a “fundamentalist.” Those without firm religious convictions aren’t.

SpiritMeadow, you are quite clear in your posts that you believe that all men and women of sincere religious intention and conscience are equal in standing before God. What you don’t seem to see is that you are as rigid in this belief as any bible - thumping tent revival preacher! You pretty clearly have derision for those who are conviced that God has revealed to humanity that (for example) abortion or homosexual acts are utterly wrong and not to be permitted under any circumstance. How is that any different from those who deride the people who commit those acts?

What I see in your posts is a deep uncertainty whether humans can have much moral certainty in this life (at least in some issues). I hope you can come to see that this attitude is just as much a principle open to question as those you ask others to hold open and refrain from being dogmatic about.

It is a self - contradiction to state that no one may be dogmatic about anything. Such a statement is, itself, dogmatic. I’m with you that no mere human should be dogmatic about moral issues. That is the place of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, not individuals. That’s our stance, anyways. I’m not sure how the Episcopal Church decides hard questions (or decides not to…)

 

[GodIsGracious]

Where did you get any of this in SpiritMeadow’s post?

I agree with Eleve as well.

 

[Peter_J]

The label “fundamentalist” is one I struggle with. At the heart of the issue, ANYONE with firm religious conviction is a “fundamentalist.”

I really have to disagree with you there. There most definitely are people with firm religious convictions who are not fundamentalist – Pope Benedict XVI for example.

Those without firm religious convictions aren’t.

SpiritMeadow, you are quite clear in your posts that you believe that all men and women of sincere religious intention and conscience are equal in standing before God. What you don’t seem to see is that you are as rigid in this belief as any bible - thumping tent revival preacher! You pretty clearly have derision for those who are conviced that God has revealed to humanity that (for example) abortion or homosexual acts are utterly wrong and not to be permitted under any circumstance. How is that any different from those who deride the people who commit those acts?

Good question.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

QUOTE=Peter J;5342782]You cannot seriously be claiming that the term “pro-choice” came first, and then the term “pro-abortion” came along later?

I didn’t say that. I said that there were pro-RoeV.Wade versus anti-Roe-V.Wade. Then the anti Roe people discovered the terms pro-life and pro-abortion as being better triggers. The pro-choice which is clear about what it means, resulted. Nobody as I said is pro-abortion. Interestingly enough Mike Huckabee was on the Daily Show last night, and he started off talking about abortion, and the first sentence out of his mouth was “Nobody believes that anyone wakes up in the morning and says, gee, lets have more abortions today. Nobody is “for abortion.”” My point exactly.

And I didn’t invent the internet. So what’s your point?

In imply that I’m trying to force some new idea down your throat. It’s hardly new with me, it’s commonly used as you admit further down.

So now you’re just going to put words in my mouth? My problem with the term “pro-choice” isn’t that it “makes me uncomfortable”, but that it’s biased and manipulative. (Perhaps you didn’t see this part of my last post: if you heard the term “pro-choice”, you wouldn’t even know what issue was being discussed, if it weren’t for the fact that society has conditioned us to automatically think of abortion when we hear the word “choice”.)

You don’t seem to understand what “putting words in one’s mouth” means. I didn’t attribute any statement to you. I characterized what I see you saying. I am free to do that, as you do me as well. And your explanation that Pro-choice doesnt define anything is trumped by your own statement, “society has been conditioned to authomatically think of abortion.” I’d say that makes it abundantly clear what it refers to. You admit that.

Boy, I thought you were better than this (thought perhaps I shouldn’t have).

The sad thing is Peter, that you are fine when I agree with you. Even then, if I agree with your second statement, things are fine. But if I continue to disagree, then you get ugly. Thanks. This is hardly the first time you have turned mean like this. I sincerely am sad you do.

 

[Matariel]

A minor point, perhaps just a quibble, but the majority of white American Catholics did NOT vote for Obama. The majority Catholic vote for him was due to heavy Hispanic voting for him. There are some who argue that Spanish language political ads were misleading.

I don’t understand the above quote… did you mean non-white Hispanics? Or Both white and non-white hispanics?

Also, there is a more serious issue at hand. The majority of practicing (weekly Mass-attending) Catholics DID NOT vote for Obama. unfortunately, in the media, they have no idea that ex-Catholics turned Protestant usually continue to call themselves “Catholic” (I know of two families that do this personally) and also then there are cultural Catholics who don’t practice any religion, and then there are Christmas-and-Easter Catholics. All of these groups that claim to be Catholics, screw up the polls, making it appear “Catholics” did one thing or another, when in reality the church-going Catholics did something or believe something quite different.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I know a lot more Christian fundamentalists than I know Catholics or mainline Protestants. I live in the Bible Belt, and grew up with them all around me. When I was growing up, the socioeconomic structure was dominated by members of the mainline Protestant churches, and Fundamentalists were not particularly approved of by those on the “peak of the pyramid”, any more than Catholics were at the time. So, perhaps for that reason, I didn’t have any fear of Fundamentalists. In fact, I rather liked them. They were no threat to me, Catholic though I was.

Certainly there were, and are, the fire-eaters. But at least where I grew up, such people were in a distinct minority. Most Fundamentalists were, and are, humble people; kindly people who really believe in God and really mean it when they study their bibles and try to get closer to Jesus. While I certainly didn’t accept (and still don’t) many of their biblical interpretations, I did and do admire the earnestness with which most of them really are seeking the truth. What they’re doing when they crack their brains over some biblical passage or other, (which they sure do) and then come up with some absolute or other, is to get to the truth; one truth, not some “maybe truth” that might be this way or that. Like Flannery O’Connor believed, I think most of them are nowhere near as distant from the Catholic Church as they often think they are.

Now, of course, the socioeconomic situation has changed, and nobody’s “on top” in that way. But Fundamentalists remain Fundamentalists, for the most part, even so. There are bad ones, just like there are bad Catholics and bad Episcopalians. But by and large, Fundamentalists are good people, in my book.

My parish grows about 5%/year through conversions. Virtually all of them are former Fundamentalists. It might be off-putting to some to say this, but if you ask any of them about their conversion (and most are happy to tell) it’s almost always one or both of two things. First, since they have struggled all their lives to be “close to Jesus” the Eucharist (believed literally) fills that longing in a way that nothing else can. Second, since they really do care about “truth” that’s immutable, the Church provides relief from interpretations that vary.

I was raised mostly around Catholics whom I looked up to, and fundamentalists whom I found odd in their thinking. Since Catholics didn’t talk about their faith, the only thing I ever understood was fundamentalist literalism. So in a sense, it kept me from faith for many years since I cannot and will never accept the bible that way.

There are numerous books and articles on the issue of fundamentalism. It started out being a perfectly fine doctrine but has been perverted as are many such ideologies into a kind of rigidity that as I said, I find dangerous. In fact, the rise of fundamentalism across religions is of greater concern to many in the world.

Of course, many if not most fundamentalists are fine people, just wrong headed from my point of view. I have determined on my own, and am glad you back up the fact that more of more of Catholicism’s converts are coming from this group. I find they are contributing to the growth of the right wing within the church, especially by turning a rather blind eye it seems to literalism. The fact that the RCC “allows” people to believe in a YEC and that evolution is some bogus creation are troubling. But that is of course not the subject here.

I appreciate all your information about your own experiences. That is how we all come to understand each other better.

 

[Matariel]

Nobody as I said is pro-abortion.

That’s a naïve statement. If no-one was pro-abortion, there wouldn’t be any doctors to perform abortion…