From the Horse's Mouth: Roman Catholic Non-Negotiable Positions

[MineralMan]

These things will not change. They are solid Roman Catholic doctrinal issues. The new Pope will not alter any of them. I chose the site below, because it is a site from a Roman Catholic Source. It is in the form of a FAQ page:

http://www.stjoseph-marysville.org/faqnonnegotiables.html

For those who don't wish to click through, here are the basics:

Introduction from the page:

Based on Church teachings, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Encyclicals of the Pope, and issue papers from the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith, the following five issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law.

Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no person who rea1ly wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.

1. Abortion - Absolutely not. Period. Not under any circumstances.
1a. Reproductive Technologies - No contraception. No in-vitro fertilization. No sterilization to prevent conception.
2. Euthanasia - Absolutely not. Period.
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Absolutely not, under any circumstances.
4. Human Cloning - Nope. Never.
5. Same Sex Marriage - Emphatically no.

This not what I say. This is what the church says. These things will not change and the RCC considers it a serious sin to endorse or promote any of them, not just to do them. Pope Francis will not change them. No Pope will change them They are at the core of RCC beliefs. Read the page for yourself. I have my own opinions about each issue. I assume that most people do. Mine do not agree with the RCC.

[zappaman]

1. Fuck the Vatican.

[MineralMan]

8. Your words. Not mine.

I'm posting information and stating my opinion.

[zappaman]

10. What an odd response.

I wasn't claiming they were your words, merely expressing my opinion.
"Fuck the Vatican"-Zappaman

[MineralMan]

12. Not really. I was expressing disagreement

with your words in the thread I started, to make sure that nobody thought that was the conclusion I came to. I disagree with those doctrines of the RCC. I would not say "Fuck the Vatican," however.

People sometimes think what others say in a thread has something to do with what the OP said. I want to make it clear that is not the case here.

[onehandle]

2. Good thing The United States has no restrictions on any of those.

Then, we would all be guilty.

[MineralMan]

3. Of course the US has restrictions on some of them.

Nobody's guilty for merely being a US citizen or a Roman Catholic parishioner. This is not about guilt. It is about issues and the stated opinion of the official church hierarchy. Every individual has to form his or her own opinions. That's my opinion.

[geek tragedy]

39. Yes, the RCC lobbies intensely to keep it that way.

They're part of the problem here.

But, not content with that, they're waging a war on contraception.

[MNBrewer]

60. RCC is a special interest lobbying group. The US of A is a nation.

Not similar in any respect.

[haikugal]

4. Thank You for this...

We have restrictions based on religion in this country and the religious far right are joined at the hip regardless of denomination. I'm with you MineralMan...I don't agree. We should not allow religion to interfere with our laws or science, education etc. EVER!!!

[MineralMan]

6. I posted this for one reason:

Some seem to believe the Roman Catholic church will change its mind on these issues. It will not.

There are laws restricting some of those items in the United States, but laws can be changed, and are negotiable.

Abortion is permitted in the United States. While some states have imposed restrictions, abortion is legal.
Contraception of all kinds is allowed by law in the US.
Serious restrictions exist for human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. All are subject to change at any time.
Some states have already passed laws allowing euthanasia under specific circumstances, and laws can be passed at any time.
Same sex marriage is legal in several states and jurisdictions and more will pass laws recognizing marriage equality.

In the United States, such things are subject to law, not dogma. All can be changed through our lawmaking process. It is not the same as non-negotiable religious doctrine in any way.

[haikugal]

11. Well said...

and again, Thanks.

[JDPriestly]

112. Abortion is legal, contraception is legal, etc. thanks to Supreme Court

decisions. Right now we have several (sometimes a majority of) Catholic and ex-Catholic fundamentalist Supreme Court judges.

Who will they answer to? What will inform their decisions if and when these issues on many of which the Catholic Church takes a stance that is contrary to that of the majority of Americans come before them?

I'm just guessing, but I think probably the majority of American Catholics respect freedom of conscience on all of these issues. But a Supreme Court Justice might be caught between the rock of the Catholic Church and the hard place of what is right for and in harmony with the values of our country (like majority rule) on these issues.

I think we all need to be aware of this just as we are aware of the social and political stances that churches and groups other than the Catholic Church take.

Right now, Catholics are very, very well represented on the Supreme Court. Mainstream Protestants not so much. It shouldn't make any difference, but on certain issues it does.

It's a shame but let's all keep this in mind. Some of the sensitivity about the Catholic Church arises from the conflicts in our country about the above issues.

People who are strongly affected or involved in these issues are afraid of the power of the Catholic Church.

I think that explains a lot of misplaced agressivity toward Catholics themselves.

[winter is coming]

5. "If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema."

"Non-negotiable" and "forever" are relative.

A lot of Catholics don't agree with the pronouncements coming out of Rome, either, and many choose to ignore them.

[MineralMan]

7. You are correct.

Many Catholics do not agree with their church. I did not say otherwise.

[Squinch]

15. But his other point is important too: those things are non negotiable in the church, true.

But before Vatican Two there were a bunch of things that were non negotiable that suddenly were negotiated and changed.

Things in the church are non-negotiable till they are not.

Even the infallibility of the Pope is a relatively new concept originating in it's current form in the 1800's.

[MineralMan]

16. Such as the language of the Mass?

That is not a core doctrine of the Church. At the link, you'll find a discussion of such things, too. There are procedural and internal issues in the church that may be changeable. One would be a married priesthood. The other might be the elevation of women to priestly roles. Those are procedural matters and might be changed at some point. The non-negotiable points listed in that document are actual basic doctrinal issues.

[Squinch]

17. There was a point early on where the books of the New Testament were negotiated.

Some in wide circulation and belief were ditched, and others were promoted. At various points in the history of the church, doctrinal issues were codified and agreed upon. Which issues became dogma was often a function of the social, political or technological environment of the time.

The fact that stem cell research is considered to be one of these unchangeable areas is proof of that. In 1900, stem cell research was not included in that list. Today it is. The list changes.

My point is that, yes. The church has hard and fast rules. But those rules came from somewhere, began at some point, and came from the mouth or pen of some guy. Yes, they are considered unchangeable, but that is because some guy, at some point during or after the Council of Trent, decided that they were God's unchangeable law.

I'm not bashing the church. This is just how it is with every church's dogmatic laws.

[MineralMan]

18. Yes. As far as I am concerned the whole thing is a tissue

fabricated from nothing. A very filmy and fragile tissue that requires hard protection so it is not torn and blown away. We're seeing that protection only. The tissue has disappeared.

[Squinch]

22. I get the impression

that there might have been another thread that this one refers to that I might not have been aware of, possibly saying something along the lines of "why don't they just get up to date on stuff?". Is that so?

Whether it is or not, I still find the discussion interesting. I was raised Catholic and left the religion, but I am still endlessly fascinated by the mindset of believers, and the history of pure good and pure evil and everything in between that happened in the church.

[MineralMan]

23. No, it wasn't based on any other thread.

It's just the topic of the day, really.

[Whisp]

19. My question, are they really Roman Catholic then?

That's the hump of understanding I can't get over.

If you don't believe in the basic teachings of your church (abortion, women priests, same sex marriage, etc.,) then are you really a member of that Church?

What does the Vatican say about that? Are they saying that people who are members and don't abide by the laws of the church, will be going to hell along with the non believers?

oiy. complicated stuff for sure.

[MineralMan]

21. That's not a question I can answer.

I'm not a Catholic, much less a member of the hierarchy of that church.

[Whisp]

24. when I was a kid

and catholic, because my parents were, I took those things pretty seriously to the limit I could understand. For one, it was hammered into my head at church what a bad person I was (a kid!) especially because I was female. Men and boys didn't wear hats in church because they received this ray of something from god and having a hat would interfere as it entered through the top of your head. (lol, yah I know), but women, being women, had to wear hats because they weren't worthy of this super ray of acceptance and blessing from god.

I didn't understand the bigger issues of homophobia and all that but I remember being struck with fear when I dared myself to 'take the lord's name in vain' and said 'god dammit' one time. To see what would happen.

but I was just a little kid, I just wonder if there is that fear in members of the church who don't abide by the church's laws.

I know you don't have the answer, just thinking out loud here.

[MineralMan]

26. Well, from my perspective, as a one-time Christian,

I believe that Christianity is essentially a fear-based religion. First, it teaches that we are all horrid, sinful creatures from the day we are born. We deserve only death and eternal punishment for being born such evil, nasty beings. Then it teaches that the only possible way for us not to be eternally damned and perhaps sent to a horrible punishing place after we die is to believe what we are told to believe. If we do that, and stay within the boundaries defined for us, we'll get a big reward when we die. Maybe. But we don't deserve it, and it's only because the deity loves us so much that he won't kill us all forever, again and again.

However, if we don't believe what we are told to believe, it's our own damned fault and we deserve the eternal punishment we earned by being born. So, fall in line, folks, and join us. The collection plate's right over there. You don't want to die and be eternally punished, right. 'Cause God will do that to you, we guarantee. Step right up and be baptized. Just follow the one in front of you. Save yourself while you still can.

[hfojvt]

42. that may be what some churches teach

but it is not, in my view, the central tenet of Christianity. Not even very close.

See, for example Deuteronomy 30: 11 - 20

verse 15 and 16

"see, I have set before you today, life and good, death and evil
in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, his statutes and his judgements, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you ..."

and Micah 6: 8

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?"

Clearly, it is not just about believing, it is about doing.

And it is not about punishment either. Suppose you are a parent and you warn your children not to smoke. Yet if they decide to ignore you, they have a good chance of getting lung cancer. That's not the parent punishing the child, that is, instead, a consequence of doing the wrong thing.

Take the admonition "do not steal". If a group of people follows that commandment, then they will get along pretty well (all other things being equal). But what happens when one person chooses to break that commandment? Now the group has strife, it has suspicion. Somebody is upset about being robbed, and everyone is a suspect. Then other people get mad, naturally, about being suspects.

And so on.

As for death and hell. Well, those who choose the side of God and goodness are making a choice, let's say to goto Philadelphia - the city of brotherly love. Others make a different choice, they decide to head to sin city - Las Vegas. Those who make the latter choice are not being punished for it. The main thing is - they are made to live with their choice. Sin city may sound like fun, but it is a very violent and cruel place, full of people who don't care about goodness.

[MineralMan]

45. My friend, the subject of this thread is the beliefs of one church:

The Roman Catholic Church. That is the only subject I'm addressing here. I'm very aware of the teachings of Christianity. Depending on the denomination, the details vary somewhat. And yet, there is still the sinful nature of man from birth and a single path to avoid eternal damnation. I don't care what denomination you mention; those are the essential basics of Christianity.

You broadened the discussion, and I'm happy to oblige. I find it interesting that your only Biblical quotations are from the Old Testament. That's a pretty good representation of the teachings of Judaism. If you want to discuss Christianity, then the New Testament is more relevant. Therein, it lays out the two principles I mentioned above.

I am an atheist, but I'm more than a little familiar with Christian teachings.

Still, this thread is about the Roman Catholic Church as an organization, not Christianity in general. That would be a topic better suited for the Religion Group, where I also sometimes participate.

[hfojvt]

121. but it is the Protestant churches who put more emphasis on faith

the Catholic church, as I understand it, teaches a doctrine of salvation by "effort", that it is more than just "believing" http://www.catholicscomehome.org/salvation/

The Old Testament just happens to be part of the Christian Bible as well. I could have included more quotes like say Matthew 7: 21 or the parable in Matthew 25 (which many would claim is not about salvation, but some sort of 2nd judgement) or James 1: 27 or John 14: 21.

Those are the essential basics of Christianity as you understand them, but, again, I don't believe any church is going to teach it that way.

[RainDog]

116. which churches do not teach the doctrine of original sin? n/t

[hfojvt]

122. probably most of them

At least in the sense that the last 100 sermons I have heard, in a variety of churches - Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist, not ONE of them has said very much at all about original sin. (which is not to say it may have been mentioned in passing)

They probably all include it in their basic doctrine, but they do not teach it to you on a regular basis.

Nor do they need to. Nobody over the age of 8 needs to be "convicted" of original sin, because they have done enough sinning of their own to be found guilty.

[RainDog]

125. Wow. really?

I would never have viewed my children as sinful simply because they were children. That's a horrid burden to put on a child, imo.

Children have to learn how to get along in a society - that's part of growing up. I don't understand how anyone can view a child as sinful because they don't have the maturity to understand various rules related to interaction with others.

But children as young as 15 months have also demonstrated a basic "do unto others" value related to sharing, without any need to be viewed as sinners.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/story/2011-10-15/Kids-may-develop-a-sense-of-fairness-earlier-than-thought/50785522/1

Children develop a sense of fairness and altruism, or selflessness, earlier than previously thought, according to a new study.

Researchers from the University of Washington found that 15-month-old babies could tell the difference between equal and unequal portions of food. This perception, the study authors noted, affected the babies' willingness to share.

"Our findings show that these norms of fairness and altruism are more rapidly acquired than we thought," study leader Jessica Sommerville, a University of Washington associate professor of psychology, said in a university news release. "These results also show a connection between fairness and altruism in infants, such that babies who were more sensitive to the fair distribution of food were also more likely to share their preferred toy."

[Dorian Gray]

128. I've been a regular

church goer (RCC) for 42 years, and I've never heard of women having to wear hats bc they aren't worthy of this "super ray of acceptance and blessing from god." Ever.

I've never worn a hat to church, either. Or a mantilla. Or any other head covering. Except my veil at my wedding.

[Whisp]

129. I have no idea if that came from the church teachings

(very likely because of how they view women - the hat thing whether true or not holds to the teachings about women being less than men, except for that miracle woman virgin who got impregnated by God and who had a kid. I knew god had a beard, a white one like Santa, but I didn't know he had a penis!) or from the members.

people besides the Pope make up stupid shit all the time.

btw, have you ever wondered why or know anything about the hats on men vs. women? I don't know if they still do that, it's been many years.

Are women still expected to wear something on their heads in RCC?

[Dorian Gray]

132. I'm a female

and I've never ever had to wear anything on my head in church. I chose to wear a veil during my wedding mass, but that was my own choice. The priest who married us never mentioned that I had to do it.

In other cultures that are more traditional (Spain, Italy) some older women might wear hats or mantillas. But I don't think it's necessary. I just assumed it was a modesty thing, though I have no proof of that.

The only thing I sometimes have on my head are my sunglasses, which my husband usually reminds me to take off when mass starts.

People do make stuff up and some things are more cultural rules than religious ones. There was a time when women wore their best hats to church, but now I think it's a win if I get out of my sweats for church.

[Whisp]

133. The hat thing is not made up

but that was so very long ago I'm not surprised things have changed. Thank goodness, at least some things CAN be changed.

[Dorian Gray]

134. I didn't think you made it up

I think traditions change over time. Here in Brooklyn its pretty low key at Sunday Mass.

[Whisp]

136. ah, didn't mean for it to sound like an accusation or something.

heh. words sometimes turn funny on the interwebs.

[Dorian Gray]

144. Gotcha!

It's all good.

[RainDog]

130. You have to cover your arms if you're a female

and you go into any RCC church in Italy to look at the art.

When I was at a Russian Orthodox church in Moscow, the male teacher I was with touched my shoulder to tell me our group was moving to another space and the women who were there came over and hit his hand because we weren't allowed to touch b/c he was male and I'm female.

So, some of these strictures are still in place.

[Dorian Gray]

131. In Thailand

I had to wear a skirt to go into the Buddhist temples.

You do what you gotta do to sightsee. I see that as more cultural than religious, though arguments can be made either way.

[patrice]

91. "ignore" - OR - accept the risk to one's "soul" of living by one's own conscience, in a manner

similar to that manifested in the life of Jesus, who, though he respected his church, ALSO claimed his own independent moral authority, which lead to the circumstances under which his church felt threatened by him and colluded with the government of their time to have him killed.

If Jesus had not claimed his own autonomy, there would have been no problem with his church and he would not have been sacrificed, as Pilate made his reluctance pretty clear and it was the Jews themselves who made that happen.

..........................

This doesn't mean, necessarily, that any and all persons decide authentically what the truth is, but that there is no way to manifest truth concretely in the world other than by accepting this responsibility freely and concretely living by the consequences thereof.

No organization can do that for anyone; there are too many moments in each person's life. An organization can't decide all of that stuff and even if they could the uniformity that would result would be fatal to life.

[Puzzledtraveller]

9. This is well known

even by ardent followers. I just wonder who is this aimed at? Has a catholic on DU claimed these are not the positions of the church?

edited: I saw your other response, which answers my post.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes. I'm glad my other post clarified it for you. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. "I am an avid KKK member."

"Now, some of the organization's rules and goals offend me, but I do not personally agree with them. So, let me have my freedom of choice. There are some really wonderful charitable things that the KKK does, especially with children and ill folks, water fountains and restaurants, school admissions and transit authorities.

"Some out there feel that the KKK's treatment of blacks and jews should prevent my supporting their very good works that they do elsewhere. And my response is that there is so much good that they do, that we can ignore their few failings, and a few historical mistakes that the organization made.

"Anyone who criticizes the KKK as an organization and my membership in it, is not being fair to me - or the organization. If you cannot see the good behind the cloak, then that is your fault, not mine, and certainly not the organization's."

This snark was brought to you by (fill in the blank).

[Squinch]

20. This is a bad analogy. Let me give you a better one:

I left the Catholic church in disgust, and even I find this ridiculous.

People join the KKK with the express purpose of inflicting harm on a race of people.

People are born into the Catholic church. Their experience of it is their families, their neighbors, their social circle, the people who come out to support them in hard times. For most people that is the meat of their Catholicism. The charitable work that the members do is not incidental, it is central and personal for most Catholics.

There are horrible things done by Catholic clergy. This is undeniable. But the rank and file Catholic is just someone trying to do the right thing according to the faith of their mothers and fathers and grandparents and great, great grandparents.

Here's a more accurate analogy to Catholicism: being a Catholic today is like being an American today, where unjust wars and killings are being perpetrated by our leaders. We have little control over it, and we certainly don't condone it, but we are Americans, and we are painted with that brush, no matter how innocent we may be of the crimes.

PS: I haven't denounced my citizenship and have no intentions of doing so. How about you?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. We are talking about hundreds of years of history

a history filled with blood, death, torture, war - all done on the orders of the church. I find it hard to find anything redeeming about it, especially during the Dark Ages. The church set back scientific learning and knowledge by 500 years. They burned books repeatedly. They harassed, tortured, and jailed scientists. They destroyed the Indians in the Americas, while enslaving the few who survived, and in the process, destroyed their math, their sciences, their literature, and more. That is extermination, not progressive proselytizing.

Even now, the church's policy on contraception and condoms is, to put it in terms they can understand, a sin. Africa suffers dearly because of the church. Luckily, here in the colonies, we tend to ignore most of the worst of its teachings.

Being an American is based on one of two simple facts. Either you are born here, or you are nationalized by choice.

Being a catholic means that you have volunteered to join a church, with eyes open, knowing of all the things that the church stands for, and accepting all the teachings. Even the church says it is a binary choice - you accept it all or you are SOL (from their point of view).

Funny, they treat sins of belief far more stringently than they treat sins of the skin. If a priest doodles an innocent 7 yr old boy or girl, he gets counseling and a slap on the wrist. But get a divorce without an annulment, and that is a mortal sin.

ON EDIT: From my perspective, the analogy is sound, only because I view the church as being just as evil as the Klan, with as many redeeming qualities. I have too many memories of ruler armed penguins attacking my hands to ever be convinced otherwise. (I was born a natural leftie - using the devil's hand)

[Squinch]

36. Being an American

comes with hundreds of years of history that include genocides, slavery, exploitation and manipulation of other nations, unjust wars, destruction of the environment, degradation of citizens based on skin color or gender. Americans led the eugenics movement, and we created and used the nuclear bomb.

Is that your fault? Are you culpable for that? Most importantly: do you object to those things? If so, why haven't you left America?

And wouldn't it be completely ridiculous for me to say to you that you are just like a KKK member because you are still here.

Their incomprehensible punishment of sins also has a correlation in America. You bring down the world economy, and you get a million dollar bonus. You get caught with a nickel bag, and you get three years.

And you are wrong in stating that for most people being a catholic means that you have volunteered to join a church. You are baptized and enter into it when you are months old, and for many people, their social structure and family revolve around a local parish and religious observations. Your siblings and parents and grandparents and great great grandparents are part of the church. The traditions of your ethnicity might be intrinsically tied up in observations of catholic holidays and practices. It is in LEAVING the church that you face the wrenching decision. You become an outsider to your family and your support group.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

46. you make many good points.

I agree there is a lot of social pressure, propaganda, and societal structure that adversely impact the yute of this country, especially for those growing up in a religious community. Just look at the Phelps clan - generations of mentally damaged folks protesting military, police, and victims of crimes.

But, there are similar pressures present in the country. Did you know that the US and A is one of the few countries to play its anthem before every single sports event? For us, it is natural. For outsiders, they view it as exceptional-ism and Rah Rah, USA! that explains why we seem so blind to our own mistakes. Of course, our press does little to expose those. A besotted blind bimbette missing from her wedding party is far more newsworthy.

[Squinch]

54. It sounds like

you too were raised among the catholics, and left them. I think it gives us a unique viewpoint on the good and bad effects of "belonging" and indoctrination and how easy it is to miss the meaning and origins of things we take for granted - for better or for worse.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

62. yup.

I still recall thinking to myself, in church, when I was 8 or so, how the whole religion thing didn't make any sense. The closer I looked at what they were trying to accomplish, the less I liked it. At that particular moment, the archdiocese bishop came in for a visit and a chat, and he demanded that we all bow our heads, because the baby hey-zeus was leaving the altar for heaven. If anyone looked up, WHACK with the ruler. I looked up, knowing there would be nothing visible. The idea that it was all a sham, all bogus, all a matter of keeping us under control crystalized all in one moment.

I never felt such freedom and relief, understanding a bigger truth than religion. My hand ached for the next few days, tho. The head penguin wielded a long metal rule.

[Squinch]

72. The day

they told me that all unbaptized babies go to some gray nothingness while everyone else gets to go somewhere was the day they lost me.

At a very young age, I understood that that was punishing a non-player for not following the rules of the game.

But you got to wear a cool dress and veil for your first communion, so I kept mum about it.

Did you have May processions? My favorite was watching all the kids fainting in the sun while we stood out there for hours being holy. It was like a war zone. We used to take bets on who would faint.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

93. No May processions,

but there was a counterpart that added religion to the mix.

I was also a lithuanian boy scout, which in those early days, had a strong influence of catholicism. The corrosive nature of the religious teachings often conflicted the neato-cool things I learned about nature, camping, what I call applied-McGyverism, and other merit badge activities. Parades, church events, and preaching - it was those events that kept us kids standing in the sun for hours.

[Zoeisright]

68. Oh, not that tired old canard.

Nobody is "born into" any religion. You're taught about it. The KKK analogy is right on, because you JOIN the KKK, just like you JOIN the Catholic church.

We most certainly do have control over what happens in this country: VOTING. Do you get a vote in what goes on in the church?

And rank and file Catholics are supporting the clergy with their dollars. If you think change is going to come from "within", there's a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to think about buying.

God, the lack of logical reasoning and the stupidity of false equivalency is really getting me down.

[Squinch]

84. Do you pay taxes?

You are supporting the government with your dollars. Unjust wars, environmental disasters, nuclear weapons, et.

So by your "logical reasoning", you are to blame for these wrongs perpetrated by your country? And do you object to those wrongs? Then why are you still in America? By your "logical reasoning" if you are still here, then you must be just like a KKK member.

I never said anything about anything changing from within. I am saying that the rank and file catholic is nothing like a member of the KKK.

And there's no need for nastiness, dear.

[geek tragedy]

105. Tax dollars are a legal obligation, no?

Unless people are going to jail for failure to tithe, the analogy falls somewhat short.

But you are right about the tone of that response.

[Squinch]

115. Andf many of the catholics I know have stopped

giving money to the church, though I have never known any to tithe. (Even when I was catholic.)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. I could see an eventual retreat on contraception.

Not abortion, mind you, but contraception. (Two very different animals.)

Keep in mind the Catholic position on contraception was not really formalized until Humanae Vitae in 1968 issued by Pope Paul VI. The previous pope John XXIII (the Pope behind the Vatican II reforms) was more open minded on the subject than one might think. So Humanae Vitae was essentially a reactionary position by Paul VI.

But if the human species is faced with inevitable issues regarding population growth, don't be too surprised if there isn't at least a lessening of the rigidity on the Vatican's position on contraception.

I don't forsee any same sex marriage being performed in Catholic Churchs in my lifetime. However, as society continues to grow more accepting of those open same sex relationships, I could see it being less of a major issue for the church as it relates to secular society.

I think it's quite possible we will see ordination of married men within my lifetime. The Byzantine Rite, which is fully Catholic, has been doing it for centuries (I had a great grandfather who was a priest in the Byzantine Rite). Ordination of women will probably still have more opposition, but I'd love to see that happen as well.

[MineralMan]

27. I can only quote the Church itself. I'm not a member of it or

its hierarchy. That's why I used the source I did. I'll take them at their word, I think.

The real problem, as I see it, is that the RCC isn't satisfied with simply imposing these rules on its own membership. It seeks to impose them on all of us. That's a really scary proposition, I think. We're seeing that today with the battle the RCC is waging against marriage equality and requirements to pay for contraceptive care for those getting health insurance.

When an organization I have not agreed to be part of wants to impose its will on me, I tend to think poorly of that organization, somehow.

[Bluenorthwest]

110. Just so you know, no one is asking the Catholic Church to perform same sex marriages.

Just asking them to stop with the libels and the meddling in secular affairs, their active opposition to others being free to live and to worship as they see fit, without the right wing atavism. Tell your friends this truth please. You can have your Church to run as you wish, to claim otherwise is a straw man.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

114. Oh, I know that.

One of the reasons for the overwhelming success of the recent same-sex marriage proposition in Maryland was an express inclusion of a clause stating that no religious entity would be forced to recognize same-sex marriage.

Which was redundant and common sense and really went without saying, given that any attempt to force a religious organization to recognize same sex marriage would have been a blantant violation of the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the mere presence of that provision actually served to disarm people who might have otherwise been opposed because of some misguided belief that legalization of same sex marriage would force religions to perform and recognize them.

It might seem stupid to you, but it was actually a brilliant move.

As for the Catholic Church, like I said, I don't see the church recognizing same-sex marriage sacramentally anytime soon. I do see, however, a very slow and subtle lessening of the percieved hostility towards gay people in general as society continues to evolve in its own right towards gay persons.

[SoCalDem]

29. Since....well.....forever

Catholics all over the place have been "doing their own thing", no matter what the pope says.

At the heart of it, it's a personal choice, and if one believes they will meet up with St.Peter someday, they will have to sort it out then.

We are no longer living in a time where the clergy was the only educated group of people around, and to whom, we had to go to explain it all to us.

The rich now have personal trainers (to whom they gossip), shrinks (to whom they confess), and the rest of us have the internet and our friends

[MineralMan]

30. I am not talking about members of the Roman Catholic Church.

I am talking about the Church itself and its leadership. Individual members have no control over the Church itself, and do not in any way set policy.

[SoCalDem]

32. I know, but "the church" has always been "out-of-step" with modernity

and always will be. They are pretty much a lost cause by now, and no amount of pressure will change them.

As people get educated, they tend to drop off.

The poor people who still believe, are also likely to be the ones who are uneducated and who have little access to much more than prayer and hope.

The church is very much like our republican congress.. they say "no" because they can, and since they are in charge of the rules, there is no reason for them to change.

[MineralMan]

38. What you say is true. And yet,

the Roman Catholic Church is attempting to control laws in our country, which is not made up of people who are necessarily members of that church. That offends me. I disagree sharply with some of that church's doctrines and do not want that organization to attempt to influence the laws of this country.

I believe that to be a legitimate area of concern for me, and for others who are affected by the church's campaigns against their equality. Why should such a thing be allowed. The Roman Catholic Church is a foreign organization, with it's own city-state. Why does it not restrict its efforts to legislate to its own territory? I won't have a religious organization I am not a part of attempt to dictate to me or to those I know and care about.

It is that simple for me.

[MNBrewer]

70. I wouldn't even care if the RCC attempted only to influence the behavior of it's adherents

by persuasion, rather than by force of law. However wrong they might be, I don't give a rat's ass if the RCC tries to convince Catholics that homosexuality is gravely disordered behavior that a catholic should never engage in, or that a Catholic should never get an abortion. it's when they try to make their dogma the law of the land that I come into conflict with them, and those who supposedly support the RCC.

I requested that my name be removed from the list of members of the United Methodist Church for many reasons, one being that I didn't want them to be able to count me as one of them in situations where membership numbers are influential. We keep hearing this "1.2 Billion Catholics" number, as though that should be meaningful. Well, I guess politicians who are concerned with voter demographics might sit up and pay attention just because the number is so ludicrously large.

[MineralMan]

76. Precisely the point of this whole discussion.

The Church may do as it pleases, within its own confines. It may not interfere with the governance of the United States.

[MNBrewer]

81. Sadly, it appears that it can

The prelates have never forgotten their Dark Age/Medieval temporal power.

[MineralMan]

83. That's up to us, really.

As happened in our own state, we voted otherwise. I'm hopeful that continues.

[MNBrewer]

88. Yes, a great many Catholics gave the bishops and archbishop a big middle finger with that vote

and I thank them for it.

[MineralMan]

90. And attendance is down, collections are down, and so on.

Perhaps the people are speaking in the only language that is truly understood.

[SoCalDem]

97. If the church had to count their members by asses in pews,

they would be a lot less in number. They count based on marriages/baptisms, and as long as older family members insist on their younger ones doing those things in the church, their membership will stay inflated.

In 20 more years, their influence (here at least) will be a lot less...thankfully

BUT it only matters if we continue to elect finger-in-the-wind politicians to lead us..

We need more thinking people who will govern for ALL of us, not just the ones who can go on tv and screech..

[NaturalHigh]

31. Posted in the wrong place.

Sorry to MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

33. Were you talking to me?

I have no problem with anything people believe with regard to religion. I think they have every right to believe whatever they can. I'm talking about an organization, not about the members of that organization. It is the organization that is behaving in ways I find wrong, so that's what I'm talking about.

I don't hate Christians, so I guess you're talking to someone other than me. But you replied to me, so I'm confused. What I did was supply some official information from an organization so it would be clear to everyone. I disagree with the opinions of that organization, and said so. What were you addressing about my original post, I wonder?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. part of the energy, even vehemence is due

to not having an opportunity to complain in public before.

As early as 7 years ago, when I ran for local office, a bible beater demanded to know which church I attended, because, in her words, it made a difference on how she would vote. Another household threw me out, because the man of the house did not know, in advance, my position on abortion and contraception. I got the impression that he was against both, given the hundreds of images of christ and mary on the entry way walls. I had no clue just how conservative this part of Cook County (chicagoland) was until that moment. But, hell, there is one bar and 11 churches within a eight block radius.

By having an outlet, a place of like minded liberals and progressives, it is no surprise that there is some anger and bottled up frustration present.

[geek tragedy]

37. Pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches

is anti-Catholic bigotry.

So I've heard.

[MineralMan]

40. Hmm...that's strange.

I deliberately chose a Roman Catholic source for my original post. How is that objectionable, I wonder? It is their words.

[geek tragedy]

43. I've been told that to attack "the Catholic Church"

is to attack all Catholics, and I've seen people citing criticism of Benedict as a pedophile enabler as an example of anti-Catholic bigotry.

It seems like Tom Donohuism.

[MineralMan]

53. Go figure...nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

65. I keep wondering about his childhood.

What on earth went so wrong with his childhood to cause such mean-spirited, spiteful, nasty, even hateful convictions to permeate his whole being. He wants others to suffer, he may actually achieve some joy from it.

I met him - or rather, I was in a crowd of 30 where he showed up to chat up catholicism.

Let's just say he did not win some of us over.

[pnwmom]

44. You chose a fundamentalist Catholic source that ignores the precepts of Vatican II.

And it ignores history. Abortion, for example, wasn't illegal for much of Church history.

And many Catholic theologians say there's little theological basis for banning contraception.

[MineralMan]

48. I chose a conservative Catholic source.

It reflects Pope Benedict's papacy. It's too early in Pope Francis' papacy for anyone to lay out what he may believe. However, he has stated his support for most of those doctrines already. I expect no changes in them. Do you?

Vatican II was about procedural rules, not these basic doctrines, which were maintained throughout. The language of the Mass and other changes in Vatican II are not among those basic doctrines. What Catholic theologians may theorize about doctrine is irrelevant, if they are not members of the official hierarchy of the church.

[pnwmom]

58. On the basis of one fundamentalist Catholic pro-curia site, you made the

global assertion that those doctrines would NEVER change under ANY Pope.

Vatican II was about far more than procedural rules or changes in the language of the Mass -- it was about shifting power back to Bishops and local communities and away from the Vatican.

I and most Catholics I know fully expect the doctrine on contraception to eventually change. As a Cardinal in Argentina, the Pope already has moved beyond the position of the Roman curia, saying that he supports the use of condoms to prevent the spread of disease. This is a small but significant step.

[MineralMan]

66. I did not make the assertion. The source made the assertion.

Please do not conflate the two.

Vatican II is a document. It can be overridden at any time by the Pope. It appears that is underway as we speak. The Roman Catholic Church is not a democratic organization, despite the election of the Pope by the College of Cardinals. The Pope is the only source for actual doctrinal statements. How the church governs itself in other matters is inconsequential, since the Pope can override those things at any time. Do you dispute the power of the Pope to issue ex cathedra doctrinal statements that are considered to be infallible? If so, you are confused, I think.

Pope Francis will, I believe, continue a very conservative doctrinal policy, while he also engages in pastoral duties that appear to be justice oriented. He seems more interested in economic matters and how they affect individuals than in modifying doctrinal prohibitions. I do not expect any of the things mentioned in my source document to change in any degree. Do you?

I reject the doctrines that reduce some people to an unequal status. I will always reject those doctrines. That is my right. I will also fight any efforts to impose any such doctrines through the laws of the United States of America. The Pope won't care if I do that, of course, but I will do that. Marriage equality. Women's right to choose their reproductive behavior. And the rest of those listed in that source document. Will you do that, as well? If so, we disagree on nothing.

[pnwmom]

75. Vatican II cannot be overridden by the Pope. Where did you get that idea?

The only thing that could override it would be a Vatican III.

You also conflated "The Church" with the opinion of a fundamentalist website. You said:

"This not what I say. This is what the church says. These things will not change and the RCC considers it a serious sin to endorse or promote any of them, not just to do them. Pope Francis will not change them. No Pope will change them. They are at the core of RCC beliefs."

[MineralMan]

78. I will not discuss this further with you.

You chose to shift into insult mode, and I won't participate in that.

[pnwmom]

85. Are you saying I insulted you by correctly saying you hadn't read the documents of Vatican II?

[MineralMan]

87. You were incorrect, though.

So you insulted me by incorrectly saying that. It has been some time since I read them, but I did, indeed read them.

I note the return of the Latin Mass. Personally, I like that change. It lets me refresh my Latin from time to time. It seems that change happens, does it not.

You are making many assumptions about me. In almost all cases, those assumptions will be incorrect. Again, I'm finished with this conversation.

[geek tragedy]

51. The Catholic Church is a fundamentalist organization that

ex-communicated the mother of a nine-year old rape victim for procuring for her a life-saving abortion.

The Current pople has preached that gay rights are the work of the devil while trying to torpedo gay rights legislation.

[truebrit71]

63. Shhhhh...don't try and confuse the situation with facts...

....

[backscatter712]

56. These days, the Vatican ignores Vatican II. n/t

[pnwmom]

41. WHAT A JOKE!!! You pick something because it's from a site that says it's Catholic

and you use it to assert a definitive statement that the Church will NEVER change its position on contraception?

The CORE of Catholic belief is the Creed. Period.

[MineralMan]

49. Thank you for your carefully thought-out comments. nt

[atreides1]

57. Which one?

The Apostle's Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Creed of Nicea(325)...This was the original Nicene Creed. It was revised and finalized at the Council of Constantinople in 381

We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those that say 'There was when he was not,' and, 'Before he was begotten he was not,' and that, 'He came into being from what-is-not,' or those that allege, that the son of God is 'Of another substance or essence' or 'created,' or 'changeable' or 'alterable,' these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

The Nicene Creed(more properly called the Nicene-Constantinople Creed), came to us in its final form from the great Council of Constantinople in 381.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended in heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED dates from the late fourth century, and is attributed to St. Athanasius (296-373), the great defender of Catholic Truth. Those who held to the Arian heresy, which ravaged the Church at that time, denied the divinity of Christ. As a result, Athanasius composed this creed which includes lengthy explanations of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union (the Human and Divine natures of Christ forming one Person)...

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith, except a man keep whole and integral, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. Now the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. For such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet, there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated, nor three incomprehensibles; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For, as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after the other. None is greater or less than another, but the whole three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal together. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary unto eternal salvation that he believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world; and Man of the substance of His Mother, born into the world. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Godhead as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God, and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their works. And they that have done good shall go into everlasting life, and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This, then, is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

I like the last one, especially: This, then, is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

[MineralMan]

59. Nicely done. Which Creed, indeed?

Thank you.

[pnwmom]

94. The Apostles Creed, as said in weekly Mass. n/t

[patrice]

98. Read the cites at the bottom of that taboo website you used. It's ONE parish, a Ratzinger partisan

parish at that, and the NON-LINKED list of references it uses for it's position is VERY selective.

[liberal_at_heart]

96. and here we go back to the Catholic bashing instead of criticizing specific policies.

When I briefly joined the Catholic church the only creeds I heard were the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. The very fact that the creeds have changed just shows that change has happened in the Catholic church before and will happen again.

[patrice]

102. The Right wing is freaking out over Pope Francis' friendship with a Liberal Jewis Rabbi who supports

Homosexual marriage and is suspected of "OH THE HORRORS!!!" socialistic thinking on social and economic justice issues. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/marielena/130316

I trust that you are sturdy enough in your principles to be exposed to the rightie screed linked above.

[patrice]

104. And what calls itself "the Left" is helping them . . . intentionally or otherwise. nt

[Moonwalk]

137. Could you please explain to me what constitutes Catholic Bashing vs. valid criticism...

Of the Catholic Church's policies? Most especially the ones which the church keep trying to make into U.S. Law (like undermining abortion/contraception laws, keeping gay marriage illegal, etc.)?

I'm honestly confused and a couple of examples of the difference between valid criticism and bashing would help. I mean, the accusations of Catholic bashing seems to follow any such criticisms and sound similar to accusations that any criticism of Israel's polices or influence on the U.S. is anti-semitism. Why is this "bashing" rather than valid criticism of a religious organization's attempt to undermine the rights of U.S. citizens?

How do you distinguish the two? Especially when the criticism isn't about doctrine so much as its about the RCC forcing that doctrine on everyone, Catholic or not? I mean, I'm sure the Amish have similar restrictions when it comes to abortion and maybe being gay, but as they're not funneling money or meeting with politicians, etc. in order to make those into law, there's no reason to criticize the Amish religion.

The anger I'm seeing against the RCC has become "personal" I think because of its attempt--and, alas, success--at taking away your rights, interfering with your legal freedoms, etc. How is a critic of such, angered at what the RCC may have done to them personally in funding and getting such laws passed, to avoid crossing the line into Catholic bashing? And where in the OP's primary thread do you see this as bashing given how clear and careful he was to point out that he's examining RCC doctrine rather than Catholics as individuals? Please help me understand, as seeing these accusations of bashing, without any explanation of why they are "bashing" confuses me.

[patrice]

92. It's a site that elevates Ratzinger, BUT it refers to "chief truths" & they are in the Apostles

Creed and there are "sacred truths" which are received through the authority of the church . . . just like the Crusades and the Inquisition.

..................

I have seen 3 recommendations in as many days that persons NOT use certain links, because the websites involved are just too horribly right wing, "so let me/us tell you what it means" . . . = propaganda do you think? I'm having some trouble with ANYONE trying to censor information. Just does NOT seem quite Liberal to me to tell people stuff is just too horrible for your poor little mind and some mighty righteous "we" will deal with it FOR you.

[liberal_at_heart]

47. Those postitions also do not align with a lot of practicing Catholics.

[MineralMan]

50. That is most certainly true.

But, I'm not talking about lay Catholics at all. I'm talking about official Roman Catholicism. This is not about Catholics. It is about the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Very different things, as we're seeing. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

[pnwmom]

52. If you understood anything about Vatican II, you'd know

that during the past two papacies, the Roman curia has claimed for itself the powers that Vatican II vested in the local conferences of Bishops.

The Roman curia and the local conferences of Bishops are very different entities.

[MineralMan]

55. New Pope - New Direction

What can I say? I'm not even a Catholic. I'm just an observer. I understand Vatican II quite well, though. I also understand Papal Supremacy quite well. The Pope overrides the local conferences of Bishops, every time. There is a new Pope. That is why these discussions are taking place. We're just beginning get a glimpse of who he may be and how his Papacy may differ or not differ from previous ones.

The Pope is the Pope, though...and is elected by the College of Cardinals. They probably have a pretty good idea who Pope Francis will be and how he will rule the Church. And make no mistake: The Pope rules the church.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. and I think it is promising that he want to work with people who are different than he is

Working with people who are different than we are is how we change people's perceptions. Maybe it will lead to change, if not with this Pope then with the next one. The women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, none of these things happen over night. The movement within the church to change is happening. It will take time for it to make it all the way to the top.

[MineralMan]

71. The Roman Catholic Church is fighting

those very things as we speak. In Minnesota, for example, our Archbishop is once again gearing up his campaign against marriage equality, since legislation is in the legislature to make marriage equality the law. That is an official action that meddles with the freedoms of individuals who have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church. I don't care about the next Pope, or the one after that. When it comes to equality issues, I don't care about any Pope. 'Tain't none of his business, to be quite frank. This is not a Catholic nation. Catholic doctrine cannot be allowed to become the law of the land if it conflicts with the basic principles of equality and individual rights in this country.

That is the battle. The Pope is welcome to work with anyone he wants, but he's still not welcome to dictate anything with regard to the equality of people in this country. No way. Not going to happen. Let the Church come to its senses on its own.

I am not concerned with what the Church does internally. I'm concerned with what it does externally.

[Moonwalk]

135. Well said!

[MNBrewer]

74. yes, he says he wants to work for "justice", but somehow his definition and mine are different

with respect to GLBT equality.

[pnwmom]

64. Make no mistake: the ideas you are drawing from a pro-curia, fundamentalist website

are just one segment of Catholic opinion.

[MineralMan]

67. The only opinion that matters is that of the Pope, as

long as he sits in that position. Truly.

[pnwmom]

69. I love it when non-Catholics are so sure they understand more about the Pope

and the Pope's power than Catholics.

Especially when the non-Catholics have never studied the documents of Vatican II.

[MineralMan]

73. I see you have not addressed what I said. Instead you have chosen

to be insulting. Have a pleasant evening.

[MNBrewer]

77. It's basically another "the Church isn't the hierarchy, it's the people" statement

Tell that to the hierarchy.

[MineralMan]

80. Yes. I'm done with this line of discussion in the thread.

[geek tragedy]

107. The US Catholic bishops are radical male supremacists

and homophobes--every bit as much as the Vatican.

[BainsBane]

79. Everything is negotiable

And people follow their own conscience. For most American Catholics that means ignoring the Church hierarchy on many if not all of those Issues.
None are central to the faith, which is premised of a belief in Jesus Christ, the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit. An actual Catholic could describe the faith more accurately.
Andrew Sullivan, a practicing Catholic, talks bout the importance of conscience in Catholc teachings here: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/17/francis-emerges/

[MineralMan]

86. Yes. Individual Catholics often hold views that are different from

the official views. Good for them, I say. But I'm not talking about individual Catholics at all in this thread.

[BainsBane]

89. Cool

Then you get no argument from me.

[geek tragedy]

108. What's the point of the Vatican, the Canon, the Pope,

Cardinals, and the process of excommunication then?

[BainsBane]

111. Administration

excommunication is rare, though does occur. There was a particularly repulsive case in Brazil a couple of years ago that you might have read about.

Look at any public opinion poll of American Catholics: close to 60% support gay marriage and over 90% use birth control. Very little of what the Pope says is binding. It's his view. I read that only two statements from a pope over the past 150 years or so are spiritually binding. I'm not sure if anything bishops say is binding, other than they have certain powers over appointing secular priests (as opposed to regular clergy in the mendicant orders), who might choose to follow their instructions or not. Again, I'm not a practicing Catholic so my knowledge is not extensive on current practices. What I know comes from my study of history and my family, who is Catholic on my mother's side. An actual Catholic could explain it better, I'm sure.

[patrice]

82. The fact that an exception is made for "Just War" means that exceptions ARE possible. The fact

that the institutional organization known as the Roman Catholic church has demonstrated so frequently its dysfunctionality in making exceptions means that it is necessary, as we see in the life of Christ, for individuals to FREELY claim their own moral responsibility, without being dependent upon his/her church-state, and accept the consequences thereof.

Just a footnote: FREE means the authentic ability to CHOOSE EITHER/ANY alternative for the truth that it represents as one knows that truth to be for its own sake and NOT for any other sake, such as that of something that calls itself a "church".

Source: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-01.htm

Q. 133. What is man?

A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

Q. 134. Does "man" in the Catechism mean all human beings?

A. "Man" in the Catechism means all human beings, either men or women, boys, girls, or children.

Q. 135. What is a creature?

A. A creature is anything created, whether it has life or not; body or no body. Every being, person, or thing except God Himself may be called a creature.

Q. 136. Is this likeness in the body or in the soul?

A. This likeness is chiefly in the soul.

Q. 137. How is the soul like to God?

A. The soul is like to God because it is a spirit that will never die, and has understanding and free will.

[coldbeer]

95. Wow! I am so slow!

Mineralman, you have answered a haunting question. Why won't the G.O.P. bend on these womens rights issues?

Answer, because they are Catholics and cannot! And we have five Catholic Supreme Court Justices to boot.

It is almost like the Middle Ages.

You answered my haunting question and I will use this Enlightenment.

Thank you

[patrice]

99. So, you think you have the whole truth now, huh? Wow, how transparent can you be. nt

[Arugula Latte]

100. Oh, but it can change from within! Maybe even within 500 years!

[WinkyDink]

101. Nobody is forced to be a Roman Catholic. J/S.

[timdog44]

103. All I can say is

someone decided these were intrinsically evil and so therefore someone can decide they are not.

I don't think god said "No embryonic stem cell research" or "No human cloning". These were decisions of some fallible human(s) and are then able to be changed by some other fallible human(s).

[patrice]

109. Please check out my Baltimore Catechism link: there are "chief truths" and "sacred truths". The

chief truths are found in the Apostles Creed and sacred truths are received through the authority of the church . . . . just like Indulgences for Sale, the Crusades, and the Inquisition.

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-01.htm

[timdog44]

117. And

I think you make my point.

Sacred truths are from man, the pope, or bishops, etc.

Nothing in the chief truths about cloning or stem cells.

So the pope can change the ways the RCC operates.

By the way, I am sorry for answering so late. I forgot I was to go out to dinner with some of my wife's family.

Also, by the way, my father was a Presbyterian minister - masters of divinity with majors in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. The apostle's creed I know forward and backward. Along with the Nicene Creed.

[patrice]

119. We agree. This is also the way it used to be taught in Catholic high schools

after Vatican II. When we started getting ready to go off to college and to get married and stuff, the priests were telling us that we'd have to grow up and figure stuff out for ourselves. I think this was also a reaction to the anti-authoritarian questions raised by Vietnam War and certainly to how the Civil Rights Act focused all of us on that struggle and what MLK and others were doing when they engaged in Civil Disobedience.

There are a couple or three generations of Catholics now who grew up without most of that.

I for one was quite saddened when they ended sharing Communion with other Christians. To me, that seemed more like real Christianity than anything I had experienced before. I think Episcopaleans still do though and that makes me glad.

[liberal_at_heart]

120. Yes in my spiritual journey I joined the Catholic church and then the Episcopal church

The Episcopal church let my children take the Eucharist when the Catholic church wouldn't. I liked that about the Episcopal church. What I enjoyed about the Catholic church was the self-reflective nature of mass. It reminds me of Buddhist meditation. I like what you had to say about priests teaching people to work things out for themselves. It seems to me like a lot of Catholics do just that.

[timdog44]

124. Again I am sorry to be late

with my response. Too much dinner

When my Dad was still alive and I still semi practiced the Presbyterian way of Christianity, he never turned anyone away from communion. I asked him about it at one time in my younger life, and he explained to me that communion was anytime, anybody gathered to eat, in god's name. That could be at a restaurant, or a picnic, or in church. The key being "in god's name" (I am sure for him it would have been God's name). There were only a few times during the year that communion was "officially" celebrated in church, but everyday in our home and travels.

[stevenleser]

106. That person/site is not "the horse". Whoever is the current pope is "the horse" for Catholicism

We've heard what the current pope said and did in the past, I am interested in hearing what they say in the future.

[liberal_at_heart]

113. thank you. So do I.

[timdog44]

118. And I hope we will

hear good things.

[Wounded Bear]

123. I have a problem with one word in there...promoted

"Allowed" is not "promoted."

Just because something is not illegal, does not mean that the government actively promotes it.

That one word makes the whole piece proganda.

[jberryhill]

126. You forgot "Latin Mass"

Along with Bible translations.

Oh, wait, those are two of the previous "non-negotiable" positions.

[MineralMan]

127. Actually, I did mention the Latin Mass later in the thread.

As for the Bible translations, that hasn't been part of any doctrine for a very long time.

The Latin Mass is back, by the way, thanks to Pope Benedict, after some years of vernacular masses. Both of those things were procedural rules, not essential doctrine. They've been changed and changed again.

[JNelson6563]

138. They are a *part* of core-doctrine.

Guess how many Catholics disregard tjese & other teachings they disagree with. I'll tell you: Many.

Now how about if you show us some other sects of Christianity and their core teachings? There aren't many who differ on the issues you cite.

Frankly I am glad to see a more humble pope in Rome and I hope he leads the way in Christians focusing more on making the world a better place.

Julie

[MineralMan]

139. A lot of people disregard a lot of things.

As for other Christian denominations, I'll give you the ELCA, the largest branch of Lutheranism. The ELCA has GLBT ministers, supports same-sex marriage, and believes that reproductive choices are actual choices individuals should make for themselves. Instead of preaching against those things and raising money to try to insist on their way for everyone, they simply welcome people into their denomination, regardless of such things.

I could go on, but it's easy enough to find Christian denominations, and large ones at that, with progressive points of view on such things, while still maintaining Christian principles.

Is the new Pope more humble? I don't know, so far. Will he correct the injustices and bigotry against people by the Church's hierarchy? I don't think so. I see no sign of that. I'd love to be wrong about that, but I don't imagine I am.

So, I'll continue to fight any attempt to impose any Church's restrictions on equality on people who are not members of that Church. You can count on that.

[DevonRex]

140. "Cardinal Carlo Martini says Church '200 years behind'"

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19451439

Snip
"And the advice he leaves behind to conquer the tiredness of the Church was a "radical transformation, beginning with the Pope and his bishops".

"The child sex scandals oblige us to undertake a journey of transformation," Cardinal Martini says, referring to the child sex abuse that has rocked the Catholic Church in the past few years.

He was not afraid, our correspondent adds, to speak his mind on matters that the Vatican sometimes considered taboo, including the use of condoms to fight Aids and the role of women in the Church.

In 2008, for example, he criticised the Church's prohibition of birth control, saying the stance had likely driven many faithful away, and publicly stated in 2006 that condoms could "in some situations, be a lesser evil".
Snip----------------

This man had been considered for Pope instead of Benedict. He died at the end of August, 2012. Oh, he refused a feeding tube which is required by Italian law. In his very last published work he begged for common sense to rule in the issues surrounding the process of dying in this day and age. "Credere e conoscere" (“Believing and knowing”) discusses the reality that science sometimes can out distance what doctrine addressed in the past.

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2012/09/martinis-death-last-lesson-to-church.html

"In the book, he appeals to reason, even on the subject of euthanasia: “The new technologies which make increasingly efficient operations on the human body possible, require a dose of wisdom, to prevent prolonging treatments when they no longer benefit the patient.”

Do a Google search. As part of his care for families, he was for recognition of gay unions. He wanted LGBT families to enjoy the same stability that he thought was favorable to heterosexual families. And he was vocal about it. Pope Benedict did not attend the funeral. Yet, he also did not remove him as Cardinal, either. He knew that Cardinal Martini was genuinely loved. There are quotes from the Milan mayor about how the Cardinal made the CC welcoming to everyone. I think that explains it.

This man has moved on. There will be others. Who knows what the future will bring. But there are people within the church who are brave enough to take a stand. I'm not Catholic so I didn't know of this man until now. I wish I had known when he was alive.

[MineralMan]

142. And how long should those who have

no equality or justice wait? That is the question theChurch must answer. What do you think?

[DevonRex]

146. That is up to them as individuals.

If they want to stick it out and fight for change then they should. If they don't want to stay then they should go. And if people want to fight for change after leaving the CC there's no reason they can't try that. Other people I know are trying to make the more progressive parishes the ones that grow and thrive while the dour, judgmental ones lose members. There are lots of ways to go about it, I guess.

As far as the RCC and your question, once again I agree with Martini. The Church is 200 years behind the times already. I'm sure they're still in no hurry to change anything in Rome. If they're smart they'll pay attention to which churches thrive and which ones don't. But...

[MineralMan]

147. I'm not talking about Church members.

I'm talking about people who suffer from the Church's interference with the laws of the US, as they have done and tried to do so many times. I'm talking about the Archbishop in Minnesota who preached and raised money to keep marriage equality from existing. He failed in that attempt, but made it anyhow. I'm talking about women who need reproductive services, which are denied to them because the Church has fought to close Planned Parenthood clinics.

No, I'm not talking about lay members of the Catholic Church at all. I'm talking about people who have had their lives limited because of acts of the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy.

[Bucky]

141. I'm with them on human cloning.

[MineralMan]

143. OK. I am not.

Who is right?

[BlueCheese]

145. A couple of notes.

You should make it clear that the descriptions "Absolutely not", "Never", and "Emphatically no" are your interpretations of what that page says, not the page itself. While I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretations, when you claim something is what someone else says, it really should be the original text.

I don't doubt that the positions listed are generally current within the Roman Catholic Church. However, the term "non-negotiable" is being applied by some parish church in California's Central Valley. In that sense it is not really the horse's mouth. Perhaps the mouth of the horse's grand-nephew.

I should stress that I disagree with their positions on at least three of those (having not thought enough about the other two). However, I think Catholic doctrine is probably fairly similar to the U.S. Constitution: it feels like it's permanent and unmovable, having been amended only 27 times in 225 years or so. But when you think of how much it has changed (and how much our interpretation of it has changed) just in the last several decades, it's quite remarkable. Catholicism has also changed a lot in the past, and continue to do so.

Given how large and influential Catholicism is, I think we should encourage and push the church to evolve in the direction we want, rather than write them off as an organization with which we will always be at odds.