that far too many people are willing to excuse anything that is done in the name of their religion. Anything.

I'm constantly suggesting to Catholics that so long as they remain in the Church, the Church will have no incentive whatsoever to change their stance on things like women's rights, birth control, priestly abuse of children. These Catholics will defend their remaining because of various other good things that are done. Personally, I think that's the wrong way to approach it. Leave. Eventually they'll catch on.

I think far too many people need what to them is the comfort of being told what to think about certain things, and how do behave about things. They aren't willing to do the hard work of truly thinking for themselves. They've been convinced that the only way to be a moral human being is to follow some specific set of rules. I happen to disagree with that.

I would have left years ago. But there is far more to it than just that. Do I believe that women should be ordained? Certainly. The fact that I have had a vasectomy shows my opinion on the official teaching on contraception. I support gay marriage. If I were Pope, Cardinal Law, who left Boston shortly before he might well have been indicted for accessory after the fact in a couple of pedophilia cases would not be living in gracious retirement in Rome, but would be given a choice of either returning or else being papal nuncio to Pyongyang or something equally unpleasant.

But, as I said, there is more to Catholicism than just that. It's like being an American -- I despise the endemic racism that is far too often found. I realize that the Fourth Amendment has for years been honored by the government more in the breech than the observance. I think that not having universal health insurance is both morally reprehensible and economically stupid. But I'm still here.

There's an article by the late Andrew Greeley on "Why I'm Still A Catholic" that speaks for me pretty well -- not perfectly, because I'm not him -- but pretty well.

simply want clarification, but do you think that remaining a Catholic is essentially condoning too much of the worst things? To put it another way, for someone like yourself who does see the good in that religion, how can you persuade the Church to change that which is not good?

I was raised Catholic, so I do have sort of an inside view. It feels to me as if the hierarchy of the Church is easily as removed from the general run of Catholics as the super-wealthy are from the working class.

Interesting point about what's also wrong with this country. I agree, but I feel that as an ordinary citizen what I can do individually can have an affect. I can also run for office if I choose. I can't run for Pope. I can't even be ordained a priest because I have the wrong genitalia.

Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful response.

But I have been told, explicitly, that my remaining in the Catholic Church shows that I do condone such things as pedophilia. Of course I don't, but tell me, If I leave the Church, how am I possibly going to have the slightest chance of changing it? When Luther broke with Rome, his chance of affecting reform in the Roman Church went from slim to none.

I agree with you that much of the hierarchy seems out of touch with not just their fellow Catholics, but with the world in general. I posted on my personal dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1221591#post1 Part of what I wrote there is germane here:

What I would like most to change would be to get the hierarchy, especially the Vatican, to accept the inevitability of the freedom of its laity. The hierarchy does not like the laity's assumption of the right to make its own decisions, and its demand that it be persuaded instead of ordered. Indeed, the institutional Church usually works on the implicit assumption that it is still dealing with peasants of centuries ago who did what they were told (usually) without question, without argument, without the demand that it be heard, consulted, persuaded. Many pastors still seem to assume that they have the same influence and power that their role models from a generation or two ago had. Catholics, they believe, should simply do what they are told. (The phrase "pray, pay and obey" is used to describe this attitude.)

It ought to be obvious by now that this is not so. When Church leaders pretend to deny that the souls of the laity are now shaped by a constant exercise of freedom or lament the passing of the good old days when there was a lot less freedom, they have turned their faces against history. Moreover, they miss the point of their own tradition which has believed that virtue is formed by the frequent repetition of free human acts. In any event the days of the supposedly docile peasant are gone and they will never return. The church must adjust to the fact that in the Americas and Europe at any rate, the day of the free laity who make their own decisions after reflecting on the issues, who want to be heard, consulted, persuaded, is the world in which we live and work. In the present milieu, we laity reserve to ourselves the right to say on what terms we will be Catholic. Nothing will change that fact, neither orders from Rome nor hysterical ranting from the tiny fundamentalist Catholic minority.

is the final straw. As a woman, my voice is especially unheard. I see virtually no evidence that the church is making genuine reforms in the face of so much that has come to light in recent years. And in recent years the upper echelons have become even more conservative, even more out of touch.

It is true that many remain Catholic on their own terms, such as by practicing birth control. But in much of the world, in countries where Catholicism dominates, these freedoms are highly restricted.

Anyway, thank you for expressing your point of view so clearly.

Yes, there were a couple of points which seem to apply solely to the Catholics but equally there are very few Catholic Falwells and Robertsons at present.

I am not asking that any person abandon their faith but rather that they express the outrage that they feel and seek the good hearted who are willing to bring the matter to the attention of their flocks and their superiors.

Several times. For example, last January, I wrote WRT the pedophilia mess:

Everyone in the hierarchy, from the Pope on down, seems to have overdosed on stupid pills. They think that they are defending the Church by denying that there is a real problem, or by covering it up or by blaming everyone else. In fact, they are damaging the Church's reputation. Apparently, they have forgotten that what made Nixon resign the presidency was not the Watergate break-in itself, but his attempts to cover up the break-in.

But it is not solely pedophilia about which I am posting.

Have you spoken to your Priest asking him to condemn the demagogues and sermonise against them?

Have you written to your Bishop about flagrant disregard of medical ethics in favour of religious dogma in religiously oriented hospitals?

Have you written to the Catholic Herald asking why that merchant of hate Bill Donohue is still regarded as a good spokesman for the Catholics?

The question is "Is your faith strong enough to actually fight for your faith?"

The late Roger Kaffer, auxiliary bishop of Joliet, Illinois. We discussed many of my concerns about the Church at great length throughout our friendship.

In the mid 1980s, the then Bishop of Joliet, Joseph Imesch, was named to head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' committee charged with writing a document on "The Concerns of Women". Bishop Kaffer saw to it that my wife and I were named as lay consultors to the committee. When the final document came out incredibly wishy-washy (at the insistence of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by a Cardinal Ratzinger), both my wife and I let both Imesch and Kaffer know our disappointment in no uncertain terms. My wife was also on the board of Catholic Charities for the diocese, and I assisted her when she was on the board.

I am a former member of the board of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (I quit because my work responsibilities did not give me enough time to do justice to being a board member).

I do not consider Bill Donohue a spokesman for anyone except himself, and I have told him so to his face.

So yes, I do fight for my faith.

who has the support of no other Catholics just keeps getting repeated by Catholic apologists here. Still not sure why, since it's so easily proven false.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=101453

Well, actually, I do know why.

In actuality, he represents few except some extreme conservatives.

Even if his 200,000 member claim is true, since there are about 80 million Catholics in the US, that comes to one quarter of one percent of American Catholics.

The news media pays attention to him because he's good for a sound bite. The man is a publicist, nothing more.

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)

A. Do you have any evidence that The Catholic League's membership figures are inflated..or any MORE inflated than those for the Catholic Church itself? How many of that 80,000,000 are lapsed or departed Catholics who never attend and don't even consider themselves members of the church any more (but that the RCC keeps on the rolls for reporting purposes)? I'm guessing you have no idea, but if you're claiming it's none, or almost none, your credibility takes a nosedive. Unless of course you've done a lot of legwork in polling those tens of millions of American Catholics.

B. Your statement that "In actuality, he represents few except some extreme conservatives" is just another repetition of the same claim you started with. Saying it again, with no more evidence than you had before doesn't make it even the teensiest bit truer, as I'm sure you know.

C. Just because a Catholic isn't a dues-paying member of the Catholic League doesn't mean they don't agree with Donohue on many things, or don't like what he's doing. So it is with many such organizations. Their official membership is the minimum number of people who are on board with what the Catholic League stands for.

D. Funny that you had nothing to say about the prominent Catholics gushing over Donohue..unless you're claiming he made up all those quotes out of thin air, too.

Do you have any evidence that the 80 million number that I gave is inflated.

But let's assume that the 200K Catholic League number is valid, and let's cut the number of Catholics in the US in half. That still says that the Catholic League is one half of one percent of American Catholics -- still a miniscule number. Ron Paul is supported by a greater proportion of American Republicans -- so does that make him a typical Republican leader?

Gosh, conservative Catholics gush over a spokescritter for them and their views. Who would have thought such a thing possible?

Of course not…so your analogy to Ron Paul is baloney. As I suspect you know, but it's all you have. And as far as percentages go, card-carring Opus Dei members make up a far smaller percentage of American Catholics. Would you argue that they are without influence for that reason? Hope not. Really hope not.

A few posts ago, you said "I do not consider Bill Donohue a spokesman for anyone except himself". And now you're in full retreat from that view, admitting that he is a spokesman for many Conservative Catholics, including, but not limited to, the hundreds of thousands of members his organization has.

Nice chatting with you.

However, the fact remains that Bill Donohue, despite your bleatings to the contrary, is essentially without influence. As I said -- and you did not comment on -- the news media tends to go to him because he is always good for a sound bite. In other words, institutional laziness on the media's part.

And I will amend my remark about Donohue being a spokesman for no one except himself. He is a spokesman for no one except himself and a few conservative Catholics -- less than one half of one percent of all American Catholics. Happy now?

so there is even less excuse for you to merely post your concerns on DU. You have been an activist in the past but past actions do not effectively counter present evils, if you have no activist heirs then perhaps you should consider getting back into the fray.

Last edited Fri Jul 11, 2014, 08:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Do you find difficult? Also, do you have a problem understanding "both my wife and I let both Imesch and Kaffer know our disappointment in no uncertain terms"? And what makes you think that my only acts concerning the Catholic Church are posting about it on DU?

I should mention that Kaffer is dead and Imesch has retired, and I have only met our current bishop once.

And your activism within the Church is 20 (or more) years past - perhaps it is time to get back and "fight the good fight"

one really needs to restrict one's attention to a certain number of issues, since otherwise "Jack of all trades and master of none" rather quickly applies

In the last week, I've spent time working on issues presented by my legislature's voter suppression law, time learning about what organizing on several other matters is going on locally, and time discussing with various people how I can work with them after the New Year to push some progressive issues

I'm not terribly interested in the words people use to describe themselves: so many people self-describes as a "good person" (for example) that I become rather doubtful of the usefulness of this self-description; and so many describe themselves as "logical" that I become similarly doubtful. Suggesting to anyone that he or she may not be as "good" or "logical," as he or she may think he or she is, is usually nothing but an idiotic exercise in self-righteous and is likely to produce a pointless pissing contest. I do regularly discuss with others, in person, ideas about what "Christianity" is, and I learn from it, but it would be a gigantic waste of time for me to adopt the habit of telling people they aren't the "Christians" they seem to think they are, especially insofar as my view doesn't accord with absolutely everyone else's.

You believe abuse, violence and hypocrisy is endemic within the Christian faith. Perhaps the difference between us is that I consider abuse, violence and hypocrisy to be endemic on our planet, and I really doubt that would change if everyone started calling themselves Buddhists or if everyone started chanting "I'm good without God" or whatever. If you want to reduce abuse, violence and hypocrisy, you can get to work on some small part of that problem immediately: there's more than enough, so you shouldn't have any problem finding something to do. There are shelters for battered women, and programs for people with substance abuse; there are centers teaching people critical life skills such as literacy that reduce frustration by empowering people; there are careers in counseling and law enforcement; and there are endless tiny interventions which strangers can perform effortlessly in passing that defuse escalating situations between parents and their children. Go actually do something and let us know how it works: posting on the internet doesn't count

A habit of routinely condemning others has limited and ever-decreasing effectiveness in my experience. I suppose there are times when it is required, but it's tiresome and unedifying to hear nonstop, and it can easily distract us from whatever we ourselves really ought to be doing

I wouldn't accomplish anything useful by denouncing the Magdalene Laundries: when people realized what they had been doing in Ireland, there was one left, and it closed not very long after the immediate official investigation.

I've never heard of ACE; and if anyone I know uses their products, that's a well-kept secret from me. If you want to work on discouraging folk from using ACE products, then get to it -- but, again, just posting on the internet really doesn't count

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:30 AM - Edit history (1)

I am saying that religious demagogues that claim to teach morality and goodness when actually they teach bigotry, hate and falsehood should be held to account by the faithful who do practise the virtues and eschew the hatefulness.

If you are a lay person I am not arguing that you, personally, do much; I am asking "where is the vocal and continual condemnation of such practises from moderate and liberal Christians?"

You say, quite rightly, that there are only a limited number of hours but what is to stop you asking your Pastor to preach against ACE and similar perversions of religion and encouraging other parishioners to act?

Why is it left to secular organisations to try and oppose the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Falwells of this world? Why are the religious members of such organisations content to function outside of their faith as such opposition?

I am asking that you think about it.

it was not because I needed to learn better how to criticize others: I expect it's clear to most everyone that I, like many others, already have a considerable talent for that, having practiced it quite extensively my whole life

At church, I learn to face certain irresolvable contradictions: I will always have enemies, for example, and yet it remains my duty to love them; I should try to sharpen my conscience and raise my consciousness, but whatever time I spend doing that is time taken from other things I ought to do; I must embrace my moral convictions but must also recognize that they can placate my conscience and lead me into self-satisfaction and complacency; I see problems that I cannot possibly solve which will only worsen if people like myself make no effort to solve them, and I see more of these problems than I could possibly even attempt to address, no matter how incompletely; I have an obligation to be effective in the real world, and at the same time I have to recognize that -- because of my limited creativity, decency, knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom -- my efforts to be effective will frequently be inadequate and even counter-productive ...

Why would I want to hear sermons from my pastor encouraging me to oppose the Pat Robertsons or Jerry Falwells? I would learn nothing at all from that; it would only reinforce my already well-established opinions. When I meet such people or their followers, in person, I will gauge how far I can nudge them. Sometimes I make a bit of headway, other times not: when such an argument is pointless, I usually think it better not to pursue too far, as it merely hardens the other person against my view. There is, anyway, no shortage of other ways to spend time

I consider it pure delusion to believe that one has actually accomplished something merely by condemning someone else: often something much more creative than than is required to make a difference; in some cases, direct preventive intervention or rescue may be needed

but there are many others who would learn and would be empowered by such teachings.

Too often liberal religion is a marshmallow lined comfort zone with anodyne sermons and self congratulatory teachings; what I am saying is "are you truly religious - or are you just faithful?"

that abuse, violence and hypocrisy seems to be endemic within the Christian faith?

Really? I see the moderate and left-wing christians on this board condemning such things all the time.

Where do you get that idea?

I did say that there is a severe lack of action apart from "preaching to the choir" on DU.

Countering the hate will take more than posts on DU, it will take motivating the leaders of moderate congregations to call out the hate mongers and hypocrites. Atheists cannot perform such motivation only the congregants can do that and this does not happen.

There are lots of progressive and activist religious organizations who have as their mission fighting back against what they see as the ills of the religious right. I'll just point out Moral Mondays as one of the ones getting the most press.

The reasons you may not about this are myriad. The press doesn't cover it. The public doesn't care about it These groups are much less self-aggrandizing than the religious right and tend to be less noticeable.

My father, who has been a fairly radical left wing activist and minister his entire life continues to be an activist at 83. His community is deeply involved in projects and causes that fight back against the religious right.

He posted here for awhile and was routinely attacked by a small group who frequent this site. They were eventually successful at running him off. He felt that to participate here was a complete waste of his time, and I agree with him. He's got enough work fighting back against the republicans and religious conservatives. He sees little use in fighting with those who are supposedly on his own team.

I am not condemning all religion only those vocal parts of faith that preach a hateful and harmful doctrine. My real condemnation is for the moderate and left wing Christians who seem to lack the courage to face up to the harm such antisocial voices do to their faith. There seem to be no "preachers of righteousness" in the ranks of liberal Christians and none of the liberals and moderates seem to be searching for them.

Start tweeting or following and making hash tags. People write LTTEs but they do not try to publicise the real workers for their faith - if such exist.

"Far too many people are willing to excuse anything that is done in the name of their religion. Anything."

"in the name of their political party"

"in the name of their family"

"in the name of their special interest group"

"in the name of anything that happens to be important to them at the moment"

And, now let the self-righteous among us, shout Amen!

Amen...there's always room for one more.

We all wear blinders to some extent when we are part of a tribe.

a connection that they are not allowed to question.

Pity you just want to paint everyone with the same broad brush.

Probably explains why you're where you are.

none of the groups you have named claim to be arbiters of morality and none of those groups expect you to pay unquestioning fealty to their hierarchies.

Christianity does.

None of those groups you use as counter examples corrupts the supposed word of their deity to justify the physical abuse of children, the withdrawal of healthcare, the submission of women and bigotry against LGBTs.

What I am asking is why the liberal and moderate Christians are not doing more to have their faiths fight this unwholesome nonsense.

Each group claims to be taking the moral high ground...and so do we.

We belong to the political parties we do, because WE BELIEVE we're the good guys and the other guys aren't.

WE BELIEVE our cause is just and great. And, usually, it's "just great" enough for us to turn a blind eye and ear, when our (religion, party, special interest group, family member, cause of the moment) does something a bit naughty, and other times something absolutely horrible.

Situational ethics, perhaps, I don' t know.

I.e., unquestionable authority.

That one aspect makes religion and religious groups and religious thought unique. Would you agree or disagree with that?

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

(Hmm...wonder where that word comes from.)

I simply refuse to restrict it to religion. The fact that one institution proclaims divine authority makes no difference to me. Consistency is the key. For instance, what difference does it make to an atheist if a group proclaims divine authority. An atheist doesn't believe in a divine authority.

The real issue is when a person, group, or institution proclaims a moral authority.

For instance, are you aggravated more when a Christian says they are pro life and YOU shouldn't have an abortion or when an atheist tells you they're pro life and YOU shouldn't have an abortion? (If you're a guy, I'm not trying to be insulting. Just making a point.)

We're surrounded by people who suggest they have unquestionable authority. My mother defied her doctor years ago when he told her NOT to carry her child to term. When she questioned his authority, he told her he would not longer be her physician. My mother, decidedly pro-choice, wanted to take the chance. She chose to carry the child to term. And, I have a sister who can be a pain in the butt on a good day.

His concern initially was her health. But, when he dumped her as a patient, his concern was that she questioned his authority.

Police officers, government officials, parents...

It isn't churches standing up to say marijuana shouldn't be legalized. Although, if it picks up steam throughout the US, they might. But, rather people who claim they have some sort of standing. So much so, in fact, that we should take their word for it. If you think marijuana should be legalized, do you feel better because at least they didn't say they had the divine authority to stand in the way.

literally means “as fine as powdered doll shit”.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pop1.htm

Great post, by the way.

Do you think a doctor recommending a course of treatment is the same thing as the divine authority of a god?

Or will you simply refuse to answer, because that's too hard of a question?

Hmm...I should be careful before I toss around these words.

That's the point. Religious believers DO think there is a divine authority, above the reasoning and reach of humans.

If you are interested, you might want to read Greta Christina's explanation of what makes religion unique - because the pained analogy you're trying to make really falls flat. (The anecdote you relate about a doctor supposedly ordering your mother to get an abortion is not the same, and I think you realize that.)

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html

"That's the point. Religious believers DO think there is a divine authority, above the reasoning and reach of humans."

Indeed, then there is no point. Why would someone who has no such belief in a divine authority care that someone else does? To my mind, this is precisely why atheists can come across as MORE tolerant than people who hold religious beliefs. For instance, Christians, metaphorically speaking, battle other Christians over doctrine, social issues, etc. The beliefs are strongly held and differences matter. However, to a listening atheist, none of it has any value...and therefore many are content to simply watch the chaos from a safe distance...until it appears to impact their personal lives.

To my mind, that someone says they have divine authority should matter less to you IF you say you do not believe in a divine authority. However, if a police officer says he has absolute authority, now you have a cause for true concern. He or she is suggesting that there are laws that empower him. Laws that you must submit to or be held accountable for in this lifetime.

Perhaps my analogies are pained. In my head, before I type them, they're quite healthy. But, sometimes they fade before they reach the keyboard. Personally, they bring me great comfort.

"Why would someone who has no such belief in a divine authority care that someone else does?"

Are you just stirring the pot by being deliberately obtuse? Or are you really unable to think of a single reason? Do you really believe that decent people have to wait until it "appears to impact their personal lives"?

"Are you just stirring the pot by being deliberately obtuse?"

This contributed nothing to the conversation. I assume it was said for no other purpose than to be rude.

"Or are you really unable to think of a single reason?"

Again, serves no purpose. Apparently said for no other purpose than to be rude.

"Do you really believe that decent people have to wait until it "appears to impact their personal lives"?"

My point was simply to address the notion that somehow religious institutions were unique in claiming authority. I was challenging the notion that someone proclaiming "divine" authority was somehow more egregious than someone simply claiming moral authority.

Now, if you think I'm obtuse for assuming the point of a discussion board is to...discuss, well, that's certainly your right. It's not productive. But, oh well.

I believe part of being liberal, is being tolerant. When people are harmed by religious institutions, we should speak out and try to change things. When our political party does it, we should do it. When a family member does it. When the local garden club does it, we should feel obligated to do it. Otherwise, we're hypocrites, and no one will be listening to us.

But, if you're only motivated to action, when institutions you don't like are doing harm to others, I think your concern is politically motivated. It doesn't mean you should stop. My belief is actually that we should do more.

"Why would someone who has no such belief in a divine authority care that someone else does?"

When that person starts to legislate and affect my life, I care. When the encouragement of belief in things without - or worse, despite - evidence leads to dangerous thinking without a check. (Did you bother reading the article at all?)

These things affect us ALL. We see how they poison the political process. President Obama put it well:

Which makes me think that either he hadn't thought about the issue nearly as carefully as he tried to make us think, or he thought that no one else had thought about it well enough to even grasp at the (rather obvious) answer.

so his work here is done.

When a Christian fights to keep people of the same sex from being allowed to marry simply because their god/sacred book/holy doctrine says so. Or when they try to restrict access to contraception simply because their god regards it as a sin. Or when they try to force their religious beliefs into science classes simply because they believe them. Or when anyone tries to control the lives of others or restrict their rights and freedoms solely because "my god says so". Or tries to impose their beliefs on everyone else through law or government fiat because their "divine authority" dictates it.

As opposed to doing the same things with rational, secular, evidence-based arguments behind them. Oh....wait...

But first I'll deal with your general point;

Unquestioning obedience to the hierarchy means precisely that, it means that there are no courts of appeal except God. Police, doctors even the NSA can, at some point, be called to account and can be questioned by people who can still 'benefit' from those services; question the Pope or your minister and you can be refused the supposed benefits of your faith - because obedience to authority is a part of faith. If you video a minister being a racist then the chances are that nothing will happen within the church; do so for any other group you named and there are consequences within the group as well as the legal consequences.

Now to the selection bias in the example you chose; it was a wonderful result for your family but look at the counter example, the woman for whom the medical opinion is correct. The doctor removes her from his list but he cannot have her refused medical treatment he can only refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions. The person making the choice to continue is not forced to seek help from homeopaths and acupuncturists, she will receive medical care until her death. It is the cases where the mother and/or child dies that you do not hear about because the result is not wonderful and inspiring but tragic.

To your point about campaigns in the wider world, it is true that some churches are not anti-marijuana but several are (start looking at the churches who support alcohol prohibition); the difficulty is I am not talking about the wider world, I am talking about the failings of churches within the Church. It is these congregations, such as the abhorrent "Prosperity Gospel", that need to be preached into insignificance; the churches that support Daniel and Debbie Pearl must be anathematised until they admit that child abuse is not a valid parenting tactic; it is churches that must campaign to have the ACE boarding schools brought back into State oversight because it was other churches that got these torture chambers a pass.

Just saying "Oh, it's part of a wider problem," is to ask the State to take part in the policing of faith and abrogates the responsibility of the Liberal Church to speak out.