"LGBT Muslims, Jews, Protestants and Hindus could all be asked the same question; Why not just boycott organized religion?" And with that one sentence, the article nullifies its argument. HELLO?!? I'm afraid I don't see a SINGLE church leader passing down the rules in any of those religions. Do you? I see certain leaders who claim to be the leaders--ultra-orthodox rabbis and such, but do you see a "Pope" recognized by all members of that faith as the leader? One who creates other leaders who then direct those below them throughout the world? Do you see thousands of Catholic churches with ordained priests and nuns that DO NOT recognize the Pope and his elected cardinals and bishops as leaders and do as they wish?

Gosh, darn. You don't, do you? But you do see synagogues of reformed Jews with lesbian rabbis marrying transexual couples. And you do see protestant churches with openly gay minsters, etc. Why do you think that is? Maybe because one can be a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim and a Protestant without adhering to the laws and commands of one leader and his group of leaders from one particular place on the planet? Ya think, maybe?

Which seems to PROVE that the question of leaving the Catholic church is not AT ALL THE SAME as being part of an organized religion or not--in fact posting it that way is not only apples/oranges, but a false dilemma. Other members of other religions don't have to choose between being pro-LGBT/pro-abortion and leaving their religion. Only Catholics do because that particular religion, for all the arguments that it has changed and can change, has NOT CHANGED it's stance on abortion, gays, celibate priests, women, etc. in centuries. CENTURIES.

Why not? Because unlike all those other organized religions, power is from the top down. And those below have no power--no vote--and that means those at the top need not make any changes. And they won't. Until and unless their cash cows leave. The argument from these pro-gay/pro-abortion people is, ultimately, wrong. All they are doing in staying is enabling the church to continue as is and as it wants. They keep going to church, right? So why should the church change? What motivation do they offer the church to alter it's views? Their complaints? Priests and parishioners complained for years of child-molestation--did the church change its policy on that because of such complaints? It did nothing to stop little kids being molested until it became a matter of secular court cases involving monetary punishment and jail time for priests. How much less power do pro-LGBT/pro-birth control members have in their complaints? They can't even bring the law to bear against the church in these. Why should the church change...unless not changing loses it significant numbers of followers?

Hey. I understand not wanting to leave the one you love, and I understand the power of denial in unequal relationship. But don't be giving me this bullish*t that Catholicism is "just like all other organized religions--" and the choice for you is just like the choice for every religious person: all or nothing. That's a self-serving lie. A gay Jewish person can marry their same sex partner in a reformed synagogue. Not true of a gay Catholic. So not the same, not a valid argument. And you know it. If you don't want to give it up on Catholicism, fine. But stop pretending that you're like any other member of any other religion sticking it out--or that sticking it out is the only way to change the religion. The evidence really doesn't support that.

Well stated.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

About Us

Catholics for Choice (CFC) was founded in 1973 to serve as a voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health.

CFC has its headquarters in Washington, DC. We work with sister organizations throughout Latin America, and we maintain a presence in the European parliament and throughout Europe, working closely with Catholic and reproductive health colleagues there. CFC is an ECOSOC-accredited NGO in the UN system and has participated in many UN conferences and forums.

With an annual budget of $3,000,000, CFC and our partners are active in support of social justice and human rights in both church and society.

CFC Board of Directors - 2013

•Susan Wysocki, BSN, NP, Chair
•Sheila Briggs, MA
•Neil A. Corkery
•Daniel A. Dombrowski, PhD
•Susan A. Farrell, PhD
•Janet Gallagher, JD
•John Lesch, JD
•Anthony Padovano, STD, PhD
•Denise Shannon


•Rosemary Radford Ruether, PhD (Emerita)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Susan Wysocki, RNC, NP, Chair
President and CEO, Susan Wysocki, LLC; editor-in-chief, Women’s Health Care: A Practical Journal for Nurse Practitioners; fellow of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners; former president and CEO, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health

Sheila Briggs, MA
Associate professor of religion and gender studies, University of Southern California


Neil A.Corkery
Executive director, DATA of Rhode Island; former representative, Rhode Island General Assembly

Daniel A. Dombrowski, PhD
Professor of philosophy, Seattle University

Susan A. Farrell, PhD
Assistant professor of sociology, Kingsborough Community College

Janet Gallagher, JD
Administrative law judge, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; former director of ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and Hampshire College Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program.


John Lesch, JD
Representative and minority whip, Minnesota House of Representatives; prosecutor, City of Saint Paul, Minnesota

Anthony Padovano, STD, PhD
Professor, Ramapo College of New Jersey; adjunct professor of theology, Fordham University and St. Elizabeth College; vice president, International Federation of Married Catholic Priests

Denise Shannon
Executive director, Funders Network for Population, Reproductive Health and Rights


Rosemary Radford Ruether, PhD, board member emerita
Visiting professor of feminist theology, Claremont Graduate School; Carpenter emerita professor of feminist theology, Pacific School of Religion; Georgia Harkness emerita professor of applied theology, Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary

Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.

I re-post from this site because it focuses on the perspective of millenials, and I am interested in how they are looking at things in terms of religion.

and presumably did so because you thought it was worth discussing, it might be nice if you weighed in yourself, unless you consider this response not worthy of you, or too disruptive to the agenda you're trying to promote.

Did you only want discussion that supported your point of view? Yeah, I'm guessing you did.

There is no Vatican for Jews so the community decides what to do and they make the changes that need to be made. Even Conservative Jewish seminaries are allowed to ordain gay and lesbian rabbis and Conservative shuls are allowed to perform gay weddings. All this from the pressure from the congregants that threatened to split the movement.

Regarding the Catholic church, It is hard to bring significant change when there is so much power at the top. Perhaps a mass exodus would create enough concern for the Vatican to change things.

Of course they are permitted to have individual positions that differ from their church. But it would be folly to suggest that those opinions mean or amount to anything.

It's perfectly okay to be Catholic, but you can't donate your money and time to such an institution and attempt to portray yourself as Pro-Choice or Pro-LGBT. It's completely untenable.

Many give their money and time to the catholic church but give it specifically to causes or programs they endorse. Doing so doesn't change, invalidate or make meaningless their personal views on women's or GLBT rights.

There are organizations within the church fighting for both and the members are as catholic as anyone else. It is you that is allowing the church to be defined by its leaders and not its members, but that is not necessarily the right answer.

the church to be defined by its leaders. They could most certainly leave and find a new religious community and new outlets for their charitable impulses...none of that exists only in the Catholic Church. But they cannot bring themselves to leave the One True Holy Roman Catholic Church, which IS defined by its leaders.

isn't it?

It seems this logic implies there is some inherent value to being Catholic, which is absurd to me. This reminds me of trying to reform the Republican Party instead of just voting Democratic. You aren't forced to be Catholic, so if you disagree with the views, why bother with a futile task of seeking change and why not just leave? Where's the harm in leaving?

If you stay with the RCC and keep dropping money in their collection plates, as they continue their malfeasance, cover up for child molesting priests, continue oppressing women and the GLBT community, how are you not an enabler?

if they bother you (specifically right in his eyes), I can see why you wouldn't want to have anything to do with the organization that supplies more services to the homeless than any other in the country.

Real classy move. Real classy.

At that point, he takes his chances. The OP in that thread said that this particular homeless person was being belligerent, throwing feinted punches and kicks, and deliberately trying to intimidate. A person does have a right to self-defense against violent assault. And while pepper spray is very painful, it usually doesn't permanently damage people.

Of course, you're creatively construing that to allege I think homeless people should be pepper-sprayed for sport, which is not what I think.

How nice that you read my posts!

He felt threatened, but no one actually touched him.

Pepper spray can permanently damage vulnerable people. Maybe we should just taser the homeless mentally ill. That would teach them.

I read lots of posts, but was particularly interested in the responses to that particular one, as it showed the ugly underbelly of some people who call themselves liberals.

A guy was being belligerent, throwing feinted punches and kicks, acting very erratic. In that situation, I'd feel threatened too. The OP had the virtue of having a size advantage. I don't. I'm a small guy. If I feel threatened, yes, I'll feel justified in brandishing or using pepper-spray. Just a punch can permanently damage too.

Why is self-defense morally reprehensible?

Seemed to work in that case.

When your means exceed the means being used by your "assailant", that is not self defense. Just ask Trayvon Martin.

It was only after quinnox made it clear he would defend himself that the assailant backed down.

What would a woman that weighed 120 pounds do in that situation?

I just found your response in the thread particularly notable in it's aggressiveness. I was in the thread arguing for compassion, but never arguing against the right to defend oneself.

Anyway, we have gotten way off topic here, which is ok. I probably should have left you alone, but I wanted to respond personally to your post in light of what you said here.

Look, I know you chose to leave and that has worked for you. Bookstores have rows and rows of self-helf books written by people who figured out what works for them and (mistakenly) think it will work for everyone else..

The problem is this - your solution is your solution and may not apply to a single other person in the entire universe.

She outlines pretty clearly why your solution can't be hers.

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Sure, it always "works" to just stick your head in the sand, pretend everything is fine, and do nothing, telling yourself that sticking around will bring about "change from within" in another few centuries. But this is about supporting and belonging to a sexist, homophobic organization that enables child rapists...that makes it about far more than an individual's personal needs.

The general attitude most had, was that as long as you were Christian it was perfectly OK, the denomination didn't matter. Catholic just happened to be the denomination I was raised in, but it wasn't necessarily any better than other denominations. Still a conservative mindset, but still significantly more progressive than the attitudes a lot of Catholics hold. Finding out that there were still people in the modern day that made a big fuss about being Catholic (as opposed Catholic as a denomination of Christianity) was a little surprising.

difficult for you to walk away.

Let me give you an example of another kinds of experience. In New Orleans, there are a lot of catholic schools. When people ask you where you went to school, they mean high school. Your affiliation with that school is tied to many things - your church, your community, your service projects, your order, etc. In short, much of one's identity is tied into the church and one's family is often "based" there. Leaving would be a much bigger deal for them than it ever would be for you.

to approach it differently as well.

The harm in leaving can only be given by those who choose to stay. They may benefit in ways that you did not or have benefits that you did not find valuable enough to keep you around.

One of my kids is about to convert to Catholicism. He is doing this for reasons very unique to him and very personal. Who else is to say that his choice is wrong?

you are and not letting others coerce you into being what they say/think you are, and honestly living by the consequences of that effort, because that is the model that we see in the life of Jesus. THAT is why his church-state crucified him.

Some of us were baptized as babies and have decades of Catholic experiences that include many others, including our loved ones. I, for one, am not going to say all of that was all false, in order to accommodate social pressure. It IS what it is TO ME, because I am the one to live the truths of my own life as best I can. I can do that relative to different others, but they don't make my truths true for me. I must do that myself.

Regarding what I think of as Pro-Choice for Life & the human rights of our LGBT brothers and sisters to love whom they love, here's how I relate those values to my experience of Catholicism:

Catholicism is defined by its dogma. That dogma is formula-ized in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed doesn't mention an anti-abortion dogma, nor does it lay down an anti-LGBT right to marry dogma.

Here is The Nicene Creed; I'm not proposing that you believe anything, just informing you about what Catholic dogma is based upon:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker 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 into 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 worshipped 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.

Here are a couple of aspects of The Nicene Creed that form my own conscience on these matters:

- Regarding women and sex, or even just sex in general, note that The Nicene Creed tells us the perfect mother is virginal. If there was something in particular that we are supposed to believe about sex and marriage and non-virginal pregnant women, something that would make a catholic Catholic in believing it, wouldn't this have been the opportunity to mention that sexual dimension of Christian dogma?

It's also interesting that, though sacraments are outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace, the processes, by means of which the early church sequentially identified sacraments and, eventually, identified a sacrament that they called marriage, are said to have appeared incapable of perceiving that particular "outward sign instituted by Christ" that we know as marriage, until the early church was practically forced into it by the necessity of putting their brand on randy Christians who were doing the usual human non-virginal things whether there was a sacrament or not. So, since Mary was virginal, was she married in the Christian sense of that word?

Since human pregnancy appears not to be related to dogma, how could it be the purpose of marriage? Therefore, it must be more a matter of religious social, and hence contextual, law. Christians have willingly or even eagerly tolerated ending human life for centuries, so is the real problem with abortion the fact that it's more individualistic, i.e. not under social power? That seems probable to me, because the RC church is known to have a principle called "Just War", in which the single commandment of the NT, "Love God and love humanity", and the 6th Commandment of the OT "Thou shalt not kill (or murder - depending upon your translation)", are put on hold FOR. CERTAIN. REASONS. If a person can morally CHOOSE to kill for a "just war", how is it impossible for an individual women to morally choose to appropriately end a pregnancy for certain reasons? Yes, the government has placed some limitations on this moral decision by protecting the value of a life in late term pregnancy, but that is a civil matter, not a religious one.

This does not mean that a woman's decision to abort cannot be a bad decision. It doesn't mean that homosexuals can make only good decisions about marriage. It means that these choices are THEIR choices, not a matter of Christian dogma. Their lives are their own decisions and that is what also makes the consequences of those decisions, whatever they are, positive or negative, theirs also and THAT'S the way it is supposed to be.

A historian friend of mine, who happened to be a lesbian, used to say this more simply than I: the basic Christian "deal" is the Ten Commandments plus the one commandment of the New Testament, everything else we're hearing is Jewish social law.

But they contradict official Catholic teachings, and were you to hold a position of influence within the church, you would be facing pressure and probably the threat of excommunication.

Denying the truth of your church, covering your eyes and pretending it doesn't really exist, doesn't help address the problem.

So the premise is kind of a false dichotomy. In fact a big part of wanting to get out of Catholicism was separating that from all the Catholic dogma and the hierarchy. As for being baptized as a baby, I was baptized against last year, so that should give you an idea how much value or purpose I place in that. I will not let something I had no say in have any effect on my life.

Abortion and gay marriage are really peripheral issues to me rejecting Catholicism, I think the church is terribly wrong on them, but even if they changed their views and allowed married and female priests, there's still far too much Catholic theology I'm quite uncomfortable with (Transubstantiation, Mariology, their views of baptism and original sin, the idea of the confession sacrament being required are all examples.)

Catholics regard it as a dedication of their own lives as the living body and blood of Jesus in the world. There are words in the Consecration itself that refer to the dedication of our lives and "the work of human hands" in service to love. It's a promise to one another made in the memory of a beloved teacher at a shared meal that is both a memorial and also as a model for our lives now, to be Jesus to one another. There is no superstition necessary in believing that what one eats is turned into flesh and blood and that act of nourishing the the life of the body can be dedicated by a promise to love amongst those who share it. No mumbo-jumbo needed for any of that to be true.

Yes, there is some superstition around Mary, quite a bit actually, but it's not that unusual in comparison to almost any of the other obsessions and cults of personality one sees in the world. I don't hold the mistakes that other people make about anyone against that person themselves. To me, Mary is another teacher, a woman placed on a type of a pedestal when that was a rather unusual thing to do in the world of the time. To me she is a figure who is a peer with the likes of Sojourner Truth and Eleanor Roosevelt. Just as we might see books and historical enactments honoring those characters and movies about figures such as ST and ER, so there might also be different kinds of practices, such as the rosary, in relationship to Mary the mother of Jesus.

I think there is some magical wrong-headedness about prayer, but Catholics don't have a corner on that either whether it's "to Mary" or others. Personally, I regard prayer as a form of meditation, an IN -forming of one's self and that's what changes the world, not something that one says that goes out there into the ethersphere and convinces some spiritual being to do or not do anything in particular, but, as I said, Catholics don't have a monopoly on that kooky idea.

There's been a great deal of marketing bullshit attached to Christianity in general, but just because, by way of analogy, one whole hell of a lot of people are adding 2 + 2 and getting 100, that doesn't mean that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. To me the errors have to do with abstractions that alienate the whole thing from the most immediate physical world.

And why would they restrict communion from non-Catholics if that was the whole focus? The reasoning behind that is that a non-Catholic would not accept communion as the actual body and blood of Christ (and if they do then they should convert to Catholicism.) What's outlined above I don't mind, but that's a Protestant mindset.

Your views on Mary I don't have a problem with. Things like the infallible declarations of the Assumption, Immaculate Conception (especially considering how I view original sin to begin with) and perpetual virginity in the RCC's theology I do. I'm also not comfortable saying a Hail Mary.

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

college and graduate school. I have also taught in a Catholic high school, have numbered religious folk, men and women, amongst my personal friends. My father was even influenced by a labor populist preaching priest in SE Kansas back in the late '40s to become a labor advocate on big big construction projects.

The kinds of Catholics that you appear to be so eager to judge and to dislike are out there, but as in all things, oversimplification is a mistake and that's kind of a puzzling mistake when the basis of a critique of others is about the value of the individual living actively choosing for themselves how to live honestly in the face of fascism of ANY kind wherever they encounter it IN THEIR lives. Are their truths more important or is that power struggle more important? Individual persons MUST decide how/what/why/when.

Transubstantiation is not the same thing as "memorialism", because Transubstantiation is an ongoing effort directed toward complete self identification with the message and teachings of a liberal mid-eastern wandering teacher, especially in his example, which we see in his life, of how freedom makes peace and universal love possible, and, because of which example, whose very being evoked fear and hate in his church-state.

Though many fall way way way short of that identification, that does not obviate the fundamental purpose of the church. And to a Vatican II Catholic that is the WHOLE church, not just the part of it that calls itself Catholic - and - yes, for almost a couple of decades there, non-Catholics were welcome at Communion. We were also taught that ANY Christian baptism is baptism and it is forever. Converts to Catholicism weren't even required to be re-baptised. Are you aware of the radical liberal theologians in the Catholic tradition who have not been excommunicated? We were also told that all persons of good conscience can "go to heaven", because the important thing is to live the meaning of the NT, no matter how you learned it in the circumstances of your own life, nor whether, hence, you call it the same thing that a Christian calls it or not.

Yes, many/most Catholics and other Christians fall short of identifying the Good News by means of their actions, but just like anything else that is worth the effort, you don't give up, because the effort itself is good for goodness' own sake, so failure does not obviate the fundamental purpose, growing into that Christ-identity IN the world.

Memorialism is not like this; it's an accessory or a cognitive accoutrement to relationships, because the memorializer does not become whoever is memorialized. Memorialism is carried out, off and on, in parts and pieces of the memorialized. Transubstantiation is to become more completely, in all ways at all times the living embodiment of the teachings of Jesus, constantly in the same way that bread and wine become bone and muscle fiber, viscera, and blood. It's not symbolic it's a concrete lineage within the family of man.

I was NEVER taught that the church is the clergy and bishops etc. N.E.V.E.R. We were told the word church itself is based on a word that means community. The church is the people. Yes, Vatican II eventually caused something schism-like in the RC church, but many Catholics have not forgotten V II's true teachings, nor have we changed our minds about what anyone can see in the life of a man named Yeshua, the architecture of which one can even see in the work of the Jesus Seminar, btw. It is pretty sad though that some from both perspectives in the RC church have turned these issues into a struggle almost exclusively over liturgy.

There are videos on YouTube of Robert Kennedy, Jr. interviewing at least one religious historian who reviews all of what I have said here.

I'm talking about Eucharistic theology, nothing more. RCC theology is that it becomes the actual body and blood of Christ. I always found this absurd, and couldn't accept anything other than the memorialist view (there is no transformation, it's just a symbol.) For reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorialism

If the Catholic church did allow non-Catholics to take communion at some point, it wasn't in my lifetime and isn't something I expected to happen soon again. Now mind you, I don't think the restriction with their theology is all that unreasonable. However it also means that I too would be excluded (I wouldn't take communion anyway and therefore express belief in something I don't adhere to), so I don't see any reason to retain even a nominal identity or affiliation with the church (this is just one out of a huge laundry list of issues I have mind you, but it is a bit of a lynchpin in it, as something that can't be overcome.)

I should point out that coming from a mixed marriage and with my father's whole side of the family being Lutheran and about half my mother's side not being Catholic either, I never saw myself as part of any greater Catholic community. And even the Catholics in my family weren't particularly adamant about it.

Both symbolically re-enacting the Last Supper, which is a Passover Seder, breaking bread and sharing a meal with one's fellow believers, and the idea that we are there to take God within. That is what I take away from it, though some of the songs make it sound uncomfortably close to cannibalism.

I also regard prayer as a form of meditation.

It is also powerful in invoking a state of spiritual connectedness, to me.

It's kind of ironic that even a somewhat temperamentally rebellious sort such as myself, comes to see Jesus in a human brother/sisterhood.

There were/are things I REALLY did not like about the RC church, the casual cruelty of its internal social culture for one thing and much much else, but it's funny that because of the RC church, what it has right AND what it has wrong, I actually do think I understand and share the feelings of the family of man better.

as futile as it is in some ways, makes us better people. At least the questions of why we are here and what our moral responsibility is are asked. We may come to different conclusions than the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, but at least the question is thoughtfully considered.

often tends to be.

Several viewpoints here and we actually talked about the issue area, instead of just sniping at one another.

That's the view I hold to, which on the spectrum of Eucharistic theology is the polar opposite of the RCC position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist



I understand so much better now.

the sarcasm tag.

On the one hand I glad they're work towards change. But it's kinda of like a bad relationship at some point you're just better off leaving. From what I've read about some of the prospects for Pope I don't see much hope for change.

who feel they can do more good inside than outside.

Unfortunately, I share your view on the prospects for getting a more progressive pope.

do you no longer respect that choice? At what point does an organization become so odious, so contemptible, so utterly unredeemable, that no one can be respected for supporting it for any reason? You seem to be saying, never.

kinds of Catholics are the ones doing the most social justice work. I know people like this; they happen to be Catholics, so they do honor the church, but their faith is a more personal matter that does not depend upon the church. They tend to be ecumenical because they work around members of other denominations and they are serving the poorest of the poor most of the time, so THAT'S what they are concerned about. Catholic Worker House is a good example. There are probably even some relatively conservative Catholics who work with/for Catholic Worker House, but they just don't make a big deal out of the more abstract things that are going on. Their lives are about service. The pope?. . . not so much.

My outside perspective as an Episcopalian. I think many Catholics see the faith as patrice does, they also look to the basic life of Christ rather than all the external trappings of the church. Many Catholic organizations do outstanding charitable work, speaking as a former employee of Catholic Charities.

Also, in any religious organization, no matter how dogmatic, spiritual perception and understanding is subjective, and no amount of rules and dogma can control that.

“Every time you spend money, you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want."

If someone is supporting the Catholic church with time and money, it's pretty clear what that their politics aren't gay friendly. No amount of spin can change that.

that makes them more catholic, more universal, than what calls itself the Roman Catholic church.

One gay bishop retired, but there is a second one.

Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schiori

Go to church anymore in Europe. Odd, but what other explanation could ther be?

They are brainwashed.

Until the church DOES change positions, those members are supporting those cruel and bigoted positions.