All Catholics (and other Christians) PLEASE READ

We need to start with our religion. If you are a member of an organized religion, does it reflect the views of Christ and God or do they reflect the views of the republican party. Are you supporting and giving money to the republicans and conservatives by giving to your church?

For example the Catholic Church says you are sinning if you vote for any candidate who doesn't hate and want banned;

Stem Cell Research
Allowing people to die with dignity
A women's rights over her own body
Cloning and other science
Gay marriage


Now that is not the teachings of Christ. He had a lot of important messages to give us and these were not it. He never mentioned one of these issues. Now I can understand that we have our faith and wish to remain involved in organized religion. However I think we need to make sure that we belong to a religion that puts the teachings of Christ and God ahead of the desires of right wing conservatives. I have been looking into this Christian Church (the one that major networks banned their commercials because they spoke out against oppression and intolerance). They seem to far better reflect the teachings of Christ then the Catholics and many other Christian religions.

http://www.ucc.org

If you are going to give money to and support a religion, at least make sure they are not republican party parading as a religion.

I left the Catholic church a while ago, and recently I was looking for a liberal denomination of Christianity. I found the Episcopal church, and I love it. Also, the United Church of Christ is a liberal Protestant denomination. My wife goes to a Southern Baptist church. It's her right, of course, but I can't stand the fact that her tithing gives money, indirectly, to the Southern Baptist Convention. She's as liberal as I am, so I wonder why it doesn't bother her.

...and long held the belief about Episcopoals that you have stated. However, after moving to Tennessee I find that the episcopal church, too, has been taken over by fundies. At least my church in Nashville has. The church I used to go to in Clarksville wasn't like that so perhaps it is not a Tennessee thing but a Nashville thing. Anyway I stopped going long ago and my wife is torn between continueing at the church or trying a different denomination.

It's not like that here.

It's admirable, in it's own way. I'm not sure trying to convert catholics and others away from their church is approved on this board, though.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

"I'm not sure trying to convert catholics and others away from their church is approved on this board, though. "

It seems to me it is pretty clear the Catholic and other republican religions played a big part ensuring that they rule this country. 2 years ago they USED 9/11 to rule us and this time they used God. Well bottom line is if religions are going to throw their hats into the political arena like the Catholics did, then we need to address it. Otherwise we will see far worse then george bush in the future.

to my religion, I'd expect some people to get offended. But I wouldn't really want to try.

Bryant

I am not try to convert people, but I do want people to see that they may be supporting and aiding the republicans and right wing by supporting a particular religion. Either they need to put pressure on their religious leaders to stict to religion or they need to go to a religion that is not a front for the neocons. Funny how the Catholic Church had no problem with their members voting for someone that is responsible for the deaths of 10s of thousands. I guess it is pretty easy to ignore the "though shall not kill commandment" when there is that commandment about "though shall not clone" and "though shall not conduct stem cell research" and "though shall not allow gays to marry"

Even though you really don't know very much about them.

Sorry, this is nothing new.

assumption AND exaggeration. Seems the poster simply suggests that people pay attention to what political agenda leaders of religions promote as opposed to what Christ actually taught.

Not a rant against "Catholics" but rather advice to look at what a church's leadership does politically. That is not an attack against Catholics any more than a rant against the policies of the neocons is indicative of hatred toward all Americans.

"Even though you really don't know very much about them.

Sorry, this is nothing new."

After being Baptized and Confirmed Catholic and 8 years of Catholic school I have to think I know a little something about Catholics. What I have a problem with is supporting and instution that is destroying our nation. When Catholics feel they need to go to confession because they voted for John Kerry, there is a serious problem with the religion. When money that you donated is spent to help get Republicans elected there is a problem.

Please Briget instead of dismissing ideas out of hand, please think about what was said and what is happening.

join the UCC church? I apologize then. I must have misread your initial post; I got the impression you were suggesting that Liberal Catholics (or, presumably, liberal members of other religions that are largely conservative) should leave their faith and join the UCC because it more accurately reflects the teachings of Christ. I'm sorry to have raised a fuss.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

That was one suggestion tossed out there. Clearly we must DO something about was is going on. If it requires fighting the policies of your church and getting them changed, go for it. If it involves leaving your current organized religion, in favor of one that practices religion instead of politics then go for it. Clearly though it is self defeating to support an any organization that is supporting the right wing and the neocons though.

but vocal group of extreme conservative catholics to all catholics...and to the church as a whole. Not well done of you.

either equate with the hierarchy (gone wild) OR as *all* it's parishioners as being republican.

I am a Liberal Catholic. However, since "the Church" (organized religion) is run by men (and a smattering of women), I have no say on their misdeeds.

Yes, I'm embarrassed for the HUMAN fallibility of the present so called Leadership of the Catholic Church. However, I am a practicing LIBERAL Catholic.

Please try to understand that these Catholic tenets are MAN MADE.

I can not stop the hierarchy from acting what IMHO is irresponsibly since I have no power to do so. However, I beg you to not generalize this "abuse of power" to the ENTIRE Catholic Faith. Just like "Jesus" the Catholic Faith has been hijacked by right wing priests and bishops.

Humans are fallible and I am saddened by my fellow parishioner's hyper-focus on the abortion issue.

At least don't categorize Catholicism as republican because I assure you, the way many of us practice our faith and live our lives can not be generalized as RW freepers.

Thanks for giving me a chance to explain my position.

On edit: Goofy, but needed clarifications ;)

Then what are you doing about it? Are you allowing it to happen, do you continue to give them money?

I don't know about anyone else, but this PUSH for UniversaL RELIGION is really starting to scare me.I'm starting to feel like something is being shoved down my throat, and I don't care for it! I am a Catholic and I also think that one's religion is a personal thing. Bad things happened when people were told they had to think and believe what one person told them. I believe that is one of the reason's why this country was founded in the first place. Bush is trying to rewrite history and nothing good is going to come of it.

left a long time ago because what they preached and what they practiced were two wildly opposite things. Looked at other christian churches and found them to be about the same, so am now without organized religion. Pretty much given up on organized religion and their use of christ. Christ is just a concept to be manipulateg for their own purposes.

That sums it up... most christian religions "use" christ... mostly to bring power and profit to the leader of the church. Born again Christians use it to comdem those who aren't of their frame of mind.

If and when Christ returns, he'll be pissed.

... I know too many people who continue on in their church despite opposing their policies.

At the end of the day, the only thing that will bring some of these institutions into the 21st Century (or even 20th, 19th, or 18th Century - an improvement for some of these churches) will be empty pews. I know sooooo many people who are pro-choice, practice birth control, and demand workplace equality for women who then check into their local Catholic church each Sunday - WHY?!?!?! The only way to deprive backwards religious institutions of their power is to abandon them and deny them your contributions. Otherwise, they will never be motivated to change.

If we don't like a store's policies, we boycott - it is time to do the same with our religious institutions.

You must be a carpenter because you hit the nail on the head!

We're a mixed bag of conservatives, liberals, and everything in between. My spiritual father is as liberal a Democrat as they come, and when our magazine last issue had several articles looking like they were written by neo-cons (on Orthodoxy and politics), they got slammed with letters to the contrary--and printed them too.

I'd rather be in a church that embraces mystery and a person's individual spiritual walk.

its just the more right leaning bishops have been getting more attention lately. I wouldn't mind being in the eastern church. I could still practice ancient christianty under cover from the political spotlight or fundamentalist harrassment.

It's from Conciliar Press and through SCOBA, the Standing Council of Orthodox Bishops in America, so it speaks to all Eastern Orthodox. The last letter to the editor about the last issue and how right-leaning it was should be mounted and framed in every home. It's one of the best explanations of politics, faith, and liberal issues I've ever read, and it was written by a priest in Wisconsin.

I think it is individual leaders of the Church that say this.

There is a book called the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics. In there it gives them a guideline based on those teachings and there are Five NON Negotiable issues, abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, cloning, euthanasia, and Homosexual "Marriage" that if "a" candidate is not in line with them, they are not allowed, in good conscience, to vote for them.

fundamentalistic Catholics who believe they speak for the whole church. Few bishops have supported their guide. Other bishops have pointed to its limitations.

The National Catholic Conference of Bishops has put out its own "Voter's Guide" and nowhere does it claim that any one issue trumps another.

there's a fine line that must be walked if the church is to maintain a tax-exempt status.

http://www.votingcatholic.org/

The Catholic Voting Project believes that it is important for faithful citizens to evaluate each of the Presidential candidates on the issues outlined by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in their document Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. There are many other voter guides for the 2004 elections that claim to be "Catholic", yet they focus on only a handful of issues, depending largely on the ideology of the sponsor. Some voter guides look only at abortion, stem cell research, and homosexual marriage—issues on which from a Catholic perspective President Bush gets better marks than Kerry. Other voter guides focus only on domestic economic issues, such as tax policy and social programs for the poorest Americans—issues on which Senator Kerry prevails. The Catholic Voting Project's voter guide is unique in that it considers all the issues highlighted by the U.S. Catholic Bishops. Our goal is to provide a non-partisan resource for all faithful citizens to consult as they vote for the next President of the United States of America.

It is also important to bear in mind that many non-governmental organizations in the Catholic tradition and Catholic dioceses themselves are not-for-profit organizations with tax exempt status. Because of their tax status, these organizations cannot officially endorse a candidate or even provide a summary of a candidate's position, lest they appear partisan. For these and other reasons, the Catholic Bishops do not endorse candidates or present Catholic voters with guides to the candidates' positions on the issues deemed important by the Catholic Bishops. Rather, the bishops outline a set of questions about the issues for voters to consider when choosing candidates to support. As private and faithful citizens, we understand it as our calling to take the next step in using Catholic Social Teaching to evaluate the candidates on the issues. We hope you will find this resource informative and helpful.

(btw if you take the quiz at the site..you find out that Kerry is closer to the Bishops on every issue except stem cell and abortion, then Bush is..so if you go by the RCC's guidelines as a catholic you would be required to vote for Kerry not Bush...)

It is just a more blantant version of it. The NCCB was more subtle in stating the same thing as they don't want to endanger their tax exempt status.

made up your mind what you are going to see. If however you read it with an open mind you will find your preconceptions are not supported by the facts.

Most people don't read entire documents they look at the first few items. That is why newspaper journalists are always taught to start with the most important points and work down from there. Look at how they phrased the positions by the candidates. Look at how they qualify their anti death penalty position (while not qualifying other positions).

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

Elections are a time for debate and decisions about the leaders, policies, and values that will guide our nation. Since the last presidential election and our last reflection on faithful citizenship, our nation has been attacked by terrorists and has gone to war twice.1 We have moved from how to share budget surpluses to how to allocate the burdens of deficits. As we approach the elections of 2004, we face difficult challenges for our nation and world....
In the face of all these challenges, we offer once again a simple image--a table.2 Who has a place at the table of life? Where is the place at the table for a million of our nation's children who are destroyed every year before they are born? How can we secure a place at the table for the hungry and those who lack health care in our own land and around the world? Where is the place at the table for those in our world who lack the freedom to practice their faith or stand up for what they believe? How do we ensure that families in our inner cities and rural communities, in barrios in Latin America and villages in Africa and Asia have a place at the table--enough to eat, decent work and wages, education for their children, adequate health care and housing, and most of all, hope for the future?.....The Catholic community is a diverse community of faith, not an interest group. Our Church does not offer contributions or endorsements. Instead, we raise a series of questions, seeking to help lift up the moral and human dimensions of the choices facing voters and candidates:


After September 11, how can we build not only a safer world, but a better world?more just, more secure, more peaceful, more respectful of human life and dignity?

How will we protect the weakest in our midst--innocent unborn children? How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a "culture of death"? How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems--abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?

How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world, as well as the fact that the younger you are, the more likely you are to be poor here in the richest nation on Earth?

How can our nation help parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, a sense of hope, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility? How can our society defend the central institution of marriage and better support families in their moral roles and responsibilities, offering them real choices and financial resources to obtain quality education and decent housing?

How will we address the growing number of families and individuals without affordable and accessible health care? How can health care better protect human life and respect human dignity?

How will our society combat continuing prejudice, overcome hostility toward immigrants and refugees, and heal the wounds of racism, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination?

How will our nation pursue the values of justice and peace in a world where injustice is common, desperate poverty widespread, and peace is too often overwhelmed by violence?

What are the responsibilities and limitations of families, community organizations, markets, and government? How can these elements of society work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, care for creation, and overcome injustice?

When should our nation use, or avoid the use of, military force--for what purpose, under what authority, and at what human cost?

How can we join with other nations to lead the world to greater respect for human life and dignity, religious freedom and democracy, economic justice, and care for God's creation? .....

Our community of faith brings three major assets to these challenges.

A Consistent Moral Framework
The Word of God and the teachings of the Church give us a particular way of viewing the world. Scripture calls us to "choose life," to serve "the least of these," to "hunger and thirst" for justice and to be "peacemakers."7

in everything except abortion and stem cell my views are very close to the Bishops and to Kerry. On stem Cell and abortion both Kerry and Bush differ from the Bishops...with my views being closer to Kerry then to Bush...

I really pushed this quiz to catholics..cause if they would have just taken it, they would have realized that in order to follow the majority of church teaching they should vote for Kerry not Bush...the Bishops say *no one issue trumps another* so that means you have to vote for the candidate that follows the church teaching on the most areas...and Kerry was the candidate...

overall I agree w/the Bishops 50% of the time, Kerry 18% of the time and bush -36% of the time.
on Protecting Human life: Bishops 0%, Kerry 13%, Bush -50%
on Family LIfe: Bishops 100%, Kerry -50%, Bush -100%
on Social Justice: Bishops 100%, Kerry 30%, Bush -10%
Global Solidarity: Bishops o%, Kerry 50%, Bush -50%

against abortion since Roman times. I disagree with the Church concerning making this teaching "law" for a nation however. Most importantly, I plan a letter to my bishop concerning this election and the wrongs they are supporting by default in making this and other things their only way to judge leaders. I will threaten to leave. No need to join any religious group as there will always be something there to disappoint. I frankly don't care about religion very much now.

Roman Times..that is actually why the teaching on abortion can never be an infallible teaching...cause an infallible teaching can not contradict what was taught by another Pope..

for instance Aquinas did not consider abortion a sin until *quickening*...

http://www.religioustolerance.com has some interesting info on the changing stance of the RCC in regards to abortion in their section on abortion.

The Didache, the epistle of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria's teachings all teach disfavor over abortion.

that there has been the belief that ALL abortion is a sin...before that there were many different beleifs and teachings...at one point abortion before quickening was considered less sinful than oral sex for example...

*The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul: "Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." (7:3)

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 1 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).*

*St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" 8

Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain "sins" which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties. These included:

practicing a particularly ineffective form of birth control, coitus interruptus (withdrawal of the penis prior to ejaculation)
engaging in oral sex or anal sex
becoming sterile by artificial means, such as by consuming sterilizing poisons.

Abortion, on the other hand, required a less serious penance. Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; abortion required only 120 days*

http://www.religioustolerance.org

also
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/nobandwidth/English/cathwomen/abortiondecision.htm

Most people believe that the Roman Catholic church's position on abortion has remained unchanged for two thousand years. Not true. Church teaching on abortion has varied continually over the course of its history. There has been no unanimous opinion on abortion at any time. While there has been constant general agreement that abortion is almost always evil and sinful, the church has had difficulty in defining the nature of that evil. Members of the Catholic hierarchy have opposed abortion consistently as evidence of sexual sin, but they have not always seen early abortion as homicide. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the "right-to-life" argument is a relatively recent development in church teaching. The debate continues today.

Also contrary to popular belief, no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an "infallible" teaching. This fact leaves much more room for discussion on abortion than is usually thought, with opinions among theologians and the laity differing widely. In any case, Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views.

evidence the church fathers were opposed to it, just in different degrees. Early homilies esposed opposition to the practice. It doesn't really matter as this misses the point of religion shopping.

From Praedagogus, written by Clement around 190-200;
Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the matter completely dead, abort at the same time their human feelings.

other 15 centuries (the majority of church history) they went back and forth on the issue..with no one official position...which is why abortion teaching can never be made an infallible teaching which in turn means that it falls under the provence of *primacy of conscience*...

(as a Catholic myself who does not favor a ban on abortion) to me. My point is whether it is the Church's teaching at this or any other time, the Church community is supposed to be its own alternative kingdom and once it mingles with the state, it loses its meaning.

several important questions. This can lead to an interesting examination of the choices we make. Thank you for that.

As a Catholic I was appalled by the right turn my church took this election, completely abandoning my beliefs in Christ and the Church. I checked out the UCC last weekend based on their commercials and liked it but I am still looking, searching for what is right for me (couldn't get passed the white grape juice for communion, or the kid in front of me playing with the host for about 20 minutes before eating it, man the Catholic guilt thing is stronger than you think). I don't know if I should stay and fight (which I have decided to do witht hte Democratic Party) or leave. I took your post as encouragement that there are places for the Religious Left to go without leaving organized religion all together. This is a very significant topic for a lot of religious liberals these days and I think this is as good a place as any to discuss it. Thank you!

We've been taken over by a radical regime of nincompoops who use their "religion" to gain footholds in our government. It really has nothing to do with religion. NOTHING.

It's all about power, and the ability to feel superior. Do people really think that all those radical religious nuts give a shit about so-called moral values? No! It's all about feeling superior to another group of people, thus elevating their own "self-esteem" and bloviated egos.

Back in the "day" poor white people could look down on the blacks, because even if they didn't have a good life, the poor blacks had it even worse. It's not about compassion, it's not about anything "good" at all: it's about the human behavior that says to a lot of people that "I might be in deep shit, but there is someone even deeper in the doodoo than myself."

It's a fact. Now, instead so much about the racial differences, it's now about "god" or their interpretation of "god." Those who "believe" are morally superior to those who don't. Wiccan? You're damned to hell. Jewish? You don't have faith in the son of Christ, and we're saving your asses because we're so "morally right" and you aren't. Moslem? Uh, huh. Your religion is based on a dark, evil god, not the "true" god of christianity. Atheist? You poor sonofabitch, we'll pray for you and hope you come to your senses before judgement day.

I wish people could change--I really, really do. But it aint' gonna happen. It is too much of human nature to always have someone lower than someone else, if not to help, to show some so-called "compassion" for as being "less" than themselves.

It's true on our side, too. How many of us have used the "at least" scenario in our own lives? "I might have nearly nothing, but I 'at least' have more than the homeless folks out there." "I don't believe in god, but I 'at least' know the difference between believing in something that rationally can't exist." "Kerry might not have won, but he 'at least' had a brain, unlike the chimp."

We all rationalize. It's part of who we are. There is always going to be someone who is better than us, and someone who is going to have worse circumstances than us. It makes our suffering just that little touch less painful because we can think of our so-called "blessings" instead of our losses. There have been TV shows where they've showed some children in third world countries who steal, lie, and sell themselves to get a meal in a day. And even the poorest among us owns at least one TV set and probably has a telephone. But in order to function every day, we put ourselves in social classes and don't try to change them very much, either out of laziness, contempt or mere acceptance.

So while we have our own derisive viewpoint of the radical religious right, we have to realize that their attitude is clearly self-imposed, and self-delusional. It makes them feel more important somehow, makes them feel somehow superior because they pretend to be adherents to a philosophy which they aren't even truly familiar with. They "say" they're Christians, the same way that people through the centuries have fought wars and justified them because in some way someone else's culture was different enough to evoke disdain and fear. Yes, fear that somehow these others were going to be somehow superior to them. So rationale provided reasons to go after them, and rationale provided the means to put these "enemies" lower on the scoial scale for whatever made-up answer was decided upon.

It's not a fight over religion that we are going to face, because the religious issue is manufactured wholly in the minds of those controlling the situation. It's the way the ubermeister of propaganda has phrased the issue, and that is the main reason to manipulate the people and use the inherent desire of superiority to frame the debate. WE are superior to the Moslems, because WE only kill bad people. WE don't treat our women in the horrific way that they do. WE don't ask our people to commit suicide in honor of their religious beliefs. As most of us know, NONE of these are really cogent responses.

It's going to take a lot more than moral outrage, trying to show people the facts and try to make these people change their view of the world. It's going to require setting up new paradigms, new emotionally based ways to deal with these things. We can't just show them the facts, and we can't just tell them they're wrong and show them proof--if we did that, we would be essentially telling these people that their entire "life" is wrong, and most will rebel against such flagrant disregard for their sum of beliefs. It's a fight that is going to be hard fought, and even more, hard won. I don't think I will hold my breath though, in trying to change these people as drastically as they need to be changed. But making some inroads is the only way we're going to swing some to a different way of looking at things, and we've got to do the best we can, without getting sucked in ourselves along the way.

working very hard to remind people both in and out of the church that the vocal minority of extremist conservatives is not the *real* or the majority of the Catholic Church and as much as they proclaim their viewpoint, they can not talk away that most basic of catholic beliefs and principals.."primacy of conscience"...also I posted continually about this website prior to the election that was an official site of the church...on elections and what issues a catholic should consider when deciding who to vote for..and there was (possibly still is) a quiz there that was based on the Bishops voting guide..thing is if you bothered to take the quiz you found out that Kerry was closer to the Bishops on almost every issue that the church says you should base your vote upon...(stem cell and abortion being the only two that Kerry was not closer (usually by a very large margin over Bush)...so going by the Churches on standards Catholics should have voted for Kerry and any priest or Bishop that said differently was actually going AGAINST the church....

http://www.votingcatholic.org

Problem is that in the RCC, just as is the case in so much else, the vocal minority of extremist conservative freaks drowns out the majority of reasonable people...

>>>Problem is that in the RCC, just as is the case in so much else, the vocal minority of extremist conservative freaks drowns out the majority of reasonable people...>>>


Can this possibly be blown up to 72-point type and put in day-glo colors? Maybe then people will finally catch a clue.

There are extremes in any segment of society that unfortunately overshadow the good that is done.

the loudest of any bunch are the only ones who are heard. Doesn't mean I have to agree though.

The more radical elements. So the question is what are you doing about it? What are you doing to prevent your support and money being used to turn this country in to a vast right wing wasteland?

what I am doing is fighting to reclaim my church from the extreme conserves..just as I am doing with my country..

By pointing out what the Church has traditionally stood for..by pointing out when concepts and beliefs are twisted to mean something different then they actually do...by pointing out what Jesus actually said and did and believed...etc...

why should I leave my church? It is MY church..not just the ultra conserves no matter how loud they squak..if I leave and others like me leave then the RCC will become in actuallity what so many people believe it already is because of the vocal minority...Just as I believe my country is worth saving from the extremist..I also believe my church is worth saving from the extremist...even if leaving would be easier.

The question is what actions are you going to take. There is no denying the Catholic Church and other religions helped to get bush and the republicans elected. If you belong to these religions then your support (financial and other wise) aided them in those endeavors. So what do you do?

Thanks for the good thread and for discussing this so thoughtfully.

You are asking us to carry political activism into the Church to counter political activism, and I would suggest that this is the wrong way to go since it accepts as a given, and reinforces, the problem of the co-mingling of theology with politics.

There are a couple of assumptions that I see being made often on these threads that I would question. First, as others have pointed out, the words of an extremist few do not represent the Church as a whole, nor the body of parishioners. It doesn't even matter if "most" of "them" vote one way or another. Putting the whole group into the same category undermines the efforts of those who are fighting against the Church's involvement in reactionary politics.

Another assumption is that anything contributed to the Church is tantamount to funding the dark side. Others have explained the inadequacy of this overly simplified analysis, and I would add to that one thing. Identifying an entire group as the enemy contributes to the problem, as it accelerates the trend toward the us versus them thinking that is the prime strategy that the tyrants are using to divide and conquer us.

Then we have the liberal versus conservative religion debate, as though one should pick a church to match one's political philosophy. This also reinforces the idea that we need to line up on opposing teams for the coming battle. I am very conservative theologically while very liberal politically. There is no inconsistency, if one can truly separate politics from religion. If one cannot truly separate politics from religion, then I would say that one is part of the problem regardless of which team they join.

To my way of thinking, both ideas - a progressive religion and a reactionary government - are contradictions in terms. A reactionary government is not much different than no government at all, since the only purpose of government is to arrange things in such a way that the rich and the powerful do not make slaves of the rest of us. A progressive religion is like no religion at all, since religion rests on myths and on the concept of great unchanging timeless moral truth.

It is probably true that both Western Civilization and the Church are dying. (For this view I should give credit to the historian Jacques Barzun.) Much of the political debate revolves around one group of people resisting the collapse of the Church, and the other resisting the collapse of enlightened rational liberal society. Both groups are acting irrationally, and most people in both groups are equally guilty of failing to see their own shortcomings, and of failing to take a stand against the collapse. Each see different parts of the problem and not others, and each blames the other group for the entire problem.

I will give one example, which I hope can be given some consideration despite the fact that we are a partisan group here. We accuse reactionaries of supporting policies that chip away at the integrity of the Constitution, and rightfully so. Yet how much commitment to the Constitution is there in liberal circles? When I suggest reaching out to conservatives on the principles and the shared values as expressed in the Constitution, it is the rare liberal or Democrat who can step out of partisanship and political bickering to consider that course of action. Are Democrats willing to put the Constitution and patriotism above the fortunes of the Democratic party? For instance, can the stolen election be seen as something more important than a Kerry "win?" Just peruse the threads about the election for your answer. If the issue of the stolen election cannot result in Kerry being in the White House, many people lose interest in it and are ready to move on. So for many, hatred for the "repukes" and the "fundies" transcends their commitment to the Constitution and the country.

so do NOT tell me the conservatives are a minority

about the same as the US as a whole...at least of those who bother to vote...and in one group of Catholics Kerry got more votes then bush

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Religion and Attendance

Catholic/Weekly (11%)Bush: 56% n/a Kerry: 43%
Catholic/Less Often (14%) Bush: 49% n/a Kerry: 50%

not sure where you got the info on white RC's haven't seen it broken down that way....

I have a sense that you didn't finish your thought. If the majority of white Roman Catholics voted for shrub, that tells us what? Are you suggesting that we therefore are justified in seeing the entire group and the institution as appropriate targets for condemnation?

If so, by that logic, we had better hope for more mercy from the rest of the world toward all Americans. Very few of us are resisting the system that is spreading death and destruction around the globe. Sure, we didn't vote for Bush, and can pat ourselves on the back for that. But we "vote" for the system every day in hundreds of ways with our words and actions.

It is perhaps more the case that if people can be told to reject the Church and the faith and the Church community so as not to be on the wrong side, then we should be asking much, much more of ourselves in the way of resistance to the political and economic system that we are all participating in, contributing to, and receiving benefits from every day.

I would argue that the average liberal's participation in consumerism, the credit industry, elitism and wasteful living is a much more important prop to the corrupt and destructive system than the average church member's involvement in the community of worshipers is. making enemies of church goers and hating them is another important contribution that liberals make to the march toward tyranny, as well.

1. It helps pay their bills, such as power, water, sewer...you know, the same expenses we all have.

2. It pays my pastors' salaries. You know, the guys who are always at my beck and call. (Yearly, they make something like 20- 25-grand.)

3. It pays the staff salaries. You know, people who head up the youth religious education program, do baptismal training and wedding prep, adult faith formation programs, school principal, and staff.

4. It helps fund adult formation programs, such as the one called JustFaith, which concerns social justice, which I am moderating this year.

5. It goes to help several community groups that are in need of funding to continue, such as the business that employs mentally handicapped youth and adults, as well as an African orphanage that cares for AIDS orphans. There are about 15 other such groups my parish helps through twice-a-month collections.

6. It pays for a archdiocesan staff that does yeoman's work despite being cut to the bare bones due to budget contstraints over the past year. These people help to bring programs such as fair trade coffee workshops, environmental protection forums, and other social issue programs to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. They also help with the large Hispanic community that lives within the archdiocesan borders.

7. It helps the poor. Another twice-monthly collection benefits our St. Vincent de Paul conference, which helps those in need within our parish boundaries. We assist with rent, food, prescriptions, utilities...whatever the need. The money to do this comes DIRECTLY from parishioner contributions. Last week alone, 29 people were helped with various needs.

I could go on, but frankly, it's none of your business why I give to my church.

And by the way...that list you cited? That came from an conservative fringe group called Catholic Answers, which is NOT part of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. If you want to read the official United State Conference of Catholic Bishops' position in issues, I suggest picking up a copy of Faithful Citizenship, which is published during election seasons.

They pretty much say the same thing. Sure they change the wording to protect their tax exempt status, but if you look at how they worded issues and the priority in which where discussed first and which are pushed to the back burner, it is pretty clear they were strongly supporting the republican causes. Some of that money went to help get republicans elected as well. That is something I try to avoid. As for the business of how we spend our money, if it helps get republicans elected then it is all our business, as we all live in this country.

Most Catholics I know do not agree with the church 100% on everything, even republicans don't always agree. Birth control is one of the major disconnect points between the church and its people. Most Catholic women are for some type of birth control.

As for abortion, I don't like abortion but yet I'd rather it be available because I know that not everyone feels the same as I do. Women's rights over their bodies is their right only. I've also known several Catholics that have had abortions yet have stayed in the Catholic church.

I have no problem with stem cell research, right to die and think that if we could take out the "marriage" term in gay marriage (i.e. calling them unions or some such) then most people wouldn't have any problem with it.

I'm still up in the air over cloning. It's not a proven science. It can be accomplished but to what end?

Abandoning my church because of politics is not an option, IMO. Effective change doesn't happen from the outside but from the inside. The approach for democratic Catholics should be to realize that not everyone is Catholic, nor is everyone religious, and that my religious beliefs are mine and not to be foisted upon everyone, even when the Catholic church says I should. It's just not right. This is the message that democratic Catholics should be spreading to republican Catholics.

The Catholic Church (and other right wing religions) help get all those republicans elected to congress and get helped get bush elected. Your support of this instution allowed it to happen. So what do you do?

I know it's rather a contradiction, but it works for me.

One of the main struggles with Catholicism I have is whether to really care what the hierarchy of church says. I just ignore the Church when they talk about gay-marriage and a couple of other issues. But lets not forgt all the good the Catholic Church does as far as promoting social justice issues and trying to end violence in the world. While a lot of religions don't stress that area, Catholicism as a whole does and it's really somethings liberal Catholics should be proud of.

certain unsavory groups such as the nazis or italian facists, but ignoring some of the positions that have an intended or unintended effect of keeping people poor, ignorant, subjugated, etc. on the basis of what good charitable works is not unlike saying:

Yeah, the nazis were pretty bad, but look what they did for highway building...

-or-

Yeah, Mussolini was an asshole, but at least the trains ran on time.

Gross oversimplification in the examples above, but at the end of the day, we, as progressives, must insist on people who do not lift people up with one hand while pushing people down with the other hand. Anything less puts us in poor company.

more. They didn't tell catholics to vote against supporters of the Iraq war, or the rich, or the anti-labor forces. No, just gay marriage and abortion.

But can it counter the bad it did in helping bush get elected and help the republicans dominate congress? That is a lot of bad to overcome.

If this is the topic of the "enlightened" then imagine how far gone are the masses. There are now forty states that are considering making superstition equal to science in their curricula. I see little hope for our future. I hope that the other countries in the world can keep knowledge alive.

--IMM

Because believing that God created the earth and man requires a leap of faith. Not so with evolution.

Weird thing though. I was schooled all my life in Catholic schools. Both were taught at that time as theories.

In science a theory is considered fact if it explains observed phenomena, and until and unless some observation contradicts it. I know that theory has other meanings. But as used in Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, it carries the same weight as "truth" or "fact" (non-scientific terms) in everyday life.

Most major religions endorse the Theory of Evolution in their universities. but that has been lost on at least a third of American population. I think that religions take advantage of a natural propensity to faith to assume power over people, and a propensity to believe in magic. American corporatism nourishes it.

Churches have a role in spirituality and community, but should give up claims of defining reality. Much of this sound like argument over the number of fairies dancing on the head of a pin.

--IMM

I actually see religion more as a shame-based method of instilling conformity. The right is very good at using religion in this manner.

I also find it amazing, that back then a Catholic high school would even begin to mention creationism/evolution and theory in the same sentence.

I was definitely a rebel rouser back then. The birth control pill had just been developed and it thoroughly pissed the priests off that the girls couldn't understand why limiting the number of children, no matter the method, was wrong. The church still hasn't overcome women's reasoning on that one.

never was confronted with anything but current scientific information.

Later on as a math teacher, who was sometimes pressed into science teaching, I had students (rarely) who wanted me to give time to other theories. Usually, I would launch into the definition of what is science routine, keeping it as objective as possible.

Once or twice, sticking my neck out, I asked them if they thought their pastor would invite me over to give equal time to evolution. Considering I needed the job, that was dumb, but none of them pursued it further.

I have lots of friends, and their religious views don't concern me, unless, of course, my views concern them.

--IMM

If you did that today, you'd be called onto the carpet and possibly sent packing. Teachers are the first scapegoats for what's wrong in the world.

There are things I did as a teacher that I shudder about now. Innocent things, I hasten to add.

--IMM

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then it is not dogma it is politics. The Catholic Church and others have become political entities and we need to address that or risk losing our country.

by the Evangelical nutcases on the abortion issue. Most evangelicals have no use for Catholics once they get their wish and get Roe v. Wade overturned.

As a Catholic, I'm scared by the notion that we'd be next on the list (after Muslims, Jews, and whoever else) to get screwed over by the Religious right.

and I intend to tell as many of the clergy as I can. Allies of convenience never work out. This is especially true since the Church was officially against the Iraq war, is for economic justice, and is against the death penalty.

realize that Bush, et al do not even consider Catholics to be Christians...

I can tell you *exactly* what Bush would answer if asked: "will catholics go to heaven?" because I have heard dozens of sermons on this preached in my parents SB church..

"of course there will be Catholics in heaven, the ones that read the bible for themselves and realize the *truth* and ask Jesus Christ to be their personal savior and that don't follow the false teachings and idol worshipping of the RCC"...

Idiots that have no clue in what contempt Bush and all fundamental protestants hold catholics...

Even with friends that are, say a little more to the findamentalist side, let us know occasionally. We get the "that's not in the bible'" concerning a feast day or something or "we can tell you a thing or two about the catholic church" (that one really amuses me). I guess having friends that judge you by what they are told about you rather than what they know about you makes the world go round.

Are very different than most other philosophyies in two areas:

They don't believe that faith alone is enough for salvation, but rather that works are required as well. This is in polar opposition to Protestants who generally believe works have nothing to do with salvation. The Catholic view is more in tune with Judaism and Muslim thought on this issue.

Catholics don't try to overinterpret the bible, and with few exceptions, will generally respect multiple meanings for a verse that are logical. For instnace, the Holy See has made an announcement supporting evolution -- a postion commonly known as theistic evolution (God created the earth, but used evolution/big bang to do it). In addition, the bible as such is not the only document of importance -- in fact one of the major issues of Protestantism was that Catholics don't believe in reading / interpreting the bible for themselves as an article of faith.

In general I find Catholisism to be one of the more accepting and loving religions in many ways.

Note: Bush is not a Southern Baptist, he is a United Methodist, which are generally much more liberal about other religions.

which really seems a contradiction to his more strident fundamentalism (or use of it).

who has more in common w/the SB then the majority of the Methodist church...

there is a split occuring w/in the Methodist church right now..between the traditionally liberal methodist and a splinter group of fundamentalist methodist churches...and anyway Bush isn't *really* methodist..

*Bush was raised in the Episcopal Church of his father, former President George H.W. Bush, but joined the Methodist church of his wife, first lady Laura Bush, when they married.

According to Aikman, Bush showed little interest in Christianity until he went through "a reawakening of faith" between 1984 and 1986.

Much of that reawakening came when Bush stopped drinking and joined an evangelical men's Bible study group in Texas. That fellowship was much more conservative than the Methodist and Episcopal churches and took a more literal approach to Scripture.* http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/12/MNGM98NOFC1.DTL

(I have heard the bible study group was part of the Promise Keepers)

Wasn't always that way, but concerning evolution, the winger Christians' bugaboo, the RC Church is okay w/it.

Sitting by helplessly and letting it happen?

just as we are working as Americans to take back our country from the extremist.

In neither my church or my country am I willing to leave just because it has been temporarily hijacked by whackjobs.

What are you doing exactly? Have stopped donating until they change certain policies? Have you written letters? Staged meeting?


I have been thinking long and hard about our defeat in November. I have looked at what aided the neocons in their victory. I do not believe our country is as morally corrupt and socially bankrupt as to reward bush for Iraq or that we support his extreme (and the republicans) veiw points. I have concluded the following.

1) There were churches that flexed their muscle to aid the right wing. I am addressing this issue now.

2) FOX news was effective in brain washing a segment of the population. We need to have a liberal alternative. Not a stuffy intellectual alternative, but a low brow appeal to the public liberal news alternative.

3) We need to look at what corperations used the money we gave them to purchase their goods and services and used it to support the right wing. The right wing money advantage has got to be stopped.

We need a good liberal buying guide that lists good and bad companies to use in all our daily lives.

We address these issues and the Neocons will go the way of the dodo bird.

on the internet and in newspapers. By writing letters to the Catholic Missourian about incorrect statements and beliefs. By teaching my kids what the Church actually stands for..by attending a RCC that is liberal in its outlook (a Newman Center Church)..by talking, talking, talking and refusing to be silenced by the right...and by staying calm and making sure I have my facts and can defend my stances when called to do so.

Does this prevent your money from going to help get right wingers elected?

with...and by making sure my voice is heard as a *current* catholic I can not be written off as just some disaffected ex-catholic out to bring down the church.

You don't have to give to a candidate to help them.

volunteering at shelters, etc instead of marching at PP on *pro-life sunday* because pro life means all life not just the unborn..to the point that there is not *praying for the unborn* in our church..instead the prayer is for all in danger....actually had one priest say in his sermon that if he saw any of his parishioners picketing against abortion he would stop his car and take them to the local shelter to volunteer...cause he said the only real way to make a change is to be an instrument of change...

our church stresses that social justice is required of us...that talking the talk is meaningless..that we are *called to action*..and this is how the majority of RC churches are...it is just the vocal extremist conservative ones that you hear about and that so many people assume are the reality of the RCC...

In Michigan, the RCC contributed millions (of tax free dollars) to support the ant-gay marriage which passed.

that is not the same thing.

as my protest to joining Ceasar's government.

That is the sort of protest that makes church leaders sit up and take notice. Tells them to stay out of politics.

I attended a Catholic School for 12 years!

This is not a new argument, but is now much more publicized that ever. I remember being taught how wrong it was for a Catholic kid to go to a public school because they recited the wrong version of the "Our Father" prayer!

I'll tell you what I believe, and I know I'm not alone as a Catholic.

1. Abortion is murder, but as long as no one forces me to have one, I will not force my belief on anyone else.

2. The death penalty is murder too, but as long as I will never have to sit on a DP qualified jury, I am not guilty of anything.

3. I don't want Church supported Gay marriage, but I'm in total support of "couples" having access to all the benefits they earn and pay for as a US citizen. If the most expedicious way to accomplish that is state recognized marriage, who cares. Remember, the Catholic Chruch doesn't recognize your marriage is you get married by your local JP.

4. Stem Cell research. I wouldn't want to see women getting pregnant just to product the right cells for a science project, but no one was saying that. If millions of eggs are already in labs from artificial insemination projects, and are simply going to be destroyed, why not use them for something that could prove wonderful? I wonder how many people were arguing this same point about artificial insemination, artificial hearts, transplants, and if you go back far enough...surgery at all!

You see, I find far more serious problems with divorce since you take an oath when you get married, and most say "Until DEATH do we part!" But I don't see all the holier than thou crowd ranting against that!

I guess I'm part of the live and let live group, and as long as no one forces me to do anything aginst my faith, beliefs, and values, I'm fine with it. I have eto answer to my God for MY actions, and you will have to do the same.

They are using YOUR MONEY and your support to accomplish those goals that are not part of your basic beliefs.

Remember Kerry being banned from communion for not making Catholic faith law?

Kerry wasn't banned from communion but it was a point of contention with the church. The church realized that if they banned Kerry, then they'd have to ban a whole lot of Catholics as a result. That wouldn't do.

I'm with the poster you're responding to; as long as the good the Catholic church can accomplish is more than it pays attention to politics, then I remain a Catholic. The Kerry communion thing, had they actually banned him, would have been a reason for me to seriously reconsider the church as a recipient of my money.

It also resulted in bush being elected and giving him a powerful republican majority to work with. That is a pretty big bad to overcome.

I also remember (but realize most people missed this part of the story) that both the American College of Bishops and the Vatican issued statements condemming that action and threat. Pope John Paul himself has given communion personally to a pro-choice Italian politician.

Did the church make an attempt to make sure it got the proper publicity or were they happy to leave the public with the misperception?

that picked it up. Probably because it wasn't a scandal or something to hype..it actually showed reasonableness....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-14-bishops-meet_x.htm

Pope John Paul II says Catholics who think they can dissent from the church's stance on sexual morality, divorce and remarriage or abortion and still receive the sacraments are making a "grave error."

Even so, the pope appears to consider Communion a private question between a believer and God. The pope himself has given Communion to pro-choice Italian politicians. And U.S. bishops returning from routine meetings in Rome this spring say there's no Vatican support for denying Communion in order to publicly sanction policymakers.

Archbishop Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., chairman of the bishops' Task Force on Relations with Catholic Politicians, has written, "I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in my hand. There are apparently those who would welcome such a conflict, for good reasons I am sure, or for political ones, but I would not."

His task force will make a progress report at this semiannual retreat and meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The final report, expected in November, will address ways to implement the pope's 2003 teaching on "faithful citizens" in the face of contentious issues such as abortion, social justice, foreign policy and economics


and

Therefore, based on the traditional practice of the Church and our consultation with members of our conference, other episcopal conferences, distinguished canonists and theologians, our Task Force does not advocate the denial of Communion for Catholic politicians or Catholic voters in these circumstances.

No one should mistake our task force’s reservations about refusing Communion or public calls to refrain from Communion as ignoring or excusing those who clearly contradict Catholic teaching in their public roles. Those who take positions or act in ways that are contrary to fundamental moral principles should not underestimate the seriousness of this situation. We insist that they must study Catholic teaching, recognize their grave responsibility to protect human life from conception to natural death, and adopt positions consistent with these principles. However, in our view the battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities.

Based on our consultation process, there is significant concern about the perception that the sacred nature of the Eucharist could be trivialized and might be turned into a partisan political battleground. Expecting a minister of Holy Communion to make these judgments would create great pastoral difficulties. We do not want to encourage confrontations at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in our hands. This could create unmanageable burdens for our priests and those who assist them and could turn the Eucharist into a perceived source of political combat.

Other questions were raised about where the process might lead--who would be impacted and what other issues might lead to denial of Holy Communion. We fear that it could further divide our Church and that it could have serious unintended consequences. For example, it could be more difficult for faithful Catholics to serve in public life because they might be seen not as standing up for principle, but as under pressure from the hierarchy. We could turn weak leaders who bend to the political winds into people who are perceived as courageous resistors of episcopal authority. In the past such actions have often been counter-productive. We also fear it could push many people farther away from the Church and its teaching, rather than bringing them closer. http://www.usccb.org/bishops/intreflections.htm

Pope John Paul II says Catholics who think they can dissent from the church's stance on sexual morality, divorce and remarriage or abortion and still receive the sacraments are making a "grave error."

people do what you just did...and they miss the most important part..

Even so, the pope appears to consider Communion a private question between a believer and God. The pope himself has given Communion to pro-choice Italian politicians. And U.S. bishops returning from routine meetings in Rome this spring say there's no Vatican support for denying Communion in order to publicly sanction policymakers.

It is pretty clear the the Pope is in lock step with the Republicans. I notice the Pope did not include a SINGLE issue that the Church and the Republicans disagree on when saying who can not receive communion.

look dislike the RCC if you want..but please do so based on the real truth about the church.

The Pope himself has given communion to pro choice politicians...he has said communion should not be denied to pro choice politicians...not sure what else you want here...he is not going to say being pro-choice is okay, cause he doesn't beleive it is..and that is fine, I can accept that and still be catholic and pro-choice because of primacy of conscience...

US Bishops (I think), and was never supported by Rome. Unfortunately, the statements from Rome never got the media publicity that the vocal Bishops did.

There are radicals in every religion, and of course, they are the most vocal. I'm sure it's true that not ALL evangelicals, or re-borns, agree with what's making the media either, but it's never newsworthy if it's not on the controversy side.

not exactly overwhelming percentage is it?

you'll listen to anything anyone tells you.

:crazy:

While it may provide you comfort to dismiss my points by saying I am militant. It is hardly accurate. I have allegiance to no religion, so I have no reason to be militant. Can you say the same thing?

I have come to the conclusion that there are many faces of people in my church. Overall, I want to be sure that what I am doing is leading a good life; I mean a universally accepted good life. I know that Jesus once lived and taught certain things that I believe are good rules by which to live, compassion, empathy, understanding, equality, etc... Organized religions I fear are moving away from this and some even in the church are such bigots that I just want to give up. Luckily I have a very liberal pastor and some understanding members of my church that are helping me with this. We'll see what happens. This is my latest tirade against certain members of my church.

My tirade

and yet many a Christian were appalled by slavery at the time and I can't think of any Christians who would accept slavery now.

Give it up.

If you want to join another church, fine, but this is no place to practice religious bigotry by telling others to leave their churches nor is it an appropriate place to proselytize for any church.

As another Catholic DUer and lifetime Democrat told me, "I'll be Catholic long after I've left the Democratic Party."

The Roman Catholic Church tells its members to help the poor and the sick and backs up its words with enormous worldwide charity efforts.

The Catholic Church has always supported the rights of workers to unionize and has called on the rich nations of the world to forgive the debt of the poor nations.

The Catholic Church tells its members to oppose the death penalty as well as abortion and euthanasia, and Pope John Paul II himself told George W. Bush that if he invaded Iraq he would "go without God."

The entire Catholic Church does not support the GOP. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, rolls over for the GOP time and again.

I'm happy being a Catholic but disgusted with the Democratic Party I've been a member of since 1968. I won't change my faith or my politics but I'll be looking into affiliation with the Green Party.

But it is not OK to question the politics of the religions? I prefer to keep an open mind on issues. When you feel the need to keep certain topics on the forbidden list, can you say the same? When your money and support helps get republicans and george bush elected, can you ignore what is happening? Can the country afford for you to ignore what is happening?

It's more important to look at trends within each individual church.

There were a few blowhard Bishops who said the things you state in your initial post. There were scores more, however, who said that it was important for Catholics to look out for "the least among us" and to give to the poor. There's also a fair number of Catholic officials who spoke out against the war on Iraq as a crime against humanity.

Should the entire religion then be scrapped because of the comments of a few blowhards who simultaneously defend current policies surrounding pedophilic priests?

They declare the Iraq war a crime against humanity, but don't hold bush accountable. However if you allow one of the 5 issues I mentioned, you are condemned by the church. I saw the Pope says if you differ on the church on gay marriage or abortion, you should not take communion. However if you supported the war with Iraq, step right up and get your communion.

Last time I checked, there were NUMEROUS sects of Catholics who were challenging Vatican orthodoxy in numerous, subtle ways.

Many American Catholics realize that the Vatican is out of step with the real world -- for instance, their insistence that ALL contraception is evil while the world population skyrockets. Also WRT the role of women in the Church.

FWIW, I'm not Catholic. I was raised Protestant, and am now a UU. However, I know that Papal doctrine does not dictate what many Catholics believe or advocate.

The Salvation Army also does good, but I would never donate to them again. Once I found out some of my money went to the george bush campaign funds so they could legally discriminate against gays.

reason:

inflammatory