Why I won't let up on the Catholic Church

There are many reasons I won't let up on the Catholic Church in regard to their crusade against gay rights but one of the best is Robbie Kirkland. Robbie would be 22 right now. Had he followed his goals he would likely have an English degree and trying to find a way to write. Instead, he is rotting in the ground. He is forever the terrified 14 year old boy who hated himself for being different.

Robbie was a freshman at St Ignacious, the most prestigious Catholic high school in the Cleveland area. By the time he started going there he knew he was gay and feared he would be teased and harassed. Sadly the school lived up to his fears. On January 2, 1997, Robbie shot himself in his father's attic.

In the aftermath the school refused to discuss his being gay. The refused the request of the parents who feared another Robbie. In life, Robbie knew his church didn't accept him. In death, they refused to acknowledge him, nor its roll in his death.

I didn't know Robbie, but I was Robbie. I made the same fateful decision that he did. I decided that I was better off dead, than gay. I decided my family deserved better. I only didn't follow through due to not being able to keep my secret in death.

The church isn't entirely responsibe for Robbie feeling the way he did. They may not even been mostly responsible, but they are some. And for that alone, I won't forget.

Facts upon which this account is based

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Gender/gayisok/kirkland.html

Photo and more facts

http://www.times10.org/kirkland22001.htm

A press release about students from the same school making fun of Robbie after his death.

http://www.antiracistaction.ca/cleveland01262001.html

Religious based homophobia is just as bad as non religious based homophobia. Kids who internalize and kill themselves based on it are just as dead. People who are attacked for being gay are no less dead if their attackers learned to hate gays in a church instead of at a neo NAZI rally. Civil rights laws which get killed in legislatures are no less dead if they are killed by the Catholic Church instead of Microsoft. The leadership of, and beauracracy of the Catholic Church considers me intriniscly disordered, I consider them heartless.

Please post comments about religious organizations in the Religion & Theology Forum, not GD or GDP

Thank you

few weeks? He is one on the front page of GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3530742&mesg_id=3530742

I note the absence of a post by you so you didn't post there what you posted here.

Give me a freakin' break...

This is the "General Discussion" forum, isn't it? Isn't there enough bullshit in our country without dealing with it here??

I didn't think so.

But you seemed interested enough to click on it though. Funny...

RL

not a DU moderator, just a DU'er who is really tired of seeing these religious posts in GD where there is an appropriate place to post there, where a large group of people actually want to see them, who thought that a respectful request was acceptable.

Am I the first thread you have put that comment in?

Sorry, my tolerance level just gave it, it wasn't personal towards you or your post, I would have posted it to any new religion post that popped up at that time.

Earlier today, I there were 12 religion threads on the page 1 of GD out of 20 - I feel now like how I felt in the midst of the Gannon/Guckert periiod - just overwhelmed and wishing there was a place where those who wanted to discuss those topics could go and discuss them. My only alternative was to stay off DU completely...

else

Too inconsequential for GD. Gay kids don't matter.
I'm sick of hearing about gays and religion.
Isn't this is wedge being used against us? Isn't it maybe where we should start coming together as a party?

Your response made me ill.

"dead gay child" it wouldn't have triggered my response about it being a religious post. The post was titled "why I won't let up on the Catholic Church" creating the impression that the post was about the religious nature of the Catholic Church and why they deserved the posters continuing bashing.

Truth be told, I didn't read the post. I'm just tired of the onslaught of posts about religions and religious issues in GD and GDP when there is an appropriate place for such posts.

I was reading "Latest Dsicussion Threads" and saw the title and thought - "oh no, not ANOTHER religion-bashing post in GD, please use the religion forum for that" and was encouraged to make a respectful request.

I actually agree with you, for the most part...

:hi:

RL

Peace, Bro

:thumbsup:

clearly if a thread attracts a large number of responses then enough people wish to discuss it for it to be left in the GD (presumbly that's why not all subjects on topics for which there are specific forums are moved from GD) if most people aren't interested then the thread will die a natural death and no-one is any worse off.

If a political organisation made HALF of the bigoted remarks made against women, gay people and those evil perpetrators of the "fetus Holocaust" as the Catholic (and other) Church did they would be routinely condemned by liberals, as the OP said it's no less hurtful when it comes out of the mouth of a bishop/cardinal or Pope than when it's said by a secualr bigot.

...you could always click the little x symbol and ignore all the relgious based threads in DU. Maybe you should try that instead.

attack gays so why can't I use a political forum to defend myself?

You are being completely unfair.

Pope that have not been redirected to the religion and theology forums.

Apparently the OP is within the parameters of discussion on GD

people post interesting threads in the religion/theology section and they just get ignored - like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x19069


If someone wants a variety of people to discuss something - GD is the place.

I don't see a little moderator symbol next to your name, so I find it highly offensive that you have taken it upon yourself to tell people where they can and cannot post.

should post? He knows the rules a bit better than you.

I also remember the words of an author who wrote about growing gay in the South, I think. (Wish I could remember who, but who knew I'd be quoting him one day? Plus I was really int he moment as I watched his interview.)

He said he used to go to bed praying he'd either wake up different or not wake up at all.

No child, no human, should EVER have to go through anything like that because of who and what they are.

I despise the Catholic Church -- and those of its responsible leaders -- for the active harm it's responsible for on a daily basis for so many human beings across the globe. It has saddened me to see some DUers make light of this active harm, minimize and trivialize, and try to defend/sidestep it.

Active harm. Daily.

I will never forgive it until the Church changes it all AND repents -- seriously repents.

The fear and hate some of those kids felt was so intense. Ironic that I live in North Carolina now and we might end up being one of the last states to have one of those horrid marriage amendments.

He wrote "Growing Up Gay in the South." I worked on some research from him about another book about Gays in the military during WWII. I can't think of the name of the book, but I got a B for the course. :(

or in the West or as a Lutheran or anywhere else?

Why not target something that can be changed, American law?

There is no question that the Catholic Church condems homoseuxality. It's also highly likely that a majoirty of the priests in Robbie's school were gay.

but I am sick of people saying that religious people should somehow be offlimits due to being religious.

The criticisms people, including myself, have raised are about hate speech and the fact that many on this site have tapped into a long history of anti-Catholic nativism in this country.

Most Catholics on this site object to the Church's stated views on homosexuality. I can also tell you the situation of gays in the Catholic church is far more complex. Reports are that a majority of American priests are gay. The Church has long served as a refuge for homosexuals, both men and women. There is a clear irony in someone like Ratzinger speaking out against the supposed evils of homosexuality, when he lives in a culture where homosexuality prevails.

So if the point is simply to say the Catholic church is wrong on the gay issue, you are of course correct. And now what?
Directing your concerns about homophobia toward the Catholic church strikes me as pointless. You aren't going to change it. None of us can, including Catholics. Why not focus on what you can change?

And I have to wonder, why the Catholic Church above the protestant fundamentalist churches that completely ostracize gay people, who argue they are damned, seek to exclude them from employment and equal rights? Why not focus on the political manifestations of Christian homophobia, their attempts to codify their prejudices, rather than simply pointing out how Catholics are wrong?

And I have to wonder, why the Catholic Church above the protestant fundamentalist churches that completely ostracize gay people, who argue they are damned, seek to exclude them from employment and equal rights? Why not focus on the political manifestations of Christian homophobia, their attempts to codify their prejudices, rather than simply pointing out how Catholics are wrong?

end of quote

They have repeatedly opposed civil rights for gays.

some clergy have aligned themselves with the Christian right. But to pretend that Catholics are equal to Protestant fundamentalists in taking actions against gays is not accurate.

You still have not answered my question. Is your point simply to demonstrate that the Catholics are bad people? You want everyone to know that it is an inherently bad religion? Do you wish to join forces with the fundamentalist right who argue that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that Catholics are not really Christian and destined to eternal damnation? Say you succeed in convincing every single American that Catholics are bad, that they should leave the Catholic Church in favor of protestant churches. What have you accomplished for gay rights? What about boys like the one you describe to will go to Churches where the homophobic environment far than that of the Catholic church, where they will encounter no gay clergy, only people who truly hate homosexuals?

You can post a thread a day about how Catholics are bad people. You can shout in on the rooftops. But I find entirely unconvincing that you imagine this does anything for gay rights.

is that much better than fundamentalists on this issue. I will agree that having a gay priest would be better than a run of the mill fundy, but only if that priest is at least willing to tell a gay person they are OK something I am unsure he would do.

now what?

And start fighting or keep fighting or step up the fighting with one another for the heart and soul of their church.

The Catholic Church is not 'better' than almost all protestant denominations and they are larger globally.

And I don't get your point about priests being homosexuals. How will that help a gay child? They, too, can choose to never love for the rest of their lives?

I watched a lesbian biology teacher be fired at my Catholic school. I helped two of my teachers come out (one was a nun). They both left the Church.

There is no 'nativism' going on in this thread. Direct your anger at the freepers who hate Catholics, not the gays who are victimized by many of the church's stances.

What is your point? To promote gay rights or convince everyone Catholics are evil?

You aren't going to change the Catholic church and you know it. The question is, do you want to change American politics or not? I fail to see how directing your efforts toward the Catholic Church accomplishes anything.



I never claimed this thread was nativist. I suggest you reread my post to see what I did say.

How can we exclude the Catholic Church from that attack? Yes, we will continue to fight church policy and so will all the other wonderful progressive Catholics and maybe someday there will be a change.

Did I ever say Catholics are evil? Does the OP say Catholics are evil? You are out of line.

If you read that post and get out of it that gay people care more about hating Catholics than caring for and fighting for gay youth, then I don't even know where to begin.

This is all about changing American politics.

And if you think we're going to shut up and not openly mourn the deaths of gay teens who have been damaged by a church who is using their bully pulpit to tell 1 Billion people that gays are part of the new ideology of evil, then you're out of your mind.

I don't hate individual Catholics. My mother is Catholic, for godsake. My mother also denounces the Pope's words and refuses to defend him.

Here's the formula. We speak for dead children because they can't speak for themselves. Enough people listen and they stop the hatred against gay kids. gay kids don't die and they grow up to be healthy gay adults.

and profound as well.

the Vatican has nothing to do with that. Complain about the Church all you want, but that has no impact on politics in this country. The Church opposes the death penalty, war, capitalist exploitation, and poverty. Do you see any of that disappearing in this country?

Call me crazy, but I thought the idea was to actually bring about change, not just point the finger. How about starting with the Democratic party, who has thus far refused to stand up for equal rights? You're surprised a homophobic agenda is being advanced in this country when your own political party is afraid to speak out against it?

they were more than happy with the Duvaliers keeping Haitians in poverty, they ARE capitalists - check out the holdings of the Catholic Church you'll find they have PLENTY of shares in exploitative businesses.

I don't think there si a single poster here fighting for gay rights who DOESN'T also direct their fight to local pollies, in fact I remember many of them being totally slammed for not being overly enthusiastic about Kerry's lame stance on gay marriage, you fight on ALL fronts or you lose the war.

You claim about Catholic businesses? You do realize the Church spends a great portion of the wealth it takes in on ministry to the poor? You've very selective in your reading of Catholic teachings. You take at face value Ratzinger's statements on homosexuality but ignore the Church's condemnation of capitalist exploitation, particularly by Americans.

The Church has more often than not aligned itself with the forces of power in a given country. Haiti is no different. But they also teach communal values and ministry of the poor, and parishioners are instructed to perform good works as the key to their salvation. They have also fought actively to end poverty and dictatorship. It was Catholic priests and nuns who lost their lives working for the indigenous poor of Central America. They worked to uncover the mass graves filled with support of your and my tax dollars, and many found themselves buried in those same graves. Oscar Romero and Cardinal Arns denounced dictatorship and worked to bring it down. Romero lost his life in the process. He was murdered with guns that you and I paid for. The Duvaliers were funded by those same tax dollars. You and I bear responsibility for that bloodshed, because it was carried out at the behest of our government. And you surely know that Catholic clergy helped bring down that dictatorship, though I suppose it's more convenient to forget those facts. Pope John Paul II also denounced dictatorship in Eastern Europe. The Church continues to denounce rapacious greed that is not only common but justified by so-called leftists in this country. That in fact was the meaning of Ratzinger's denunciation of liberalism, a comment widely misinterpreted among a US population so undereducated that it lacks the knowledge of history, political theory, and world politics to understand a sermon.

I have no personal beef with the Catholic Church over and above any other religion, from my standpoint they're ALL reactionary institutions and like I said in my country it's the AOG mob that are the most outspoken bigots.

However it is insane to laud the Church for speaking out against "capitalist exploitation" when they are ACTIVE capitalists. are you honestly going to try and claim they keep their BILLIONS under the mattress, of course not, it's invested with companies that exploit the poorest people in the world.

The fact that some of it's ENOURMOUS wealth is used to help the poor is hardly worthy of great applause, I work in fundraising and the poorest of people also give to charity so why the hell shouldn't the Church? while we're on the subject why make nuns take a vow of poverty while the Vatican is pratically gold plated?

Many individual Catholics have my utmost respect including those who worked (at their own risk) against repression in South America (I use to work with a victims of torture group most of the clients were south american at the time so you don't need to educate me on that level thanks)

My government had NOTHING to do with south american death squads though so my money did NOT pay for those bullets.

On the Duvaliers and Haiti

The excommunication of Duvalier happened as a result of his actions towards the CHURCH in Haiti NOT his murderous actions towards his own people and after 5 years they reached a "concordat" - awfully nice of them to be so accomodating to a murderous thug, they also allowed Duvalier to control the selection of candidates for church offices.

Mother Teresa (and the former pope) were MORE than happy to accept cheques from the Duvalier family even though that money was clearly looted from the Haitian people - would you have accepted money the Nazi's looted from the jews they murdered or would you consider it blood money?

On April 30, 1992, the Pope dispatched a new nuncio to Haiti, who presented his credentials to the military-backed government, making the Vatican the only organisation in the world to recognize the hideously violent military junta as Haiti's legitimate government.

Then there's

In the early 1970s . . . some Maronite leaders, through the monks of Kaslik, contacted the holy See to ask for suggestions regarding possible training centers for Maronite militias in Europe. said, “A secret military organization based in Rome sent experts who had previous experiences in the wars of southern Sudan and Biafra.

These experts in guerrilla warfare picked the best among Christian militias and sent them to the city of Anvers , where they joined special training centers?’ More over, the Lebanese journalist alleged that the Holy See ad vised the Maronite monks to fund the training of the militias through the Phalangist Party.

http://www.population-security.org/swom-97-07.htm

You know who the Phalangists were right? if not google Sabra and Chatilla and tell me how on EARTH any God fearing person would fund such a monstrous vile organisation

And on another dictator

The Vatican through their nuncio in the UK made appeals to the British governemnt for them to release Pinochet when they had him banged up (for a brief shinning moment), yet another dictator and muderer that the Pope was willing to help because he was "anti-communist"

and on yet another

The pope not only knew about the situation in Argentina but visited there in 1980 during the military dictatorship. He refused to meet with human rights groups but told a group of mothers to “have faith, patience, and hope.” In marked contrast to his public disapproval of events in other countries, such as Poland and Nicaragua, Mignone writes that the pope did not speak publicly about the events in Argentina except to say that,”before starting back to Buenos Aires, Archbishop Pio Laghi spoke with the commanders and officers in the army post at Tucuman and gave them a papal blessing.

http://www.population-security.org/swom-97-07.htm

The Catholic Church is a POLITICAL body and as such acts like one, it protects it's own interests (financially even if that means investing in mineral companies exploiting the third world or condom manufacturers which was a big story a while back) and politically (by working with and supporting dictators if they feel it furthers their aims, in the past this has meant CONSIDERABLE support for "anti-communist" dictators)

All of this is well documented so feel free to educate yourself on it

Could you explain what you meant by that statement? Considering Ratzinger's interference in the 2004 US presidential election, I'm not clear as to what you meant.

The information below has been available for months, and it was all over the 'news' during the 2004 presidential campaign...

New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign

Tue Apr 19, 6:20 PM ET Politics - AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."

He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.

<snip>

A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read.

<snip>

Nevertheless, in the November election, a majority of Catholic voters, who traditionally supported Democratic Party candidates, shifted their votes to Republican and eventual winner George W. Bush.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=3&u=/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus


I haven't read anything yet about a letter from Ratzinger to the US bishops opposing the death penalty, war, capitalist exploitation, and poverty. Has anyone else? Imagine what would have happened if Ratzinger had written a letter ordering bishops to deny communion to Iraq war supporters, including presidential candidate George W. Bush (if he were a Catholic).

draw a difference between abortion, euthanasia, and gay rights on the one hand and the death penalty and social justice on the other. The first three are enough to make a vote for a politician supporting those immoral while the second two aren't. That clearly isn't the sole reason that the Catholic Church has been unsuccessful in challenging the second two, though it may well be the reason Kerry lost.

...gay people do? Sit on their asses looking at themselves in mirror all day long?

Let me give you a little lesson. Gay people have been trying to change American policy since the Stonewall riots. We have moved forward in some areas, and taken huge steps back in other areas.

I notice you are constantly jumping in on threads that say something negative about the Catholic church. Like those negative thoughts somehow attack you. Well let me tell you something, honey, you are NOT the Catholic church. You are just a member. And the majority of progressive Catholics stand right beside the negative words that are being stated.

but you DEFINITELY won't change it if you just shut the hell up about its sins.

Yes, its sins. The Church is wrong, it has sinned, and it has actively harmed many people and continues to do so daily. DAILY.

That doesn't make all Catholics evil and no one here has argued that -- except you. Why are you so sensitive about it? Why are you trying to defend the indefensible? I don't call that evil, but I do call it myopic and in denial.

Denial isn't a good or healthy place for a bright, insightful person to be. YOU can help the Church you apparently love by getting OUT of denial and ultimately helping her see her own institutional denial.

Edited to add: there are Catholics here at DU who can lead the way for you.

I thought the idea is to promote gay rights. First off, if you imagine the Church is going to come out in favor of gay rights you're not thinking clearly. They don't ordain women. They condemn birth control. The most you could hope for is they shut up about it. If you've read anything about Joseph Ratzinger, you know that he favors a smaller and purer church that a larger one that is based on what he sees as watering down of Catholic teachings. He is certainly not going to respond to demands from American Catholics, whom they consider heretics as it is. It's hard for me to believe you really can take seriously what you are saying. The Church has never responded to demands of it's parishioners. Moreover, most Catholics are in poor countries where they prefer the kind of cultural ideas the Pope res presents.

Secondly, even if by miraculous intercession of the Holy Spirit the Pope got the word that his position was immoral, it affects nothing but Catholic teachings. The Church opposes the death penalty, war, capitalist exploitation, and poverty. Do you see any of that disappearing?


If this is how you choose to spend your time, that's fine. I myself would think you'd want to do something to change the status of homosexuals in this country. If I were you, I'd start with the Democratic party. When your own party refuses to stand up for equal rights, you obviously aren't going to advance gay friendly legislation.

Why would he listen to me? I'm not a member of his faith. Plus, he thinks I'm evil. But if 50 million Catholics said we're leaving if you don't right this wrong, then maybe, not Ratzinger, but the next Pontiff will be chosen with human rights in mind.

But what we're really hoping is that Catholics on the fence about gay rights will know what we are up against and they'll fight beside us and explain to their family members that even though the Pope says we're evil, they've spoken to a few gays on DU and they made some sense, they seemed really hurt by the policies of our church so let's work to migitate that for them.

so you're not interested in writing the pope yourself? You instead will focus your comments on denouncing liberal Catholics rather than directing your complaints to the person who controls these matters?

Interesting.

If you go to beliefnet you'll see some letters to Pope Benedict by openly gay clergy.

You note that you want to make your opposition on Catholic teachings known, yet are not willing to write the Pope. You instead prefer to limit your concerns to these discussion boards, where you encounter only liberal or leftist Catholics. Why is that? I guess it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Why would he listen to me? Yes, I sent an email to the Pope expressing my outrage. I'm certain that he read it with pregnant pause. Are you serious?

The point is to make the SYMPATHIC catholics aware of what their Church leaders against them, so that THEY can take action so that THEY can stop their Church's legislative efforts against us.

I'm sure that 50 million letters from liberal Catholics would influence at least a few cardinals.

This whole 'write the pope' response is stupid. If we can't work with our Catholic allies, if they aren't OUTRAGED at their church's position on us, then who will be?

The reason why we are speaking out here is to get compassionate Catholics to take a stand in our favor.

I really don't think this is so hard to fathom, Imenja. Plenty of other Catholics on this board have wrapped their collective head around the idea.

You know that I already made it clear I am more than willing to further legislative goals. I find your outburst a bit tedious when I have already asked to be included on an email list that will inform me of pending legislation.

This thread, however, was not about legislation. It was about the Church itself. It has taken at least six posts for me get an answer on what the OP hoped to achieve. Even then it was you who answered, not he. It seems to me if his goal had been clear, he would have found a way to respond to my inquiries with something other than his views on what is wrong with my church.

Writing the Pope is likely quite pointless, for both you and me. Not because the Church views you as evil and I as somehow more elevated spiritually. Clearly that is not the case. It is pointless because Church doctrine is a result of mediation between the upper clergy and the Holy Spirit. It emanates downward, not upward from congregants. I hope that you and others do not limit your outrage to the Catholic Church. For some, this controversy is an opportunity to promote what they see as the superiority of their own religion. I only hope that you, unlike Molly Sark, have not deluded yourself into believing that the Christian Right is fundamentally a Catholic movement. It is not Catholic Churches that display signs reading "God hates fags."

As for the Pope thinking you're evil, If you insist on believing that no one is going to dissuade you from the notion. You have every opportunity to read the original statements of the Church on the subject. As reprehensible as they are, they do not denounce anyone as evil. You will be far more persuasive in bringing Catholics to your side if you represent accurately the statements of the Holy See. If you read the Persona Humana, you know quite well that the Church sees temptation itself as evil. The Curia outlines a variety of sexual transgressions, among them pre-marital sex and masturbation. Those who succumb to that temptation are not evil but sinners, as every human being is, as Christ himself was when he walked on earth. In that particular document, homosexuality is condemned with no greater force than other so-called sins in which heterosexuals engage. Evil, in fact, is mentioned in terms of the temptation of Jesus Christ himself, not homosexuals. If you choose to read that document as a statement that you are evil, it similarly condemns as evil every person who has engaged in sex outside of wedlock, had sex for a purpose other than procreation, or has masturbated. That, however, is not what the document says.

You can find additional doctrinal statements on the Vatican website as well, including the Church's statements on the proper role of clergy in politics. You will find the statements issued on homosexuality in 1986 and the widely reported 2004 condemnation of gay marriage. This will give you all the ammunition you seek to denounce the Church. You should do so, however, based on an honest reading of Church doctrine rather than second hand statements circulated through the media.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

You might also learn something about Catholic efforts to effect change on this matter. Gay clergy have lobbied the Pope to reconsider his statements. http://beliefnet.com/story/165/story_16572_1.html
Reverand Thomas' primary concern, however, is that the Church not take action to restrict the entrance of gay men into the priesthood, a rumor that has circulated as a result of the sex abuse scandals. My guess that this rumor will not transpire into practice, for surely Pope Benedict knows that if he excluded gay men from the clergy, the numbers of initiates would decline dramatically.
There are also Catholic organizations devoted to this and other principles of equality. http://www.mtn.org/cpcsm/about.htm

If you can dissuade yourself from the belief that Catholicism above all other religions represents an unparalleled obstacle to gay rights, you will likely find common ground with Catholics who share your concern with human rights. If, however, you persist in your message that protestantism is superior, Catholics will not respond favorably.

All you've done is make excuses for your religion and tell us that 'it's never going to change' and that 'we should shut up about it.'

You've done nothing but repeat the same damn lies and accusations no matter how many times we've tried to clarify or help you feel less 'attacked.'

No one has said All Catholics are Bad.
No one has said Catholicism ABOVE ALL OTHER RELIGIONS is bad to gays.

To say that heterosexuals are as discriminated against by your church as gays is just garbage, plain and simple.

"If, however, you persist in your message that protestantism is superior, Catholics will not respond favorably."

If I hear you repeat the above lie about me one more time, I'm going to vomit. I don't give a flying fuck about protestantism, so will you cut it out? That is not, nor has it ever been my message.

What sickens me most is that your huge apology of the Catholic Church's position against gays is under an OP expressing grief about a dead gay child.

I did not say heterosexuals were as discriminated against as gays. That is obviously not the case. What I did was attempt to clarify for you what Persona Humana says about sin and evil. I already made clear in several posts I find the tract ridiculous. You are as capable as reading it as I am. You evidently have chosen not to do so. Or perhaps you read it with the same lack of care you gave to my post that prompts this reaction. I would think you would be capable of reading those texts as you might Marx, Kierkegaard, Weber or Aristotle--to see what they actually say. The practice of discrimination is another matter, but the point you made in your post was that the Church sees you as evil. That is not the case, but if you wish it to be you can continue to believe so.


As for no one said Catholicism is inferior, I suggest you read Molly Sark's statements about my Church and why I should convert to his/hers. That poster has also rewritten the entire history of the Christian Right to blame Catholics for it's emergence, which is contrary to the historical record. You yourself wrote several posts telling me why you thought protestantism was better. Now you claim you did not.


Obviously it makes no difference what I say, you are determined to misunderstand me. You make no effort to understand my points and instead become angry. Very well. If that makes you happy, feel free. I however see no point in engaging in further discussion when you do not bother to read what I write.

so the 'open letter' cannot even be open about who it comes from. Doesn't that show that there's a fundamental problem in the attitude on the Catholic hierarchy - ie the Catholic Church? If a man, who is celibate, and therefore not commiting the evil sins the Pope worries about, still can't be open about his sexual orientation, then the Catholic Church needs criticism.

That is beyond dispute. The documents I site make that clear.

I didn't realize it wasn't his real name.

and voice your concerns directly to him.


His e-mail: benedictxvi@vatican.va

Website that contains speeches and link to communicate with the Pope.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione ...

Tsk, tsk.

It's far to easy to feign being a victim.

because it is easier to scapegoat others than take action yourself?

...I could write to Bush* tomorrow about my concerns with Iraq, and the effect the U.S. economy will have on the rest of the world, but do you think he will listen to me? Especially when you consider the fact that I am Australian and not American.

Now it is the same for the Pope. Do you think he is going to listen who is not of Catholic faith, over say someone who is?

and groups of gay clergy in particular, the Holy See has not heeded
their advice either. Do you think he is going to value the opinions of a lapsed Catholic, a woman, who rarely attends mass more than those in the priesthood? The fact is the Catholic Church is a rigid hierarchy, not a democracy. I imagine that concept is difficult for many to understand, but it is the case. The Pope depends on his communion with the Holy Spirit to bring about any change in Church doctrine, which is then transmitted downward.

Moreover, in my view the primary problem is not Church doctrine but public policy. I think it is far more effective to devote energy toward the political arena, where change is possible. We can lobby congress and when Catholic clergy intervene in ways that restrict human rights, we can and should contact them. Imagining we will alter Church doctrine, however, is fantasy.

I may write Pope Benedict XVI, but if I do so from my own perspective.
I also know that if the letter is to be at all persuasive, I will need to spend time developing a doctrinal basis for my positions.
If you want to voice your own concerns, you'll need to do that yourself.

You accept the Church the way it is and if you don't like it, you leave. Or, if you don't like certain things but still consider it your "home" you stay with it. Rules and doctrine are from the top down. That's the way the church is...FACE IT!!!!

Having read the original piece by Mr. DSC, the origin of the series of questions you pose is a puzzle. He pointed out something done by clergy and some bullies they let operate without restraint among the student body, and the effect it had on one individual. Nowhere is there the least suggestion he feels Catholics as a class are bad people; nowhere did he comment on Catholic doctrine beyond the Church's stated views on homosexuality, which you yourself do not deny, and state you disagree with yourself.

What grounds have you for even asking if Mr. DSC wishes to join forces with Baptists and Evangelicals of extreme fundamentalist stripe in proclaim the Roman Pontiff the Anti-Christ, and claiming Catholics are not Christians? Supposing even it was his purpose to convince all Catholics to abandon their Church, why on earth do you suppose he would want them to join Protestant churches instead? Any number of persons, you know, belong to no church, after all. If you imagine there are no homosexual Baptist or Evangelical ministers, it seems to me your acquaintance with this sad old world could use a little expansion.

What is the point? How does he think "not letting up" on the Church on DU is going to change the teachings of the Church? It obviously is not. So then I wonder what the point is?

I provide the Pope's email below. I suggest you all direct your complaints directly to him. The rest of us can do nothing about it.

While I will not speak for all gays, I will answer why some of us won't "let up" on the Catholic Church. Our goal is NOT to change their 'laws' and beliefs, but rather to let them know we will not 'go quietly into that good night!" The point of our standing up to their bigotry is plain and simple...bigotry is WRONG! We will not stand idly by why they demonize us, call us "intrinsically evil," and pretend we should have no civil rights. They can do whatever they want in their Church, but when they cross the line into public policy, then they WILL hear our voices!

But I would hope they would direct their criticism at all of those who speak in defense of restricting equal rights, not just the Vatican. Some posters in this thread have argued that Catholics should become protestants, that somehow those churches are better on the issue of homosexuality. Given the fact that the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell and others protestants lead the Christian Right, I find that position very strange. If the goal is gay rights rather than a second protestant reformation, that position makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the reason the Catholic Church was mentioned was due to recent events. The fact that some DU'ers are suggesting Catholics go to Protestant religions, is because there are quite a few Protestant churches that are supportive of gay rights (and other civil rights). There is no Catholic Church (Roman, Greek Orthodox, or otherwise) where this is true. Just because Fawell and his ilk happen to be Protestant, doesn't preclude that all Protestant faiths are the same (as there are multiple branches).

The Roman Catholic Church is one church, so it's official teachings do not advance gay rights. There are, however, hundreds of clergy and nuns who do. What they teach in their local parishes is quite different from what one hears from the Vatican. If you read through this thread, you will see some examples provided by Catholics. There is a tremendous variety among parishes and between countries.

Even the Episcopal church, best known for its support of an openly gay bishop, is facing schism over the issue.

The RCC is "The Church" to Catholics. Even if there are clergy that are supportive of gays and lesbians, they are considered renegades and not following Church doctrine. Variety may exist in the parishes and even between countries, but if they are Catholics, the Church in the Vatican is still the "boss." Because other Protestant religions are not as structured, schisms create new branches, which is why they are called Protestants and not Catholics.

Any examination of Catholicism around the world, both now and in history, will show you that it varies greatly from orthodox teachings.
In Brazil, African deities are celebrated at churches. In Mexico, popular parades and processions originated by the populace rather than the Holy See are enormously important. The Virgin Mary takes on divine qualities throughout Latin America, even though the Vatican sees her as a mere saint. If one's sole point of reference for Catholicism is the Vatican, he knows virtually nothing about the experience of Catholic religiosity for parishioners. What you call renegade practices are the norm, though the expression and form they take varies greatly.

The other point to keep in mind is that only ex cathedra statements by the Pope are binding. Benedict has not yet made an ex cathedra statement. Nothing he has said that has given fruit to this discussion is binding to Catholics.

It was Catholic priests and nuns who gave their lives fighting for the Indigenous poor in Central America. It was the Archbishop of Sao Paulo who worked to bring down the military dictatorship. Despite the growth of protestantism in Latin America, they rarely involve themselves in social justice issues. They are FAR more conservative and restrictive of their parishioners than the Catholic church is. Most importantly, they, unlike the Catholic Church, legitimate rather than challenge capitalist exploitation.
It doesn't surprise me that so many Americans see protestantism as superior to capitalism. We live in a society that depends on the kind of economic exploitation American corporations and our government impose around the world. Catholicism denounces that kind of rapacious greed, and the Vatican has singled out the United States for such condemnations.

I don't deny that there are Catholics, both clergy and lay, who have given their time (and lives, on occasion) to good social causes. However, it doesn't excuse the arrogance and hatefulness that comes from Rome. This is what many of us find distasteful. While the Catholic Church may provide some wonderful things, it still will not balance out for those of us at the end of their sword.

The Church is inexcusably intolerant. I dispute, however, your assertion that what comes from Rome is hatefulness. If you read the actual words of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI, hatred is not evident. They are not Jerry Falwell. They fail to uphold equal rights and I believe they misunderstand God's design for men and women, both gay and straight. But they hate no one.

My question is still this: is your foe homophobia or Catholicism itself. If it is the former, I see no reason for some of the assertions you have made about the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism in this thread.

Again, the Pope's e-mail is below should you want to address your concerns directly to him.

I do however, contend that what comes out of the Vatican is hateful. Just because one does not say "hate these people" doesn't mean that the message of hate cannot be gleaned from it. The Church makes it pretty clear that they think gays should not have civil rights. In of itself, it may not be "hateful," but it does create a second-class of people. You are right though, I do not think their message is as forthright as Fawell and that insane clown posse, but the results are often the same.

My 'foe' is homophobia. The reason I make assertions about the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is because the latter has many branches, and some of those branches are because members took to a more gay-friendly attitude. So, unless another holy schism like the one in the 1500's (?), happens and a new Catholic Church pops up with a new Pope in Avignon (or where ever), because it will be a more progressive Catholic Church, then I maintain the two main branches are very different from one another.

I may well email the new Pope and tell him to run his religion and stay the hell out of politics and I will do the same with his religion.

... towards homosexuals. The pope's anti-gay rhetoric make others more tolerant of anti-gay bigotry, and they become too timid to speak out against it. He (and others within the church) are significantly contributing to the problems and bigotry facing homosexuals today.

I provide a link for you from the Vatican website about Church teachings on sexuality.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

You will note that it is an archaic--even medieval--view of sexuality, that denounces with equal force pre-marital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, and the absence of chastity. There is nothing positive in these teachings, but I think it only right that you read it in order to have an accurate understanding of the teachings of a Church you denounce.

A guest on the PBS Newshour noted that Cardinal Ratzinger had cautioned against discrimination against homosexuals while denouncing their sexuality as a disorder. I myself am not able to understand such a contradiction, but it does seem to differ somewhat
from the Christian Right argument for active discrimination in employment.

He called us intrinsically oriented towards a moral EVIL.

It is vile hate disguised as piety and love. I am not evil and my relationship is not evil and I am not organized towards an intrinstic evil nor do I espouse an Ideology of Evil.

This smacks WAY too much of the "I don't hate blacks I just think they are animals" argument of klansmen.

To say that we are sick with evil is hateful. To tell young teens that people like themselves are sick with evil is cruel and it kills people.

Period.

It denounces what they see as a number of evils, including masturbation and premarital sex. It places no greater emphasis on homosexuality than the other sins it enumerates.

imenja, you defend the unforgivable... you are floating weightless and blissfully unaware in a deep dark pool of religious denial; say hi to Jesus for me while you're there, huh?
This thread is so long, I haven't gotten thru it all yet... but in what I did read in the first half-hour, in all your posts, you couldn't manage to offer a single word of condolence for this young man's death, could you?
You seem the poster child for the ennui over important social issues that is the hallmark of the Christian lay liturgy in all its many so splendidly diverse forms.
Hey, I've got an idea:

 Why Don't We All Just Dance Around A Skull In The Sand?

D Stone - 5/2/02
As someone who actually attended eight years of Catholic school, I think my views on the recent 'scandal' in the church offer at least the advantage of an insider's perspective. First, I want to state emphatically that I was never abused sexually by any representative of the church; but that in itself makes an interesting story.
I was, even in that day, a bit of a revolutionary, and wore my hair long for the time, ala The Beatles. I was the only kid doing this at the time, and it caused me no end of trouble; from second grade on, I had to go see the head priest once a week, where I endured lecture after lecture, all basically designed to force me to go get a haircut like everyone else, which I resisted for fully seven years. Even at the tender age of seven, when this first began, I could not understand this obsession, this great need on the part of these supposedly benign authority figures to get me to look the way they so desperately seemed to want me to look; the similar behaviour of my peers was just as mysterious, if not moreso. In all cases, it only made me more determined to wear my hair in whatever way I wished.
Now I think perhaps this is what saved me. Cute kid that I was (and I was a very cute kid, doggone it, just like now!), this may have been the only thing that spared me from years of sexual abuse; cuz as the priests complained, over and over, I "looked like a girl."
Thank you, John, Paul, George and Ringo, wherever you are... in all likelihood, you guys really saved my butt.

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

Back then they still did the Mass in Latin, so nobody, not even the priests and nuns themselves, could understand a word of what they were saying. Nowadays they tend to communicate in a living language from time to time, and this tends to get them in a lot of trouble.
The idea that these moral and spiritual leaders needed to sit down together for several days to get their stories straight and come up with a statement on the sexual abuse of children is really sad, but not all that surprising. These guys have a hard time with the greyer areas of morality. They never seem to know whether to condone or condemn genocide or war or rape or rampant destruction of the environment and the insane inequities of wealth and opportunity that make up this phony system of ours; they always have to hold a conference, put their holy hats together and think real hard on these extremely nuanced subjects. After all such efforts have failed miserably, they toss a coin. Then we all have to wait til after naptime for Pope Mumbles the 19th to trot his ancient carcass out to the balcony to tell us all to go home and pray and sin no more, all is forgiven.
I'm not a Catholic anymore; I was dispossessed long ago, y'see (though they'd probably tell ya the exact opposite)... but at this point, I don't understand why anyone even mildly concerned with morals or ethics would go back to that church anymore... ever.
I am, however, still a person of deep spiritual feeling and convictions... and given the statement that finally came forth, it seems obvious to me that the Catholic hierarchy is comprised of creatures of pure evil, and one Pope so old and feeble that he probably had no idea what it was he was making a statement about... perhaps they told him it was a new edict denouncing the evils of bell-bottomed pants.
They promised reforms. The man they've chosen to head up these vague new policies?: none other than Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, the cleric best-known for having shuffled many of these repeat-offending priests from one parish to another, hushing up the scandals and thus enabling them to victimize fresh batches of children again and again over the course of some twenty years at least... instead of calling for his immediate resignation and issuing orders to have his name and visage struck from every statue and obelisk in the land, they annointed him with oil and are probably planning to name an airport after him in a coupla years.
The Cardinal Law of the Catholic Church: Cover thy brother's ass.

Which is why I say to all those Catholics out there still standing: Why don't we all just dance around a skull in the sand? Why don't we worship a dead squirrel on the side of the road, confess our sins to a glossy picture of a protein molecule, give up eating shit on weekends and wear little heart-shaped I Love Lucy pendants at all times to show our devotion to the Holy Roadkill? Why don't we mutilate ourselves with sandblasters and sit on golf balls two hours daily to demonstrate our faith in the salvation of the Immaculate Rutabaga? Why don't we do that bibble-bibble-bibble thing with the finger on the lips and call that praying? Why don't we get together on mountaintops once a year and all simultaneously flick our Bics for world peace while wearing big plastic pickles on our heads?

To my mind, none of these things would be as ridiculous, as pointless, as utterly irrelevant as modern Catholicism has just proven itself to be.
----------------

And I wrote that little rant long before they elected a Nazi pope...
A Nazi Pope! HA!
You. just. can't. make. stuff. like. that. up!



DXS
"I LOVE horror movies, man... I just don't want to LIVE in one."
http://presidentevilonline.com

While their positions are in fact archaic, the fact that we, as gays, cannot marry, it says much by their inclusion of homosexuality in the list. Basically, they expect us to deny our nature, our sexuality, because it doesn't fit with what their beliefs are. Ans, the only reason I denounce these teachings is because they are not intent with staying in the bounds of their own religion. They have crossed into the public arena of politics, therefore, their teachings and beliefs have been made fair game by themselves.

As for the new pope's comments on PBS, it is more of saying one thing and expecting a different outcome. The Catholic Church as a whole may not be calling for active discrimination, but they sure do support it.

both homosexual and heterosexual, even masturbation. It is nothing short of absurd. I myself see no reason to adhere to any of it.

You can find all of the Pope's sermons on the Vatican website. Today he said that as pontiff, he intends not to enforce his own views but to promote the Church. Under Catholic theology, once a Pope is chosen, he is said to be in communication with the Holy Spirit and his statements, the ex cathedra ones at least, reflect that communion. As a Catholic, I can only hope and pray that he is shown just how important the inviolability of human rights are. We can only wait and see what he says on such matters now that he is Pope.

...them coming out calling masturbation evil, or premarital heterosexual sex evil.

Persona Humana. The word evil is used twice in the document that is an official statement of the Church's teachings on sexuality. The first in the context of the discussion of Christ himself: "Pastors of souls must therefore exercise patience and goodness; but they are not allowed to render God's commandments null, nor to reduce unreasonably people's responsibility. "To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls. But this must ever be accompanied by patience and goodness, such as the Lord Himself gave example of in dealing with people. Having come not to condemn but to save, He was indeed intransigent with evil, but merciful towards individuals."

The second relates to sexual temptation in general.

"This liberation, which fits one to serve God in newness of life, does not however suppress the concupiscence deriving from original sin, nor the promptings to evil in this world, which is "in the power of the evil one."<37> This is why the Apostle exhorts the faithful to overcome temptations by the power of God<38> and to "stand against the wiles of the Devil"<39> by faith, watchful prayer<40> and an austerity of life that brings the body into subjection to the Spirit."<41>

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

...you read this:

Pope calls gay marriage part of 'ideology of evil'

Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that also cover abortion, Pope John Paul says in a new book.

In Memory and Identity, the pontiff says abortion is a "legal extermination" comparable to the Nazi Holocaust against Jews and other groups in the 20th century.

He also reveals that he is convinced the Turkish gunman who shot him in 1981 did not act alone and suggests that the former Communist Bloc may have been behind the plot to kill him.

The 84-year-old Pontiff's book, a highly philosophical and intricate work on the nature of good and evil, is based on conversations with philosopher friends in 1993 and later with some of his aides.

Link (but you need to register free to read it)http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Gay-marriage-part-of-ideology-of-evil-Pope/2005/02/23/1109046970933.html?oneclick=true

Of course if you would like four or five HUNDRED more links to backup the one I am supplying, I would gladly accommodate you.

Now no where in the link you provide do I see them calling heterosexual premarital sex an ideology of evil. No where in that link do I see them calling masturbation the ideology of evil. Yet if Sapphocrat and I were to marry tomorrow, we would be contributing to the ideology of evil. For what, loving one another? That isn't very Christian of the Catholic church, now is it?

We've been broken records about this for days now. Stand up for your dignity against the Catholic Church and you'll just be told repeatedly that:

*Catholics are better than Protestants on the issue of gays.
*That your real intention is to promote Protestantism. Nevermind that you're a Jew or a Buddhist or an Atheist.
*The Catholic Church is the Greatest Liberal Organization that ever existed.
*Despite what the Pope says, Catholics Love Gays. Just go to ANY Catholic Church and you'll see how loved and accepted you are as a homosexual. THEY PROMISE.
*If you go to a Catholic Church and the parishioners are horrified, it's a fluke. Every time it happens, it's a fluke.
*Catholics are against War, so that makes everything okay.
*There are gay priests, and even though they are not permitted to fall in love or have sex, the fact that they exist is supposed to make you feel better somehow.
*You are pushing Catholics away from the Democratic party by selfishly reminding Catholics that their Pope says you are evil.
*Catholics will NEVER be pushed away from the Democratic party.
*No, no. He doesn't say YOU are not evil. It is your RELATIONSHIP that is part of an IDEOLOGY OF EVIL. It is your devotion to that person who you love with all your soul, that person who you hold when they cry, that person whose vomit you clean when they are sick, whose body you love and care for like your own...THAT is what is evil.
*The Pope does not hate you. He just hates everything you stand for and everything you are. But he doesn't hate YOU.
*Why are you bashing ALL CATHOLICS?
*Just because a major world religion says you're evil doesn't give you the right to be mad at that religion or speak out against it. That is hate speech.

It is evidently not enough that I said I oppose the Church teachings on homosexuality and that I wish to assist in legilation that further rather than undermines gay rights.

So if I do not declare you evil, you are not happy? If I ask that you actually read the text of the Church teachings that somehow means I justify them? Is it necessary to make a characature out of a position to oppose it?

Wow, it really sucks that the poor kid in the OP killed himself. Gosh, DSC, I can understand why you are angry at an institution that is trying to influence legislation around the world to stop people like you from caring for your families and loved ones. Let me assure you that I have met many Catholics who are NOT against gay rights. Even many of our local parish priests disagree with the pope. We're going to do what we can to make things right on the ground level. The way our religion is organized, we can't do much to effect Church Doctrine, but we'll do the best we can.

Can you send me statistics on gay kids and what they go through? My parish priest is very concerned about poverty and homelessness and I recently learned that many homeless kids are GLBT. I'd like to give him some information.

They called you "a part of a New Ideology of Evil?" That's just awful. I bet more kids will wind up being damaged over that one.

Anything I can do to help, just let me know!

****

(that's a possible sample)

Empathy can even be important to extend to ADULTS when the leader of 1 Billion people characterizes them as a part of a new ideology of evil. It's kind of depressing.

What I can't do is show your information to a parish priest because I have none. I am a lapsed Catholic who seldom attends mass. I do not know the priest where I live now and he does not know me.

I just made in another post the very point you express about terrible circumstances suffered by some gay youth, yet I noted that my own experience in the Church has been different. I, however, have always attended progressive Churches and schools. My eighth grade teacher, a nun, was a champion for gay rights. When she died, the church overflowed with gay men and women who valued greatly her contributions. There is obviously a tremendous variety in how the religion is practiced, as the experience of the young boy in the OP demonstrates.

I already asked to be informed of legislation I can influence, which you know. If you have a mailing list, I would appreciate being included on that, as I communicated to you several hours ago. What I do not control is the Pope, no matter how much you and I wish that were possible. As I said to you last night, I can and will pray that God reveals to the Holy Father the inviolability of human rights. Prayer is the best means of affecting his views, because he takes his cues from the Holy Ghost, not the faithful, and especially not the heretical like myself. I will further add the prohibition against birth control, the position that most disturbs me because of what it means for the loss of life from AIDs deaths. Tens of Thousands of Africans die every year because of unprotected sex. That the Church seeks to prohibit condoms in this context is reprehensible. The irony is, that in Catholic school I myself attended sex education classes where we were instructed in condom use. The Church is a paradox in many respects. Its deficiencies go far beyond it's views on homosexuality. If the practice of Catholicism followed the teachings of the Holy See, I venture to say there would be very few Catholics left in the world.

You know that I have already said most of this in previous posts. This is now the fourth time I have asked to be included on an email list to inform me of pending legislation. That request has been ignored. I can only do what is humanly possible. I am not divine, I am not a Bishop, and I am a woman. Worse yet I am a divorced woman. If I abided by Church teachings, I would never again be able to take the Eucharist. The church does not forbid gay men from receiving the Eucharist, but it does prohibit divorced people. Fortunately, most churches ignore such prohibitions, as they ignore most of what we find reprehensible in the Vatican's statements. It is impossible for me to affect Church teachings. You can be furious at me all day for saying so, but it is a simple fact. Do you actually think the Church would continue to exclude women from the priesthood if we could influence its teachings? Do you think it would denounce as sinful birth control, premarital sex, and masturbation when there is probably not a single Catholic in the US and few in the world who obey those teachings?

What I can do is work to influence politicians and make my voice heard to particular clergy who act in ways that act contrary to equal rights. This, however, I made clear many hours ago.

Now if the OP had begun the thread as a call to what Catholics could do, that would have been far more helpful. If you want action on an issue, I suggest posting a thread encouraging that action rather than simply denouncing the well-known shortcomings of the Church.

After all, talking to brick walls really isn't fun. ;)

Have a good one.

DING DING DING!
Give that kid a kew-pie doll!!!

I suspect imenja may be just a robot writing program that says, "What? What?" over and over...

Like this idea I had for a movie: Night of the Very Nice Dead!
Flesh-eating zombies that, when they bite you and you scream, they stop and look at you with phony concern and say, "What?... WHAT?"... you're okay!", then continue consuming you...
DXS
"I LOVE horror movies, man... I just don't want to LIVE in one."
http://presidentevilonline.com

is indeed compelling. I bow before your superior intellect. Your analysis focuses on zombies and you criticize by ability to think critically?

I resent your comments. If I intended to defend Church teachings on homosexuality I would clearly say so. I am not at all reluctant to make my views known on any subject. What you suspect about my views and intellectual abilities is far from the case. You evidently read posts in a one dimensional manner, and reflexively categorize them according to whether you think someone is with or against you, rather than actually considering what I have said. I very much resent your very ignorant condemnation of me.

I understand this is difficult concept to grasp so I will repeat it. If you want to know the Church's position on the issue. READ what they write. Their statements are entirely reprehensible, without question. But I fail to understand the value in maintaining a caricature of an argument rather than seeking to learn what the ideology is that you oppose. To counter an ideology effectively, you must understand it. That goes for conservatism, Catholic homophobia, or any other ideology. It's not a very difficult concept. READ for yourself. See what they see. Then denounce it, as it justly should be denounced. I fail to see the virtue in learning about that which you oppose.

If you and others go around telling young Catholic boys and girls that their Church sees them as evil, you make condemnations that most of their priests do not. I posted a thread in the Catholic group to see if any members had heard their priests discuss homosexuality. Most (about 15 responses so far)had never heard it mentioned. Two had heard it discussed in the context of tolerance, and one had a substitute priest give a fire and brimstone speech in keeping with Catholic teachings. Then there was my experience having a nun as an eighth grade teacher who became one of the most prominent activists for gay rights in my state. We would, in fact, have never known that the Church denounced homosexuality if we had not read it in newspapers, because most of us never hear such comments in Church. There are certainly Catholics who have very different experiences. Robbie's tragic suicide demonstrates as much. Yet a great many if not most Catholic parishes in the US are progressive, despite what you see on television or the web, evidently the entity of your exposure to the subject. If you care about gay teenagers in the Church, you have a moral responsibility to familiarize yourself with what the church says if only to be of greater assistance to them. If however you prefer to repeat caricatures that only harm gay youth, I find that regrettable.

I am tired of the simple mindedness that leaves people incapable of critical thought or even basic reading comprehension. That you read my comments as a defense of teachings on homosexuality tells me that you understand very little. Moreover, the post you respond to was a simple quote I provided from the document. You understood it within your one dimensional view of the world. That is a problem of your own intellectual development, and certainly not a result of any inability of mine to think critically. I have written a number of posts on this thread, not a single one has supported Church teachings on homosexuals. I guess it is too difficult of a concept to grasp the basic point that in order to effectively combat an idea, you need to understand it. That of course depends on having the ability and inclination to read and understand philosophy and theology, whether it be Marx, Weber, Aristotle, Foucault or statements by the Vatican. Given the state of the American educational system, it seems that is beyond the reach of many.

I expect this is the same sort of thing that prompts so many on this site to imagine all conservatives are neo-cons. They hurl the term around as a slur, and never bother to learn about the ideologies and divisions within the Republican party. As a result, they cede far too much power to the right. Simple minded thought produces ineffective outcome.

"Your sophisticated analysisis indeed compelling. I bow before your superior intellect."

As well you ought!

"Your analysis focuses on zombies and you criticize by ability to think critically?"

My "analysis" was actually a "joke"... this joke contains some truth within it; can YOU find the truth within the humorous analogy?

"I resent your comments. If I intended to defend Church teachings on homosexuality I would clearly say so. I am not at all reluctant to make my views known on any subject. What you suspect about my views and intellectual abilities is far from the case. You evidently read posts in a one dimensional manner, and reflexively categorize them according to whether you think someone is with or against you, rather than actually considering what I have said. I very much resent your very ignorant condemnation of me."

I just calls 'em as I sees 'em... everyone's been bending over backwards to make the simplest points to you all day; I, however, have been blessed with a really low bullshit tolerance; it's a congenital condition, I can't do anything about it...

"I understand this is difficult concept to grasp so I will repeat it. If you want to know the Church's position on the issue. READ what they write. Their statements are entirely reprehensible, without question. But I fail to understand the value in maintaining a caricature of an argument rather than seeking to learn what the ideology is that you oppose. To counter an ideology effectively, you must understand it. That goes for conservatism, Catholic homophobia, or any other ideology. It's not a very difficult concept. READ for yourself. See what they see. Then denounce it, as it justly should be denounced. I fail to see the virtue in learning about that which you oppose."

Who cares what these dusty old documents say? Words can be used to misdirect and camouflage and deceive and manipulate endlessly... I think it's more important to evaluate actions first, including what they say publicly to their flocks (most of whom DON'T read these documents, or the holy holy Bibble for that matter, but sit attentively in church waiting for someone to read it to them and explain what they should think about it all)... and sometimes, what ISN'T said can be just as damning as what is (see below)...

"If you and others go around telling young Catholic boys and girls that their Church sees them as evil, you make condemnations that most of their priests do not. I posted a thread in the Catholic group to see if any members had heard their priests discuss homosexuality. Most (about 15 responses so far)had never heard it mentioned. Two had heard it discussed in the context of tolerance, and one had a substitute priest give a fire and brimstone speech in keeping with Catholic teachings. Then there was my experience having a nun as an eighth grade teacher who became one of the most prominent activists for gay rights in my state. We would, in fact, have never known that the Church denounced homosexuality if we had not read it in newspapers, because most of us never hear such comments in Church. There are certainly Catholics who have very different experiences. Robbie's tragic suicide demonstrates as much. Yet a great many if not most Catholic parishes in the US are progressive, despite what you see on television or the web, evidently the entity of your exposure to the subject. If you care about gay teenagers in the Church, you have a moral responsibility to familiarize yourself with what the church says if only to be of greater assistance to them. If however you prefer to repeat caricatures that only harm gay youth, I find that regrettable."

Actually, my experience with catholicism is a bit more significant than you imagine; as I have said elsewhere on this thread, I was raised Catholic... but I gave it up for Lent.
I refer you to my response to a post further down the thread, #267; oh hell, here it is in total:
------

267. a conspiracy of silence, perhaps?

When these outrageously intolerant edicts and judgements are coming forth straight from the Holy See, and through the Mouth of Sauron itself, the MNM, and the common pastor in Averageville, USA doesn't even ADDRESS the issue because, well frankly, there's lotsa kids in the audience and we wouldn't want lil' ones to know that homosexuality even EXISTS, (despite the FACT that it actually, uhhh... DOES?... and always HAS?), we HAVE to keep it a dark dark secret til they're MUCH older, at which point many will find it so shocking and alien and disgusting and repellant that even many of the actual GAY ONES will HATE AND REVILE homosexuality, revile their OWN SELVES as they KNOW MOST of society does, to some degree at least, and often on the most knee-jerk, gut-level, the kind that often spills over into horrible acts of atrocious violence, either to the hated 'other', or, if you're like this poor kid Robby, to yourself...
This kid WAS a damned soul... but not by God. He was damned by this society at large, by its myopic view of history and science and its love of the nostalgic passions of primitive benighted ignorance.
More specifically, he was damned by the Vatican, the Catholic Church and the fundies...
I've said it many times: God save us ALL from the religious people.
There are real human tragedies behind all these "issues of church policy"... and to my mind, all that endless historical minutiae on these churches is as a mindless buzzing of bees; we live in THIS present, and it's amazing how many faithful yet feel no sense of responsibility OR even the slightest claim to ownership of some personal power when it comes to these truly important spiritual matters, which determine the relative beauty or ugliness of this potential Eden we all share, EVEN NOW...
This post was made to illuminate just one of those, and I think it illuminates more than it had first intended; cuz it's truly bizarre, how many catholics out there are really blanching at this bit of light shed...
DXS
-------

"I am tired of the simple mindedness that leaves people incapable of critical thought or even basic reading comprehension. That you read my comments as a defense of teachings on homosexuality tells me that you understand very little. Moreover, the post you respond to was a simple quote I provided from the document. You understood it within your one dimensional view of the world. That is a problem of your own intellectual development, and certainly not a result of any inability of mine to think critically. I have written a number of posts on this thread, not a single one has supported Church teachings on homosexuals. I guess it is too difficult of a concept to grasp the basic point that in order to effectively combat an idea, you need to understand it. That of course depends on having the ability and inclination to read and understand philosophy and theology, whether it be Marx, Weber, Aristotle, Foucault or statements by the Vatican. Given the state of the American educational system, it seems that is beyond the reach of many."

Who are all those guys with the weird names? I only read comic books, mister!
Yes, it is indeed a foregone conclusion that I am intellectually incapable of understanding (and therefore accepting without question) the complex gordian twists and turns of inexplicable fate that make it IMPOSSIBLE for you to accept SOME level of direct connection to and personal responsibility for the misdeeds of the larger organization you give such extraordinary support to, given your "lapsed" status and all...

"I expect this is the same sort of thing that prompts so many on this site to imagine all conservatives are neo-cons. They hurl the term around as a slur, and never bother to learn about the ideologies and divisions within the Republican party. As a result, they cede far too much power to the right. Simple minded thought produces ineffective outcome."

Even simple-minded thought is preferable to giving over such responsibilities to a bunch of scowling old geezers in matching muu-muus, just because they say they know god personally...
By the way, thanks for finally saying something sympathetic about the poor dead kid... I've been waiting all day...
D
ps: I read this thread thoroughly; it took a good chunk of my afternoon.
And I gotta tell ya: I don't believe you, that's all... despite your obviously scrupulous scholarship and your polite demeanor, I don't believe your arguments are sincere...
Because again and again, they miss the point of this entire thread.

<<"Your sophisticated analysis indeed compelling. I bow before your superior intellect."

As well you ought!>>

When I see evidence of it, I will. Thus far I have not. (Spell check
might help a bit).

"Your analysis focuses on zombies and you criticize by ability to think critically?"

My "analysis" was actually a "joke"... this joke contains some truth within it; can YOU find the truth within the humorous analogy?

It was a cheap attack on me personally. And you know it. If that’s your idea of funny, don’t try a career in stand-up.

"I resent your comments. If I intended to defend Church teachings on homosexuality I would clearly say so. I am not at all reluctant to make my views known on any subject. What you suspect about my views and intellectual abilities is far from the case. You evidently read posts in a one dimensional manner, and reflexively categorize them according to whether you think someone is with or against you, rather than actually considering what I have said. I very much resent your very ignorant condemnation of me."

I just calls 'em as I sees 'em... everyone's been bending over backwards to make the simplest points to you all day; I, however, have been blessed with a really low bullshit tolerance; it's a congenital condition, I can't do anything about it...

You see very little and obviously no nothing about me or how I think. And what are those simplest points? Oh of course, gays are evil people. That is simple, simple-minded, in fact.


"I understand this is difficult concept to grasp so I will repeat it. If you want to know the Church's position on the issue. READ what they write. Their statements are entirely reprehensible, without question. But I fail to understand the value in maintaining a caricature of an argument rather than seeking to learn what the ideology is that you oppose. To counter an ideology effectively, you must understand it. That goes for conservatism, Catholic homophobia, or any other ideology. It's not a very difficult concept. READ for yourself. See what they see. Then denounce it, as it justly should be denounced. I fail to see the virtue in learning about that which you oppose."

Who cares what these dusty old documents say? Words can be used to misdirect and camouflage and deceive and manipulate endlessly... I think it's more important to evaluate actions first, including what they say publicly to their flocks (most of whom DON'T read these documents, or the holy holy Bibble for that matter, but sit attentively in church waiting for someone to read it to them and explain what they should think about it all)... and sometimes, what ISN'T said can be just as damning as what is (see below)...

If Church doctrine doesn't matter, then why all the discussion about homosexuality as evil? If people don't care what the Vatican says, why this outrage over its statements? Your argument lacks internal consistency.

I agree with your point about what isn't said being nearly as troubling as what is. In terms of the practice of Catholicism, this seems to be one of the greatest transgressions. DU Catholics note they have never heard their priests discuss homosexuality. Two or three of us have heard it discussed in terms of tolerance and arguments for equal rights. The silence is indeed a problem. When we live in world that promotes hatred toward homosexuals, the Church has a responsibility to speak out against that. Some clergy do, but it is clear that most do not.


"If you and others go around telling young Catholic boys and girls that their Church sees them as evil, you make condemnations that most of their priests do not. I posted a thread in the Catholic group to see if any members had heard their priests discuss homosexuality. Most (about 15 responses so far)had never heard it mentioned. Two had heard it discussed in the context of tolerance, and one had a substitute priest give a fire and brimstone speech in keeping with Catholic teachings. Then there was my experience having a nun as an eighth grade teacher who became one of the most prominent activists for gay rights in my state. We would, in fact, have never known that the Church denounced homosexuality if we had not read it in newspapers, because most of us never hear such comments in Church. There are certainly Catholics who have very different experiences. Robbie's tragic suicide demonstrates as much. Yet a great many if not most Catholic parishes in the US are progressive, despite what you see on television or the web, evidently the entity of your exposure to the subject. If you care about gay teenagers in the Church, you have a moral responsibility to familiarize yourself with what the church says if only to be of greater assistance to them. If however you prefer to repeat caricatures that only harm gay youth, I find that regrettable."

Actually, my experience with catholicism is a bit more significant than you imagine; as I have said elsewhere on this thread, I was raised Catholic... but I gave it up for Lent.
I refer you to my response to a post further down the thread, #267; oh hell, here it is in total:
------

267. a conspiracy of silence, perhaps?

When these outrageously intolerant edicts and judgements are coming forth straight from the Holy See, and through the Mouth of Sauron itself, the MNM, and the common pastor in Averageville, USA doesn't even ADDRESS the issue because, well frankly, there's lotsa kids in the audience and we wouldn't want lil' ones to know that homosexuality even EXISTS, (despite the FACT that it actually, uhhh... DOES?... and always HAS?), we HAVE to keep it a dark dark secret til they're MUCH older, at which point many will find it so shocking and alien and disgusting and repellant that even many of the actual GAY ONES will HATE AND REVILE homosexuality, revile their OWN SELVES as they KNOW MOST of society does, to some degree at least, and often on the most knee-jerk, gut-level, the kind that often spills over into horrible acts of atrocious violence, either to the hated 'other', or, if you're like this poor kid Robby, to yourself...
This kid WAS a damned soul... but not by God. He was damned by this society at large, by its myopic view of history and science and its love of the nostalgic passions of primitive benighted ignorance.
More specifically, he was damned by the Vatican, the Catholic Church and the fundies...

I agree with most of this, other than your point he was damned by the Vatican. If you are a Catholic, you must know the Church damns no one, even murders and most incomprehensibly, pedophiles.


I've said it many times: God save us ALL from the religious people.
There are real human tragedies behind all these "issues of church policy"... and to my mind, all that endless historical minutiae on these churches is as a mindless buzzing of bees; we live in THIS present, and it's amazing how many faithful yet feel no sense of responsibility OR even the slightest claim to ownership of some personal power when it comes to these truly important spiritual matters, which determine the relative beauty or ugliness of this potential Eden we all share, EVEN NOW...
This post was made to illuminate just one of those, and I think it illuminates more than it had first intended; cuz it's truly bizarre, how many catholics out there are really blanching at this bit of light shed...

DXS

Your point that Catholics don't accept responsibility for "spiritual
power" is odd. If you were a Catholic, than surely you know, most American Catholics maintain spiritual and political views very different from those pronounced by the Vatican. We have responsibility for our own actions and our own role in promoting equality and goodness. I'm not sure what other power you would like us to assume. Is it the pronouncements that come from "dusty old books"? You just said these didn't matter. You don't care what they say. :shrug:
-------

"I am tired of the simple mindedness that leaves people incapable of critical thought or even basic reading comprehension. That you read my comments as a defense of teachings on homosexuality tells me that you understand very little. Moreover, the post you respond to was a simple quote I provided from the document. You understood it within your one dimensional view of the world. That is a problem of your own intellectual development, and certainly not a result of any inability of mine to think critically. I have written a number of posts on this thread, not a single one has supported Church teachings on homosexuals. I guess it is too difficult of a concept to grasp the basic point that in order to effectively combat an idea, you need to understand it. That of course depends on having the ability and inclination to read and understand philosophy and theology, whether it be Marx, Weber, Aristotle, Foucault or statements by the Vatican. Given the state of the American educational system, it seems that is beyond the reach of many."

Who are all those guys with the weird names? I only read comic books, mister!
Yes, it is indeed a foregone conclusion that I am intellectually incapable of understanding (and therefore accepting without question) the complex gordian twists and turns of inexplicable fate that make it IMPOSSIBLE for you to accept SOME level of direct connection to and personal responsibility for the misdeeds of the larger organization you give such extraordinary support to, given your "lapsed" status and all...

Okay, you say you're dim witted. Very well. You've also said what the Vatican says doesn’t matter. Most people contributing to this board think quite differently. It was last years letter on homosexual marriage that ignited this controversy. You may not care about that pronouncement, but others do. And if they do, they should simply read the original. It's not that hard, not nearly as touch as Derrida. At least some of them can handle it.


"I expect this is the same sort of thing that prompts so many on this site to imagine all conservatives are neo-cons. They hurl the term around as a slur, and never bother to learn about the ideologies and divisions within the Republican party. As a result, they cede far too much power to the right. Simple minded thought produces ineffective outcome."

Even simple-minded thought is preferable to giving over such responsibilities to a bunch of scowling old geezers in matching muu-muus, just because they say they know god personally...
By the way, thanks for finally saying something sympathetic about the poor dead kid... I've been waiting all day...

What responsibility have I give over? What I called for is for the rest of you to take on the responsibility of reading the document yourself. I have also asked six times how I can be included on an email list so that I can be informed of pending legislation that I can act upon. Those statements have been ignored and instead people like you and others have instead chosen to attack me for a position you imagine I uphold. So why is the point or even desired effect of this thread not to promote change and action? Why do you prefer to m
make an enemy of me rather than gather allies to assist in efforts to stop the right wing attack on equal rights?


One point you are correct about. I responded to this thread from my own point of view without proper regard for the tragic suicide of Robbie. I do not claim that the way I framed my response was appropriate. It was not. But I did so in response to being called a Nazi cultist for seven days now. What I want to know is how I can do
to help change things. Rather than being told how I can join in actions to promote gay rights, I've been told I should become a protestant, because protestants have no role in the Christian right--that, they imagine, is entirely a Catholic movement. There is a tremendous amount of bullshit on this thread, some of it echoes the views espoused by the Know Nothings, the New Klan, and those who apposed the elections of Al Smith and JFK. I'm horrified to see that reactionary right wing rhetoric has been absorbed by the left. Since this only serves to divide the Democratic party, the only conclusion I can reach is that this is the result of Republican efforts to poison and divide the party. Guess what? It's working.





D
ps: I read this thread thoroughly; it took a good chunk of my afternoon.
And I gotta tell ya: I don't believe you, that's all... despite your obviously scrupulous scholarship and your polite demeanor, I don't believe your arguments are sincere...
Because again and again, they miss the point of this entire thread.

You attack what I say but then claim you don't believe me? I’ve decided to write a series of lies for what reason? You choose not to believe me because you prefer to cling to your own preconceptions, because you want to scapegoat me for homophobia in the Catholic Church and in society at large. That is your problem, and it is not an insignificant one. If you prefer to create enemies rather than allies, you will find it far more difficult to advance gay rights and equal rights protections more generally. Of course, that assumes you even care about any of that. I don’t know whether you do or not. I would think if you did, you would welcome assitance from those who offered to help.

You can find the letter on homosexuality on the Vatican website, as well as the statement on Persona Humana. As a matter of course, reading an original document is better than secondary accounts in the press.

That there is no difference from the original document and the current representitives positions and opinions? That there is no difference between old doctrine and current action?

The trouble is we have to consider both the doctrine and their actions. And as always actions dominate perception.

At least as far as most parishes in the US. Experiences vary greatly, but many of us have never heard our priests discuss homosexuality. I attended Catholic school for junior high and high school and never once heard the nuns, priests, or brothers discuss homosexuality or masturbation. We had sex education classes that taught us about birth control. I remember the nuns passing around condoms for us to examine. My eight grade teacher was a nun who became a city alderwoman and a champion of gay rights in our city. When she died, her funeral was attended by hundreds of gay men and women who valued her contributions. On the other hand, some young gays have suffered appalling circumstances in Catholic schools and in their churches. Some Catholic clergy have aligned themselves with the Christian right, while others continue as leftist activists. What Catholic practice is varies so greatly, that it is difficult to characterize as easily as most detractors would like to do. The Church is both reactionary and progressive, and what quality it takes on depends on the parish.


The Vatican's more recent statements on homosexuality are also available on the website, in addition to Persona Humana, which condemns virtually every sexual practice in which humans engage. The document is startlingly archaic. My only point was that it is useful to read the original document rather than relying on press reports. I also asked that people make an effort to understand what it actually says. They will certainly find themselves outraged at the Vatican's words, as do I. I would think there would be some advantage in understanding that which one opposes.

The Catholic Church is a complex entity. Its not so easy to isolate aspect of it. It often comes off as a multifaced entity. Often its parishners make up the ranks of the liberal left. Meanwhile the administrative forces within the Church comprise a very strong arm of the rise of conservatism and rejection of advances in science.

This situation is not a minor inconvienience. I would suggest that the Vatican is directly responsible for our current battle over women's right to control their own bodies. Thats not something easily overlooked.

I well understand that liberal Catholics are caught between a rock and a hard place. I would love to be able to simply tell them to leave the Catholic Church but I know it is far to important a part of their life and that they find a great number of redeaming features within it.

I truly feel deep remorse for the liberal Catholics plight. But by the same token I cannot turn a blind eye to the activities of the Vatican that I percieve as a threat to my way of life.

It would be best if liberal Catholics were able to realise that anger towards the Vatican is not anger towards them. And nonCatholics are going to have to realise that not all Catholics are in lock step with the Vatican and that their complaints should be directed towards the individuals or institutions responsible for the troubles being fought. Unfortunately passion can cause people to create broad strokes. It can also cause people to become denfensive when they percieve an assault that may not have intended to assail them as individuals.

and I don't disagree with any of it.

I posted a thread in the DU Catholic group asking what their experiences were with homosexuality in the Catholic Church. All but two said they had never heard it mentioned. One noted that lesbians were honored at a service. There are a variety of responses, if you care to read them. It is subject to the same guidelines of all other DU groups and is therefore is not intended as a forum for others to denounce Catholics or the Church. You might, however, find the stories informative.

I'll take a look.

but the Catholic church has repeatedly opposed laws which would grant employment and housing protection to gays and lesbians. So either, he is being dishonest by saying he doesn't favor discrimination or this orders aren't being followed.

On Church efforts to oppose anti-discrimination laws? I would greatly appreciate it.

If you could post updates when legislation is pending that members of the Catholic clergy are on the wrong side of gay rights, I would be more than happy to do what I can to express my opposition.
Obviously it has to be US legislation rather than in South African or Britain, as is the case some of the examples cited in the attached website. I am more than willing to do whatever I can to try to influence positive change where I can.

I'm sure many DU members, Catholic or not, would appreciate knowing specific ways in which we can help with these matters. If I receive emails, I can be sure that I don't overlook pending legislation that I can act upon.

the Holy Roman Catholic Church -- has an official policy of the worst kind of bigotry towards gays. And your arguments trying to make that somehow "okay" or less objectionable, or to spread the blame elsewhere not only aren't working, they make you look both desperate and somewhat foolish.

Any examination of Catholicism around the world, both now and in history, will show you that it varies greatly from orthodox teachings.

That just isn't the point. The point is: there is active harm being done NOW, on a daily basis, all because the Catholic Church has, and has had, an official policy of bigotry and discrimination against gays. That is wrong and harmful to both millions of individuals and society as a whole. There are no good, viable, or in any way even modestly acceptable arguments -- no rationalizations you can find -- to make it less than what it is, which is totally appalling and thoroughly unacceptable, SURELY, it seems to me, wrong in God's eyes. (Pffft. Come to think of it, they can't even seem to remember the parable of the prodigal son.)

I'm not certain how anyone could dispute what you just said. (Although I have little doubt that SOMEone will try.)

On actions taken by the Catholic church to restrict political rights for homosexuals?

As many posts in this as other threads note, most of us do not hear our priests discuss homosexuality in Church. I myself have never head priests make any such statements in Church. I would appreciate knowing which clergy are active in promoting legislation that restricts equal rights.

And they do so much discriminating privately, by firing lesbian teachers and refusing to recognize GBLT student unions, that I think this is plenty.

But maybe you think 'rights' just means 'not beating beaten to death'.

also policies against birth control forcing millions of poor people to bear children who then starve to death and spreading aids as well.

An example of what happened to a local Archbishop who dared to be "quite different from what one hears from the Vatican." (The persecution went on for years... it was horrible.)

1. Who came up with the concept of the Moral Majority?

2. Who selected Jerry Falwell to lead it?

Here's a hint - it ain't the protestants.

I guess some will say absolutely anything, even what it is precisely the opposite of what is the truth. You obviously have adopted the George Bush school of historical analysis. In the unlikely event that you are actually interested in knowing something that approximates the truth, there are a few sources for you to consult below.

The Christian Right is in origin protestant and
anti-Catholic. You will find some of their arguments familiar.
http://are.as.wvu.edu/lebeau1.htm

The following article from the National Humanities Center shows and Jews and Catholics also participated, but they were not the most public or powerful figures in the movement.
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/ch...


You could also read this entry from from Wikipedia on the Christian Right. Nearly every member cited is Protestant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Right

Or the ACLU: http://www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/religious/3.html

Oxford Reference on the Moral Majority: Moral Majority. Organization in the USA which aims to exert political pressure in favour of traditional ‘moral’ values (family life, free enterprise, strong national defence) and against such causes as homosexual rights and freer abortion. Moral Majority, Inc. was founded in 1979 by the Baptist pastor and television evangelist Jerry Falwell (b. 1933), and rose to prominence in the presidential election campaign of 1980. Although it is ‘pluralistic’ and ‘not based on theological considerations’, the organization's support comes mainly from conservative Protestant Christians. (link below, subscription service).
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t101.e4896&srn=2&ssid=505020615#FIRSTHIT


This is Wikipedia's entry on the Moral Majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
They don't mention a single Catholic.

Barleby's on the Moral Majority.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/e-/E-MoralMajo.html

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/mm.php

Reread my post. I didn't claim Falwell is a catholic; he isn't.

Again, check your history. You'll find the origins of the Moral Majority is 1975, not 1979. And again, who selected Falwell?


And you might want to read the 1980 ruling of Federal Judge John Dooling, in McRae v. HEW.

And research Paul Weyrich, while you are at it.

He is in fact a Baptist. You did not say Catholics were part of the Christian Right. You said Protestants did not even form the Moral Majority and that another denomination, presumably Catholics, did. Perhaps you meant the Wiccans or Druids? The fact remains you are mistaken. Given the Pope's determination to control the world, he naturally selects Baptists like Falwell to do his bidding. Your implication is patently absurd.

I provided an array of sources for you to consult: the ACLU, Oxford University Press, Colombia University Press, Wikipedia, etc . . .
EVERY ONE of them asserts that the Moral Majority and the Christian Right in particularly originated among Protestant fundamentalists. Some Catholics have joined their forces, as have Jews. Their numbers, however, are far less than the Protestants. You of course would know that if you bothered to read some of the sources I provided, or any you can find at a university library. You would also know that the Christian Right did not emerge in the 1970s but first made its appearance in the nineteenth-century. They directed their efforts against Catholics and recent immigrant. (Now why does that sound familiar?). They made an appearance again in the 1920s as part of the New Klan. They similarly despised Catholics and Jews, and burned crosses on our property. You tell me to check my history, yet provide ZERO evidence to support your clearly indefensible position. Your understanding of history is evidently selected for the purposes of reaffirming whatever existed views you have rather than an honest intellectual exploration of the past.

FYI, Weirich is Melkite Greek, not Roman Catholic. But don't let that dissuade you from your zealously guarded preconceptions.

I don't care which religion you prefer. That is entirely your concern. What I have no tolerance for, however, is intellectual dishonesty.

nobody in this thread ever claimed Falwell is catholic, so I'm not even sure if you mean to be responding here or elsewhere.

Aside from that, it is clear you are unaware of the full history of the formation of the moral majority. Since it seems you weren't able to find the answers to the questions I posed - or were unwilling to post them if you did find them, let me make this easy.

From the 1975 annual meeting of the American Catholic Bishops, in their Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities:

"28. Accomplishment of this aspect of this Pastoral Plan will undoubtedly require well-planned and coordinated political action by citizens at the national, state, and local levels. This activity is not simply the responsibility of Catholics, nor should it be limited to Catholic groups or agencies. It calls for widespread cooperation and collaboration. As citizens of this democracy, we encourage the appropriate political action to achieve these legislative goals. As leaders of a religious institution in this society, we see a moral imperative for such political activity."

(Objectives of the Congressional District Pro-life Group)

"52. To elect members of their own group or active sympathizers to specific posts in all local party organizations."


So there is your start point for the Moral Majority/Christian Coalition - the deliberate decision to form a union with other religious organizations to influence American politics. You can read the original document here: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/75-11-20pastoralplanforprolifeactivitiesnccb.htm

And here's a nice summary of part of the federal judge's ruling in 1980, which I mentioned, but I guess you had trouble finding:

"What is most significant in Judge Dooling's 328-page ruling is his finding that the anti-abortion movement's main source of energy, organization, and direction has been the Catholic Church. The Protestant face carefully put on the movement, first by the Moral Majority and then by the Christian Coalition, was called for in the Pastoral Plan. Richard A. Viguerie, a Catholic, is the man most responsible for the development and success of the New Right. He was also involved in the original discussions that led to the creation of the Moral Majority and, as its fundraiser, can be credited with its financial success. Paul Weyrich, a Catholic, claims credit for originating the idea for the group and the name itself. In their search for an attractive front man for the organization, they chose Jerry Falwell."

http://www.population-security.org/STLouis99.html


As a side note, the personal attacks and name calling are unnecessary. I'm not calling you names, I expect the same courtesy from you.

"1. Who came up with the concept of the Moral Majority?

2. Who selected Jerry Falwell to lead it?

Here's a hint - it ain't the protestants."

It was very clearly the protestants, so whatever you meant to imply, it was false. Pretending you said something other than what you did is far from convincing. To imagine anyone other than Protestants would put Falwell in nothing short of delusional.


Your efforts to divert attention away from your distortions are far from convincing. Evidently you think the fact that Catholic clergy
have advocated to end abortion rights is new to me. Somehow you imagine it never occurred to me that the Church opposes abortion or worked to see it end? The information you provide does not in any way support your clear fabrication that the the Christian Right and Moral Majority was not organized and led by Protestants. Today, Ralph Reed counts Catholics as comprising about 17% of the Christian Right. Figure out who the rest are.

You seek to recast the Christian right as a Catholic movement, when Catholics are a minority of its members. To argue otherwise is indefensible because it is false. That you know it to be false but continue to repeat the charges is particularly disturbing.
I suggest you ask yourself what impulse within you compels you to distort a well known historical record?

It was a FEDERAL JUDGE'S ruling that the moral majority was started by the catholics, and that the man most responsible for the creation of the new right was a catholic, and that the front was deliberately given a protestant face to hide the catholic church's behind-the-scenes efforts in it. He was studying it shortly after its formation - the ruling was in 1980.

You can look at that information and process it in some way, or you can decide you're going to ignore it because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

I would suggest if you are catholic and if it's an issue that's important to you, that you read more about that court case, and of the judge's ruling in it. If their involvement in the creation of the moral majority is something you prefer not to know about, then that's your choice.

I'm sorry you believe the FEDERAL JUDGE was delusional. Apparently you know more about the situation than he did after he spent a year studying it.

And what federal judge has ruled on the causes of the Civil War, the origins of the abolition movement, industrialization, or any other historical phenomenon? You ignore every academic and reference work on the subject and draw from some court case, which I can only imagine you misinterpreted based on everything else you've written. For a historian, a court case is one piece of evidence. Historians do not draw conclusions based on one piece of evidence. Now assuming your interpretation of this court case is right, you have chosen to favor this over the names and numbers of people involved in the movement. You don't reconcile this with the fact that Catholics are numerically a minority in the Christian Right. Why? Because it doesn't advance your agenda. Excuse me if I don't find you a credible source on this or, in the future, any other subject. I did not call you names. What I did is call you out on your bullshit, which is exactly what it is.

As a Catholic, I'm tired of these kind of reactionary right-wing attacks. We've heard it all before, from the Know Nothings, the New Klan, and those who mobilized against the elections of Al Smith and John F Kennedy. The appointment of a new pope has given rise to it all again. And people like you distort a well known historical record to advance your own agenda. Whatever justifications you try to invent, your intent is quite clear.

I also provided a link to the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities, from the 1975 annual meeting of the American Catholic Bishops, in which they announced their intention to form a Christian Coalition. It's a primary source. Did you read it? Perhaps when they wrote it, they were being "patently absurd," "delusional," "distorting the truth," and full of "bullshit."

Since you like the ACLU as a reference source, please take a moment to look at http://www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/religious/3.html - where they talk about Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich's involvement in the creation of the "New Right."

From the ACLU: "By 1979, Viguerie, Phillips, and Weyrich had abandoned their plans for a third party. In that year, along with Ed McAteer, founder of the Religious Roundtable, they met with televangelist Jerry Falwell. The New Right leaders asked Falwell to spearhead a national Christian political organization that would apply pressure to the Republican Party on abortion and other social issues. Falwell agreed, and the Moral Majority was born."

"In journalist Bill Moyers's public affairs television series, "God and Politics Part II,"273 aired on December 16, 1987, the relationship between the Baptist rift and the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life activities became evident. It is obvious that the victory of the Baptist fundamentalists benefits the Papacy. Any split like that of the Baptists weakens the potential of a Protestant response to challenges to American democracy by the Vatican. However, in this schism, the Vatican benefits in another important way. As the so-called "conservatives" gain the upper hand in the SBC, the Baptists then enter the Catholic column on the abortion issue. The Pastoral Plan calls for the recruitment of as many non-Catholics as possible so as to mask the fact that this plan is a Catholic initiative. The bishops can now speak for 14.7 million Baptists on this issue and will wield the additional political power derived from this arrangement.

During Moyers's interview of Paul Pressler, Texas State Appellate Court Judge from Houston who engineered the split in the SBC, the Catholic connection to the Baptist rift became clear. During the interview, Moyers brought to light that Judge Pressler is on the board of directors of the Council on National Policy, along with fanatical Religious Right Catholics -- Richard Viguerie, Phyllis Schlafly and Joseph Coors.

The Council on National Policy is one of the many Religious Right organizations created in response to the 1975 Pastoral Plan. By 1979, the Bishops had identified their man to engineer the Baptist rift -- no doubt with a lot of the bishops' help -- Judge Pressler. According to Dr. Daniel Vestal, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Midland, Texas, "I listened to a tape that Judge Pressler produced, in which he basically recounted the political plan and strategy that he set forth back in 1979." As Bill Moyers pressed the Judge on his relationship with the Council on National Policy -- which promotes the adoption of Papal policy -- the judge broke off the interview and refused to answer further questions. The Judge had been exposed -- as had been the real actors behind the Baptist rift."

http://www.kzpg.com/Lib/Pages/Books/NSSM-200/24-CH16.html


As a side note, you've mentioned several times that the Christian Coalition has more protestant members than Catholics. Nobody is arguing that point. Yes, they have more protestant members. Yes, they have actively gone out of their way, as Bill Moyers addressed, as the federal judge addressed, to recruit noncatholics, specifically so people can make that point. Yes, the majority of their members are not Catholics.

Viguerie, Phillips, and Weyrich are well known for their actions in help organize the tactics used by the Christian Right. So that provides evidence of a papist conspiracy? Weyrich is Greek Melkite. I do not know what Viguerie's religious affiliation is. And let's assume he is Roman Catholic. That you are able to point to one Roman Catholic who pioneered direct mail campaigns tells you what? Does this confirm your point that protestants had nothing to do with the founding of the Moral Majority or the selection of Jerry Falwell? That was the point you made, even though you now seek to back away from what is a clearly false position. You look for bits of evidence to prove Catholics were involved in the movement. That was not your original point and I have never disputed that. What I said is that it is primarily a Protestant movement. You denied Protestants were involved at all. You back away from your original comments and continue to search for ways to scapegoat a minority as responsible for a broader cultural phenomenon. What is it that allows you to think there is anything remotely acceptable about that?

Weyrich was raised Roman Catholic, but he switched after Vatican II. And Viguerie was Roman Catholic. But that's besides the point.

The larger issue, which you are overlooking, is that the American Bishops - as a group - had the plan. Not one individual who was raised as a Roman Catholic and converted. Not another individual who remained Roman Catholic.

The issue which you aren't addressing is that the LEADERS of the American Catholics met, and announced a plan to form a coalition with other christian churches for the deliberate purpose of influencing American politics, electing their own people to political offices, and pushing their religious views on everyone in the form of legislation.

Not one individual here or there. A deliberate movement BY THE CHURCH LEADERS.

We can agree on that much, yes? That the American Catholic Bishops met and decided to form a coalition with other churches to influence American politics?

It looks like you misinterpreted a post, and are now arguing it to death so you don't have to admit you misinterpreted it.

It's OK, mistakes happen.

Just because the group is mostly Protestant doesn't say anything about who started it, I mean, the GSA group at my high school is mostly girls, but that doesn't mean it wasn't started by a gay guy.

From what I've seen, here in America (since I can't speak for the rest of the world) we tend to associate products with the distributor/marketer rather than the inventor. That's why when we hear Microsoft we think Bill Gates, not the guy who actually invented Microsoft. When we hear AC Motor we think Westinghouse, not Tesla (OK well maybe that's not everyone, but you get my point, Westinghouse was the marketer, not the inventor.) So it only makes sense that when we hear Moral Majority we think of the marketer, Jerry Falwell, instead of the true creators.

The post I responded to: "Subject line: you should read more history."

1. Who came up with the concept of the Moral Majority?

2. Who selected Jerry Falwell to lead it?

Here's a hint - it ain't the protestants."


Not that Catholics were part of the movement, but that protestants had nothing to do with it. The argument is absurd and does not correspond to the historical record. How often do you think the Pope chooses a Southern Baptist to do his bidding?

What I find most interesting is that a number on DU have rewritten history to implicate a religious and ethnic minority rather than the majority who make up the movement's leadership and members.
Why? Perhaps because they themselves are protestant and feel a need to distort the record in order to absolve their own religion from culpability. Or maybe they, like so many Americans since the nineteenth century when these ideas first emerged, just hate Catholics, whom they scapegoat for problems that effect American society.

Even if you're right that the poster was making a very narrow point, why even make it if the point isn't to place blame on Catholics and absolve Protestants. That clearly is his/her intent, as subsequent posts further demonstrate.

All of this ignores the fact Catholics are the Christian denomination that most heavily vote Democratic. In fact 2004 was the first election in which they favored (by a small margin) Republicans. Yet some on this board have said the the Christian Right is not led or peopled by Protestants. They are simply lying. And their lies favor Republicans. This kind of bigotry just might succeed in driving away Catholic voters and splitting the Democratic party base. I cannot help but wonder if that may not be their intent.

These are the tactics you've used in this thread:

1. Instead of responding to what's been written, you debate imaginary points that were never made.

Examples:

Arguing that Jerry Falwell is a not Catholic - when nobody has said otherwise.

Arguing that most members of the moral majority are not catholic - again, when nobody has said otherwise.

2. False logic:

Example:

Catholics couldn't have started the Moral Majority because most members aren't Catholic.

There was a Christian Right prior to 1900, therefore Catholics could not have been involved in starting the Moral Majority in 1970.

3. Name calling, personal insults, and profanity:

Examples:

"You obviously have adopted the George Bush school of historical analysis."

"patently absurd"

"intellectual dishonesty"

"Delusional"

"reactionary right-wing attacks"

"bullshit"

How about it your next post, you respond to:

a. the source document of the American Catholic Bishops, in which they state their intent to form a coalition with other churches with the express purpose of influencing American politics

b. Bill Moyers' piece on Catholic involvement in the creation of the Moral Majority

And how about you try doing it by discussing THOSE POINTS, rather than attacking me personally? Wouldn't that make for a better discussion?

and you have said nothing to dissuade my conclusions on any of those points. Rather you have simply confirmed them. And by the way, you are simply incorrect that no one has argued that protestants don't lead or dominate the Christian right, look around this thread. Secondly, you have provided zero evidence to support your point that protestants did not start the Moral Majority or choose Falwell. THAT was what you claimed. Now you try to back away from it because you are unable to sustain a clearly inaccurate point. Then there is the question of why you even asserted that point in the first place? Why do you point to a minority within the Christian Right rather than the group as a whole? You know very well why you do it.

And by the way, you are simply incorrect that no one has argued that protestants don't lead or dominate the Christian right, look around this thread.

Where did lwfern state the NO ONE had EVER argued that? Please provide a direct quote.

Secondly, you have provided zero evidence to support your point that protestants did not start the Moral Majority or choose Falwell.

I think you'd better look again in posts #291, #289, and #277. You should be able to go into "My Posts" and see them as responses to posts you have made.

Now you try to back away from it because you are unable to sustain a clearly inaccurate point.

lwfern is not trying to "back away from it" she/he is simply pointing out the fallacies in your argument and pointing out the fact that when presented with evidence you instead turned to name calling rather than address the new evidence. There's a difference.

Why do you point to a minority within the Christian Right rather than the group as a whole?

Maybe because they founded the Moral Majority? Is that enough of a reason? How many times do I have to say that the makeup of the membership doesn't not determine who started the organization?

1. Who came up with the concept of the Moral Majority?

That's asking who came up with the idea of forming it, not asking who the front man is or who the majority of the members are.

2. Who selected Jerry Falwell to lead it?

Key word there is selected. lwfern in no way implied that Falwell was not a Catholic, just that Falwell was selected by the Moral Majority's creators to be the front man. The marketer for their product, if you will.

Here's a hint - it ain't the protestants."

That states that the answers to questions 1 and 2 are not "Protestant." That means that, #1, the creators of the original concept were Catholic and, #2, that the people who masterminded the Moral Majority chose Falwell to be the spokesman for it - because he didn't create it.

Not that Catholics were part of the movement, but that protestants had nothing to do with it.

That was in no way implied by that first post. You're simply misreading it. The poster was saying that Catholics started it not that Protestants were in no way involved.

How often do you think the Pope chooses a Southern Baptist to do his bidding?

Where are you seeing that? lwfern's post #277 clearly states: "From the 1975 annual meeting of the American Catholic Bishops, in their Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities:"

What I find most interesting is that a number on DU have rewritten history to implicate a religious and ethnic minority rather than the majority who make up the movement's leadership and members.

Straight girls run my GSA club, straight girls advertise my GSA club, but a gay guy still started it. The majority of the membership doesn't necessarily reflect the people who started the movement. Especially if the creators were deliberately recruiting members outside of their own organization to make it look as though they only had minimal involvement.

Even if you're right that the poster was making a very narrow point, why even make it if the point isn't to place blame on Catholics and absolve Protestants. That clearly is his/her intent, as subsequent posts further demonstrate.

It probably wasn't to "place blame on the Catholics" as much as it was to clear up a historical misunderstanding and let people know that they were involved. Pointing out a group's involvement or creation of an organization is a far cry from excusing another group. The subsequent posts seem to be aimed at defending against your misreading.

When I point out that Tesla actually invented the AC motor, I'm not trying to say that Westinghouse doesn't deserve credit for marketing it and making it a success, I'm just saying he shouldn't get credit for inventing the product he's marketing.

All of this ignores the fact Catholics are the Christian denomination that most heavily vote Democratic.

Yes, it is ignoring it, because it's irrelevant to the point. Just because MOST vote Democratic in no way means that SOME didn't try to form an organization to lead them to the right. Most LGBT people vote Democratic, but that doesn't mean there aren't groups who vote and fight for Republicans.

Yet some on this board have said the the Christian Right is not led or peopled by Protestants.

The post in question in no way stated that, even if other posters did. The original post said that Catholics started it and in no way said that there weren't any Protestant members or involvement.

And I suppose it depends on your definition of "led by." I suppose you could say that it's "led" by Jerry Falwell because he's the face they put on it, but wouldn't it be better to look at who put him in power? To look at the people who asked him to lead?

This kind of bigotry just might succeed in driving away Catholic voters and splitting the Democratic party base. I cannot help but wonder if that may not be their intent.

It's not bigoted to say that the people who started Moral Majority did start the group. You're reading way too much into the posts. No where in any of lwfern's posts have I seen him/her say that there was no Protestant involvement, or that there were no (or only a few) Protestant members. What I have seen him/her say is that contrary to popular belief, the Catholics masterminded the Moral Majority and selected Jerry Falwell to lead it. That's far from being bigoted and trying to "split the Democratic party."

He has provided no evidence to show that protestants did not start the Moral Majority. He points to a 1975 meeting by bishops and notes their desire to form a cross faith coalition. This does not demonstrate that Catholics founded the Moral Majority or selected Falwell.

I frankly think you are wrong in your assessment of the poster's intent. His subsequent posts have confirmed his efforts to scapegoat Catholics for a wider cultural phenomenon. He ignores historical evidence in favor of his own preconceptions. He has demonstrated no interest in clarifying a historical record but rather a commitment to distorting history.

1. Original documentation written by the catholic bishops announcing their plans for form a coalition, 4 years prior to the formation of it.

2. Legal rulings deterimining that the catholics were involved in starting it.

3. A Bill Moyers show detailing ways in which they were involved in starting it.

4. Documentation from the ACLU - which was credible when you used it, but apparently not when I used it.


So when you say I have provided no evidence, that's obviously incorrect.

As far as any agenda I may have, my only agenda is that people understand the interconnections between various churches and the republican party. When I say various churches, I mean Catholics, protestants, baptists, Coral Ridge, the 700 club, and their connections with the Rev. Moon, the unification church, the Christian Coalition, the folks behind Amway like DeVos, and the republican party. And you can toss in organizations like the Washington Times and other media sources.

If I saw a post saying protestants weren't involved in the Christian Coalition, I'd chime in to debate that. If I saw a post saying baptists weren't involved, I'd chime in. If I saw a post saying the unification church wasn't involved, I'd chime in.

In this case, I saw you were claiming the Catholic Church wasn't active in forming the Moral Majority, so I chimed in.

My "agenda" is that people who post here become more informed. Period.

Democrats are responsible for the War in Iraq because Bill Clinton asserted than Saddam Husein had WMD. Who was it who choose Don Rumsfeld to lead the Pentagon? Not Republicans.

Did Clinton plan the Iraq Invasion? Not that I know of.

Did the Catholics plan to form a Christian Coalition to influence American politics? Yes. In their own words, yes.

Did Clinton sit in a room and ask Rumsfeld if he wanted to be in charge of the Pentagon? Not that I know of.

Did Viguerie sit in a room and ask Falwell if he wanted to lead the Moral Majority? Yes.

I have researched this issue in the time I have available. This is what I have done: I searched the PBS website for a Bill Moyers program on the Moral Majority. I found no program archived that covers what you suggest. I also searched Google under "Bill Moyers" "moral majority", catholic, and alternate key words including Bishops and 1975. I found no discussion such as you outline.

I previously searched Google under "Moral Majority" and Catholic/s. I looked at two websites dedicated to exposing the impending papal takeover of America, and they repeat some of the charges that you assert. They are quite clearly sites intended to promote hatred of Catholics. Neither are reputable. Their arguments come straight from the Know Nothing and KKK play book.

I also searched a number of academic database on the subject: America History and Life, Cambridge Journals, JSTOR, Expanded Academic ASAP Plus. I have found a number of articles on the Moral Majority and the Christian Right but none that assert Catholics were primary in its formation. Most do not mention Catholics at all. A key word search of the Expanded Academic ASAP Plus was the most fruitful: 254 results for "Moral Majority;" two for "Moral Majority" +Catholic. Searching within the text of articles rather than just abstracts turned up 1237 for "Moral Majority" and 2 for "Moral Majority" and "Catholic." Their titles are "Catholics and the Religious Right" and "Ethical Issues in Health Care Restructuring."


The article on "Catholics and the Religious Right" is from _The Humanist_, a magazine rather than a peer reviewed academic journal. It seeks to correct misperceptions that Catholics are not involved in the Christian Right. He pointed to the same individuals you site as well as Cardinal John O'Conner. He also notes that Catholics are active in the Christian right, evidenced by the fact that 16.3% of the Christian Coalition membership is Catholic. No where does he claim the Catholics alone organized the Moral Majority and that Protestants played no role in its foundation.

The link to the desiderata of the 1975 National Council of Bishops does not provide evidence that that group formed the Moral Majority. It instead indicates a desire to form ecumenical alliances in pursuit of a pro-life agenda. Neither Falwell nor the Moral Majority are mentioned in the document.

In short, your claim that protestants did not found the Moral Majority and did not choose Falwell as their leader does not hold up to scrutiny. Your conception of what constitutes evidence does not meet my standards or those of any respectable publication.


The analogy: True: Clinton expressed concern that Saddam had WMD.
True: the National Council of Bishops expressed a desire to form an ecumenical alliance. False: Republicans are not responsible for the Iraq War and they did not appoint Rumsfeld. False: Protestants did not found the Moral Majority and did not choose Falwell as their leader. That was your claim and it is quite clearly false.

Now if you want to make the point that the Moral Majority or Christian Right is not entirely Protestant, that is certainly true. But that is not what you claimed. You instead focus on a minority within the movement and distort that to claim it is predominantly Catholic, that Protestants had no role in the formation of this particular right-wing group. Assuming that your point is quite narrow—only that Protestants did not form the MM or choose Falwell as their leader—it is nonetheless factually inadequate. This of course begs the question of why you would focus on a few individuals as evidence of supposed Catholic domination and the complete absence of Protestant involvement.


This should be more than adequate to set the record straight. Should you be interested in veracity, you will need to adjust your claims.

You point to the fact that the Moral Majority and Falwell aren't mentioned in the 1975 Pastoral Plan as though that is evidence that the plan didn't lead to their existence/selection. Again, false logic. The 1975 plan was before the name "Moral Majority" was chosen, and before Jerry Falwell was selected. If you knew the history, you'd know that. If the plan did in fact refer to either of them, then you could use it to refute the fact that the plan led to their formation/selection.

As far as your analogy goes, there is no logic in that whatsoever. Listing things that are true and things that are false is not by itself an analogy, and does not lead to a logical conclusion. I could as easily say:

1. I planned to eat lunch today.
2. I hired a chef to run a restaurant.

They might be true, they might be false, but they have nothing to do with proving or disproving that Catholics were behind the formation of the Moral Majority, sorry.

Now this is just a crazy thought, but maybe - just maybe - PBS doesn't have the Bill Moyers show archived because it's from the 1980's. Or, you know, the show never happened, and the author who cited it made up a broadcast date for it in their footnotes. They probably made up the information in the other 330 footnotes they had citing sources, too. That's the more likely scenario, eh?

We've already determined that federal judges who spend a year studying an issue aren't reputable if you disagree with them (funny because the judge was a Catholic, btw), but I'm still confused about your definition of reputable source. Is the ACLU reputable only when you cite it?

and I spent a considerable amount of time looking, obviously far more time than you have. Whatever analogies you come up with are quite aside from the point. You have provided no evidence to suggest protestants had noting to do the founding of the group. Clearly evidence is not your concern. If it were, you would consider taking an honest look at the circumstances and factors leading to the foundation of the moral majority. I have really had quite enough of this.

I suggest you ask yourself what your goal is in here. Is it to drive Catholics from the Democratic party, split the party base and bring about permanent Republican rule? I expect this is not a conscious goal on your part, but it is nonetheless an effect of this kind of rhetoric. I'm through discussing this or anything else with you. You care nothing about reason or truth, only your own prejudices.

What is noteworthy is that I could summon far better evidence on Catholic involvement in the Christian Right than you have been able to muster, despite your commitment to distorting the historical record and absolving protestants of complicity for a movement that they dominate. There are a large number of exclusively Catholic organizations devoted to combating abortion and advancing other conservative causes. That, however, does not provide evidence that Protestants had nothing to do with the founding of the Moral Majority--a point so absurd that it is frankly bizarre that this is all your are able to focus on.

Again I will reintegrate the point I made about a court case. Assuming that the it says exactly what you say, a court case is one legal document. Any honest analyst studying the emergence of the Moral Majority would look at that case as well as thousands of other documents that pertain to the subject. In my own research on another topic that will not interest you, I consulted dozens of court cases, tens of thousands of police documents, legislative debates, newspapers, law journals, and an array of other sources. Trails are like any other form of documentation: they have their limitations and biases. A federal judge also ruled that Dredd Scott, and all African Americans, were not citizens. That does not make it so. A federal court, in Plessy v. Ferguson, ruled that separate was equal. Courts have ruled that the Bush administration has not abused its authority following 9/11. Shall we believe that as well, simply because it comes from a federal judge? Or do you just pick the court cases the reaffirm your own prejudices. (What a silly question, of course you do.) Even the fairest of judicial rulings contain some bias and distortion, as every piece of documentation does. No one who has any respect for truth relies on one piece of evidence alone, and certainly no one who seeks to get their work published in a peer reviewed journal.

I gather from your response you have no knowledge of any of the databases I searched. America History and Life catalogs ALL history journals for the US and Canada. J-STOR is a full text database that provides electronic access to thousands of journals, some in history, others in political science, sociology, anthropology, and other humanities/ social science disciplines. It had a good many articles on Baptists and the founding of the Moral Majority. Expanded Academic ASAP contains full text articles of a variety of publications, some academic and some popular, like the Humanist and NACLA, for example. I even went to the library of congress electronic interface, American memory, to see if they might have some primary documents cataloged, but most of their electronic collections contain only older documents. I searched approximately six additional database. That means I searches hundreds of thousands of articles, possibly millions. Clearly I have spent more time on this matter than you have.

Now people who make their living on uncovering the truth bear slightly more credibility with me than you do. If your evidence is so compelling, I suggest you write an article and have it published in a reputable journal or magazine so that you can correct the record. Before doing so, I'd suggest a course on research methods.

http://watch.pair.com/cnp.html#moral

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mumford_21_1.htm

http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-08.htm

http://endtimeissues.com/articles/2/One-Nation-Under-God/

And a others that looked promising but I don't have the time to read through.

Oh and no where did lwfern say the Moral Majority was predominantly Catholic, as you keep saying she did in your posts. Please provide a direct quote, because I can't seem to find it in her posts. You also didn't provide a quote the last time that I requested one, and I can't help but think that's because that's not what lwfern said??

or choose it's leaders. End of Times is one of the hate sites I referred to. I have spent substantial time researching this subject in reputable sources. If you actually think random websites are as reliable as academic journals or reputable publications, that is a serious problem on your part. I can tomorrow create thirty websites arguing the world is flat. That does not make it so. Websites need to be evaluated for their credibility. I do not allow my students to use dot.com sites for their research. I see no reason why my own standards should be any less. That you and LWFern ignore an established historical record in favor of hate websites, is quite frightening and against speaks to the extend to which the American educational system and our political cultural more generally has degraded.

Truth is not simply what you want to believe because you find it convenient. It must come from an honest examination of evidence and scholarship. If not, it is garbage, not truth.

and anyone can get one of those, too. I have one, so I would know.

Are you calling the ACLU (which you also cited) a hate website?
Are you calling a federal judge ruling hate speak?
Are you saying that Bill Moyers is a "hate show"?

These are all things that lwfern cited that I seriously doubt would qualify as "hate sites."

Or how about www.priestsforlife.ORG ? Isn't that credible?

The four that I listed were just what my quick search with few key words came up with, you said you only found two and they were both hate sites. Perhaps you didn't try very hard, or search for any of the things lwfern suggested (like the judge's ruling)?

Maybe I'd be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you, you know, took the time to back up claims or actually answer questions. You keep claiming that lwfern said this or said that, but when asked for a direct quote where she stated that you never seem to have one. Ever.

Your poor debating skills are what "speaks to the extend (sic) to which the American educational system and our political culture more generally has degraded."

That is your choice.

Protestant evangelism.

<< What is the point? How does he think "not letting up" on the Church on DU is going to change the teachings of the Church? It obviously is not. So then I wonder what the point is? >>

There must be a starting point. DSC's starting point is obvious.

True... it is doubtful that his words and actions are going to DIRECTLY change the church...but they do help to inform and educate people of the fact that the church's bigotry and hate has REAL effects and tragic consequences on REAL people. Putting a human face on it helps people, Catholics namely, to understand what happens when the church is responsible for seeding and feeding and encouraging a atmosphere of hatred and intolerance.

When a core group of compassionate Catholics start to understand, then perhaps they'll start to speak out to their local church leaders, and to others in their congregation.

How can you NOT understand that? How can you not get-it?! (Frankly, I think you DO get it, but you're just pretending not to understand out of loyalty to your religion.)

Wouldn't you rather include yourself among those who are compassionate and caring instead of instinctively and blindly being so defensive of the Pope?

As those who can't see SHIT.



DXS
"I LOVE horror movies, man... I just don't want to LIVE in one."
more unforgivable fun at
http://presidentevilonline.com

I really am. Make that disappointed.

Are you aware that you are badgering dsc? Is that what you're intending to do? I also find your line of questioning offensive on its face:

What have you accomplished for gay rights?

That's such a specious argument. Are you saying NO ONE has a right to complain -- about anything -- unless they have done significant work in the field about which they have a complaint? Ridiculous.

You can post a thread a day about how Catholics are bad people.

Wasn't exactly the argument made, I would hope someone of your native intelligence already knows, which leaves that just a cheap rhetorical trick.

You can shout in on the rooftops. But I find entirely unconvincing that you imagine this does anything for gay rights.

Actually, whether you realize it or agree or not, I think it does -- do a lot for gay rights. I think raising awareness, educating people, garnering support for the issue -- all that and more gets accomplished by posting here and DU and I think all that does a lot for gay rights. DSC is one of DU's more eloquent and profound posters on the subject, reminding us often of some key issues, some very personal insights and concerns.

Your eagerness to badger and discredit dsc, and thereby apparently attempt to defend the indefensible about the Church, is unattractive at best. This combined with another post or two I saw from you earlier today changes my original estimation of you completely.

Oh, and dsc is unlikely to be the cause of anyone deciding to leave the Church in favor of any Protestant churches. My observation is that most people make those decisions for themselves. IOW: your beloeved Church is safe from dsc.

I do not defend homophobia on the part of the Church. My point is simply that I and other Catholic have no influence over the statements of the Vatican. If the point is to effect some change, the political avenue is far more promising. If you want to communicate concerns to the Vatican, I provide the Pope's email is below.

I resent your assertion that I am badgering him. Rather, I'm simply frustrated because the implication is that there is something the rest of us can do to influence Vatican statements, when there is not. If the point is simply to air frustration, very well. I wonder though, why that opposition is limited to Catholics?

I resent your assertion that I am badgering him.

If you read your OWN posts, you'll see that my "assertion" is better characterized as an apt observation.

Rather, I'm simply frustrated because the implication is that there is something the rest of us can do to influence Vatican statements, when there is not. If the point is simply to air frustration, very well. I wonder though, why that opposition is limited to Catholics?

If you're so frustrated, if you're so damn sure there's NOTHING that can be done to influence the Church, now or later, then butt out. YOU'RE accomplishing nothing here.

I do not defend homophobia on the part of the Church.

Actually, you do.

My point is simply that I and other Catholic have no influence over the statements of the Vatican. If the point is to effect some change, the political avenue is far more promising. If you want to communicate concerns to the Vatican, I provide the Pope's email is below.

If you can't be counted on to work in favor of influencing the Church, then you are part of the problem, you are guilty by ommission, and thereby are complicit: SILENCE CONDONES. Never forget that.

It's also not true that the Church can't be reached via the efforts of the laity. The Vatican and Ratzinger may appear to turn a deaf ear, especially as you say, to American Catholics, but you go back and remember and think about the public outcry over the pedophilia mess, and how the Church most certainly DID respond to public pressure there -- not well enough, IMO, but respond it did. And respond it will in the future if there's enough public outcry and pressure.

I am not silent. I am no more silent that you are on the matter. And frankly when you call me a bigot I have no use for further discussion with you. I have made my views on the subject clear in repeated posts in this thread.

I have marched in gay pride parades and have helped friends lobby for legislation. I choose to direct political activities in the political realm. If you choose to direct your outrage against the Catholic church, of all denominations, that is your problem.

damn well about what legislation many Catholics are proposing, funding, and supporting. And if you are so involved, then you should see that saying that gays are a part of a New Ideology of Evil is a HUGE deal and you would not be making excuses for such people.

<< You can post a thread a day about how Catholics are bad people. >>

What EXACTLY, and where EXACTLY did DSC say such a thing? Please explain how and why it is that any critical word about the church is almost INSTANTLY interpreted by sensitives as being a personal attack on "all" Catholics?

Did I miss something? Or are you imagining things?

and direct your concerns directly to him.


His e-mail: benedictxvi@vatican.va

Website that contains speeches and link to communicate with the Pope.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione...

You clearly made an accusation about DSC, and I asked for an explanation and an example of how his post was an attack on all Catholics. Why won't you respond directly to the question?

It's a simple and straightforward question asking you to justify and provide evidence of your accusation. And your response is "write to the pope"?? :eyes:

Oh brother!

so I have no intention of defending remarks I did not make. What I asked was what he hoped to accomplish.

I imagine that repeatedly dodging questions and disowning your own words is infinitely easier and much more preferable than actually explaining why you think you're right, or why you think someone else is wrong.

Here's what you said in post #21 above.




Fact is, that's NOT what he was doing. So that's where I asked why you would say such a thing. Your response to my direct question was very evasive and non-responsive. In fact at first I wondered if your response was even intended for me in the first place. I thought that maybe you had clicked the wrong link and responded to the wrong person... but here it is (post 91).



If you want to continue to dodge and evade by claiming that your not dodging and evading... and that you didn't say the things you clearly DID say, then I'm afraid I'm have no more time to waste with such silliness.

You have selected excerpts of my statements out of context. My question to the OP was what the intent of his decision not to let up on Catholics was. Was it to add his voice to the anti-Catholic sentiment or to promote gay rights? If it is the latter, I am more than willing to do what I can, which I made clear above. If it makes you feel better to portray me as your enemy, go right ahead. That, however, does nothing to promote equal rights.

<< You have selected excerpts of my statements out of context. >>

Technically, perhaps. But the stuff that was snipped was clearly unrelated and did nothing to add to the context. My apologies for not quoting your entire message instead of just the portion that I took issue with.

<< My question to the OP was what the intent of his decision not to let up on Catholics was. >>

Okay.

<< Was it to add his voice to the anti-Catholic sentiment or to promote gay rights? >>

Why do you call it the "anti-Catholic sentiment"? Why not the "anti-bigotry sentiment"? Why assume that he is "anti-Catholic" when it is obvious that he (I, we) are concerned with the bigotry of the church leaders, and those who justify their bigotry by cloaking it in their religious beliefs?

<< If it is the latter, I am more than willing to do what I can, which I made clear above. >>

Well, that's kind-of a positive thing, I guess. I'm glad that you'd support equality for homosexuals... but I'm a little confused as to why you might be buying into the notion that fighting Papal bigotry is to be construed as being "anti-Catholic sentiments". I'd hope that you'd join in that fight too.

But half a loaf is better than no loaf, I suppose.

<< If it makes you feel better to portray me as your enemy, go right ahead. >>

Far from it. I get no joy or comfort from having enemies.

<< That, however, does nothing to promote equal rights. >>

And it does nothing to save the whales either. But I'll still fight my enemies whenever they reveal themselves, or whenever I ferret them out. Even if they accuse me of being "anti-Catholic" when I'm really "anti-Catholic-bigotry" and "anti-Papal-bigotry"... I won't stop. Even if they accuse me of BEING a bigot because I won't tolerate religious-based bigotry, I still won't stop.

I feel like I have to give a fifth grade reading comprehension lesson. It is boring. I do not say what you claim I do. For the fifth time, I asked him what his point was, whether it was to bring out gay rights or denounce the Church. I asked, in the conditional subjunctive mood, if he wanted to ally himself with anti-Catholic forces or if he wanted to influence legislation. The only responses I have gotten are about how the Catholic Church is wrong on this issue. What could be more obvious than that fact? The question is what is to be done about it? I made very clearly I would like to do everything I can to effect any changes in legislation and contact Catholic clergy who stand on the wrong side of equal rights. He has not responded to my requests to be informed on such matters or to be included on an e-mail list.

Dwelling on your misreading of my statements is a tremendous waste of time and aside from the point of this thread. Now if you unable to understand me or insist on misinterpreting my remarks for the purpose of picking a fight, there is nothing I can do about it.

I'm fine at the first... but not the second. There's no mis-reading of your statements... I'm examaning them very closely and there were a lot of things that you were skifully avoiding saying. You were dancing around the issue.

Thanks for clarifying by stating exactly what you mean. I appreciate that and I appreciate the sentiments.

<< I would like to do everything I can to effect any changes in legislation and contact Catholic clergy who stand on the wrong side of equal rights.>>

Thanks! :hug:

I didn't realize that I personally was wholly responsible for the absence of equal rights in this country. How silly of me. I thought you actually might want to make known your opinions on doctrinal matters to someone who has influence over them. Evidently I was mistaken.

No, but to continue to badger GLBT people with accusations of anti-Catholic sentiments when the OP is about a dead child is pretty myopic. I think you'll find that we're pretty against fundamentalism too.

I responded to Arwalden's post who was not interested in discussing Robbie or how to take action to promote gay rights. He insisted on focusing his attacks on me, because he misinterpreted my post. And you accuse me of being myopic because I respond by attempting to bring the focus back to issue at hand--equal rights?

<< I didn't realize that I personally was wholly responsible for the absence of equal rights in this country. How silly of me. >>

I can't answer to that. That's something that you have to come to terms with yourself. I do think that any Catholic, if indeed they honestly oppose the bigotry spewing forth from the Pope/s, would do more within their OWN church to let others in the church (both members and leaders) know that this type of bigotry is UNACCEPTABLE and that it CANNOT CONTINUE.

Unfortunately there are many people who feel that it's not THEIR responsibility to affect change in THEIR church by working from within. The typical responses I hear from these folks are "but-it's-not-happening-in-my-parish" ... "email the Pope yourself, complain to HIM". (As if he cares what an evil wicked homo thinks. As if his handlers would bother him with it.)

I do think it's fair to say that those who sit idly by while their OWN church leaders encourage bigotry, and while their church leaders contribute to a hostile climate towards homosexuals, are CONTRIBUTING to the problem. Those who make excuses for their church leaders are enabling them. Even though they claim to oppose bigotry, their timidity, and their failure to respond within their church is their way of giving permission and consent.

<< I thought you actually might want to make known your opinions on doctrinal matters to someone who has influence over them. Evidently I was mistaken. >>

I detect a bit of sarcasm, so I doubt that you really believe that. But anyone who DOES believe that is OBVIOUSLY not paying close enough attention.

We've long told Imenja that her posts are just repetitive and lack empathy for the topic at hand. We told her that we criticize her for apologizing for the Church and encourage her to do more to make her Church an institution that doesn't actively oppose GLBT rights around the world. We've given evidence. We've thanked her for the amount of work she claims to have done on our behalf. We've qualified our statements to assure her that we aren't speaking bad about all Catholics.

But it's clear that all Imenja wants is for us to say that, like her, we GLBT people think that the Catholic Church is a wonderful institution with a little bit of archaic policy against us ol' queers, but that we totally understand and accept their lack of tolernace. As long as the Church can translate the word Peace into 200 different languages and put it on a poster with a clip art dove, well HOT DAMN, they're the most progressive religion this side of Wicca. Because when the Pope says gays are part of the 'Ideology of Evil' the words mean nothing. But when the Vatican says Work For Peace in Iraq...then words are the vessels for change.

I gave up days ago.

that have very good records on gay rights. The UCC, the Metropolitan Community Church, and the Episcopalians to name three. The Disciples of Christ have some very good churches as well.

That is beyond dispute.

... numerous Protestant denominations that aren't fundamentalists. There is only one Catholic Church, and the Pope speaks for the entire Church, whether or not the people in the Church agree with him. If they dare to disagree, they can be accused of grave sins, denied Communion, even ex-communicated.

When people criticize the Catholic Church, they are more than likely criticizing the hierarchy, the Vatican, and the dogma, rather than the people in the Church. These may also be many of the people that Ratzinger is willing to lose to make his Church 'purer'.

The Catholic Church created the Christian Conservative movement. They created it to stop abortion. They pulled the fundamentalists into the movement, not the other way around.

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/paige3051.html

....And this is exactly the way the hierarchy would have it. The Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today. The church provided from the start the organizational infrastructure, the communications network, the logistical support, the resources, the ideology and the people, as well as a ready-made nationwide political machine otherwise impossible to duplicate. Always, the church contributed money, a great deal of it, either through its own organizations or through direct grants to independent but related groups.

The church's presence has had so profound an impact on the movement that almost all the events, even if organized by lay people, are imbued with Catholic ritual and symbolism. Conferences have mass scheduled into them, sometimes twice and three times a day. One National Right to Life convention was timed for the same weekend in the same city practically across the street from an annual convocation of priests.

The yearly march on Washington on the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision always has a noticeable checkering of clerical collars, banners draped with rosary beads and earnest young men carrying crosses. The church started the movement as part of an effort to deal with a world rapidly becoming more secular.

For the hierarchy, such a movement served a number of purposes.

One of the primary goals - although outsiders did not always see it this way - was to establish the church as a leader in the movement for social justice.

It was also an attempt to reinvolve a straying flock. Along the way, it gave some individual Catholics a sense of solidarity that helped allay their feeling of nonacceptance into modern society.

What made the church's right-to-life effort significant was that this was the first time in American history that Catholics had made that kind of all-out bid to influence national policy.

The Christian Right is in origin protestant and
anti-Catholic. You will find some of their arguments familiar.
http://are.as.wvu.edu/lebeau1.htm

It is very revealing that your entire blame for the Christian right is placed on Catholics. At the end of the 1980s, the Christian Right was led most prominently by Evangelical Protestants. The following
article from the National Humanities Center shows and Jews and Catholics also participated, but they were not the most public or powerful figures in the movement.
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/chr_rght.htm


You could also read this entry from from Wikipedia on the Christian Right. Nearly every member cited is Protestant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Right


The Christian Right is not limited to anti-abortion efforts. The Catholic church has consistently opposed abortion and euthanasia, as it does all kinds of murder, including the death penalty and war. These latter two are a not concerns for the Christian Right.

The evolution/ intelligent design effort is entirely protestant. The modern day Catholic Church does not posit itself as in opposition to science. These views are dependent on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, which very few if any Catholics maintain. The term fundamentalism among Catholics, in fact, does not mean a literal reading of the scripture as it does for Protestant fundamentalists.

Your argument that the Christian Right is fundamentally Catholic is so factually inaccurate that it draws into question your the entirety of your statements on this matter.

The Catholic church has changed in the past when it was necessary for survival. It can change again. If most liberal Catholics leave in vast numbers, church doctrine will change so fast your head will spin.
"You have the power."

Ratzinger has publicly stated he prefers a smaller, purer Church than a larger one that waters down what he sees as traditional values. Every American Catholic could leave the Church but I expect the reaction at the Vatican would be one of relief more than anything else. The Papacy changes teachings based only on communion with the Holy Spirit. Popular demands have nothing to do with it. There is nothing remotely Democratic about the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the vast majority of Catholics in the world, in poor countries, strongly oppose homosexuality. Changes that would accommodated American Catholics would prompt opposition among the vast majority of parishioners around the world. Surely you must know this.

You assertion that protestant churches are somehow better on this subject is indefensible. The Protestant fundamentalists lead the assault on homosexuals in this country. They expel gays from their churches and work to secure discrimination in employment. A few protestant churches do not support discriminatory policies, but you will also find hundreds of Catholic priests and nuns who are entirely tolerant. My eighth grade teacher, for example, was a nun who became an alderwoman and champion for gay rights. Religion in practice is often very different from teachings by the Vatican.

Even if the Holy See changed it's views on homosexuality, the impact would be negligible. The Church speaks out strongly against capitalist exploitation, the death penalty, poverty, and war. Do you see anything happening on those issues in this country?

On issues of social justice, the Catholic Church sits substantially to the left of American liberals. I see no reason to join protestant churches that fail to speak out against the kind of misery wrought by the capitalist system. My concerns are not limited to GOP defined "moral values" issues and I find it a great concern that liberals have allowed Republicans to limit their concept of politics so that they fail to challenge the fundamental injustice around which American society is organized. The Catholic Church has a mixed record. It is wrong on a host of cultural issues, but it has a strong record on ministry to the poor. As a historian, I know that protestantism is a religion that emerged in the context of capitalism. It's teachings legitimated usury and capitalist exploitation. The doctrine of predestination exempted the greedy from social responsibility in their life times by telling them their salvation was preordained. It thus freed them to live off the labor of working people. It absolved them of the communal responsibilities supported by Catholicism. For Protestants, wealth, in fact, was and continues to be seen as a sign of God's favor. It also freed them from the responsibility to carry out good works, essential to salvation under Catholic teachings. Catholicism teaches that one is saved based on the good he does in his lifetime. Protestant asserts it is based simply on who one is. Catholicism also offers all of us the possibility of forgiveness. Unlike protestant, it relegates no one to inevitable, eternal damnation. While I have a whole range of disagreements with the Catholic Church, I appreciate that fact that they stand for social justice, that combating poverty and promoting peace are central to it's mission.

when refering to protestants. They are not one group and the fundamentalists are not a super majority. There are plenty of protestant denominations which are just as invested in social justice and issues of poverty as the you think the RCC is.

There are many protestant denominations. Each one is autonomous. Though there are priests and nuns who don't support discriminatory practices, they have no power. In the RCC all power is from the top. And the church is moving rightward whether you want to know it or not. More Catholics vote republican than ever before. The RCC is not busing thousands of kids into DC to march for peace or justice. It buses thousands of kids to march against "Choice".

Protestant churches, with few exceptions, are governed from the bottom up. Congregants and local representatives have all the power if they chose to use it.

I wasn't aware that low church denominations constituted a majority of American protestants. While the laity may have more say in high church protestant denominations, they don't get the final say (except with their feet) on doctrinal matters. The current battle over gay ordination within the Anglican church is an example of this.

More Catholics vote Republican for a variety of reasons. It's not just abortion and gays. The shift started over 30 years ago, before either of those issues came anywhere close to the mainstream.

so nothing you have just posted addressed my post. Please address address specifically what protestant denonmination you are speaking of. The one I attend and most others are represetative in government. In other words we vote for our leaders. We hire and fire our leaders and we control church doctrine.
I am not an anglican. Neither are most Protestants.

the high/low distinction is a distinction of hierarchy.

Are most protestants in low churches or are most protestant denominations low church? That's the question.

What hierarchy are you talking about? There is no designation of high and low church in most protestant denominations.

but none of them that I am aware of confront the rapacious greed of capitalism.


If you examine exit polls you will realize that Catholics are the Christian denomination that vote most Democratic. Protestants vote Republican in far greater numbers. You evidently feel it is your role to convert Catholics to Protestantism. I myself choose not to submit to your evangelism. My ancestors remained Catholics despite efforts by a colonial power to force them to abandon their faith. My grandparents remained Catholic despite the actions by protestant white supremacists, otherwise known as the KKK, to force them to leave the country by burning crosses on their farm. Given the obstacles they faced, if you think I'm going to be phased by your uninformed statements about the Church, you are quite mistaken.


If you are interested in truth or accuracy, I suggest you take a little time to examine the activism of the Catholic church in matters of social justice and dictatorship. Among the dozens of clergy and nuns who lost their lives in Central American, victims of a war waged with your and my tax dollars, I am not aware of a significant protestant presence.

If you are interested in the historical origins of Protestantism and the argument I laid out, one place to start is Georges LeGoff, _Your Money or Your Life_.


What religion your practice is entirely your affair. I consider it, however, the hight of arrogance and intolerance that you would try to use these discussion boards to convert me.

You assertion that protestant churches are somehow better on this subject is indefensible. The Protestant fundamentalists lead the assault on homosexuals in this country.

I have to add my voice to MollyStark's here. You have, with one vast, sweeping broad brush made ALL Protestants into fundamentalists. You couldn't be more wrong and, in fact, I'll wager (admitting it's a guess, but a good one) that the Christian Left is as large in numbers if not larger than the fundies.

And really, there's a very nice, large population of Leftist Jews as well.

Oh, boy, here's another boner from you:


On issues of social justice, the Catholic Church sits substantially to the left of American liberals. I see no reason to join protestant churches that fail to speak out against the kind of misery wrought by the capitalist system.

Imenja, imenja, now you're eradicating me and millions more like me when you call the Church to the left of American liberals. You may be somewhat accurate if you're talking about the mainstream American Dem Party, but NOT "American liberals." Also, you REALLY need to know that the Catholic Church -- under JP2 and no doubt under Benedict too -- is shutting down Liberation Theology -- not MY idea of being to the left of American liberals or speaking out against capitalism's misery. Here's a little light reading for you:

Some Reflections on the Recent Papacy of JPII
by Matthew Fox, Ph.D.
http://www.opednews.com/foxmatthew_040405_pope.htm
discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=117682#117723

and, why not, a bit more:

Thomas Cahill - The Price of Infallibility (Pope JP II)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x117802
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/cahill.html

Can we discuss Opus Dei please?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3437208&mesg_id=3437208

The Pope Who Revived the Office of the Inquisition
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=118069#118118
Link: http://www.counterpunch.org/connolly04052005.html

I responded to a poster who asserted I should become a protestant, that Catholicism was inherently an inferior religion. I realize there is a Protestant Left. There is also a Catholic Left. If like Molly Start want to use this discussion as an opportunity to evangelism, that is your problem. I will not submit to such efforts.

The church does sit to the left of American liberals. The very fact that you imagine liberal means left demonstrates that. Liberalism is the political ideology that legitimates capitalism. The Catholic Church does not accept as just capitalist accumulation and the global misery it causes. If you call yourself a liberal, obviously you do not either. Liberation theology is not the other denunciation of capitalism. It was an active political movement of armed resistance against dictatorship. I am certainly well aware that John Paul II took actions to limit it. You should note, however, it has not been eradication. You are mistaken, however, if you imagine that liberation theology is the only denunciation of capitalist greed. You can read some statements by the Church yourself if you go to the Vatican website. You can also examine statements by some of the Archbishops from around Latin America.

What religion your or anyone else practices is entirely your affair. I would not dream of trying to convert you or anyone else. As a result, I take offense when others try to use political discussions to do so.

Ratzinger is not going to be around for long. He might prefer a smaller purer church which mean he's going to start squeezing you out anyway doesn't it?
But I don't believe for a minute that Ratzinger will get his way. If a large part of the american left walked away from the RCC they would change or go broke.

There is no "protestant church" entity in this country or any other. Which protestant church are you talking about?

PS.. the RCC created the religious right movement.

although I do think some people do, where I live it's actually the new (for Australia anyway) breed of fundie protestants who are the most active in their bigotry.

I can't agree though that it's useless to direct criticism to the Catholic Church just because "they wont change" if that's the case why criticise the GOP or Neo Nazi's. Any individual or organistaions bigotry should be called out.

On another point you made, I've never understood why so many Catholics I know basically disagree with the Church on almost everything but remain Catholic, if you no longer beleive that the Pope is speaking the word of God and you disagree with the Church on issues that they seem to feel are of utmost importance then what keeps you a Catholic? (or a anglican, muslim, jew etc etc)

...with bigoted, intolerant, political condemnations?

No way, baby. I am going :nuke:

and thank you for posting this thread .
:hi:

This issue, and all the other ones the Catholic church is so vocal about, need to be addressed again and again and again and AGAIN. We need to keep talking about the prejudice of religions and the harm they cause. That is the ONLY way things will change.

The genius MLK had with words is just amazing.

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

My battle with the Catholic Church began in the year 2000 when I wanted to get confirmed by the church to be a Deacon. Note I never believed in it's policies toward gays or stances on reproductive issues but foolish me I thought they could be reasoned with.
Anyhow the RCIA blocked my confirmition when they wanted me to go out and take pictures of women entering abortion clinics. When I refused Father Tom and Tony K threw me out. Too make matters worse no one, not even my family stood by me.
I was so despondent so heart broken by this act I couldnt talk for three days and it turns out I had a strees related stroke. Now heres the kicker not only does my family still attend Transfiguration in Wauconda Il but I was diagnosed with young onset parkinson's disease last May. My neuro said the stroke is a contributing factor.
Now I have no problem with Jesus, I love god and I still attend mass. In fact in my new church I serve on a board to help keep things like this from happening to anyone else. But my problem is that people who feel that these things arent wrong arent standing up to the RCC and let them continue. This is why Frist, allthough not Catholic, thinks he can push people around . While they may haave broke my body I wont let them have my faith.
And to anyone who ever was insulted offended by the fundies I want to say I appologize for them using my god's name in vain. All I know is that my god loves anyone regardless of their orientation stance on reproductive issues, and party lines. I know from personal exp how danagerous that some not all the fantatics can be and it doesn't help it when the few dissenters are picked off one by one.
I also wanted to apologize for posting this. I am angry disgusted and sadden to see what is going on to our country right now. Especially with what Frist is doing.
Hey everyone have a nice night and big hugs. It's a not a nice world anymore. And again I begrude no ones right to a religion and am not bashing any catholics on this board. I just had to vent Danny.

I am sorry they did that to you. I am glad you found a better church for yourself.