The Catholic Church- some things DUers should know

I read with interest the latest thread about "respecting the Pope" which was overall a thankfully rational and respectful discussion among DUers.

Often on here, we get riled by the things which upset us and don't see the good things. So to expand everyone's horizons a bit, I wanted to post a bit more about the Catholic Church, which is often denounced as being too conservative and backward on social issues (abortion, homosexuality, birth control, etc.).

It's important to know that out of the billion or so Catholics out there, we're a diverse group of people - and the Church has many facets. Yes, one of them is this horribly reactionary and oppressive position on issues surrounding sex, gender, and sexuality. But, on the other hand, the Church has been a prime mover and shaker on issues of economic and racial justice. Everyone should take this into account.

The Catholic Church is NOT the Christian Right. Sure, there are Catholics who consider themselves a part of that movement. But the Church itself has some major differences with the Fundamentalists on the Right side of the U.S. (or world) political spectrum. And these differences pop up on the issue of economic equality. So, without further ado, to give everyone a quick lesson in the Church's social teachings, check these snippets out:

First, check out the official Catechism of the Church on economic and social inequality:

"There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel:

"Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace."
-- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par.1938
END

Does that sound conservative or rightwing to you?

Next, here's the Catechism on discrimination:

2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.
END

Here's the Church's open endorsement of the labor movement and collective bargaining as a legitimate part of economic life:

2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise. Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate.
END

A far cry from the unionbusting GOP and the Christian Right's long-held belief that unions are akin to communism.

Next, how would Ken Lay and the boys react to this one:

2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.
END

In other words, paying "unjust wages" is akin to taking the property of another. It doesn't matter what the law says or doesn't say and it sure as heck doesn't matter what the market dictates. Wages should be based on notions of justice.

Here's the Church making an explicit preference for the poor:

544 ...Jesus shares the life of the poor, from the cradle to the cross; he experiences hunger, thirst and privation. Jesus identifies himself with the poor of every kind and makes active love toward them the condition for entering his kingdom.
END

"Active" love - rather than passive - means actually doing something to side with and fight for the poor. The Church believes in an economic safety net.

In fact...here is the National Conference on Catholic Bishops in 1995:

"However, it has always been clear that the pursuit of greater economic justice is not carried out primarily by the statements of religious bodies, but in the broader marketplace -- where investments are made, contracts are negotiated, products are created, workers are hired and policies are set. The search for economic justice is also carried forward in the public square. In this election year, while others are campaigning for office, let us campaign for the poor and vulnerable and for greater economic justice. Let us ask those who seek to lead and represent us how they will govern and vote on key issues of human life, human dignity and economic justice. And let us as citizens and believers continue to advocate for people who are poor and vulnerable in our communities, nation and world."
END

Of course, DUers are apt to point out and justly criticize the Church's failings on a host of issues - abuse, gay rights, womens' rights, AIDS policy, etc.

And my point isn't to say those things don't matter. Rather, it's to point out that, among the warts - like with many institutions - there are some real and redeeming gems.

As rightwingers like to point to the Church at times for moral currency, so too can we. The Church's economic views are clearly on OUR SIDE. As progressives, we need to do more to make that link apparent. We must not let the Church and the faith that it inspires in millions of Americans to be monopolized by the the Far Right. It's too powerful a force to dismiss and give up.

Of course, disclosure: I'm Catholic.

Ghandi was against abortion as well, but many DU'ers praise him without giving that a thought.

Dennis Kucinich is a Catholic as was JFK.

I am not a Catholic, and am pro-choice, but I do respect my Catholic brothers/sisters.

~Peace

Yes Kucinich is Catholic as am I. Thanks gully. Great post I agree. Thanks VaLabor.

:hug:

invading Iraq...
Thank you for the great summary.

The UFW marched under the banner of our lady of Guadelupe.

Progressive catholicism is the backbone of the immigrant rights movement.

It's the Opus Dei people I really worry about. I'm not a christian, but I have no problem with people who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, rather than those who see their religion as a way to control other people. The Catholic Workers movement and the Quakers have always impressed me with their actions.

It really is a shame that the hard core right wing of many religions have taken over. My mother (Episcopalian) hates to admit to being christian because of what it has come to mean in this country. It is very hard not to have an almost immediate distrust of anyone who claims the label. Liberal jews are embbarassed by the Likudniks, muslims by the Osama types.

does anyone know a good book or synopsis of what's wrong about it, so I can point a Catholic friend of mine in the direction? Her hubby has recently gotten very interested in it.

...which (rightly) treats the group as a cult. There's a wealth of info on their website at:

http://www.odan.org/

Corporal Acts of Mercy:

-Feed the hungry

-Give drink to the thirsty

-Shelter the homeless

-Clothe the naked

-Visit the sick

-Visit those in prison

-Bury the dead.


We do these things, too. :)

http://www.catholicrelief.org

truly I do.

My main issue is that the Pope is the ONE man in the world, who with one letter, could alleviate the greatest cause of poverty (and therefore suffering) in the world. He could simply say that people should only have as many children as they can fully support. It would be that simple.

:shrug:

I honestly believe that the divisions between the Catholics and the non-catholics are a lot smaller one would think by reading these threads.

If we can ALL present our views politely and respectfully, without accusing the other side of ignorance or bigotry, we can make some progress.

The difference between you and me, as I perceive it, is how much we're willing to "forgive" the church for its positions. You, as an active member, are naturally more forgiving than I am.

I'm a former catholic, now an atheist, and and I'm more inclined to hold their feet to the fire. Both positions are understandable.

You're a good guy, Padraig.

That robs so many of their faith? I swear, every single atheist I have met save one is a former RC.

I know atheists who came from atheist families, atheists who came from fundamentalist protestant families, mormon families, etc. etc.

I just think that Catholicism is such a large denomination, you're more likely to meet people from that tradition.

to estrange themselves from the Catholic Church. You know, their stance on birth control, abortion, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, priesthood for men only, celibacy for priests.

When I was 16 years old I got into a big argument with the Monsignor of the local church. He was very adament and we did not agree on birth control. We did discuss it but it was one-sided of course.

So, I went far away from the Church for many years, living a life that wasn't excellent very Catholiclike if there is such a term.

I must say, they were of great assistance when my mother died. She told me to go to the Church when I needed help and so I did, and yes, they helped me a lot.

Do I go now? Occasionally ... and yes, I guess I am a Catholic like it or not. :shrug:

And that was a very excellent post too.

I have no problem with the morality of individual Catholics - but as an institution the Catholic Chursh does NOT share liberal/progressive values, what is the Catholic Church worth?? could some of that money be spent helping the poor maybe? or does the pope feel the same way as mother theresa - pain and suffering brings you cloer to God?!?!?!?!

economic and racial justice."

Hardly the Church is very conservative especially in the poorest countries. It could've launched massive human rights crusades, it has the pulpit, it has the networking, it has the funds, it has the moral imperative but it chose to focus on abortion and repression of women and disdain of homosexuals and suppression of the worst crimes committed in its ranks for years--abuse of children. That is the legacy of this pontiff.

and defend the church in this post.

That is ONE legacy of this pontiff, but not the entire legacy. I think that's why these keep devolving into flamewars.

I agree with you that the church is a horribly conservative force in the world, especially on social issues. As a gay man, and former Catholic, I am horrified when I think back of the guilt and shame I felt over my sexuality as a youngster, all installed by the RCC.

On the other hand.... the church DOES have admirable positions on issues of war and peace and economic justice.

The question is whether it's possible to reform the church to fix what's broken and keep what's good. My personal feeling is no, it's not, at least not in a timely way. I think the American church will split or go under before Rome will respond. Perhaps the RCC can thrive without America (I think it's very possible) but they're also losing Europe. As a third-world church, I fear it will continue to be socially conservative long past the point of "fixability".

and I am sorry the Church was part of that.

Thanks for a nice post!

and I am sorry the Church was part of that.

Thanks for a nice post!

but it's not just me.

How about being 14 and pregnant as a result of rape in a Catholic country and being told you had to give birth?

How about being a poor African woman with 7 children who simply can't care for more, and being told she has to have more?

How about being a devout Catholic woman who feels she can contribute to the church and being told her choices are nun or none?

I'm just baffled when I see feminists ignore the church's power (and failure) to address these issues.

if the Church had rallied the faithful against the death penalty with the same fervor and zeal that it reserves for abortion.

It blows platitudes -has "admirable positions on issues of war and peace and economic justice."

The stinking wealth of Opus Dei or the Liberation theology devotion to the poor that this Pope put an effort into restraining?

Which one would Christ have chosen?

Would you think that was bigoted, or just offensive? Would you still consider me a liberal?

I am a half-assed Catholic and was raised in the 70s/80s when liberation theology was popular. My Catholicism is a 180 from the Opus Dei variety. My Catholic congregation growing up looked suspiciously on conservative Catholics that allied themselves with the 'Moral Majority'. Our school and parish were always collecting money, food and clothing for those less fortunate. Many of the nuns who educated me spent time in places like El Salvador, South Africa, and Guatemala. Things changed when Cardinal Law, who was more conservative, took over the Boston Archdioscese. Nuns could no longer serve the host and in many parishes, altergirls were prohibited.

I disagree with a lot of the laws of the Church, but feel happy to have grown up in the true spirit of Catholicism, which has influenced my political beliefs.

Cardinal Bernardin was our Cardinal, and he ROCKED! :)

I come from the exact same tradition in the Church as you.

Frankly, it was the Church that made me a progressive, if not a fiery leftist.

I suppose this would come as a surprise to all those who bash it as a monolithic force of reaction.

On the Church's position on racial tolerance, I just thought of something else from personal experience...

I recently attended my pre-cana class with my fiancee. This is the mandatory "marriage preparation" course that anyone getting married in the Catholic Church must take. We're supposed to learn more about our compatibility, about how to deal with differences in the marriage, etc. We also get "natural family planning" instruction from couples with 9 kids...oh well.

But one thing I noted about my course was the fact that, out of 15 couples, 6 were inter-racial - of all combos. A black man with a white woman. A black woman with a white man. Etc.

The priest in charge of the course noted how many interracial couples there were and praised that fact, noting how much progress our society has made in racial tolerance, how well it spoke of Catholics as a diverse group of people capable of seeing past prejudice, etc.

Now, perhaps the Church should be expected to praise these things, as any sane person would...but it was of some comfort to know that so many individual Catholics are actually practicing racial tolerance of this kind. There's no greater tolerance than falling in love with, raising a family, and spending the rest of your life with someone of a different race. It speaks well of the faith.

Whether one day we'll see a nice representation of gay couples at a pre-cana course is another matter entirely, I suppose. The hierarchy of the Church remains decidedly opposed to gay rights. But on the whole, I don't think individual Catholics are more or less in support of gay rights than the general American population. There is what the Pope might tell us, and there is what our hearts tell us. And like so many DU Catholics, many of us just dismiss what the Pope says that conflicts with our hearts. The thing is, from these ranks, eventually, the next generation of priests will come, and maybe even a pope someday.

If you want to change the Catholic Church, it's best not to alienate its believers with broad-brushed strokes about what the Church's (or the Pope's) singular legacy is. We're too multifaceted and complex for such a simplified dittohead analysis. If you push Catholic believers away, they fall into the arms of the Right - and this institution, which won't be going away for hundreds, if not thousands of years, if not ever, will become more aligned with the Right. It's important to find common ground - at heart, most Catholics are progressives or should be. I wish progressives would spend as much time finding good things about the Church to publicly praise - like the Sister Prejeans or the Catholic Workers or the nuns who have been fighting for Headstart, etc. - as they do finding things to villify.

Catholics - and all non-fundamentalist Christians, for that matter - could be powerful allies to the Left again - as they were in the first half of the 20th Century.

that is afforded to Jews and Muslims.

don't allow attacks on moslems, but we CAN attack, say Khomeini or Mullah Omar. We don't allow attacks on Jews, but we CAN criticize Sharon or Kahane.

I think Catholics DO get the respect we insist on for other religions. I think egregious exceptions are dealt with as quickly as possible.

But criticizing the Pope's political positions are valid. I understand totally why Catholics are offended when this occurs, but I don't think it's out of bounds.

A FEW people here go way overboard in their criticism of the church, and I understand why those examples jump out at you.

But please keep in mind that from OUR perspective, the allegations of bigotry jump out at us just as much.

of course I understand that all religion is based on mythology and wishful thinking. Their significant usage of idols and icons is a major reason I find them rating so high. I'm rarely offended by images, having seen quite a few cases of just-killed people, a fair amount of blood and gore in real time, etc., but that of a guy hanging on a pike with a spear in his side, dripping blood, is pretty fucking disgusting.

That it is used to promote a religion is WAY past disgusting. I can't think of a word to describe the depravity of it.

are pretty lame, IMHO. Not to mention dusty old bone relics, many of which I had to kiss as a child who went through 12 years of Catholic school. But I have to hand to the early Christians that by adorning themselves with crucifixes they co-opted an instrument of state-sponsored terror and transformed it into a symbol of unity and negated its effectiveness as a method of torture.

Yes, this is a common joke about the crucifix. George Carlin started it, I think - saying he preferred Buddha, because he was fat and laughing, and Jesus was hanging nailed to a cross.

The crucifix is designed to remind us of Christ's - and thereby ALL of mankind's - suffering.

The idea is that, wherever there is hunger, Christ is being crucified; wherever there is war, there's a crucifixion; wherever there is intolerance, etc.

And this idea works as a great motivator for social change - if Christ is being crucified today in the poor just as he was crucified 2,000 years ago on a hill, it's time to fight for the poor, against injustice. God is in solidarity with the poor, the hopeless, the oppressed - and we should be, too.

That's the idea. I agree it's a gruesome icon. But so is the actual injustice in the world that it seeks to remind us of.

Saying that it's "disgusting" is EXACTLY the point, I guess. This stands in marked contrast to the Buddha - which is another take on the idea that we can all have access to the universal (and similar to Christianity in that sense) - but leaves us with an entirely different feeling. And so it becomes a matter of personal tastes, perhaps -- do you want your spirituality to give you a sense of peace, or do you want it to shake you up? (Not to say that Buddhism doesn't inspire activism, it just does it in a different way, I think, from Christianity. But I don't know enough to comment beyond the iconography of the two religions.)

Buddhism is not without its memento mori. In fact, the acknowledgement of suffering and death is central to Buddhism. The jolly, laughing Ho-Tai is but one, albeit popular, manifestation of the Buddha.

That "suffering exists" is the first Noble Truth of the Buddha. It is not ignored nor minimized by Buddhism. The difference is that Buddhism doesn't "celebrate" such suffering, unlike a lot of Christianity.

Point taken. I understand that Buddhism acknowledges suffering and has much to say about it. I was only speaking of the major dueling icons of the two religions.

The crucifix is also only one icon of Christianity. Others, such as Madonna with Child, e.g., provide an entirely different feel from the crucifix.

All of this discussion is a lesson in avoiding generalizations, I suppose.

moreover, with this post, I'm fast closing in on my 500th two cents. It seems like yesterday...

Thanks Karl for reminding us why this thread was necessary.

as posts equating fellow human beings with garbage and lustily cheering on their state-sponsored murder. :nopity:

Let's see, terrorists are human garbage. Is that what you are alluding to? Since it's true, I don't mind the allusion.

They just can't help themselves.

It's just the southern baptist televangelists that give most of the rest of the faith a bad name.

No doubt though some churches are profoundly conservative. I am sure we can all name a few examples.

I have worked with devout catholics on environmental issues, death penalty issues, anti-war issues, and economic / social justice issues. I have even worked with some Catholics on AIDS issues. They are good folks and quite progressive on many fronts.

I have always felt the "belief" in jesus is shown by action not by words. You believe in what he stood for if you do what is right.

Note that it says "all evil DOERS"

Note that it says Hell is "reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted." That's right, eternal torture in flames for not being a Catholic. Pretty disgusting doctrine, wouldn't you agree?

Luckily, though, there is no such thing as "god" and no such palace as "hell."

and the church has not solved any problems they "say" they are working for.

I agree with you.

Well done.