Catholic "criminals"

[BainsBane]

Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

This thread is reposted from another forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240223098

And relates to the following threads: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022377766
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=222714

Catholic "criminals"

Oscar Romero (the Salvadoran death squads thought he was a criminal too. That's what comes from speaking out for the poor).

The military killed Romero along with Maura Clark, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/enemiesofwar/perspectives5.html

The Salvadoran govt also considered the 800-1000 Catholic Indians they killed at El Mozote to be "criminals": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mozote_massacre

What a relief we don't have to endure the presence of such "criminals" on this planet any more.

Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns, archbishop of São Paulo, who along with Protestant missionary Jaime Wright, funded the clandestine project to document military torture in Brazil, published in Brasil: nunca mais .
http://www.usip.org/publications/commission-inquiry-brazil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasil:_Nunca_Mais

Gustavo Gutiérrez, founder of Liberation Theology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Guti%C3%A9rrez

Leonardo Boff, another "criminal" advocating the rights of the poor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Boff

Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, activist and author of "Mujerista Theology" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/us/a-campaign-pitch-rekindles-questions-about-liberation-theology.html?_r=0

Sister Simone Campbell and the rest of the "Nuns on the Bus."
http://nunsonthebus.com/

Michael Lee http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/social-justice/2010/01/do-you-hear-cry-poor-liberation-theology-today

Ted Kennedy
JKF
Robert Kennedy
Caroline Kennedy and the rest of the Kennedy family
Joe Biden
Dennis Kucinich
Andrew Sullivan
Jerry Brown
Andrew Cuomo
Jennifer Granholm
Nancy Pelosi
Julian Castro
Joaquin
Sonia Sotomayor
John Kerry
Robert DeNiro
Martin Scorcese
And countess nuns who do more for social justice than any of the anti-Catholic bigots on this site ever will.

[HockeyMom]

1. How many more non public figures?

Add me to that.

[hrmjustin]

2. Yeah I was disappointed about the Catholic criminals comment.

[BainsBane]

5. wrong place

[hrmjustin]

10. Anglicans/Episcopalians are catholic. We are just not Roman Catholic.

We have the Threefold ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Anglicans?Episcopalians consider themselves a bridge between Roman Catholics and protestants. We are members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Anglicanism is based on scripture, tradition , and human reason.

[BainsBane]

12. really?

I had no idea you considered yourselves Catholic.

[hrmjustin]

16. The RCC does not accept our ordinations because we do not say the prayer of sacrifice at our

ordinations. The RCC uses a prayer that is only a few centuries old that gives the priest the right to sacrifice at the mass. RCC consider the Mass a sacrifice as do we, but we do not use the prayer. We also ordain women in several nations in the denomination.

[BainsBane]

17. there are many things I admire about the Episcopal church

and marrying and ordaining gays is among them. Of course the Roman Catholic church ordains gay men too. They just pretend they don't.

[hrmjustin]

18. We do have conservative members, but every diocese has to have at least one parish that

will preform same-sex weddings.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

127. Bullshit

[hrmjustin]

132. How do you want me to respond to that?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

135. With the truth, if at all. The truth is always good.

[hrmjustin]

136. I did tell the truth!

If you disagree than say where you disagree, instead you cursed at me. If you want to debate me treat me with more respect.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

137. "Anglicans/Episcopalians are catholic." Saying something that is obviously not true is disrespectful

[hrmjustin]

138. Not every catholic is roman catholic. Even the RC church will tell you that.

We anglicans are members of the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We are rules by bishops and have apostolic succession. We believe in the true presence. We broke from Rome and kept the faith. If you don't agree that is fine, but you should at least treat me with respect when debating.

[hrmjustin]

140. Can I ask why are you so upset by my statements?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

141. Saying something that is so obviously not true is insulting the intelligence of the readers.

[hrmjustin]

142. Why don't you spell out for me why you think I am wrong.

[hrmjustin]

143. I would like to know why you disagree.

[Beartracks]

152. Maybe Mcintosh doesn't know the meaning of the word "catholic."

You are correct in that Roman Catholics are not the only catholics around.

I doubt Mcintosh even knows why he disagrees.

=================

[hrmjustin]

159. I was just shocked by the reaction.

If AnotherMcintosh disagrees with my opinion that is super with me. State your case and we can discuss and have fun doing it. But the manner in which this poster started and continued took me aback. It was like how dare i say such a thing. I would love to hear anothermcintosh's opinion in detail and hold no ill will.

[cbayer]

161. It's the kind of bullying that goes on in this group and I give you kudos for

challenging it in the way that you did.

[hrmjustin]

162. I would still love to know why he was so angry at what I said.

[cbayer]

163. I can't tell either, but I wouldn't anticipate a response at this point.

[hrmjustin]

164. Am I ever going to get an answer to why you think I am wrong, or should I not bother anymore?

[Angry Dragon]

3. What are you trying to say at the bottom of your post??

[BainsBane]

14. Just what I said

That many Catholic nuns devote their lives to serving the poor and do more for this world than people who hate others based on religious affiliation.

[Angry Dragon]

19. I can agree with that however,

Anyone that hates because of religion is not going to be very giving anyway
However, there are a lot of people that do not practive a religion that help the poor.

[BainsBane]

20. absolutely

People vary within any group. For some reason, people posting in the linked threads have trouble with that concept.

[Zoeisright]

64. Catholics aren't "hated" because of religious affiliation.

Their policies are despised because they cause untold suffering and pain around the world. Telling people to forgo contraception increases poverty. Telling people they must tithe when they can't put food on the table causes hunger and disease. And telling people they are condemned to hell because of who they are causes suicide.

Shame on you. Your projection is screamingly obvious.

[Phillip McCleod]

104. my thoughts exactly.

this entire post and the insinuations that follow.. nevermind the whitewashing of the rcc's stance on gay/women's rights.. is utterly insulting. it's disgusting.

if i weren't such a noob here i'd alert. the bigotry of the catholic church cannot be defended. it cannot. it cannot be excused.

all the good some members of the rcc may do.. the powerless nuns that get all the attention for example.. is completely and utterly undone by the doctrine and dogma that holds that most of us are hell-bound. if that's the attititude.. and that is the attitude all whitewashing aside.. then why on earth would the rest of us 'respect' the institution? or it's apologists?

[cbayer]

119. Alert? Alert for what? What possible rule do you think has been broken here.

[skepticscott]

129. You're right

There is no site rule against religious apologetics, no matter how devoid of reason or decency.

[Phillip McCleod]

102. and then there are the abusive old bats

who domineer over the nuns making sure all the good they do is credited to the right place.

like mother teresa for example. abusive. mean. small hearted soulless..

..golden goose.

[Smilo]

4. What is the point of your post

there are good and bad in all religions.

The trouble is when a religion decides to sweep the actions of those that are bad under the carpet - when fresh air and action against the perpetrators would do wonders for the victims and for the church.

[BainsBane]

6. My point is that bigotry is unacceptable

and as you say, some are good and some are bad. Some on DU, as the above links demonstrate, have trouble grasping that basic point.

Religion didn't sweep child abuse under the carpet. Bishops and archbishops did. The policy of tolerance of child abuse in the Church was and is absolutely evil. There is nothing that can justify it. That, however, does not mean all Catholics are criminals. That is all. It is a very simple point but sadly difficult for some to understand.

[Smilo]

21. Oh please you are being

just as bigoted with your posting. "And countess nuns who do more for social justice than any of the anti-Catholic bigots on site ever will." You are grouping everyone according to your way of looking at things. We all do that - but we don't all call each other bigots because we just disagree with their view.

As for saying religion didn't sweep - yes it did because those Archbishops et al are representatives of that religion. You can not separate the religion from those that practice it - that is just human nature.

If people want others to view their religion in a better light - then they need to start speaking up and calling out their respective church for the antiquated and down right wrong views the church holds. It is 2013 and too many religions/churches with stuck in 1113 views and ideologies.

Instead of attacking others on their views - you may want to "kill them with kindness" and show them what a church/religious order can do.

Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds.

That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than other groups.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/religious-compassion-atheists-agnostics_n_1468006.html

[BainsBane]

24. substitute Muslims or Jews

and tell me if you think that's okay. I have seen several Islamophobic posts on DU that are similar to your views on Catholics, and I have denounced those as well. Generally in such threads, however, I stand alone since few people on this site can be bothered to learn about Islam and Muslims.

I must say I find your sudden fit of rage odd. Your initial post said some people are good and some bad. My point is nothing more than that. Suddenly you fill yourself with anger over confirmation that was OP to say just that. Now you reverse course and claim it impossible and "human nature" to be unable to distinguish an organization from people, or the Church hierarchy from practitioners of Catholicism. If you truly believe that, that would mean you hate Latinos, Irish, and Italians because you can't distinguish a religion from people who practice it.

You assume human nature is at it's core hateful and uneducated. I do not. I do not assume the majority of people are so ignorant they cannot distinguish the Church hierarchy from their own neighbors, or the people they hire to mow their lawns. I know many--in fact most--people are far better than that.

As for a religion vs. a group of bishops and archbishops, I direct you to a dictionary of the English language. Any will do.

You have obviously managed to avoid learning anything about this subject. Not only that, you haven't bothered to read the links I provided. You say that Catholics need to "start speaking up." Are you serious? Where have you been for the past century? Actually, there have been heated disputes over church doctrine for centuries, though I don't expect you to have the knowledge of history to know that. I would think, however, you might have some awareness from news accounts of who waged the charges of sexual abuse and carried out lawsuits against the archdioceses. What, I wonder, is it that you think nuns groups like Association of American Nuns or the Nuns on the Bus, listed above, do? Who do you think devised Liberation Theology? Who insisted on Vatican Two? You sound like the people who says Muslims need to speak out against radicals. Just because someone didn't put information in front of your uninitiated face doesn't mean it didn't happen. The American Church has a number of groups of priests, nuns, and lay people dedicated to trying to reform the Church. You have a responsibility to inform yourself on at least a minimal level before waging such allegations.

I'm supposed to respect hateful bigots, why? I don't see ignorance and hatred as admirable or even acceptable qualities. So no, it's not the same. I am assuming that people who devote their time to talking about how much they hate 1/3 of the world's population--most of them brown skinned--have not done as much for this world as the women who take vows of poverty and devote their lives to caring for the poor. I know that I myself will never contribute to society a fraction of what many nuns do.

Kill with kindness? Perhaps you should practice what you preach? I'm not a religious person, so my practice bears no relation on what others may or may not view about Catholics. All I can do is offer bit of historical perspective and point out hypocrisy. I despise bigotry, and while the Constitution forbids discrimination based on race, religion, or creed, the KKK (who likewise despises Catholics) and other groups of bigots do not constitute a protected class.

[Smilo]

34. I was going to reply to how you have twisted things so out of proportion

but I have better things to do.

Have a good night and a good life.

[defacto7]

58. hear, hear!

You have a very well proportioned and untwisted position and it is well appreciated. Theists who tout some measure of benevolence that is attributed only to them need an equal measure of setting the balance strait. I'm sure the poster is feeling the weight of criticism that is being justly delivered to his church and feels the need to defend it, but I would rather look at benevolence as a humanist trait which includes anyone who wishes to be a giver including Catholics. The anger centered against the Catholic hierarchy is a wholly different issue and if it deserves a large dosage of disgrace, so be it. But that has nothing to do with goodwill; that is a universal human characteristic that has no borders.

[BainsBane]

82. thank you

I agree that the church hierarchy deserves all the criticism is has received and more.

I must say it bothers me that some forms of bigotry are tolerated here on DU. The religion is a choice argument strikes me as eerily similar to the arguments right wingers use against LGBT. Whether religion is a choice or not, people deserve to be judged on their own actions, not because others decide a priori that all Catholics are criminals.

[idwiyo]

88. I respectfully disagree. Religion IS a choice and it is a choice which church one affiliates

themselves with.

The OP that started this all said that every time one gives to RCC one also gives to institutionalised (my words) international pedophilia ring and as long as one keeps insisting that there is nothing wrong with RCC as an institution itself one is complicit in its crimes.

Those are very harsh words but they are essentially true. There IS something fundamentally wrong with RCC or how else did it manage to find itself in the situation it is right now. And I am sorry to say, but thousand good deeds or nice people can not and will not undo one single rape perpetuated by RCC.

Do I hate you or anyone else because you are Catholic? Nope, I don't and stop taking it personally.
This is not about YOU as person.

I hate your church for all the countless harm its done. I hate your church's entitlement mentality that it has a fucking right to dictate its policy to me. I hate some of your fellow Catholics and most of your clergy for preaching homophobia, sexism, racism and bigotry every single day. I can not understand how can ANYONE go to the mass and listen to the very people who are engaged in pedophilia, rape and cover up. I just can't.

PS all of the above applies to all other religious orgs, not just RCC.

[BainsBane]

89. it would be nice if you bothered to read some of my posts

before passing judgment. You obviously haven't bothered to learn who I am or what my argument here is. I have repeated several times in this and other posts that I am not a practicing Catholic.

You view religion as a choice if you have no understanding of history and the role religion has played in the maintenance of culture, if you assume the contemporary capitalist culture that severs people from place, family, and ancestry is somehow immutable and natural. So if you assume that connection to the past and one's family is meaningless, then sure, it's a choice. But if for people who seek to maintain culture, religion is part of that, as any Jew will tell you.

I don't know who these people are who you think there is nothing wrong with the Roman Catholic Church. One can scarcely find a Catholic in this country who would claim such a thing. If you locate one, let me know. Virtually no one outside of the church hierarchy defends pedophilia, and American Catholics are doing what they can to try to effect change in the church. In fact, the church's harshest criticism comes from Catholics themselves. The difference is they don't seize on that as a justification to pretend they are inferior to others. I am continually amazed how content people are to know next to nothing about those they condemn.

Another thing Americans despise about the Catholic church is the commitment to social justice that rejects the morality of capitalism and the divisions between rich and poor. The Council of Bishops demands for universal health care since the 1970s, for example, or their denunciation of the Ryan Budget and other draconian economic policies is a particular anathema to America culture. That and racism are the origins of anti-Catholic bigotry in this country, dating back early into the nineteenth century and long before anyone was aware of pedophilia scandals.

A good way to ensure more Republican votes is to insist Catholics convert to Protestantism. That's one handy way to get rid of one of the country's most sizable Democratic voting blocks.

[idwiyo]

90. First of all, I am not American and I don't live in US, I live in UK.

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Second. I very carefully stated that I have nothing against you as a person even if you identify as Catholic. That's your choice and as long as you keep it to yourself, it's no ones business.

Now, back to what I was actually saying.

When one goes to church and gives money (not you, I am talking about generic you) one also gives an approval to what is going on. Some of those money WILL be used to cover up countless scandals that your (generic your) clergy (and without a doubt some parishioners) were/are involved in. I can hardly believe that there are that many priests who had not a slightest idea of what was going on yet they ALL kept silent. How many of them when to police? If you know of any, please do let me know because they deserve recognition for whistle blowing and I will always make sure I mention them when taking about this topic again.

Now, about your claim that "bigotry" against Catholics reminds you about RW homophobic bigotry.
Sorry, not even close. I don't need to tell you the difference between your choice of religion and being gay. Please, just don't. It's sick to equate the two. You are better than that.

Last thing I want to remind you is abortion and contraception. Sorry, there is no such thing as Universal HealthCare without those two. Left to RCC the would be none.

I don't care about all their commitment to "social justice" because it all just cute little words and nothing else. Just look at the obscene wealth RCC accumulated in every country of the world. How much of it is shared? NONE.
All the charity work, all those soup kitchens run on donations, aka money that are given by someone else.

[BainsBane]

116. a few points

There is no question that the Church's position on homosexuality, abortion, and birth control is odious. You'll get no argument from me there.

Social Justice is not just cute words. It's core to the faith and a key function of what the church does. I'm not sure how you have determined that none of the money collected by the church goes to the poor. In the OP here I listed a number of Catholics whose lives were devoted to serving the poor. There are entire orders of nuns, like the Maryknolls, who do just that.


Now, I don't have much experience as a practicing Catholic, but there was a period of about 9 months where I went to mass regularly (1990s). At that time, there were separate collections for the church and outreach programs for the poor. It seems to me you know very little about all the nuns and priests who stood with Indians against the Reagan administrations war on Central America. These are people who spent decades bringing healthcare, literacy instruction, and food to impoverished Indian villages, and some were killed by right-wing military governments as a result. Some of their names are listed above.

All of the Church's money comes from donations, including the money for the Popemobile. So to say that the money for groups like Catholic Charities comes from others is indeed true. It comes largely from Catholics. The Vatican itself has built up a cache of wealth over the centuries (tithing from 17th-19th century silver production in Peru, for example), but my limited understanding on the subject is none of that goes to support Catholic parishes throughout the world. Mendicant orders, like the Franciscans and Dominicans, fund their own monasteries, but their money does not come from Rome.

Central to this discussion is what exactly is the Church. Many here assume the Church is the Pope, the Council of Bishops, and the rest of the hierarchy. I would submit the church is also Catholicism as practiced at the local level, through good works--a key tenant of the faith--like soup kitchens and mental health counseling, and feeding the poor. It's the clergy, monks, and nuns as well as all of their parishioners--gay and straight alike.

Everything I've learned about everyday religiosity in Latin America, the way in which indigenous and African practices have become woven into the daily practice of Catholicism there--gives me a much different understanding of the practice of religion generally that many here acknowledge. Those traditions go on in spite of attempts to impose orthodoxy, until the Vatican finally resigned itself to the fact it could not control everyday religious practices.

[ButterflyBlood]

91. The Catholic vote isn't a Democratic voting block, or even a voting block at all

Obama won Catholics 50-48, slightly below his national numbers. However there is no Catholic voting block. Catholics are so diverse politically it's kind of meaningless to try to measure they vote. Fun fact: If you Google "There is no Catholic vote", the first two hits are from the Weekly Standard the American Prospect, who certainly don't sit on the same side of the political spectrum. This is pretty well agreed upon. The Prospect article: http://prospect.org/article/there-no-catholic-vote#13612109203631&action=collapse_widget&id=8862030

And I know religion is a choice and one can quit Catholicism because as stated many times, I did it myself. Your argument above is also difficulty to apply to someone like me who has both Catholic and Protestant family and ancestry. And that's not something odd or unusual, it's very common here in the Midwest. About half of Jews marry someone non-Jewish today, what about their kids? If converting is shafting culture and your family, then a substantial chunk of the population has to do that for SOME section of their background. Or maybe people can just be themselves and their own person.

And the idea that conversion is something you only find in some sort of Western capitalist culture is kind of comical, look at how common conversion is in places like India and Brazil. Hell a couple years ago I was reading about how of all things ISLAM was becoming popular in parts of Mexico and gaining lots of converts. In India in fact, conversion is so common that it outraged the right-wing nationalist (some might say fascist) Bharatiya Janata Party and they have actually proposed and supported BANNING religious conversion and throwing freedom of religion out the window. And that's the logical conclusion of holding that religion is not a choice.

Finally, people have been converting for a long, long time. If they didn't, we wouldn't be seeing any new religious movements until recently. I don't think it was contemporary capitalist culture that encouraged Martin Luther to nail his theses to a church door.

[BainsBane]

131. the conversion you describe

is a function of modernization. Are you really trying to argue that India, Brazil and Mexico aren't capitalist? Brazil is the seventh largest economy in the word and India is not far behind.

Did you ever learn about the political alliances of the new Democratic party that brought FDR to office? You did if you ever took a college-level US history survey course. Catholics were part of that coalition. Of course they were part of the old 19th century Democratic party too, largely because of pervasive nativism on the part of the Know-Nothings and eventual Republican Party. Some things just don't change.

The overwhelming number of Latinos are also Catholic, and 71% voted for Obama. Exit polling for the Catholic Obama vote ranges between 50-53% and around 37% of Protestants. Meanwhile, he received 45% of the male vote and 35% of the white male vote. This is what the electoral map would have looked like if only white men had voted.




Don't you just hate it when they let those superstitious brown people vote? If only the franchise were limited to the superior people, you could have a President Romney now.

[ButterflyBlood]

147. Then I'd call this modernization an unquestionably good thing

After all the premise that everyone has the right to choose their religion or lack thereof strikes me as far more progressive than the idea that everyone is locked into whatever tradition they're born in for life. For the record the growth of Islam in Mexico is actually amongst the indingenous people in the Chiapas, the most remote and least modern part of the country: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/praying-to-allah-in-mexico-islam-is-gaining-a-foothold-in-chiapas-a-358223.html

In India too, a lot of the areas with the largest conversions to Christianity initially were also the most poor and unmodernized, though with a pretty obvious reason: These were the areas with the largest populations of dalits, "untouchables" under the Hindu caste system. It's not surprising that they'd be seeking a way out of this, or that this has outraged the right wing nationalist party, and most of the Christian population votes for left of center Indian National Congress.

So yeah I'm not seeing the trouble in conversion-friendly culture despite the bemoaning of it above. It's hard to see it as anything other than a sign of progress in society.

In 1932 (80 years ago btw is not the best election I'd choose for relevance to contemporary politics), this is the election that brought FDR to office:



So yeah he obviously won Catholics...with a hell of a whole lot of other people. And since then the Catholic vote has voted for the popular vote winner in probably every election since (if you can find evidence to the contrary in any post-1932 election please go ahead, the only one I see where this is even possible is 1968.) So there is no "Catholic vote". The many individual groups of Catholics just swing with the rest of the country. The aggregate numbers really mean nothing besides a microcosm of how the country voted.

I'm happy that Hispanics voted for Obama in the numbers they did, but this is a different group, not all Hispanics are Catholic, and not all Catholics are Hispanic. My best Hispanic friend is the daughter of a Puerto Rican Protestant pastor. My mom's best friend is a Hispanic and like my mother, a de facto Lutheran convert. There's plenty of Hispanics who attend my church as well. Far more in fact than in the Catholic that I grew up in. Religion has next to nothing to do with modern xenophobia. The main sponsor and advocate in my state's legislature for a xenophobic law ala Arizona's was a Catholic.

What's the point about the white male vote? Yes it's the most Republican demographic. Everyone knows this, and this has nothing to do with the political alignment of Catholics. Some white males are Catholic, some aren't. Of course the Catholic church is completely run by white men, both in the US and in Rome, but that too has next to no relevance to voting patterns.

And please point me to where someone proposed limiting voting to only white males anywhere in this thread.

[ButterflyBlood]

153. You are making some large leaps there

I've explained my issues with Catholicism, and that I see converting away as the only acceptable option (after all if I didn't, it's not what I would've done.) This was largely due to it being a patriarchal organization ran exclusively by white males. This does not mean:

1-I hate Catholics, or consider all Catholics criminals, (I even stated the thread that spawned this one's OP was too broad brushing). Even if I did, this does not mean:
2-That I want to restrict voting rights from Catholics. This would make little sense considering that I once voted for a Catholic for President (my first Presidential vote in fact), and voted for a Catholic for Vice-President twice. Even if I did, this does not mean:
3-That I want to limit voting rights to only white males. This would make sense only if all non-white males were Catholic, and no white males were Catholic, which considering the RCC is a white male-ran institution, is fairly absurd. This also does not make sense considering I voted for a non-white for President twice (even more counting the primaries), and my top choice for 2016 is the woman he defeated for the nomination in 2016.

It would also make little sense that I would reject a white male-ran organization for a church with an Asian female as co-lead pastor.

[Zoeisright]

65. Right back atcha.

YOUR bigotry is unacceptable.

[Warpy]

7. Uh, Catholics are just fine

and more likely than Protestants to be liberal.

It's the church hierarchy that is rotten.

[cbayer]

9. It's a shame this has to be said.

I can understand the rage of some towards an institution that perpetuated and covered up absolutely heinous crimes, but I can't understand the generalization of that to all those who are affiliated with said institution in any way.

The first thread was bigotry, pure and simple. There seems to be some actual dialogue appearing in the second thread, which is a good thing, imo.

[BainsBane]

11. I was responding to this question from Sid's when the thread was locked

19. How are Catholics that ignore the Pope and the bishops still Catholics?...
Without the Pope and Bishops, aren't they Anglicans?

Rex is incorrect in saying that is the difference between Roman Catholics and Catholics. Anglicans are not Catholic. They are a branch of Protestantism. There is a Roman Catholic Church and an Eastern Orthodox church, both of which are Catholic. The typical use of the word Catholic in this country refers to Roman Catholics.

My response to Sid: Any actual practicing Catholics should feel free to correct me. My knowledge of the Church is limited, coming from a study of history, family members, and Catholic school. I am not a practicing Catholic.

Nothing the Bishops say is binding, and very little the pope says is binding. The core belief of Catholicism has to do with belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a belief in the Holy Ghost, and that God can forgive our sins (The Apostle's Creed). The doctrine of social justice is far more meaningful to many Catholics than anything about abortion (which the Church never talked about before the 1980s). If you look at polls, the vast majority of Catholics are pro-choice and consider birth control a right. Only a small percentage look to the Church for moral guidance.

Being a Catholic is fundamentally about tradition, family, and ritual. One is only Anglican if he or she attends an Anglican Church. From the origins of Christianity itself, the daily practice of religion has varied greatly from Church doctrine. The purpose of the Inquisition was to try to impose religious and cultural orthodoxy. Of course it failed miserably. If you have ever traveled in Latin America, you would see how different Catholicism is practiced in, for example, Mexico. Guatemala, and Peru, as compared to Rome. In Brazil, African deities are integrated into the Catholic calendar. A festival commemorating the Yoruba goddess of the sea is incorporated into a church ritual called a lavagem, or washing of the steps of the church. The church hierarchy gave up on trying to control such everyday forms of religiosity. They just couldn't do it.

[uriel1972]

101. Sorry check your history

The Church of England was born of Catholicism not protestantism. It broke away from the RCC after a disagreement between Henry the VIII and Rome over a number of issues including the annulment of his marriage at the time.

The split was over who controlled the Church in England at the time The Monarch or The Pope. It was not a doctrinal struggle but a political split.

[BainsBane]

109. I know why the Church of England broke off

What I didn't realize is they considered themselves Catholic.

[uriel1972]

158. Every now and then there is a move

from one side or the other for reconciliation, but it gets bogged down in both the political and doctrinal changes since the split.

[snagglepuss]

13. Strawman. The outrage is directed at the Church hierarchy.

I suggest you infom yourself how people like Romero and others like were were abandoned by the Church hierarchy.


snip

During Romero’s brief tenure as archbishop of El Salvador, he was met with opposition from within his own church. Four of his six bishops strongly disagreed with his support of non-violent leftist movements and twice Pope John Paul II privately chastised the archbishop. His unwillingness to conform and passively watch the social injustices of his country made Romero unpopular with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and hated by many wealthy El Salvadorans.


http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Oscar%20Romero.htm

[BainsBane]

15. Read the link

It is not a straw man. Read before you pontificate.

Yes, your point about Romero is absolutely true. It doesn't change the fact that not all Catholics are criminals. Rome dislikes liberation theology. That doesn't change the fact that nuns and priests working for poor and indigenous peoples have contributed a great deal.

I have no problem with attacks on the Church hierarchy. That is not the problem, and it is not what I'm responding to.

[Zoeisright]

66. Read before you pontificate.

Too bad you don't take your own advice.

[BainsBane]

70. What do you suggest I read?

[dimbear]

22. John J. Collins, Yale Professor of Old Testament on the Vatican and the Church:

"It's part of my identity, but at the same time, at the moment, I'm pretty alienated from the current Catholic leadership because they're very narrow-minded, and they are not good moral guides, and they have not been for the last 40 years or so."

.....heard on Fresh Air

[BainsBane]

26. I think a lot of Catholics feel that way

Certainly my mother does.

[Lost-in-FL]

23. Are all those people 'compassionate' people because they are Catholic...

or because of their degree of empathy towards others? Being religious and having a deep sense of empathy doesn't always go hand in hand.

[BainsBane]

25. obviously not

My point is that all people are not the same. All members of a religion are not "criminal," nor are they all compassionate.

[Lost-in-FL]

27. So then...

those who actively support the catholic church through donations, guidance, etc., not in part guilty of the sins of the church?

[BainsBane]

28. I suppose in the same way

You are complicit in murder by paying taxes and living in the US.

If you're trying to find ways to justify your hatred of 1/3 of the world's population--most of them browned skinned--you'll not get that from me.

Catholics are not required to donate to the Church, and if they do choose to give, there are separate donations for the church's administrative activities and works to help the poor. If you read the newspapers anytime in the past ten years, you would know donations for the former and down considerably.

[Lost-in-FL]

31. Exactement mon frère!!

It is easier to call others 'bigots'.

[skepticscott]

32. The law requires the payment of taxes, on penalty of fine or imprisonment

Membership in the Catholic church and financial support of same is totally, 100% voluntary. A more honest analogy would be to people voluntary belonging to, and giving money to some other organization that is sexist, homophobic, and tries with all their might to deny people their full rights and dignity as human beings.

[BainsBane]

33. People are born into religions

While a few people pick up and discard religion like a pair of old socks, most are born into the faith their family has practiced for generations. Anti-catholic sentiment in the US is a manifestation of racism and has been since its origins in the 19th century.

You could move to a country that profits less from human misery, but you choose not to. You do not need to live in the country that uses more resources per ca pita on earth. You could easily move to Somalia or Haiti. But you choose to benefit from American exploitation of developing economies and the wars that maintain US global hegemony. Truthfully, we all bear some responsibility in the actions of our nation. No one is free from complicity, but you refuse to turn your scorn on yourself that you so readily impose on others. You indict whole swaths of people, while you yourself are responsible for nothing.

You obviously have managed to avoid knowing any Catholics or learning anything about their practice, quite a feat considering they are a third of the world's population. I would think you'd at least care enough to read some of the links in the OP.

So how far does this complicity go? You already know many Catholics don't donate to the Church administration, so evidently financial contribution for the Church hierarchy isn't the source of guilt for you. Am I a criminal for leaving flowers at my Grandmother's grave at the Catholic cemetery. When I donate to the local church's free store people they provide truly free food and clothing to the poor, does that make me a homophobe? And the Maryknolll nuns who sacrificed their lives working for social justice in Central America were inferior to you because. . . why? Oh, they were part of a organization that you think you know everything about--despite never knowing a single Catholic. Well it's a good thing Ronald Reagan armed the Central American military to murder tens of thousands of Catholics in Central America, since they were nothing more than wretched, homophobic criminals. Latin America is full of mass graves of dead Catholics, killed with your tax dollars.

Some people need to identify a hated other to get by. They can't tolerate the fact that people on the planet look and pray differently from them. None of the Catholics I know personally do that. My Catholic grandmother, born in the 19th century, wouldn't have dreamed of being as dismissive as you are about other religions or non-believers. And my eighth grade teacher, Sister Jackie Slater, worked tirelessly for gay rights in the 1970s and 80s, while people around here still used homophobic slurs as a matter of course. But you already know everything you want to. Why bother learning anything about the millions of practicing gay Catholics that you consider so inferior to yourself.

[skepticscott]

37. Boy, you do make a lot of shit up, don't you?

But before I deal with the rest of it, let's get you on record. Do you acknowledge or deny that the Catholic Church is sexist, homophobic, and tries with all their might to deny people their full rights and dignity as human beings?

I'm guessing you'll babble on for paragraphs more to avoid a simple, direct answer. That's what rabid apologists do.

[BainsBane]

39. If you can dispute any specific points

Please do so. If you can't be bothered to read, there is no point in having a discussion. Resisting exposure to ideas seems to be enormously important to you, which means we can have nothing to talk about.

[skepticscott]

59. As expected, nothing but evasion..typical lame apologetics

As far as disputing points, let's start with the most ridiculous:

Oh, they were part of a organization that you think you know everything about--despite never knowing a single Catholic.

How any rational person could even imagine that this was the case is incomprehensible. Aside from the fact that I've never claimed to "know everything" about the Catholic Church, of course I know people who are Catholic...who doesn't? I'm related to quite a few, in fact. A mind that could even make a claim like this, as if it were undisputed fact, knowing that it almost certainly isn't true, is a very scary one.

Now, back to my question:

Do you acknowledge or deny that the Catholic Church is sexist, homophobic, and tries with all their might to deny people their full rights and dignity as human beings?

It's a very simple question...not that I expect anything but more blather and evasion from you, but I want to make sure that all of the sensible people here recognize the depths of your intellectual dishonesty before I go.

[BainsBane]

71. The hierarchy of the church

Is quite obviously all of those things. Sexist is such a quaint term. They don't ordain women. They are actively misogynistic. Homophobic. They are bigots, sexually pent up, and self-hating, since the majority of clerics are actually gay, even at the highest levels of the Church. If gay men can be homophobic, than yes. This most recent pope was particularly so. He thought the way to end child abuse was the ban gays from the clergy, an absurd concept on multiple levels. If actually practiced, it would also have meant an end to the priesthood.

There are also nuns and priests who devote their lives to fighting for gay rights, working to ameliorate poverty, end the death penalty, care for the ill in war ravaged regions, and many other important acts of social justice. As do members of the laity.

Now, if you take public statements by the popes and bishops as a justification to hate 1/3 of the world's population--most of the browned skinned--that is entirely a function of your own bigotry.

[skepticscott]

72. Still making shit up out of thin air, eh?

Point to where I or anyone here said that they hate all Catholics. Oh, right...you can't...you made that up.

Show us the statistics that prove that 1/3 of the world's population is Catholic. Oh, right...you can't...that's yet another lie.

We're done here...I think everyone sensible sees what you're about.

[BainsBane]

78. What do you think this whole thread is about?

Read the link at the top. Honestly.

[Phillip McCleod]

105. yes. we do. (see i mean)

[ButterflyBlood]

38. I was born into Catholicism and nope, not Catholic

I renounced the church as a teenager and never looked back. Quite frankly I wouldn't care one iota if all of my ancestors were Catholic (as opposed to about a quarter), or if my entire extended family was Catholic (as it is it currently consists of about half of the Catholic side of my family, excluding interestingly my mother who was the one who raised me and my brothers like that to begin with, but now has all but converted to ELCA Lutheran. One of her sisters has too and is raising her kids that way.) I'm my own person. And I'm not going to have any type of affiliation whatsoever with an organization that I never asked to be part of, and have such deep disagreements with politically and theologically. It means nothing to me and I don't follow or practice things just due to accident of birth. Actually following these type of rules and traditions is one of the things Jesus preached against.

[BainsBane]

40. millions of people on this earth feel and act otherwise

Amazingly, everyone on the planet doesn't think or act like you. Nor has everyone in history been a product of a consumer, capitalist culture severed from the past.

[Plantaganet]

42. If the past is what you find valuable...

...could we go way, way back? I mean, to the traditions of the Celts? Please note that they were perfectly alright with same-gender affection before Christianity came along. Would that work for you?

[BainsBane]

44. firstly, I don't go to church

But when I did, what was important to me was my connection to my grandmother, and she was Catholic. This isn't a negotiation. People are who they are. I wrote about that more thoroughly here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=223275

[Plantaganet]

45. Read it.

"...if they remained Catholic through centuries of British occupation that sought to force them to abandon their faith and subsequent discrimination in America--including being targets of the KKK--why would they change now because people like you know only what you see in the media?"

Because many of them are born gay and, well, if the church isn't going to support them, then they aren't going to support the church.

Pretty simple, really.

[BainsBane]

47. You're wrong

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

For centuries the church, both convents and the priesthood, have been a locus for gay men and women. I earlier wrote about my eighth grade teacher was a nun and activist for gay rights. You didn't bother to read that though.

A large proportion of Catholic clergy in this country are gay, and some assert they constitute a majority. http://www.laprogressive.com/catholic-church-gay-priests/ And obviously millions of Catholic parishioners are gay as well.

You should read what Andrew Sullivan has to say about being a gay Catholic.

[Plantaganet]

49. A HAVEN????

You obviously haven't been a gay person at a Catholic school!

It's true that a lot of self-hating gay people have remained Catholic, but thankfully that's changing as they become aware of different options (UU, Epsicopalian.) As it is, there's no way to be Catholic and gay without being compromised. I know you want to think otherwise, but it's a fact.

[BainsBane]

51. again, I'm speaking historically

I'm a historian. I'm talking about centuries of the Catholic church, particularly in Latin America. Imagine if you were a gay man or woman in the 17th century. What would you do? Everyone had to marry, especially women. If you were a Lesbian or gay man who did not want to marry, the convent or a monastery were your only options. Otherwise they married. Women of a certain class had no options in life but marrying or going to a convent. (Poor women had no options). If you were a woman who wanted to be a scholar, like Sister Juana Inez de la Cruz, the convent was the only place that was possible, incredibly difficult but possible. Sor Juana may also have been gay and in a relationship with the wife of the Viceroy of New Spain, but one can't know for sure.

Your assertion that they stayed Catholic because they were not gay is simply factually false. Those are not options people had historically. As you well know, bigotry against gays has been far too intense for many people to come out until recent decades.

"there's no way to be Catholic and gay without being compromised." I don't know what you mean by compromised. I don't know what pure gay vs. compromised gay is. I didn't realize there were hierarchies of gay people. I suggest you read Andrew Sullivan because he is both gay and Catholic. I am not. Since it's something you appear to care so much about, I would think you would bother to read a bit up on it. You might learn something about the difference between everyday religiosity and the church hierarchy. On the other hand if you just want to hate people, then it doesn't really matter.

[Plantaganet]

52. I didn't say they stayed Catholic "because they were not gay,"

I said they stayed Catholic because they were self-hating. As is the case with gay Catholics even today.

[BainsBane]

55. you love to pass judgement on others

It's obviously the nature of your character to believe yourself superior to others, not just Catholics but other gays.

[Plantaganet]

57. I reckon you'll just have to forgive me!

[Maine-ah]

69. you passed judgement on me with your reply in Meta.

"because people like you know only what you see in the media"

[Phillip McCleod]

103. you're a historian?

so's newt.

frankly trying to whitewash the rcc's WELL-KNOWN and ROCK-SOLID stance on gay rights is way beyond insulting.

that is all.

[BainsBane]

110. You obviously haven't read my posts

That is hardly what I'm doing. What I'm saying is there is a large gap between church doctrine and everyday religiosity.

[skepticscott]

60. Not a very good authority to appeal to

A gay male who was enthusiastically both a Catholic AND a Republican, and defended both associations vigorously, is nowhere near right with himself, and no one anyone should look to for wisdom.

Let's just say, he's a much better writer than he is a thinker.

[Plantaganet]

68. There's a lack of consistency, for sure.

When atheists bring up a perfectly valid point made by Hitchens, for instance, the usual retort is something along the lines of "Well, he supported Bush and the Iraq war, so nothing the man ever said has any merit."

As you said, Sullivan is a superb writer, but his critical thinking skills have always been in question. Seems to me he can be dismissed for the same reasons as Hitchens.

[BainsBane]

74. Sullivan wasn't a Republican

He was a Tory. There is a difference. He never defends the Catholic hierarchy. He is among their harshest critics. You don't seem to have paid much attention to him at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. "The majority of Catholic clergy in this country are in fact gay and identify as such"? Ridiculous

You really need to stop, and think, before you post. Catholic clergy do not identify themselves as gay. The Pope has called gay marriage a major threat to civilisation. He calls homosexual acts "intrinsically disordered". However many Catholic priests are gay (and it won't be a majority), they have to hide it, or be defrocked.

[BainsBane]

73. difference between Church doctrine and practice

I don't believe you're correct they would automatically be defrocked, but you're correct that the current pope thought the solution to child abuse was to ban gay men from the priesthood, an absurd concept on many levels, among them the fact it would mean an end to the clergy. Benedict imposed such circuitous and tortured standards for screening gay applicants to seminaries: http://m.npr.org/news/front/5024031 He then backtracked a bit: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5073857
but never imposed an outright ban.

That was at the end of 2005. Most priests serving in this country have been ordained longer than that. Part of what surrounded that debate was the concern that that Church not have "too many" gay priests. This story on NPR is interesting: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=1142419&m=142419


All clergy are supposed to be celibate, so they are not supposed to engage in sexual acts with anyone. And Church doctrine designates homosexuality as a sin. That is all true. But the fact is there is a world of difference between church doctrine and the the practice of religion. The Vatican wishes it had the control over everyday religiosity that you imagine it does. (That, in fact, was the purpose of the Inquisition. It was not successful in imposing its version of Christianity, despite the thousands tortured and killed. And gay men were indeed among its targets). As the author of Lead Us Not into Temptation points out, the problems leading to the sex abuse scandals have to do with secrecy involving sex rather than the presence of gay men in the clergy. http://www.amazon.com/Lead-Us-Not-into-Temptation/dp/0252068122 The book also makes clear that gay men, some of them practicing, are indeed numerous within the priesthood.

The Vatican has had celibacy rules for centuries, but they have only been enforced in the past century or so. The ultimate goal of celibacy rules was a prohibition against marriage (probably to enable the Church to keep possession of priests' property). Clergy in colonial Latin America had live in mistresses, and it was not seen as remotely controversial. If you watch the Borgia's, you know that Pope Alexander VI had his children living with him in the Vatican. Previous priests had had children but had not been as open about it as Alexander VI.

[ButterflyBlood]

87. That hardly proves that the MAJORITY of Catholic clergy are gay and identify as such

Neither statement is very likely to be true, and the latter is quite easy to objectively prove false.

[BainsBane]

92. actually the NPR piece indicates

that is the case. Did you listen to it?
I'm open to correction if I'm wrong, so if you have evidence I would appreciate seeing it.

[ButterflyBlood]

94. I listened. I only heard of "estimates that 10-50% of seminarians" are gay

That is a far cry from stating the majority of Catholic clergy are gay and identify that way (especially as the latter is objectively false as it's prohibited.) The former statement still makes a lot of assumptions.

[BainsBane]

96. Here's another source

http://www.laprogressive.com/catholic-church-gay-priests/

Here is a particularly brave priest. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/father-bernard-lynch-gay-catholic-priest-talks_n_1661887.html

The article lists an author of book who claims the majority of seminarians are gay.
Now even if he's wrong and the number is closer to 33%, the point that there is a great discrepancy between statements by the Council of Bishops and the Pope and the everyday practice of Catholicism is clear.

There is no question that the Catholic church's official position on homosexuality is horrific. You'll get no argument from me there. They are morally reprehensible on many levels. Most American Catholics, however, do not share their views, as polling data demonstrates.

[ButterflyBlood]

97. To me that does not matter

I find the organization repulsive and I will not affiliate with it in any way whatsoever. OMG CULTURE AND TRADITION is not a good reason. I am not a "cultural Catholic", I am not a "lapsed Catholic". I am simply not a Catholic. And I encourage anyone else who does not agree with the church hierarchy to do the same.

[BainsBane]

99. Did I say you should affiliate?

No. Never. I'm not here recruiting. I don't go to church myself. Why should I care if you are? I am simply pointing out that your simplistic, reductionist argument ignores the everyday practice of religion. I started this thread because another member accused all Catholics of being criminals. The notion is clearly absurd, as I have provided extensive evidence to demonstrate.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Thank you for calling those comments out as the absurdities they are. So offensive to hear that

self serving crap. The Church says we threaten humanity, yet this poster claims MOST priests are out as gay men? Insulting and ignorant bullshit.
Thanks.

[Plantaganet]

84. Right on.

[BainsBane]

93. Did you listen to the NPR piece?

Cited in the middle of the post? That and the book discusses the prevalence of gay men in the priesthood. I'm not sure why you see that as an insult. What is so offensive about an association with priests? The Pope and the Church hierarchy say the most atrocious things about gay people, but there is a vast difference between everyday religiosity and the church hierarchy. If you assume the Catholic Church is only what you hear from the Pope and the Council of Bishops, you see a incredibly reactionary and certainly homophobic view of the church. But the church is comprised of far more than that. It is millions of Catholics all around the world, their parish priests, and nuns. You find a wide variety of political perspectives in churches across this country, but most are liberal and NEVER mention anything about homosexuality. That doesn't excuse what the church hierarchy does, but it demonstrates that their power is limited.

And to be clear, I said most of the American clergy is gay. I'm not sure how you identify out. They are supposed to be celibate. I would think it has become far more difficult to be "out" as you say because of Pope Benedict's openly articulated bigotry, and enrollment in seminaries has declined dramatically in recent years. But I provided evidence that does show a very large, indeed a majority, of seminarians are gay. That is one of the many reasons why Benedict's statements about homosexuality as responsible for the child abuse scandal are so absurd. If you examine the sources, you'll see that is the case. Listen to this in particular: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=1142419&m=142419

[ButterflyBlood]

95. The NPR piece never stated a majority of clergy are gay

And to get that from it would require some pretty big assumptions.

FWIW, I actually find the premises that Catholicism is not a choice (the choice to remain in the church is still a choice) and the idea that people who do leave and no longer identify as such are some sort of ethnic traitors to be just as offensive as the hierarchy's views on homosexuality. If you listen to this video you'll hear a state Rep from my state describe how his family refused to attend his wedding held in a Protestant church. I've heard similar claims from my parents FYI even though they were married in a Catholic church, some of my mother's older relatives still weren't too happy with that she was marrying a heretic at all, and you know OMG CULTURE, SELLOUT!

[BainsBane]

98. I never said they were ethnic traitors

That is absurd. Here you are deliberately misrepresenting my points. To reduce everything to such simplistic notions accomplishes nothing. People certainly are free to choose any religion they like, as you yourself did, but a knowledge of history shows a clear link between ethnicity and religion, as I have explained at length elsewhere in this thread.

[ButterflyBlood]

115. Perhaps you didn't

But experience with this mindset is one of the many things that soured me greatly to Catholicism, and made me decide I had to abandon all of it, all of the traditions and identity involved, not just ignore the hierarchy. I get the impression that's also part of what soured my mom on it and why she has basically de facto converted at this point as well.

[BainsBane]

100. Moreover, you know you misrepresented my point

This was my previous post to you:
"You can be whatever you want to be. That is one of the benefits of our modern society. Far be it from me to try to limit who or what you are. That is not my intention at all. My point here is simply in trying to encourage you to understand others."

Why you feel compelled to lie to advance your position, I don't know.

[Bluenorthwest]

165. Man oh man how you edited this post! You originally said most priests in the US are openly

gay and that the RCC was a historical haven for gay men and women. A haven. Most priests are out and proud. That is what you claimed until others corrected you sternly.
You said they are gay and identify as such, you said that was most US priests. The editing is so very creepy. A sham of a tactic. If you do not wish to stand by your own damn words, remove the post don't play with it to remove the offensive parts after others have reacted.

[cleanhippie]

166. But doing that would take honesty and integrity.

Are you really expecting that from this poster?

[ButterflyBlood]

167. Yep here's the original post:

For centuries the church, both convents and the priesthood, have been a haven for gay men and women. I earlier wrote about my eighth grade teacher was a nun and activist for gay rights. You didn't bother to read that though.

The majority of Catholic clergy in this country are in fact gay and identify as such. And obviously millions of Catholic parishioners are gay as well.

You should read what Andrew Sullivan has to say about being a gay Catholic.

One thing to love about DU's feature of allowing previous edits to be visible. One can't say something absolutely absurd and then hide the evidence.

[ButterflyBlood]

46. This part kind of stood out to me:

"and those born into Hispanic, Irish, and Italian families are Catholic--regardless of whether they actually practice the religion."

That's kind of funny because just at my church alone I know of people from those backgrounds, and they obviously aren't Catholic today.

As I stated elsewhere too no one in my family cares about my dropping out of the church. It hasn't harmed my connection to my family any.

[BainsBane]

48. think about Jews

Do you know any Jews? Most don't actually go to synagogue, but they remain Jewish.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. The difference is there is an actual Jewish ethnicity

Many Jews have converted. They might remain ethnically Jewish, but certainly not religious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Islam_from_Judaism

Also this way of thinking opens some some unfortunate implications if you consider it could also mean a non-Catholic person from those ethnicities therefore isn't a "real" Hispanic, Irish or Italian...

[BainsBane]

53. You do realize ethnicity is culturally constructed?

It's all about how people see themselves. For some, their ethnic and religious identifies are entwined. That's certainly true for most Latinos and many Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans.

[ButterflyBlood]

54. So then does one of those who converts lose their ethnicity?

Because that's the logical conclusion, and a rather uncomfortable one for me.

[BainsBane]

56. it's how you see yourself

You can be whatever you want to be. That is one of the benefits of our modern society. Far be it from me to try to limit who or what you are. That is not my intention at all. My point here is simply in trying to encourage you to understand others.

[Phillip McCleod]

106. no ethnicity is not how you see yourself, ffs!

please. the hole. so deep. stop digging. hurts.. to.. watch.

[BainsBane]

111. Good god

What century were you born in? You've obviously missed all theory about race and ethnicity in the last seventy years.

Please do instruct us about the biology of race and ethnicity. Give us your 19th century views, please.

[BainsBane]

112. Here's a guide from PBS

http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm

It's super basic.
And a project about understanding race for children. http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=91436534&m=91436522

There is a traveling exhibit that started at the Science Museum of Minnesota and is traveling around the country. This is a half hour public television program about the exhibit. http://www.mnvideovault.org/mvvPlayer/customPlaylist2.php?id=17341&select_index=3&popup=yes#0

[Act_of_Reparation]

117. Race doesn't exist, ethnicity does

Ethnicity can be determined with some degree of accuracy through Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups. This is very basic genetics. If a population of people lives in relative isolation over a period of time, they will exhibit genetic similarities.

For the purposes of biology, "ethnicity" doesn't really tell you anything about a person save for the geographical region from which his or her male ancestors emerged.

Nationality, however, is a social construct. I am, genetically speaking, of Northern European stock. I am not, however, Northern European by nationality. I am an American. I am a New Englander. I am a Connecticutian. So on, and so on.

It sounds to me like you are conflating ethnicity (bloodline), with nationality (cultural identity). The two are similar, but not interchangeable.

[BainsBane]

118. origin can be traced biologically

From which part of the world one comes from. That is not the same as ethnicity. Ethnicity, like race, is a cultural construction. For example, is there a biological marker to distinguish a Sunni from a Shia Muslim? A Bosnian from a Serb? A Welshman from a Scot or an Englishman? A Basque from a French person just over the border? The factors there are how they are seen culturally, the language they speak, which group holds power, etc. Genetics can trace geographic origin and certain biological markers, but that is quite different from ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are the ideas through which we understand biological traits and geographic origin.

If I am born in a white ethnic neighborhood in Chicago--where white ethnicity still matters to some--to an Irish-American mother from an absent English father, what is my ethnicity? I grow up identifying myself as Irish-American and have no connection to my English roots. I see myself as Irish-American. My community is Irish-American. Therefore I am Irish-American.

[Act_of_Reparation]

122. I'm not disagreeing per se

Ethnicity, generally speaking, refers to cultural traditions, that is, practices which are handed down from generation to generation. In that regard, biology and ethnicity are correlative (but not causal). One could, therefore, use biology to make an educated guess as to a subject's ethnicity, without subscribing to supremacist pseudoscientific quackery.

That's really all I was trying to get at.

[BainsBane]

125. I see your point

As you might have noted, I was responding to a rather rude comment from another poster. I also think it's interesting to consider how cultural ideas shape scientific inquiry.

Another example I was thinking of was the ethnic group we call Latino. That includes people whose native languages are English, Spanish, and Portuguese (sometimes French, depending on definition), with ancestral heritage ranging from Iberia, Northern Europe, the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and even Asia (basically everywhere). Clearly they are not a distinct genetic group.

[Meshuga]

120. To be fair...

A dictionary definition of "ethnicity" is:

"The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition."

In other words, it is perfectly fine to say that a person who has been raised Jewish and who is a child of a couple who converted to Judaism, for example, is considered an ethnic Jew just like a Jewish person from a long bloodline.

So, there is no "conflating" here. Well, at least in my understanding.

[Act_of_Reparation]

121. Mistakes were made :\

You're absolutely right.

The point I'm trying to get across, however, is that ethnicity generally, but not necessarily, includes practices and beliefs passed on from generation to generation. In that sense, you could use biology as a somewhat reliable means to determine ethnicity, without necessarily adhering to absurd racial supremacist pseudoscience.

[Meshuga]

123. I see your point.

[Plantaganet]

41. Wow...

This post could've been written by me. I understand your experience completely!

[ButterflyBlood]

43. Thanks

Quitting the church was no big deal to me AT ALL. As I said elsewhere, it was far easier than changing majors in college, or getting a driver's license, or applying for a job.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. The claim that "people are born into religions" is one of the worst things about religion

and it's that kind of attitude that give people like the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church so much power to spread and maintain their bigotry. And no, it's not racism. Anti-catholic sentiment can come from the many awful things the church thinks and has done - homophobia, misogyny, covering up pedophilia, the Magdalene laundries ...

I agree that the thread that started this off was an unwarranted attack on Catholics in general, and should have been hidden. But you have to realise that people can choose their religion, or can leave it completely. By implying that would be a bad thing to do (with the 'like an old pair of socks' dismissal), you are empowering the Pope and cardinals, and their misogyny and homophobia. And you actually encourage people to think just like that OP - that they are born into the church which can, itself, be legitimately attacked for its many faults.

You allow the hierarchy to claim that they have a billion members of their religion - but they get to choose what the religion's attitude is, and people don't get to say "I disagree - don't call me Catholic, if that's what's involved". It's no coincidence that they are against contraception - they want as many babies born to Catholics as possible, and it's your attitude that will then call those babies 'Catholic'.

[ButterflyBlood]

67. I'd like to rec this if I could for replies

And on top of that, it implies people who do convert are some sort of ethnic traitors.

[BainsBane]

76. The Church only has the power you assign to it

You credit them with more power than Catholics do. They were once an enormously powerful institution. But their current power resides in so-called "moral authority," yet the majority of Catholics polled say they don't look to the Church for moral authority. If your argument is that more Catholic babies is a bad thing, you need to look in the mirror before passing judgement on others.

I "allow the hierarchy to claim" a billion new members. Wow. I'm so powerful. Who knew. The fact is I know something about history, which most make a point of learning as little as possible about.

So you think people should abandon their religion because you disapprove of it. Too fucking bad. It's not up to you. People have every right to worship, as much as you despise them and their choices. We can't all be the superior human beings you imagine yourself to be.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. I think that people should choose religion, if they want to, as adults

without years of indoctrination first, when they are children who don't actually understand the concepts, and are too easily led by authority figures.

The point is there aren't true 'Catholic babies'; there are babies of Catholic parents, who are, nevertheless, claimed by the RC church, and, if they're unlucky, they get the dogma drummed into them for years. Pretty much all DUers are superior to the Catholic cardinals and popes; I'd put our morals up against theirs any day.

[BainsBane]

79. and you know this how?

Based on what experience? It's funny because I was born from a Catholic mother, went to Catholic school and managed to avoid that indoctrination. The teachers in my 7th grade class passed out condoms and instructed us in sex education. My grandmother's priest told her parish that birth control was a matter of one's personal conscience. My eighth grade teacher was a nun and a gay activist in the 1970s and 1980s. When she died early from cancer, hundreds of gay men and women turned out to pay their respects to her.

I was taught that all people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and religions are equal. I never heard a thing about homosexuality being a sin. About the harshest thing I recall hearing was continual admonitions to sit up straight and not miss school (again, Sister Jackie). But you already know everything you need to about Catholic children, so why care about my experiences.

I am the one here seeking to distinguish between the Church hierarchy and practicing Catholics. You insisted, essentially, that I am empowering a homophobic, misogynist, pedophile ring by saying that religion is part of a people's culture and matters to them.

[Plantaganet]

85. The reason why you never heard a thing about homosexuality being a sin...

...is because, ta-da! You're not homosexual. If you had been you would've gotten the message loud and clear. As I've said before, my experience as a gay person in Catholic schools was very, very different, and profoundly negative. They are intrinsically homophobic organizations.

[ButterflyBlood]

86. If you're going to cut out the Catholic hierarchy, why not just be something else?

Episcopalian for example. Or the Old Catholic Church, a schism that ordains married men and women and has many parishes that accept homosexuals. The nearest "Catholic" church tome is not a Roman Catholic one, but one that identifies as "Independent Catholic", is not related to the Roman hierarchy, is pastored by a married priest, and is on a list of local gay-affirming churches I've seen. Being "Catholic" without the hierarchy is really quite simple, but it also means not being a Roman Catholic.

As it is I didn't even join one of these "Catholic-lite" groups because my objections to Catholicism went far beyond the reactionary politics, but their very existence kind of puts into place just how pointless it is to try to be a Catholic against the hierarchy.

[Phillip McCleod]

107. or atheist for example?

[cap]

108. Because there is a lot within the church that has nothing to do with the current hierarchy

The catholic church has the legacy of a lot of ethnic saints, Polish, German, Slovakian, French, etc. that arent in other traditions. So thAts why I don't leave.

You are missing the big fight within the church. It is great to watch. I am not convinced that the hierarchy is going to win the battle.

There is a movement to chuck out the hierarchy, to return to the early church which was non hierarchical and more people centric. There is a whole mystical tradition that is being revived.

The hierarchy is going down in flames. I think that there is something new evolving that will be led by lay people.

Why should I be the one to leave the church? Why not push out the current bunch of criminals and make them leave the church hopefully to make a new home in a jail cell somewhere?

[trotsky]

113. Yeah! Push 'em out!

Have you decided who you're going to vote for in the pope election?

Oh yeah....

[ButterflyBlood]

114. I really don't see how that's happening

The Catholic hierarchy is just clamping down more and more and becoming more reactionary. You can't vote them out and there's no real way to force them out. What you're proposing there sounds more like a lot of Protestant churches.

[BainsBane]

130. Wouldn't that be nice

I might even start going to mass again. I love the idea that the church dates back centuries. I love the ritual and mystic aspects. But the hierarchy's political statements and the pedophilia cover up have put me off going.

[ButterflyBlood]

144. That sort of thing already exists

This is the nearest Catholic church to where I live. It is not Roman Catholic or in communion with the Vatican: http://www.spiritofststephens.org

Last week I actually attended a service where the priest of this church preached as a guest speaker: http://houseofthetransfiguration.com The priest is actually a transgendered man. It is Catholic denomination separate from the Vatican that ordains married men and women (and as of now, also transgenders), and has many progressive gay-affirming branches.

If I were into Catholic theology and worship style, I'd be willing to go to one of these churches. I would never attend a Roman Catholic church in communion with the Vatican.

[BainsBane]

145. so now you're converting?

Talk about hypocritical.

[ButterflyBlood]

148. What?

I converted away from Roman Catholicism a long time ago. I became a Protestant, not an independent Catholic because as noted, my issues with Catholicism go beyond the heirarchy's reactionary politics (though my other differences I find the type of thing that can be respectfully disagreed on, unlike the reactionary politics. The fact that a non-denominational evangelical Protestant church would host a transgender priest as a guest speaker alone shows this.) I don't see what's remotely hypocritical about any of this.

[BainsBane]

150. You're trying to convert me

after feeling compelled to continually defend your own choices, which I never questioned or asked you to defend. Nor do I care what or where you worship. I don't care where anyone does.

You insinuated that I was trying to convert you by providing simple information about homosexuals in the priesthood, despite the fact I said repeatedly your religious choices rightly belong to you and you alone. So now you direct me to a church YOU think I should attend? That indeed is hypocritical. Moreover, it's none of your business. I wasn't asking for recommendations for churches, least of all yours. I responded to a Catholic about changes he believed were coming in the church. Keep your proselytizing to yourself.

[ButterflyBlood]

154. I was simply making a point, not recommendations

Recommendations would be meaningless anyway unless in the very unlikely event you happen to live in the same city as me. Just the point remains that Catholicism without the hierarchy does exist.

The reason I did get defensive in the past about such personal choices is the insistence (and not just on this thread) that Catholicism is some type of indelible identity and not something someone can choose to reject. "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" isn't intended to be a sarcastic statement you know.

[Plantaganet]

35. As someone raised Catholic...

...I wholeheartedly approve this message!

[LeftishBrit]

29. Agreed. I'm not a Catholic or a religious believer at all, and I am no fan of most of the hierarchy

including the retiring Pope. But treating all Catholics as criminals or right-wingers is bigoted and foolish.

[BainsBane]

30. thank you!

a simple point, but sadly a difficult concept for some.

[Meshuga]

124. And, as usual, I agree with you.

[ZombieHorde]

36. I think I said all I had to say in onehandle's thread. nt

[BainsBane]

75. To Zoeisright's post

which I didn't see before it was hidden. I don't give money to the Catholic church. I don't go to church at all. I do donate clothes to St. Vincent de Paul on occasion. Does that make me a criminal and a bigot?

[cbayer]

80. Don't bother. She's been kicked from this thread.

Take a look at her transparency page if you want a real eye opener.

[BainsBane]

81. I know, that's why I responded here

[Bennyboy]

126. as long as I was the one who started this....

Let me clarify.

"Criminals" might be too strong of word, but I chose it for effect. I wanted to get this very discussion going and knew that would more than do it. And in the larger definition of conspiracy, it is true. everyone of those people mentioned above enabled the Catholic Church (and I think we can agree that this is a true conspiracy from top to bottom) to molest children. Jerry Sandusky was a great guy as well and did many charitable things you know? (and he is Catholic as well).

Does that mean I wanna round up every Catholic and thrown them in jail? Of course not. I would however, like to see a whole lot more people in jail that I am seeing. And one hell of a lot more actions taken by the parishioners. And I feel that the parishioners of the Church, including every single one of the famous, democratic group mentioned above have done NOTHING AT ALL, or even worse, supported the church while it covered up crimes and moved rapists all over the world to avoid prosecution... Only to continue raping for decades... They did nothing and you did nothing. You, and they, did nothing when my best friend growing up and his sister were molested in the 60's and you,and they, did nothing when my girlfriend was passed around at parties at her Catholic group home for a decade.

Now that DOES NOT mean that everything is okay with me and Catholicism. It still pisses me the fuck off to see that all the good hearted people you mention above and so many others are DOING NOT JACK SHIT to see that things change. I have never seen Catholics protesting the church down the street or at any other church over child abuse. (I do see lots of Christians protesting this or that however and have to assume some of them are catholic so we know that protesting is okay for them). I don't see letters to the editors or stories of mass mailing campaigns or any Kennedy, Kerry or whatever the fuck saying JACK FUCKING SHIT about this.

Think about it Catholics, what have you done? Have you even written a strongly worded email? Told your priest not to screw your kids?

[BainsBane]

128. A good number of those people above

were murdered before the sex abuse scandal. What do you propose they should have done from the mass graves they shared with slaughtered Catholic Indians?

You do realize you have just accused the victims of abuse of enabling their own crimes. They too are Catholics. If all Catholics are criminals or enable pedophiles, there is no distinction between abuser and victim.

Many Catholics have indeed taken measures to stop pedophilia. It was Catholics who brought the law suits against the dioceses and have continued to keep the matter in public discussion. There are a good number of Catholic groups in this country devoted to pressuring the Church to reform and to pressuring it on the child molestation cover up.

I certainly would like to see far more of these priests in jail, particularly the bishops and archbishops who covered up the crimes. I don't understand what they can't be charged as part of a criminal conspiracy, perhaps using a Rico statute.

Since I am not a practicing Catholic, a strongly worded email from me probably wouldn't help much. You can always write one yourself. That you assume every Parish priest is screwing kids is ridiculous. Your point about Sandusky is particularly disgusting. There are plenty of child molesters of a wide variety of religions, including Jews--even rabbis. There is no question the behavior of the Catholic Church in regard to pedophilia is criminal and immoral beyond comprehension, exceeding any organization we've seen before. But to associate random Catholics charged with child rape with the Church cover up is a function of your own prejudice. Most pedophiles in fact molest little girls, and many--likely most because of the religious breakdown of the nation--are protestants. Here's the sex offender list for my county. http://www.homefacts.com/offenders/Minnesota/Hennepin-County.html Do you imagine all are Catholics? Ooops, one's got an Italian name. He must be the most evil of all.

[Bennyboy]

133. MISSING THE POINT...

Is there a huge scandal involving the leaders of the jewish faith and THOUSANDS of rabbis who have been raping children for decades all the while covering up the crimes (Well at least one we know about?)? No. Muslims? NO. Deadheads? NO. rastafarians? NO. Athiests agnostics, hindus and whatever? NO.

THIS IS A CATHOLIC THING HERE. The church covered it up. The Pope himself covered it up and will be replaced by someone who covered it up. The people that will vote for the new Pope were involved and covered it up. And that makes it different than random people molesting children (not that it makes it any better) that are not affiliated with an organization or are affiliated with an organization that is not involved in the conspiracy to cover up crimes.

Big difference.

As for Sandusky, he was (is to this day) a Catholic. He did good things (of course it was to acquire children to rape)and while not directly connected to Catholic charity he used the catholic model for raping children by opening Foster Homes etc. Let's also not forget the priests that stood behind him too....

I am curious as to how you thought of Joe Paterno after the Sandusky thing went down? Did you feel he was guilty as well? Did you feel he should be in jail?

[cbayer]

134. While there is no excusing for the heinous crimes and cover up of the catholic church,

problems with pedophilia exist in other organizations as well. Anywhere where people (particularly white men) can get easy access to children and positions of authority are susceptible. This includes schools, other religious denominations, scouts, sports organizations and homes for otherwise homeless children. While statistics are hard to come by, what is available suggest that rates within the catholic church were (are) no different than for many other kinds of organizations.

So should all people who are members of these groups bear some responsibility? Perhaps. Those organizations that are aware of the problem and do nothing, or, even worse, provide cover need to be prosecuted in a very aggressive way. Condemning all of the members, however, is extreme.

[BainsBane]

149. You miss every point

And I made clear that the Church's behavior covering up pedophilia was horrific and entirely unacceptable. But you must display your contempt for people who dare to pray differently from you, including bringing in unrelated Catholics.

You know what Sandusky was: Male. Men are the one's who commit the vast majority of sex crimes. You could exterminate every planet and pedophilia would still flourish. Men of all faiths and non-believers are the overwhelming perpetrators of sex crimes. As long as men like you don't stand up to them, rape of children and women, as well as human trafficking--slavery--will continue at unprecedented levels.

That you hate Catholics is obvious. I wonder what your friend feels like being so despised by someone who pretends to be her friend? So you despise 1/3 of the world's population, most of them brown. You know, the people who pick your fruits and vegetables, build the houses and buildings that shelter you, and slaughter the meat you eat (if you eat meat). They are just evil Catholics anyway. They aren't worthy of being treated as actual human beings. And here you've found common ground with the Tea Party.

You didn't explain how they were supposed to speak out from their mass graves, graves dug with your tax dollars? You haven't bothered to read anything I've written. Instead you've worked hard to keep your mind as closed as possible.

What did you do to oppose the mass murder of Central American Indians and other Catholics with your tax dollars? Or did you applaud genocide because Reagan was getting rid of "criminals'? How about we try you for complicity in genocide and the millions of deaths your government is responsible around the world. You voted for those governments. Catholics don't vote for the clergy, nor do they financially support the church hierarchy, but you pay for death squads. If you want to impose collective guilt, look in the mirror.

[Marrah_G]

139. As long as good Catholics continue to support and uphold the Vatican, nothing will change

[BainsBane]

146. How do good catholics

"support and uphold the Vatican"? What does that mean?

[Marrah_G]

160. By giving them money and power.

By continuing to allow those in Rome to have power over their lives, their faith.

By continuing to give praise and admiration to a group of men who continue themselves to be unworthy of either. They are neither sorry nor do they intend to do anything that shows any true empathy for their victims or anger towards those who have acted in such insidious and horrible ways. Instead, they reward those who cover up crimes. To this day those people are still rewarded.

Right now, they have a leader, who at any time can claim his statements on doctrine to be infallible, who has covered up and encouraged others to cover up criminal acts against children and others. By accepting his word as law, you uphold his claims to power and validate his acts.

As long as Catholics continue to blindly follow, continue to enrich the coffers of the church, this won't stop. It will continue on. The corrupt voting in the corrupt, over and over.

Since the lay people have no say in what happens in Rome, they need to vote with their feet and/or their wallets.

[Bennyboy]

155. So I put in the words "kennedy denounces child abuse"

And I see NOTHING> Not one fucking single fucking word.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=kennedy+denounces+child+abuse&qs=n&form=QBRE&ghc=0&pq=kennedy+denounces+child+abuse&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=

[Bennyboy]

156. "Biden denouces catholic child abuse"... and guess fucking what...

No record. https://www.google.com/search?q=Biden+denouces+catholic+child+abuse&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[Bennyboy]

157. So I thought "Mother Teresa denounces child abuse" and guess fucking what?

Turns out the greatest of all Catholics (in my lifetime) shielded child abusers.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-01-11/news/mother-teresa-catholic-church-john-hardon-donald-mcguire-child-abuse-jesuits/full/