Both Dawn Eden and recent bannee Deep Thought really stuck in my craw. I realized that what really bugged me about them was their converts’ zeal and their preachiness on Catholic doctrine — their insistence that they knew it all about Catholicism, that they had all the answers, that only people who hewed slavishly to their views on could claim the name Catholic. And on. It doesn’t help that both are very quick on the “you just hate Catholics” thing when challenged.
Um, folks, I was raised Catholic. I’m of an ethnic group (Irish) where I am presumed to be Catholic. My aunt is a nun. Anyone who hears that there are six children in my family almost invariably mentions Catholicism. Even though I am officially an apostate now (ask me how!), I still have trouble not thinking of myself as Catholic, and I know that others assume I am still one. I know that piny comes from a Catholic background, as does Magis, another one who got tarred with the anti-Catholic brush. I’m not sure about Jill, but I’ve never seen her write anything anti-Catholic.
But I have been subject to anti-Catholic bullshit in my life, including in law school, by a professor (who not only let a role-play exercise on the Church’s AIDS policies devolve into Catholic-bashing, he participated with cracks about the wine during Mass, complete with “drinky drinky” hand gestures, which I took as a slam against Irish Catholics, because nobody gets on the Italians or Latinos for drinking). My uncle was denied admission to a medical school he was qualified for because they already had enough Catholics, and my grandfather couldn’t even consider going anywhere but Georgetown for dental school. I know very well that Catholics are going over the wall right after the Jews, the atheists and the gays when the Republic of Gilead is established. I know these people never considered me and mine Christians.
So, yes, it sticks in my craw when people who fucked around through their 20s and then found the Catholic Church swan around telling everyone else — including lifelong Catholics — that they have found the One True Way. These are people who idealize the Church because they have no institutional memory of the way things used to be.
But anything I could say on the matter just pales in comparison to PHLAF’s comment in the Choice for the Kids post, so I’ll just put it here:
Actually, many parishes do indeed admonish their newly converted members to sit back and live as a Catholic for some time before they start preaching, especially at the members of the parish who’ve lived as Catholic all their lives and who’ve also lived with many of the negative issues the Church has dealt with over the centuries.
The main reason why I no longer attend a Catholic Church and now attend our lovely Episcopalian Church is because of the nature of recent converts. They have all but destroyed our parish.
Dawn may be technically correct in what she is writing, but she never grew up seeing how the Church’s teachings on sexuality and contracpetion, filtered through the particularly uptight and freakishly weird Irish cultural views on sexuality and women (a cultural viewpoint driven almost exclusively by the Catholic Church, since Catholicism and Irish culture were one and the same for so many centuries) , were responsible for the early deaths of many women, and were also responsible for alcoholism, depression, and a variety of other psychological issues running rampant throughout Ireland and the solidly Irish Catholic communities in the US.
The culmination of the Catholic Church’s teachings in Irish culture was the establishment of the Magdalene laundries. Add to that the seriously sick and abusive treatment many young Irish boys were getting at the hands of the Christian Brothers’ institutions, and you will see why some of us consider Saint Dawn The Born Again Virgin’s preaching extremely hurtful, ignorant, offensive and insulting.
Had Dawn had to watch her mother die because her body had been forced to bear one pregnancy too many, or one miscarriage too many, she might have a slightly different view on things. Or if she’d grown up with a father who believed daughters ought to be silent at the dinner table and only the sons should be allowed to speak. Or if she’d been raised to believe the only purpose she served on this planet was to marry and have children and that to dream of anything else was sinful. And so on and so on and so on.
The problem with Dawn and most of her commentors is that they’re too young to remember when there was no NFP, there was just pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. There was a baby every year and sometimes even two in a single year (as is the case with my brother and I). And then those babies were raised by over-stressed, angry, resentful parents who often took their (understandable) rage out on their kids, or hid it behind alcohol abuse, or sunk into paralyzing depressions. Kids were routinely abused and neglected in these families.
These converts come out of RCIA convinced that they know more, are better educated and are smarter than every single cradle Catholic on the planet. The fact is, many of them are as dumb as posts, have gotten teachings completely wrong, or have brought along a few things from their previous religion and added them to the package.
They also tend to be very legalist in their attitudes. They think because they know all the rules, they are perfect Catholics, but they’ve missed the heart and soul and spirit of the Church – they’ve missed the best of what the Church has to offer and latched on to the easy stuff – memorizing and spouting dogma and doctrine without any real sense of history or understanding of how that same dogma and doctrine has often been the source of great pain and suffering and even evil for the Church, which, btw, is her members, not a handful of dusty old documents, or a building, or a group of dried-up old men who don’t have any first-hand knowledge at all of what they’re asking of people when it comes to marriage and family.
Frankly, I think it would serve Dawn and her readers/commenters well if she’d lay off the chastity kick for a while and would focus more on humility and charity.
*cheers*
Hear, hear. I was raised Catholic and also lapsed. I grew up in an extremely conservative small-town and there was a strong undercurrent of anti-Catholicism. Before I rejected Christianity altogether I was always proud that my fellow Catholics weren’t nearly as goddamn preachy and in your face all the time as the protestants were.
Dear Zuzu,
You are my new favorite person.
A lapsed-cultural Irish Catholic
“Deep Thought.” The guy has never had anything of the sort. What a friggin’ misnomer. I used to really let the God Squad burn my ass until I read this amazing article by Jack Hitt: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/10667.
I was also raised Roman Catholic, and left the Church because I was unable to reconcile my feminist values with my faith. The dichotomy that Dawn Eden and Deep Thought are pushing down our throats is a false one, though. The article is excellent and reminds us that if there’s a God, he probably wants us to use our friggin’ brains, for poop’s sake.
And, may I add, well said. The Magdalene laundries still provoke an almost audible wince from me every time they are mentioned, and the rest provides ample reason, as if there weren’t already, to repeatedly smack Dawn about the head and shoulders with a Bible and one of those gold-plate dishes they hold the communion wafers in.
I left the faith I was raised in due to the simple fact that it wasn’t pleasant for me to believe, and either God was loving, in which case He/She/They would accept from me whatever religious beliefs were fulfilling to me, or else God was an asshole, in which case I was going to Hell anyway so I might as well enjoy myself with religious beliefs that were fulfilling to me. Or there was no God at all, in which case, ditto. In any case, I get extremely nervous whenever I’m called upon to explain my new faith, due to the twin necessities of making a good impression and staying true to what it is. If Dawn were of my religion and doing what she’s doing, speaking for the whole faith like she’s its supreme authority on Earth, I’d be furious and annoyed and embarrassed—and I wouldn’t be the only one.
As the bumper sticker says, “God, please save me from your ‘good people.’”
Thank you, Zuzu. Now every time Dawn writes something that makes me see red, I can rest assured that at least she isn’t making an ass out of my faith.
I too am I former Catholic, Irish, though I was part of a very liberal family, wherein we were always taught the spirit of kindness and giving and love and understanding rather than the bullshit preaching and condemning that goes on these days.
There is much that is beautiful about Catholicism and much beautiful about being Irish. But there is a darkness too. It isn’t all little fellows with red beards and pots o’ gold. The amount of depressive mental disease in Western Ireland is unbelievable.
The dirty little secret that Dawn and DT don’t understand is that there really isn’t one Catholic Church and there never was and never will be. The Church’s desire for hegemony has been thwarted by the Byzantines, Albergensians, Coptics, etc., etc.
You could deal with the Franciscans or the Benedictines and have a whole different view of the world and the Church.
And they read one little catechism and figure they’ve got 2,000 years of tumultuous history figured out. It’s kind of like someone whose been in sociology class three days telling you that Margret Meade is full of shit.
thanks for this, Zuzu. Also lapsed Irish Catholic; and adopted, so I’m Polish Catholic too. And still after being lapsed for more than 12 years, it’s really, really hard to not think of myself as Catholic, or to not get bent out of shape at really inappropriate Catholic-bashing (my personal favorite was the Jehovah’s Witness who came to my door and told me my mother, being a Catholic, was an idol-worshipper). Or not to hope that one day the Catholic church (as theocratic entity and international politico extraordinaire) will become what it could be as opposed to what it is.
How?
You gotta write to the parish that baptized you (cc the diocese to be sure) and request that you be taken off the baptismal records.
Ha! I just refused to be baptized. Luckily the Methodists wait until you’re old enough to give a hearty hell no. The truth is, I didn’t want to waste my free time on baptism classes.
As a lapsed, now athiest Muslim (raised by a convert), I can definitely understand these sentiments. My husband is also a ‘recovering Catholic’ (he went to Catholic school for 12 years, and is also Irish) so I hear the stories from his end too.
I was raised catholic, and i dont really practice much of anything to be honest. But when it comes up in convo, i sometimes still refer to myself as a catholic. Habit i guess. The church we ended up at (where i went all the way to confirmation) was way laid back in comparison to all the other catholic churches i have ever been to. It was out on the beach. We would have mass outside on the grass under the oak trees and it just wasnt so strict. In sunday school we discussed current day issues and really kept things open and inviting. It was very different from my early years of catechism. And the masses were similarily laid back and easy to sit thru. I realize now (after visiting more churches as an adult and speaking to many friends) that our church seems to be the exception. I didnt grow up thinking catholism was non-feminist, or restricting in many ways like others i knew did. I did however get charged with “not being a christian” by some of my friends of other denominations (namely one bitchy girl who was from very southern baptist family). I actually got the dictionary out to show her that the definition of being a christian was to be someone who believed in christ as the savior. She reluctantly gave up that argument only to move on to the argument about the virgin mary. i finally told her to leave me alone and i would rather go to my hell than her heaven if her and people like her would be there. Good post. Got me thinking.
I was also raised Catholic, and I had a round with Deep Thought a while ago about how my very Catholic good friend should not be teaching Sunday school to kindergartners (basically watching them color pictures of Jesus holding lambs and then have them sing “Jesus Loves Me” or “This Little Light of Mine”) because she doesn’t personally toe the line on transubstantiation. I was really taken aback when Deepy told me that I was being Anti-Catholic.
I was raised in a village where 92% of the town is Catholic and I would guess about 80% of us attended the large Catholic Church a block from the high school that could seat/stand 5,000 on Christmas. I did religion class every Tuesday from k-8th grade, then two years of 8 weeks of two hours every Wed night seminar confirmation prep classes. I’ve been Baptised, I’m clear to take communion, and I’ve done Reconciliation. I quit a year before Confirmation, however three of my five good friends from high school I still keep in touch with are Catholic. And when I realized that Catholicism wasn’t right for me, I did more studying into the religion then most kids who were raised Catholic or converted. I wanted so badly to make it right so I could make my mother and grandparents happy. It didn’t work, but I still consider myself kinda culturally Catholic. It doesn’t matter what religion I am now (neo-pagan actually), a part of Catholcism will always be with me.
And Dawn Eden and Deep Thought can shove their trendy shallow psudo-Catholic supremacy up their asses, because from where I’m standing, they’re the ones who need to “get” the parts about the religion that go deeper then memorized dogma.
Damn, the description of these “recent converts” sound like they’ve dragged their nitpicking, righteous, shrill practices straight out of certain evangelical strains right into the catholic church.
I call RCIA converts “magisterium Catholics.” I used to be one. My mom made my brother and I go kicking and screaming to our very first mass when we were 11 and 13 respectively. Having no religious references at all we thought the Lord’s Prayer chanted by the parish sounded a lot like the borg assimilation speech. I went thru the kids’ RCIA practice, and got all three rites (baptism, first communion, confirmation) in one Easter when I was 15. I reverted to my childhood godlessness after intro to anthropolgy freshman year. Oh yeah, a lot of the adult RCIA class were former evangelicals and fundamentalists “going back to Rome.” An unholy hybrid of Falwell and Cardinal Newman.
zuzu
Any chance you could talk more about this apostate thing? I’ve been googling it for a while here, but nothing about how to do it or what the process is like emotionally.
The epithet we used to use for converts of that sort is “more Catholic than the Pope.” And yeah, the whole syndrome is really stupid. I suspect there’s a personality type that cuts across religions and political stripes, for which you could use a sort of Mad Libs script and change the nouns and adjectives, maybe an incidental verb or two, but never the tone of voice or the import. Or, I suspect, the motivation.
Oh yeah, that faux-civility thing. I remember having one of those adolescent insights — when I was an adolescent, oddly enough — after watching Star Trek a few times. Yes, the original. Yes, first season. After a few too many scenes of Mister Spock steepling: Spock, honey, smugness is also an emotion. And preachiness is another brand of incivility.
“Lapsed Catholic” my fine fat ass. I escaped.
Thank you for this! I’m another lapsed/ex Catholic, and I’m actually Irish (as in born in Dublin, lived here my whole life, am writing this in the Dublin suburbs) and the fundie ravings of American converts sends me into a fury of rage. Yeah, please tell me more about the religion that basically ran my country like a fucking theocracy for fifty years. Also, I went to Catholic primary and secondary schools, and they were all pretty liberal – there were plenty of non-Catholic pupils, and we were taught about contraception in our sex-ed classes. My parents, who are complete pro-choice liberals, are still practicing Catholics, and are among the many lay people within the church pushing for the acceptance of contraception, women priests and gay rights. Being Catholic doesn’t automatically mean being a hateful small-minded sexist bigot.
I should add, though, that despite the appalling efforts of the church, our population is not actually entirely comprised of drunken depressives. Also, I think there’s a tendency outside of ireland to exaggerate the current state of the church’s power here, which has been drastically reduced over the last 20 years. I mean, the transformation in my lifetime (I’m 30) has been amazing. Which is not to downplay the ways in which the church totally fucked over this country in the past, but I’ve read pieces saying stuff like “…and the last Magdalen Laundry closed its doors in 1996″. Which is technically true, but I grew up literally across the road from it and it hadn’t actually admitted any new inmates in about 30 years. It closed because the convent had (belatedly) built a new carehome for the very tragic and now elderly women who had been sent there many, many years before and become totally institutionalised. So it’s not like us tragic drunken micks were still sending teenage girls there in the ’90s, but this definitely seemed to suit an international image of modern Ireland still being like ‘Angela’s Ashes’ or something.
Of course, abortion is still illegal here, but unfortunately that’s the result of public referenda rather than Church diktat, and I and many others believe that if the UK wasn’t such a cheap plane/ferry ride away (thousands of Irish women get abortions in the UK every year), the public would be forced to acknowledge that we need to have legal abortion here. But it’s very easy to ignore the problem and keep your head in the sand if the country next door will look after it for you.
Sarah S, let me offer my experience with leaving the Church, in the hope that it will perhaps help you.
When I formally left Catholicism, everything I read seemed to indicate that you have to be excommunicated to make them “let” you out, and that the only way to be excommunicated is to demonstrate unrepentant hostility to and disagreement with the Church. Further, the indications were that it was the priest of one’s current parish that one had to involve in the process, not the bishop of the diocese where one was baptised.
Now I’m somewhat fearful of being “rude” by challenging people’s religious beliefs, and I’ve never gone to church in the diocese I live in, so that didn’t seem appropriate to me, but I did want to make sure they’d actually take me off the rolls of existing Catholics. So I wrote up all my complaints and disagreements with the Church in a letter (getting rather angry in the process and progressing to completely unnecessary rhetorical fluorishes near the end), and I sent copies to the bishop of the diocese where I live (call it P), the archbishop of the archdiocese where I was raised (call it C), and the head priests at the church where I was baptised (in the town of R) and the church where I was raised (in the town of L), both of which are in the C archdiocese. (The L parish was the most recent church I had attended, and the church my mother still goes to, and knowing that I sent such a letter to them still makes me feel ill at the thought that they might show it to her.)
The first response I got was from the bishop of P. He called my letter hateful and bigoted and told me he was saddened to receive it, but he didn’t give me any useful information about how to formally leave the church. It was like getting punched in the stomach, and I spent the rest of the day in a daze. If that had been the only response I had received, I might well have given up, but fortunately this was not the case.
A week later, I heard back from the archbishop of C. who sent me a letter expressing his concern about what he saw as my ignorance of Catholicism, enclosing a video CD about why abortion is bad and also, much to my relief, a form that I could mail back to him requesting to formally leave the Catholic Church. I sat on the form for a while, because I was busy with other things and because much of my tension had been dissipated simply by knowing there was a polite and easy way out. In the interim, I received a small note from the parish priest of L expressing his dismay at my comments, which shook my emotional state terribly, but not my determination to do the thing. I never heard back from the R parish.
Anyway, about a month after receiving the form, I spent several hours retyping it neatly (since the original form was an ugly photocopied mess) and printing two copies on fancy paper, and then took them to the public library to have my signatures notarized. I sent one copy off to the archdiocese of C, and kept the other for myself. I never heard back from the archdiocese after that. I don’t know why, but it doesn’t really matter. I feel better for having done it, and I have my own fancy-printed notarized documentation that it happened, whether they’re willing to acknowledge it or not. (I’m hesitant to give up my internet anonymity like this, but here’s a link to my retyped form if you want to use it. There’s also a longer discussion of my excommunication written in the immediate aftermath in that same directory. This was the final nail I put in the coffin — writing down what happened as I saw it at the time.)
Knowing what I do now, if I had to do this over again, I would’ve just sent all of the parties a polite letter stating simply that I want to leave the Catholic church and asking how to go about it. I think it would’ve saved me a lot of grief if I’d known that that might work. It also seems that I could’ve gotten away with leaving the parish priests and the bishop of a diocese where I’ve never attended church off the list, and simply contacted the archbishop of C, although if you’ve been seriously involved in a church outside of the diocese where you were raised your situation may be different.
Anyway, for all the missteps I made, and all the emotional turmoil I went through, I feel a lot better for having formally declared the Catholic Church out of my life, and for having positioned myself as a pure, unaffiliated atheist.
I still haven’t told my mother I’ve done this, and I don’t know if I ever will, because she’s always begged me not to take my atheism that far and would be horrified if she found out. I don’t really want to hurt her. And I still miss the rituals sometimes, even down to the flavor of the consecrated host, which I haven’t tasted in probably ten years. But I’ve never regretted this decision. I feel free in a way I never imagined possible, and it’s wonderful.
Hrm. Rereading my own records, I seem to have reported a couple of irrelevant details incorrectly in my description of my apostacy. Nothing important enough to be worth correcting, but I feel I should acknowledge the oops. :-/
I was raised Irish AND Polish Catholic… different parents. Thankfully, I didn’t get any of that Anti-Catholic thing until I started dating my wife, whose family is devout Baptist. At the time, like one of the other above posters, I admired Catholicism for its lack of preachy, anti-genital moralizing.
The problem here is this: No matter what denomination you are, converts like Flanagan feel the need to accept the whole Bible, chapter and verse, lest their faith fall apart. It’s like trying to defend the Star Wars movies. Meanwhile, most rational human beings either 1) find a way for their faith to coexist with a world more complex than their 2,000 year old desert manuscript dictates, OR 2) they renounce said faith entirely.
Either way, late-life converts like Flanagan return to their faith out of self-loathing for past mistakes, NOT out of any legitimate desire to contemplate the Divine. And converts of that nature aren’t worth even talking to. They’re like petulant teenagers, all over again.
>and the fundie ravings of American converts sends me into a >fury of rage. Yeah, please tell me more about the religion that >basically ran my country like a fucking theocracy for fifty years
I agree. Im writing from limerick, ireland.
I go into a fury everytime I see an american with leaflets and holy water. It just makes me want to smack them. Limericks main pedestian street attracts the buggers, as does the university.
One actually threw holy water at me when I was passing. If my friends didnt stop me I would have punched him. All the ignorant, rude…
And its not like they have a cule, basic church history that shows some of the bad things the church has done is news to them.
I have left the catholic church, due to well many reasons. But I treat them with respect and I demand it in return.
Btw Im from the west of ireland, sea there is alcholism and depression but not to the levels thats imagined, though to be honest its 10 years behind dublin in ever way.
Well, in her usual dishonest style, Ms. Eden has misrepresented and twisted my comment on this blog (not a separate blog post as she claims – and while we’re on the subject of misrepresentatin, one of her little hangers-on attributes something I wrote to zuzu…not the brightest bunch, are they?) and is trying to make it something it was never meant to be.
Another complete falsehood is that I’ve converted to the Episcopal Church. Not true, nor did I claim it was. I merely said that I attend services at our Episcopal Church at the moment because I find the atmosphere at my usual parish completely unbearable due to the _actions_ of a particularly obnoxious group of recent converts.
This isn’t because I want to “live as I wish” (the implication being that I want to sleep around and have abortions, or something), but because I am deeply offended and hurt by the actions (which include spreading a completely false and disgusting rumor about my friend’s daughter, revealing private medical information about someone else, and engaging in such obscenely racist behavior that it would make any decent human being sick to their stomachs) of a group of johnny-come-latelys.
Also, my references to the cultural baggage many cradle Catholics struggle with are a far cry from claiming that the Catechism leads to drinking. The entire point was that, while the Catechism is valid, the way it has been used and interpreted and filtered through the particular prejudices and quirks and weirdnesses of various cultures has indeed hurt people and even been the source of great evil.
I know the sins of the Magdalene laundries are of a time past. But the memories and scars linger, and the mentality that gave rise to them still exists in some people, and that is something that is to be compassionately considered when you have discussions about very personal issues – and the Magdalene laundries are really only one example of a twisted and disturbed application of Catholicism, btw – I’m not trying to pick on the Irish, it’s just the cultural mindset I’m personally familiar with.
Anyway, her latest post shows she’s still just a sad, lonely, mentally ill woman who continues to be desperate for approval and attention. All this pandering to the conservative Catholics of St. Blogs is really just a substitute for passing her body around to semi-famous, almost-rock-stars.
I think I’ll just sit back and wait for the next chapter in that loon’s life – Dawn Eden: Scientologist.
Unlike many of the other responders, I was never a lapsed Catholic, but I do have the following observations:
* Every religion I’ve ever encountered presents a very different face when they’re the majority than when they’re a minority. Growing up in Southern California, Protestants were holding Harvest Crusades, Promise Keeper rallies, and the like, while Catholics were just Christians with the extra ritual stuff, and who came across as more liberal because of things like an anti-death penalty stance and acceptance of evolution. Now I live in Buffalo, which is overwhelmingly Catholic, they’re the ones that come across as abusing power, with things like the anti-contraception stance, control of health care, etc., becoming more prominent. (To be fair, this could also be due to the fact that for me, in high school, contraception was merely an academic issue and health care was something for my parents to worry about.) I suspect that this is true for any religion (or any institution, for that matter) that has majority power in a region; when they’ve got power, they can abuse it knowing they’ll keep most of their congregation, while when they’re in the minority they have to go easy on the unpalatable aspects for fear of losing people.
* I wonder how convert’s zeal applies to my own feminism. While I don’t think I ever disagreed with the basic ideas of feminism, it wasn’t until a year or two ago that a lot of the ideas about privilege and the patriarchy “clicked.” Now I find I have little patience with people who were as I was then.
My primary experience with Catholicism has been from a deep south point of view. I did not have any particular religious reference when I “converted”, as I was brought up in a family that considered itself christian, but was not very church-going. My husband is a cradle Catholic from New Orleans which means he definitely has a world-view distinct from most other Catholics. Generally Catholics here in the south are pretty moderate. Perhaps because they’re a minority in a fundamentalist southern baptist society.
After I went through RCIA, I remained involved with the program for a couple of years afterwards. Most of the converts, myself included (I hope), were not of the Dawn Eden ilk. Our RCIA program stressed the importance of family, both personal and church, and really focused on the sacrements. It did not really touch upon birth control, abortion, women’s rights, and the other hot button issues. The attitude was that you could take away from RCIA what you had learned and apply it to the issues of everyday life.
However, there were a few Dawns that came through RCIA. It seemed they were very insecure (and perhaps suffering from a clinical mental disability) and were in search of something a lot bigger than the church could give them. I’ve seen them fall away from the church when they discovered that it wasn’t a 24/7 babysitter for them and they still had to deal with the gray areas of real life.
I’m lapsed now, not just from catholicism, but from organized religion in general. However, I still consider myself Catholic, and always will. I’ve always been pro-choice and pro-contraception, in the sense that my personal beliefs are mine alone, but I cannot step into another woman’s shoes. And I’m offended when Dawn Eden and others seek to impose their (temporary) beliefs on others.
PHLAF has it right, next Dawn will be touting the beauty of silent birth as the only way to go. Let’s just hope she doesn’t quit her happy pills cold turkey a la Tom Cruise.
I am a “practicing” Catholic. Meaning I go to Mass every Sunday. The kids go to Sunday school. My older one received 1st Communion last year. I don’t at this time take communion because I am not in good standing and am struggling with bringing myself up to snuff in that area (requires an annulment from my first marriage and a “good” confession. Yikes. That might take hours).
In critical times in my life, my commitment to my Catholic upbringing has almost surprised me. For instance, it was very important to me, from somewhere down deep, that my children be baptized and my mother receive last rites.
I am lucky to have been raised in a household where we practiced realistic Catholicism. My mother, after having 7 kids in 9 years, had her tubes tied. She said “when the church decides to start buying my kids their new shoes, I’ll have more”. So I don’t have any illusion that the Church is perfect or all-knowing. Any organization that is as big as the Catholic Church and as old is bound to have flaws.
What these RCIA converts you talk about are missing with the Church, or any Christian church for that matter, is that Christianity is not designed for perfect people. It is a faith based on forgiving SINNERS. Which is why I can go every week and know I am welcome by God if not by my pew-mate who thinks he knows better.
Lucky you. Not only was I baptized long before I was capable of even having an opinion on the matter, I also went through Confirmation/Affirmation of Baptism, more or less against my will, because there was no way in hell I would be able to find any excuse to refuse that would satisfy anyone.
The joke’s on them, of course, because the various stuff associated with Confirmation is what got me to thinking that I didn’t like that faith much. Realizing, for example, that God had written one of his commandments in a way that banned a whole lot of consensual sex and left a loophole for rape; reading various of the New Testament writings attributed to Paul; having to do some creative writing in order to make my statement of faith satisfy the pastor, et cetera.
What’s really amazing here is the amount of Catholic elitism among a group of people who profess themselves to be lapsed or apostate. Someone correct me if I’ve managed to completely misread the comments, but this entire thread is beginning to sound like the classic fallacy of “I can’t be racist because my best friend is black”. Being culturally Catholic doesn’t mean that you can criticize the church without being anti-Catholic, nor does it make you any better qualified to deal with Catholic doctrine than a recent convert. I would even argue that an adult convert has a much better understanding of the actual substance of the Catholic faith (by which I mean those rules of doctrine and morality which distinguish it from, say, the non-denominational Church of God) than someone who was raised (culturally) Catholic, and left the faith. Understanding Catholic doctrine does require study and inquiry, which presumably a convert would take part in, but someone who was raised Catholic might never have really been exposed to. Dawn’s not having been Catholic at the time of the Magdalene laundries hardly disqualifies her from having valid points about the nature of the Catholic Church and its teachings.
I also took serious issue with zuzu’s statement:
Catholicism is a religion first, and a cultural thing secondary. The entire point of being a Catholic as opposed to any other religious denomination is that you hold to the teachings of the church, largely laid out in the “one little catechism”. If you don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches, then guess what? You aren’t really a Catholic. Every religion is a defined set of beliefs, and whether your parents where Catholic, or your Aunt was a nun is not really relevant to the discussion. Dawn’s theological basis is pretty damn sound, so while you are entirely entitled to disagree with her based on the fact that you don’t buy into religion at all, don’t bother pulling the “well I was raised Catholic” card.
Finally, I would like to point out that some ethnicities are more prone to depression than others, and those of celtic background are particularly at risk, independent of religious affiliation.
I’m about to be a history geek. Sorry.
Ireland wasn’t repressive about sex because it was Catholic. Ireland was repressive about sex because certian demographic pressures, starting in the mid-19th century, made it really important to control non-marital reproductive sex. There’s a lot of evidence that Irish people were notably un-repressed before then. The Catholic Church got assigned the cultural work of enforcing sexual conformity, but Ireland would have been equally sexually-repressive had most Irish people been Buddhist or Jewish or Zoroastrian. The particular nature of Irish Catholicism was a result, not a cause, of Irish people’s hang-ups about sex, hang-ups which actually made a lot of sense in a land-poor agricultural society without a lot of economic outlets for non-inheriting children.
I’m not convinced that Catholicism can be blamed for the repressiveness of mid-19th through mid-20th century Irish culture. I might actually argue that the repressiveness of mid-19th to mid-20th century Irish culture is responsible for the repressiveness of Irish and, to some extent, American Catholicism.
Heh. I sort of feel sorry for them. They probably show up in Ireland expecting to find a pure, beautiful society where true Catholicism reigned supreme, only to find that everyone hates them and that Irish people are not holy enough to refrain from swearing at them quite a bit. You’re shattering their dreams! It’s like going to the North Pole and realizing that there aren’t actually flying raindeer and jolly, toy-making elves.
You definitely find the zeal-of-the-converted thing in every religion. You see it a lot among Jews who were raised secular but returned to orthodoxy.
Lucy:
*laughs hysterically*
*laughs some more*
*shudders* Now that’s hellish.
Jeff:
Hmmm. Never really occurred to me that my faith’s minority status would be something to be thankful for. Thanks.
The Church just doesn’t make sweeping exclusions like that. The ideal, of course, is to hold to all the teachings (in any religion I suppose). But there is no requirement to accomplish this perfectly all the time. If everyone who didn’t attain that lofty goal got up from their pew and left Mass, church would be a very empty place.
While I have never sought official apostasy from my original church (and am not sure how, anyway, as it’s a Protestant denomination), a couple thoughts on Anne Nonymous’s story:
Generally, sending off hostile letters is not the best way of doing something, especially if it requires some action on their part. It is enough of an insult to them, I’d imagine, that you’re leaving their church. They are likely to either be insulting back, or be visibly hurt or upset by it, and either of these will interfere with your moving on with a clean conscience.
Personally, what I’d do is make two letters. First, I’d write a very angry, hostile, insulting one, stating all my resentment and disgust and everything else. And then I’d burn it, releasing and dispersing all the hatred I’d put into it. Afterwards, I’d write a polite letter, to the tune of “my beliefs are no longer in sync with your faith, and I would appreciate it if you’d remove me from membership, as my name in your baptismal records is no longer an accurate representation of who I am,” rather than “your beliefs suck so I’m leaving.” The former highlights your changed beliefs as the reason you want to leave; the latter attacks the church for not conforming to your beliefs, and that’s supposed to be their sin (expecting conformation from you), not yours (expecting conformation from them).
Problem with all these faiths that think they’re for everybody, is that they take it so personally when someone decides otherwise. If someone left my faith, on the other hand, I’d be happy for them because them finding something that suits them better than what they had before is a good thing.
Quartermaster:
Just because Dawn got splashed does not mean she’s read the Summa Theologica. The body of Catholic scholarship is utterly vast. Without some understanding of the history of the Church and its writings you might as well be Orthodox or Anglican (not that those are bad things to be).
I might also profer the words of the old preacher…
“Goin’ to church don’t make you a Christian any more than standin’ in a garage makes you a car.”
I might ask you if a pilot quits American Airlines does that mean he’s forgotten how to fly?
As far as criticizing the Church and the Pope, there’s a cardinal who’s paid to do just that. Ever hear of the Devil’s Advocate?
Did you not know that the Curia is always a hotbed of debate?
Did you not know that there is a constant battle between the conservative and liberal elements of the Church?
Quatermaster, the Church, however it may appear to outsiders and even some members, is not now nor has it ever been monolithic. The contents, if you didn’t know, of “that one little catechism” have changed over the years.
By the by, if the Church was still teaching against the heliocentric solar system; how would you feel about that?
I am a “practicing” Catholic. Meaning I go to Mass every Sunday. The kids go to Sunday school.
Is Sunday school for Catholic kids common in the US? Because over here in Ireland it’s strictly a Protestant thing. I was always slightly jealous of Protestant kids because they got to go to something just for them while we had to sit through boring old Mass every week. Of course, perhaps here the powers that be figured that as we were all going to Catholic day schools anyway, Sunday school wasn’t really needed.
Finally, I would like to point out that some ethnicities are more prone to depression than others, and those of celtic background are particularly at risk, independent of religious affiliation.
What on earth? First of all, the status of “Celtic” as a specific ethnicity is dubious at best – as even Wikipedia says, “The problem is that the wider public reads into the term quite anachronistic concepts of ethnic unity that no one on either side in the academic debate holds.” I think this may have happened here. And second of all, the Irish are mutts. We got invaded practically every five minutes for several hundred years, and most of us have a bit of Viking, a bit of Norman, a bit of Scottish and a bit of Anglo-Saxon in our ancestral DNA (I’ve got an English surname, my mother and boyfriend each have a Norman one, and my boyfriend’s mother’s surname is of Viking origin). And then there are the Picts, the Firbolgs and the various other groups who came here over the centuries. So unless somehow this completely random combination of ethnic groups is more prone to depression, I don’t really think your claim makes any sense.
Quartermaster, I know that it’s not my place to determine who is and isn’t a “good” Catholic or even a Catholic at all. Can you say the same for Dawn Eden and her ilk?
You probably think that criticizing Israel makes you anti-Semitic instead of simply critical of Israel or of Zionism.
Catholics are people. The Catholic Church is an institution, one with vast power, wealth and influence. You can damn well bet I’m going to criticize it, and its policies and not consider myself one iota anti-Catholic.
If I were to run around telling people they weren’t good Catholics, or that they were doing things just because all Catholics have a chip implanted in their heads by the Vatican, then you could call me anti-Catholic.
Being culturally Catholic doesn’t mean that you can criticize the church without being anti-Catholic
Quartermaster: I think there’s a bit of equivocation going on with the term “anti-Catholic” here. You seem to be trying to shame anyone who criticizes the Catholic Church by invoking the specter of historical discrimination against individual practicioners of Catholicism.
If you don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches, then guess what? You aren’t really a Catholic.
I don’t believe the “lapsed Catholics” here are claiming to still be Catholic. What they’re arguing against are the accusations that they hate Catholics, or that their position is chosen out of ignorance.
I’m so gonna use that.
Quartermaster…
I don’t believe the Church should be an exclusive club at all. Hence my disgust with those of Ms. Eden’s ilk who claim that only those who meet her personal approval may call themselves Catholic. She’s been Catholic for all of five minutes, considers herself absolutely perfect and without fault, and tells the rest of us we don’t really love our children or husbands.
I have chosen to distance myself from my particular parish for my own reasons. I am not the one telling people they can’t call themselves Catholic. I’m not the one telling people they ought not be there. I removed myself, which, no doubt, leaves Dawn and her little crew ecstatic.
I’m sure Dawn loves what she perceives to be the Church. Unfortunately for Dawn, the Church isn’t just the building and the doctrine and the pretty stained glass windows and the incense and the candles. It’s people – messy, self-contradicting, confused, struggling, obstinate people who can also be amazingly compassionate, loving, giving, nurturing, and capable of moments of truly shining heroism. It’s people like Peter, upon whom Christ founded his church, not people like Dawn the Perfect and her band of yesmen. AAMOF, those are the very people Christ reserved his harshest words for.
But, see, I’m gone. I’m not pollluting your Church Of The Perfect anymore. Why is this pissing you off? You ought to be rejoicing.
My mom was a convert to Catholicism from Judaism, like Dawn, but at no point has she ever been a “catechism Catholic.” She’d probably be considered a “shopping cart Catholic” or closer to an Episcopal by more conservative Catholics; in fact, she’s considered converting to Episcopal many times.
As for me, sometimes I consider apostating (is that the word) from the Church because there is just so much about it that I don’t agree with and that makes me angry, and I feel hypocritical having a baptismal certificate on record that I am no longer loyal to. I disagree with the teachings on birth control, but that isn’t the major issue. I just don’t have that strong of a faith anymore, plus I find a lot of organized religion to be very exclusive (had we had a Catholic wedding, the entire groom’s side would not have been allowed communion; but then again, I wouldn’t be allowed into many Hindu temples in India, so it’s not just one faith that’s like that).
Faiths and religious sects have the right to include and exclude whoever they choose, and to teach what they want. I just am not comfortable living my life that way, so I’d rather have a general faith in God and leave it at that. But I haven’t officially left yet; not sure why.
Yes. Formerly called CCD (Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine? can’t remember what it stands for anymore). If you are a child that attends a Catholic parish school, you do not need to go to Sunday School. Its for the rabble that goes to public school. Its made clear that going to Sunday school does not relieve the child of his/her obligation to attend Mass, although its held on Sunday.
My son goes to Sunday School. He was not allowed to apply for admission to our local parish Catholic school due to his disability. Not that we could have afforded the $6k/year tuition…
When I was in eighth grade, they were still confirming in 8th grade. Now it’s 11th grade I believe. Those kids who had gone to Catholic school for elementary didn’t have to go to CCD except at the last part where they prepare you for the confirmation ceremony. Those who went to public school up until 6th grade had to go for the whole course.
Dawn ought to put more energy into charity and humanity aside from the “charitable” CPCs and far less energy into telling people how little they love their children and partners. The church I grew up in was open to all, and spent a lot more time building houses in the community and travelling to inner-city churches to start programs for impoverished children than they did pondering the most miniscule details of Sunday’s sermon — and I can honestly say that I learned my activism from this conservative church that put value in the doing (for others) rather than the preaching (at others).
I will apologize right upfront if I sound at all judgmental (the cardinal sin of the secular world), but I feel the need to point something out.
First, my credentials: 33-yr-old American cradle Catholic (I would have said Irish, but that’s not accurate, because I’m only a 1/4 Irish – I also happen to be Czech, German/Danish/French-Canadien with a dash of Cherokee somewhere). I considered the priesthood for a while (about 3 years of serious discenrment), but God had other plans for me. I’ve also sponsored a friend into the Church, through the RCIA program.
That said, I’d like to point out thatI’ve detected a pattern, based on the comments of Josh, Heather, Robyn Banks, Kyra, Joe, punkrockhockeymom, kristied, Sarah S, Lucy Snowe, Ron Sullivan, Stellanova, et al. The pattern seems to be this:
– lapsed Catholic
– attended liberal parish
– some form of abuse (either from alcohol or verbal or over-bearing strictness) at home
Let me address each point in turn.
I’m sorry to tell you, but being a lapsed Catholic does not necessarily qualify one as being Catholic anymore. It’s not like a nationality (like Irish), but it is rather a state of being and membership. It’s nice that some of you still have sentimental feelings toward the customs and culture of the Catholic Church, but I’m sure there are plenty of divorcees who still have sentimental feelings toward their ex-, but wouldn’t dare go around saying they’re still married to them. Another way of looking at it is this: I may think of myself as a computer programmer, but if I haven’t even sat in front of a computer in years, does that make me a programmer? Of course not! Maybe once, but not anymore. It wouldn’t make sense for me to attempt to correct currently active programmers by reminiscing about punch cards and ENIAC.
My 2nd point, which probably explains a lot, is this: liberal parish or loose teaching. The main problem most practicing Catholics have with people like Teddy Kennedy is that they claim to be Catholic, yet don’t follow the precepts of the Church necessary for membership. As a priest has commented: It’s like an environmentalist saying “I’m a member of Greenpeace, but I like their teaching about not clubbing seals.” Doesn’t work that way. Granted, the Church has a lot of diversity (a “big tent”), but the tent flaps have to end somewhere, and certain things (like being against abortion and believing in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist via transubstantiation) define those borders. This is also why the most conservative (doctrinally, not politically) seminaries and religious orders are seeing increases in vocations, while the most liberal and lax are closing.
The 3rd point is why I am trying not to be judgemental: past hurts and abuses. I understand that the past (either historical or personal) contains lots of instances of pain and hurt for many people. Most of this, in recent history, has had to do with alcohol abuse. Now, I am no teatotaller (I am Catholic, after all!), but the abuse of alcohol (like the abuse of anything) has had devastating effects on families, on the Faith, and even many priests. This does not, however, make the Church wrong or evil. The acts of individual Catholics can be detrimental, but that’s because the Church and it’s members are not perfect – if it were or people were, there would have been no need for a Savior! The Church is Holy only because Jesus has said so, and because it is His Bride that He loves to the end of the world.
I can sympathize with the hurt feelings and such (my parents – even though Catholic – divorced, partly due to alcohol abuse), but this is why one of the chief lessons of Christianity is forgiveness. Unfortunately, the most overlooked sacrament is Reconciliation (a.k.a., Confession or Penance), yet it is so very vital and crucial to the Faith.
It is also important not to identify the Church with any individual, nation, or culture. The Church is labelled “Catholic” because it is Universal – it encompasses people of every nation. On the flip side, there may be a shortage of vocations to the priesthood, but there is no such shortage of vocations to the Papacy – everybody seems to want to be Pope (thinking that they can then make up their own rules). The rules of the Church are meant for all, and all the rules are meant for each one in the Church. This is true for the “new on-fire convert” as well as the “lapsed/cultural Catholic”. There’s no such thing as a “second generation Catholic” (every one of us who claims to be Catholic must be born-again and convert daily), but there’s also no such thing as a “cafeteria Catholic” who is allowed to pick and choose what they will and won’t follow. This is not a new concept, but rather one from the beginning, with the first Council of Jerusalem, called by St. Paul and presided over by St. Peter.
Again, I’m trying not to be too preachy, because I believe more in touching the heart with the Truth, rather than bashing the head with the Bible. Unfortunately, words in print (even electronically) come off as cold, sterile, and legalistic. Therefore, I will end this lengthy comment by saying that I will remember you all in my prayers tonight, and if you feel so inclined, could you please pray likewise for me, that God will continue to feed my mind, strengthen my body, and open my heart? Thank you, and God bless.
And I mean that. They made room for my heathen atheist ass, and it was only a handfull of zealots that finally forced me out altogether. In the meantime, my minister publicly defended me and my pregnancy, reminding said zealots that Mary herself was an unmarried, teenage mother. He and his family are still great friends of mine, and he’s been a mentor to me for many years.
I believe the requirement for confirmation is having received the sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation and First Communion. First Communion requires that the child be enrolled in sacramental preparation classes for the two years prior to receiving (basically Sunday School participation in 1st and 2nd grade). Then, to prepare for Confirmation, I believe its the 2 year thing again, so they most likely will have to go to Confirmation class in 10th and 11th grade. Again, if you go to Cahtolic High School, most likely you are getting this instruction within your educational setting.
Raising the age of Confirmation may backfire on the Church, I suspect the number of those making it to Confirmation will decrease.
I think you’re right–in Catholic school we did our “prep classes” at school, so there was no need to duplicate. Public school kids didn’t get that, so they had to take the course outside.
Well, CCD isn’t necessarily “Sunday School”. When I was growing up (back in the dark ages – I’m so old when I was in Catholic grammar school, the playground was divided in two halves- one for the boys, one for the girls /rolleyes), the Catholic grammar school let out at 1 PM on Wednesdays and the public school Catholic kids came over for religious instruction. The nuns used to tell us to take anything valuable out of our desks on Wednesdays because they believed the public school kids would probably steal them – nice, huh? Such a loving, inclusive mentality…and we were terrified of public school kids as a result. No kidding.
CCD in the Catholic parish here is currently done on weekday evenings.
Now, “youth group” is on Sunday evenings and is really a Confirmation prep class for the high-schoolers, some of which are going to Catholic high schools, some not.
There is a Sunday school of sorts, in which the pre-First Communion kids are taken out during the Family Mass and given a little lesson and then brought back towards the end of Mass. It’s really more like glorified baby-sitting.
But things are so different now, and suburban parishes are different from city parishes, and so on. Everyone does things differently, which is fine.
As long as they were still counting my ass as Catholic because I was baptized, I was gonna claim the label.
However, this whole post was started from PHLAF’s comments about being an active Catholic who was driven away from her church by recent converts and their zeal. I get the sense that PHLAF would be more than happy to come back to the Church were it not for the judgmentalism and lack of compassion and charity of people like Dawn Eden.
Strawpope. Nobody’s made that claim.
Re Confirmation, you are confirmed by the parish you’re a member of and have to go through Confirmation prep in that parish regardless of your high school. This really used to annoy the heck out of me, especially since the Catholic theology courses at our kids’ Catholic high schools were actually better than the handful of classes the parish offered, plus the caliber of teachers was infinitely better. But those are the rules. Confirmation is usually done sophomore year in H.S. around here, but it’s really up to the kids at that point.
My grammar school years straddled Vatican II, and at some point during that time Confirmation was moved from 5th grade to 7th grade, which is when I made mine.
I think if you talked to the priests (or at least the pure-of-faith types, not the money-mongers or the pedophiles), they would consider a lapsed Catholic to still be a Catholic. The analogy always used to describe them is that Jesus looks after his sheep, even when they stray from the flock, and welcomes them back with open arms upon their return. Prodigal Son and all that. The Mormon church, which I know a little bit about because my 2nd husband was a Mormon (yeah, I know, I’m such a bad Catholic) is more definitive in who’s in and who’s out… actually banning you from attending the temple if you are inactive. Or so I’ve been told. Its not that way with Catholics.
Religions act with all the maturity of adolescent cliques competing for world domination.
Gotta love that quote. I wonder how many of them realize that you don’t have to be religious to be a non-radical-feminist, and that some feminists are religious? The blur between religion and political affiliation, and the horrendous dichotomies (either you buy all tenets of religion, or you have no values whatsoever) is a big reason why I no longer post to my conservative blog or really consider myself that much of a conservative any longer.
Stellanova,
You’re right, celtic was probably not the right term, but that doesn’t change the substance of my point; those of an anglo or nordic background are far more likely to suffer from depression than, say, someone from a latino background. After my father realized that he was suffering from clinical depression, my family tried to educate ourselves, and his doctor told us that we were considered an “at risk” demographic, based on our Irish-Swedish background.
Also, we can debate about how inclusive the Church ought to be, but the simple fact remains that an organized religion must have some doctrines which its people adhere to, or it ceases to be a religion. I’m reminded of the saying about being so open-minded your brain falls out. I’m not saying that we can’t fail sometimes, and sin and make mistakes. If you got kicked out of the Church every time you broke one of the rules, I wouldn’t be Catholic anymore. The teaching of the Church says that we aren’t perfect, and we will make mistakes, and should be forgiven when we ask to be. That’s a far cry from simply deciding that you don’t like the Church teachings on X, Y and Z issues, and therefore ignoring them completely. And yes, I am aware that there is much debate inside the Church, but that doesn’t give its adherentes free license to pick and choose what we like and don’t like.
The problem with Dawn Eden, Mr. Orthodoxy et al, is that for them any disagreement with the Pope means you are not a true Catholic. I know, because I used to be one of their ilk, considered being a nun for awhile and looked down my nose at all who dared question the True Teachings of the Catholic Church. I attended a school where all of the professors took oaths of allegiance to the Pope and everyone considered every word that came from the Pope’s mouth to be infallible. (that is not what the doctrice of infallibility means) Most of those attending that school have no respect for Protestant denominations, thanks to the teachings of Scott Hahn, another evangelical convert. I left the church for a variety of reasons (mostly because I began to use my brain and also developed compassion) and no longer consider myself Catholic or theistic at all. I respect the efforts that many catholics, like Kathy Kelly and Voices in the Wilderness, make towards social justice. However, I’m sure Dawn Eden wouldn’t allow them into her club.
It also doesn’t empower its adherents to decide who’s in and who’s out. Funny that.
Orthodoxy mentioned Teddy Kennedy as a “bad” Catholic. But what makes him so? The work he has done on behalf of social justice? The charity work he has done?
Point being, Dawn Eden and some others seem to have decided that the only facet of being Catholic that is important is following the Church’s teachings on sex and abortion. Yet I never hear about her works of mercy. Funny that.
Marian:
How old were you when you were baptized? Was it your decision? Because in my opinion, if you were baptized as a baby, you have no obligation to be loyal to anything. The promises in question were all made by your relatives who could talk, and your consent or opinion was never asked in the matter. A contract made without the consent of the person limited by the contract is automatically void.
For this reason I do not seek to be “unbaptized.” The ceremony in question was for my parents rather than for me, in my opinion—it has no more significance for me than falling off the stepping stones into the headwaters of the Mississippi when I was three. It’s their thing, and to me, meaningless.
Confirmation is a bit harder to shrug off, but I consider it the spiritual equivalent of statutory rape—something I was convinced to do before I was ready to declare a faith, and convinced mostly by fear of the reactions of people more powerful than me (parents, pastor, extended family, et cetera), should I refuse.
It is my beliefs, not purpose stated for me by others nor beliefs I pretended to hold to avoid conflict, that state who I am. Perhaps I was never a Christian.
Thank you for the new nickname “Strawpope”, thank you for reading my comments (now available at my blog) and thank you for your prayers.
God bless.
Kyra–good point. I was baptised as a baby and confirmed as an 8th grader (still too young to be outside your parents’ influence, IMHO!) :-) No further ceremonies since then. I don’t feel right getting married or baptizing my children in a faith I don’t believe in, so I just kinda don’t practice.
Actually, I have mentioned it before here and here, if you have any interests in what a doctrinally orthodox by politically balanced Catholic has to say.
Holy shit, “baptised?” I really do work with Brits! Heehe! :-)
Well, you yourself mentioned you were a cradle Catholic, which puts you in the non-convert-zeal category.
I don’t follow what else she blogs about, but it does seem that she and many of her commentors blame too much on “the contraceptive mentality.” Brad and Jen breaking up? Contraception! Jessica and Nick going sour? Contraception of course! Terri Schiavo? Contraceptive mentality, or else we’d have celebrated her life! Abortion being widespread? Well if only all couples were open to big families…..etc etc etc.
It’s one thing to believe against contraception; quite another to attribute nearly ALL of society’s ills to married couples using condoms and birth control pills. It becomes a leap after awhile.
Actually,
You can be a “shopping cart” Catholic. For sin to occur, three things must be present. 1) Volition. Are you doing whatever it is of your own free will? The rape victim cannot be held to have committed the sin of fornication. 2) The Church must say it’s a sin. 3) You must feel in your heart it is a sin. The size and power of the Church doesn’t change the fact that, ultimately, the relationship is between the person and their God. The act of sin is that which creates a separation between the person and God; i.e., damages the relationship. So if I steal a loaf of bread to feed someone who is starving….
Grossly oversimple, but there it is. The fundies of any religion simply cannot get a handle on this. They do okay on #1 and #2 but #3 is beyond them because they cannot deal with shades of gray.
Which is why the Dawn’s of the world have to right to preach. My God and I will work it out without her help, thank you very much. Might not you have to break the law instead of keeping it to be a good Catholic? There have been all manner of revolutionary priests who acted out of conscience.
You who are so strong on the Law should remember of the story of Jesus and his disciples walking through the cornfield on Sabbath. Jesus told them to pick some ears. The Pharisee’s went ballistic saying Jesus had broken the Sabbath by ‘harvesting.’ Jesus held feeding the hungry was more important than the law. #3 is doing “right as God gives you the light to see that right.”
I no longer feel the need of the Church as an intermediary. That doesn’t mean I don’t still love her bad case of warts and all. But lapsed or unlapsed any Catholic has a right to try to influence the Church regarding social policies. Indeed, they have the duty to do so.
Zuzu,
Just wanted to say kudos for this post. It captured so much of what I feel, also as a lapsed Catholic who finds it difficult not to identify as Catholic, as it was such an important part of what made me who I am.
Well, anything remotely to do with sex sends the conservative Catholic set into a frenzy. Maybe they ought to have more of it and talk about it less.
Anyway, it’s blatantly obvious that the attention Ms. Eden gets from cross-posting material from this and similar blogs is truly the god she worships, so I’m done feeding her insatiable need for approval and attention.
Maybe some day she’ll find what she’s looking for, but until she gets out of her own way, I doubt that will ever happen.
A couple random things
“Is Sunday school for Catholic kids common in the US?”
At my church, the public school kids that were grades preK to 1st had to go to Sunday school during the mass itself, which was a way to better teach us about Catholocism and keep us from running around the church during mass like hyperactice little devils. Then we had CCD classes every Tuesday from 3:30-4:30 from grades 2-8, and two hours a week every Wednesday for 8 weeks in the winter from grades 9-12, when you were confirmed about a month before your high school graduation. I dropped after week one of 11th grade.
“That said, I’d like to point out thatI’ve detected a pattern, [sic] The pattern seems to be this:
- lapsed Catholic
- attended liberal parish
- some form of abuse (either from alcohol or verbal or over-bearing strictness) at home”
I’m not a lapsed Catholic, a lapsed Catholic is someone who is still Catholic but no longer attends mass or does other active things to practice their religion. I am no longer Catholic. I am Neo-pagan. There is a big difference there.
My church was far from liberal. If I were to peg it, I would say moderately conservative. It’s not like we were doing the mass in Latin or banning dancing, but it was quite conservative. Contraception was bad, divorce was VERY bad, and unwed sex, especially if it resulted in pregnancy, was two steps away from being sent to hell itself. I cant think of a time where we were ever exposed to any liberal ideas.
I’ve been fortunate in my life never to encounter any serious abuse. I’ve never known anyone who had a problem with alcohol. I’ve never been verbally abused. I’ve never been physically, sexually, or emotionally abused. I’ve had people be mean to me, bully me, irritate me, hurt me, and make fun of me, but nothing I would consider abuse.
I think that your pattern really don’t apply to me at all.
Ugh, CCD. How I loathed it.
I got through it though, and at the very end, refused conformation. My mother agreed that hey, at least I had given it a shot, right? ;)
A couple of things I wanted to mention:
There was an article in my local paper a year or so ago that discussed fundamentalism in the church. The op/ed basically took the position that we have all seen before, that either you adhere to all teachings of the bible, or do not call yourself a Catholic.
A Catholic woman wrote into the editor a few days later, and I thought what she stated was perfect. I can’t quote it exactly (the way she actually phrased it was perfect, and I’m afraid I won’t do it full justice by paraphrasing it here), but I can try to give you a jist of what she was saying. .
Basically, she said, religion evolves with culture.
(My own note here – We can easily bring up examples such as the Spanish Inquisitions et al to show how acceptable practices in the church back in the day would not be acceptable practices now. We can look at passages such as those found in Levictus and see that some of the issues in the bible, such as not eating shellfish, were relevant to the times, as eating raw shellfish could render one quite ill. Sex before marriage or non-monogamous relationships were frowned upon due to the patriarchal lineage that many cultures in the past depended on. Anyway, point being, there were cultural issues that influenced what was written in the bible, and as those cultural situations changes, so did bible interpretation)
Back to the writer – she then stated that since God’s message evolves with cultural changes, those who interpreted the bible as literal could very well be sinning themselves, as instead of following the teachings of Jesus and worshiping God, they instead were worshiping a doctrine – the written word of the bible. She pointed out that this type of fundementalism could be seen as a direct violation of the Ten Commandments, specifically, the one dealing with false gods and idol worship.
I thought it was kind of an interesting point.
The other thing I wanted to mention is just something I was thinking about. We hear from those that are of Judeo-Christian background about the devil’s work, and how the devil’s main goal is to steer souls away from god. And how tricky he is in doing this (I have a fond memory from childhood of my Lutheran Grandmother telling me that the Devil was trying to lure us away from God via a Paula Abdul video).
Well, who are the ones actually trying to turn people away from god? Those that fight for acceptance in the church? Or those that point fingers and say “Okay, you’re evil, you’re evil, you, in the back, you’re evil too… you are not “true” Catholics, until you are, get out of my church”. So perhaps we could argue that attacking people for pre-martial sex, homosexuality, et al are actually doing the Devil’s work of turning people away from god and not realizing it, and those that are actually preaching the message of love and tolerance for their neighbors are the ones doing the lord’s work by bringing people closer to God and salvation.
I dunno, Just a thought.
Kat says: What these RCIA converts you talk about are missing with the Church, or any Christian church for that matter, is that Christianity is not designed for perfect people. It is a faith based on forgiving SINNERS. Which is why I can go every week and know I am welcome by God if not by my pew-mate who thinks he knows better.
Amen, from this cradle-Catholic-feminist-married-to-a-Buddhist-who-send-their-kids-to-Catholic-school. As I said on Dawn`s post, I personally think it`s better for me to be a half-assed Catholic than nothing at all. That didn`t go over very well, unsurprisingly.
Dawn and her commenters are having a field day over there. I do love how she starts off her post, entitled something like, “It must be The Da Vinci Code.”
Oh, the irony from and RCIA Catholic.
Generally, sending off hostile letters is not the best way of doing something…
Yes, this was exactly my point Kyra. I did the hostile thing against my natural inclinations and my common sense, and only because everything I read seemed to tell me there was no other way to accomplish the thing I was determined to accomplish. Everybody said that the Church doesn’t like to let people go, so if I expected to get out I had to cause them to want to excommunicate me.
And then it turned out that the Catholic Church actually does seem to have an official mechanism for leaving politely and quietly, which would have saved me a lot of grief if I’d known about it in advance. I guess they don’t like to advertise it though. It’s certainly not discussed in the Catholic Catechism, or on any official website, which is probably why all those “how to get excommunicated” websites I read mislead me — they’d never heard you could do this either.
So, I told my story mostly to show how unpleasant the method splashed all over the internets can make your life, and to tell people that there is a better way. I’m sorry if this wasn’t clear the first time through.
The idea of baptizing at such a young age is to protect the infant spiritually in case of an untimely death (infant mortality rates were extremely high years ago) and welcome the new child to the congregation. I don’t know if this is still the doctrine on the subject, but the belief was that unbaptized infants go to Limbo, not Heaven. So, yes, this is something that parents do to protect their children. My parents lost their first child in the first days of her life (she was baptized and given Last Rites upon delivery). After that, my father did not wait to get us kids to the baptismal font at 4 weeks old, he sprinkled us with water secretly in the hospital bathroom. He was THAT concerned. The baptismal ceremony itself is a time whent he parents and godparents reaffirm their own baptismal vows and further vow be an example of the Catholic faith. So I *think* Kyra is right when she says the child is not the one obligated by the baptism. And actually, the parents and godparents take on quite a bit of responsibility when they proceed with baptism for their child.
I would like to think that one of the reason the Church moved this to an older age is to allow the Confirmee to have a more informed say in proceeding or not with this Sacrament. Which is why I think the numbers will go down, at least among teens, who may reconsider in adulthood. This is a good thing I think.
Since I’m on sacraments, I would like to say I think the Church is getting better at the whole idea of informed choice with these. I was married in the Church, and they did not let you go into that lightly. In order to marry, we had to go to Pre Cana classes and wait out a mandatory 6 months waiting period. So later, when I divorced my husband it was no big surprise that the Church would require me to have an annulment to remarry.
The whole idea of divorce being “bad” in the Church is so misunderstood, even by most Catholics. Divorce is a civil matter that is not recognized by the Church. Therefore, not considered a sin. What they don’t approve of is remarrying without obtaining an annulment from the Church first. They brief you on this in Pre Cana. The Church sees a remarriage outside of the church in the absense of an annulment as adultery against the 1st marriage. One reason I do not take Communion now is this very reason–I am remarried without annullment. I talked to my priest about this and we have a plan to resolve it, because although I did it, I do recognize that it doesn’t fall within the rules and I was informed of this all before I proceeded in this direction.
Just a (small) point about being catholic – Those of us who were raised Episcopalian or Anglican are in fact catholic as well (just not Roman).
Correction to my comment above — my comment on Dawn`s post was at first unsurprisingly ill-received, but then surprisingly well-received by a few commenters.
I was a very devout Catholic until I was 15, and decided that if I were ever raped, I would have an abortion. Our parish priest mistakenly told our Catechism class that anyone who was not “100% pro-life” was “automatically excommunicated.” Wow, I thought — that was easy! It`s official — I`m kicked out!”
It really wasn`t that easy.
He did? They never told me that. But I guess they wouldn’t, seeing as I had no kids to baptize.
Actually, that came up when he died. It was his deathbed confession. Before any of us had kids.
He had not told the priest he had done this at the time, so we all went through the ceremony in the church as well. And he harbored guilt about this his whole life and finally confessed it and was forgiven.
Not sure where that leaves us double-dunked offspring, however ;)
Might that have been during one of his earlier hospitalizations? After all, he just dropped dead in the living room while having milk & cookies, so he didn’t really have a deathbed. Just a death recliner.
Interesting that he would have felt so much guilt over that.
Yes, as soon as I wrote that I remembered it was from that. He received Last Rites during one of those hospitilizations. I think the reason it was an issue that was chatted about was because if I’m not mistaken this was when Mom also became aware of this. Darn those deathbed confessions that don’t end up in death. They stir up a pot of trouble.
And that’s how I want to go. Honestly. Eating milk & cookies in my recliner.
I obviously can’t speak for everyone else you mentioned, but in my case you thoroughly struck out.
I am a “lapsed” (or rather, escaped) (read: former) Christian, not a Catholic. Lutheran, to be specific. My father was Catholic; we were raised Lutheran, however, although my sisters are both Catholic now.
I haven’t the slightest clue how liberal my dad’s parish is, having last stepped in there for my grandmother’s funeral. Although the church we did go to is relatively liberal, so let’s call that one a foul ball. Still a strike.
No abuse, however, of any sort. Just a large amount of pressure (mostly from my mother, but backed up by Dad and by Mom’s very formidable extended family) that Christianity was the most important thing in the universe.
No, and no one’s said they are. It does, however, qualify them to speak of it as one who is fairly knowledgeable about it.
Borders change. Also, I’d imagine that the true borders of the church are defined by God, not by what mortals insist God thinks. Orthodoxy is orthodox because it won, regardless of accuracy. And tomorrow’s orthodoxy and tomorrow’s dogmas will be decided by who wins the arguments today. At best, everyone of any faith is simply guessing. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Please note that I do not consider, nor do I portray myself here, as Catholic or even Christian. I believe I have made that clear. If one includes “former” or “apostate” under the definition of “lapsed,” then I suppose it can apply to me; if not, then it doesn’t. I’d define “culture Catholic” to mean someone whose life has been influenced by Catholicism similarly to the way one’s life can be influenced by a culture—religion tends to be more than a set of beliefs but a way of living, on a par with things like culture or economic status in defining the way one lives. Growing up surrounded by Catholics, or growing up Catholic, shapes one’s experiences in much the same way growing up Japanese or Irish or Native American would. It imparts its own flavor to one’s individuality, although the effect is lessened if one changes one’s beliefs.
*giggle*
Orthodoxy/The Quartermaster, how are you guys any different from Fundamentalist Protestants who say that no Catholics are true Christians? I don’t understand where you get the authority to tell people whether or not they’re Catholic–it seems to me that’s a personal decision. If Ted Kennedy wants to call himself Catholic, I don’t see what right anyone has to say he isn’t–I suppose someone high enough in the church hierarchy could officially excommunicate him if they believed he wasn’t really Catholic, but you certainly don’t have that power. Until the Church begins the wholesale excommunication of anyone who admits to disagreeing with any part of the Catholic dogma, there are shopping cart Catholics, and if you don’t like it, that’s really just too bad… though I guess you could start a letter writing campaign to get them all kicked out or something?
And when are they gonna kick out Nino Scalia for being pro-death-penalty? That’s against Church teaching, too.
Plus, he’s all for orgies. As long as there is no sodomy or birth control, I suppose.
Antonin Scalia: no Catholic.
Hey, sweetheart, I thought only your “One True God” was supposed to be omnicient. You are not an authority on who or what God is. You are a believer and could be wrong, just like everybody else under the Sun.
Hmm. I’ve never considered feminism to be a Goddess. Goddesses are Goddesses—Isis and Asherah and Bast and so on. Feminism is an ideology, a philosophy, at most comparable to a segment of a religion.
If feminism were a Goddess, incidentally, she’s a much better, kinder, more compassionate deity than the One True-To-Christians God.
Actually, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not come out as absolute against the death penalty. It says, “…the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” However, it should be avoided if “bloodless means” are sufficient to protect society against an agressor.
At each Mass, Catholics say the Profession of Faith, which states that along with recognizing belief in the Holy Trinity, Mary the Virgin Mother, Baptism to forgive sin, etc., we also believe in “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”.
So for Catholics the doctrines of the Church as led by the Pope are right up there with God. Catholics believe the Pope speaks for God here on Earth. I’m a bit rusty in my catechism, so maybe I’m not stating that correctly. I think this may be what differentiates us from other Christian religions (?)
At some point in history there were two Popes at the same time, and they excommunicated each other.
No, we just don’t like the ones who take their beliefs seriously enough to try to inflict them and their associated behavior limitations on us. Such as anyone who prattles on about “false goddesses.”
Most of us do seriously believe something. Most of us do take those beliefs seriously. “Apostate” means that we’re not of that religion anymore and therefore no longer hold those beliefs. Therefore taking our own beliefs seriously would not cause us to question feminism. At most, “serious believers” of your definition (which is flawed, by the way—one does not have to hold beliefs approved of by you to be a serious believer) would be a painful reminder that if we took their beliefs, rather than our own, seriously, we might be caused to question feminism. They bring, at worst, a feeling of “there but for the grace of God go I.”
Since Christianity is defined as those who believe in the divinity of Christ, it’s an obvious logical fallacy to say that Catholics are not Christians. If Ted Kennedy goes around calling himself Catholic while supporting abortion, then people who actually follow the doctrines of Catholicism have every right to tell others that he is violating Catholic beliefs. Also, a note on the criticism that Catholics should be more interested in social welfare; this is true, but the entire point of doing works of charity is that you are sacrificing something (time, talent or treasure) to help someone else, and are therefore helping your own soul. It is not the governments job to provide charity, therefore, but the individual’s. It’s a matter of individual social conscience, rather than government enforced redistribution of wealth.
Anne Nonymous:
It was clear. I was attempting to agree and carry it a step further, but didn’t quite manage to communicate that.
Note to self: trying to finish a coherent post out when one has five minutes to get to a class that’s ten minutes away, does not result in coherency.
Well, then. Do tell the fundamentalist Evangelicals that, okay?
And so I have the same right to say that Antonin Scalia is violating Catholic beliefs, what with the executions-’n'-orgies thing.
True. However, it also officially makes you Christian, or Catholic, and as nobody really treats it as “just a formality in case you die before you find your own right faith,” it manages to be the imposition of a religion on a child, a decision made for them and pressed on them throughout their childhood. In my parents’ church, for example, during baptism the parents promise to teach the child Christian beliefs and bring them to church regularly.
I personally find it offensive that a religion was arbitrarily chosen for me without my say in the matter and without regard for whether it would be right for me. I am even more offended that a patriarchal religion was chosen for me, a female, without regard for the fact that I might want a faith in which I am truly the equal of every other human being, rather than one in which I will be automatically inferior.
No, no, The Quartermaster, *you* define Christianity as “those who believe in the divinity of Christ.” Those fundamentalist Christians would disagree with you. And I would disagree with you on what a Catholic is (and so would the Church, given that they keep even lapsed Catholics on the register 99% of the time). And a pro-choice position can be 100% consistent with Catholic beliefs. First of all, there’s research suggesting that anti-abortion laws will not reduce the number of abortions, just make them all less safe. Second of all, it’s perfectly legitimate to be anti-abortion as a religious position but to believe your religious positions should not be the basis of laws, just as it’s possible to be against adultery as a religious person without believing adultery should be punished by the government.
Wanted to add one more thing before I got back to studying for finals (which always seem to take a backseat to anything more interesting)
PHLAF,
Or maybe, like most of us here, she enjoys blogging, and controversy, and the ability to express her own opinions in a public forum. Not that I would ever want to take away from your perfectly reasonable ad hominem attack.
Ted, you are right, in that I don’t have a say in whether he is or isn’t Catholic. However, Canon Law of the Church does, in fact, state that any Catholic who publicly promotes abortion (i.e., a politician who consistantly votes pro-choice) is automatically excommunicated. The reason being “scandal” – contributing to the potential weakening of the faith of other Catholics by action or word.
That is basically what this whole argument of “Catholic/not Catholic” is really all about: if people go around claiming to be Catholic, but are blatantly doing un-Catholic things (especially if they are flaunting such behavior for others to see), this causes scandal.
Before anybody else mentions it: yes, this is why the priest sex abuse/pedophilia stories are rightly called “scandal” – it weakens the faith of the common man. Yes, we can disagree with the people in the Church on certain things (e.g., the way the sex abuse and pedophilia cases are handled in one diocese vs. another), and still be a good Catholic.
Scandal needs to be corrected, no matter whether it is a layperson/politician, priest, or bishop – this is not just our right, but our duty as Catholics. This is not defiance of the Church, but rather judgment of others for the defense of the Faith, even if it means judging those in positions of authority, in and out of the Church.
“Judge not lest ye be judged,” tends to be thrown around by everyone who doesn’t want to hear that what they’re doing might be wrong. This admonition, however, is a warning, not a command (e.g. don’t judge based on hearsay or prejudice, or you may find yourself in the same situation with no recourse to your own judgement methods). As Catholics, though, we are told, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!” (1 Cor 6:2-3) But we are not supposed to judge by our own flawed standards. Therefore, we refer to what we know of God’s will, through his laws and Scripture. “In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments. For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome, for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.” (1 John 5:2-4)
As I said before, I am not writing any of this in an attempt to condemn, but to correct. I must stand up for what the Church teaches, because too many misrepresent the teachings of Christ. The Pope is not right up there with God in worship, but rather the Pope is best seen as Prime Minister to God as King. The Pope is invested with authority granted by Jesus to Peter and his successors. This does not mean the Pope gets to make up rules, but rather he is the messenger (envoy) of the King, interpreting the commandments and words of God in every generation.
This is the source and purpose of my “zeal” – “zeal for my Father’s house will consume me” – but I try to keep it at simmer, rather than full fire, because I don’t want anyone to be burned.
“I personally find it offensive that a religion was arbitrarily chosen for me without my say in the matter and without regard for whether it would be right for me. ”
I wonder if your parents chose it “arbitrarily,” just picked it out of the phone book? And as for “regard for whether it would be right for me,” how can any parent know what it going to be “right” for a child in advance?
After four months of Catholic school, my oldest son, age 10, told me that he`s decided he`s an athiest. Who knows, without the mean old nuns, it might have taken him years to reach the same conclusion!
Careful, Orthodoxy — Canon Law of the Church does, in fact, state that any Catholic who publicly promotes abortion (i.e., a politician who consistantly votes pro-choice) is automatically excommunicated.
Remember, the church sidestepped the whole issue of excommunicating John Kerry.
Kyra: sorry I misunderstood you. Glad we’ve cleared that up. :-)
Orthodoxy, for the reasons I explained above, voting pro-choice is *not* “promoting abortion.”
Kyra,
Do you also find it offensive that you were placed in a school without regard to your choice of school or whether you even wanted to be in school in the first place? Why were you taught math and algebra and geometry, without regard to your likes? Maybe you wanted to learn non-Euclidean geometry. How dare someone else impose Euclidean geometry on you! How offensive!
(Do you see where I’m going with this? You parents wanted your spirit to be fed in church the same as they wanted your mind to be fed in school.)
This is one of the biggest false accusations out there against the Church. If this were true, why would Margaret Atwood have said, “If I were going to convert to any religion I would probably choose Catholicism because it at least has female saints and the Virgin Mary” ? If this were true, why would Dorothy Day have said, “… without even looking into the claims of the Catholic Church, I was willing to admit that for me she was the one true Church. She had come down through the centuries since the time of Peter, and far from being dead, she claimed and held the allegiance of the masses of people in all the cities where I had lived.” Really, the major regression in the roles of women occurred with the Protestant Reformation, when new property laws were written that stated that women’s property automatically become their husbands’ when they married. Before the Reformation, women in a Catholic England owned property.
So, before you criticize the Church for being misogynistic, look into it’s history, and how Holy Mother Church has taught every devout Catholic to love their mothers, their sisters, their wives, and their daughters, and by extension to honor and understand the importance of every woman in the world.
Unfortunately, parents can’t ask their babies what they want. And as a Catholic, with a deep held belief that infant baptism is crucial, I did not think of it as a choice to baptize my children so much as a duty and an obligation. It actually surprised me when I held my tiny baby how much I really, really felt the importance of baptism for him. So, if I failed to follow through on this obligation, I then would have failed my child. That is my personal belief for me and mine, which I don’t try to impose on anyone (my brother just had a baby, who he is choosing not to baptism, and I have smiled and wished him well). But perhaps your parents held similar views.
You must make choices about “how” you are going to raise your child, not just in terms of religion but also in things like education, cultural traditions, medical care, even diet. And then you have to go with it.
As a parent, I must speak for my children until they are of an age that they can speak for themselves. That has not always been easy. Its a heavy load to bear and you only hope you do your best. So while I see your point, and I really do, it seems an impossible task to raise a child without leaving your own mark on them.
As for me, I see it as a bigger afront to deprive them of an upbringing in my belief system. I was raised a Catholic, and I chose as an adult to stay the course (with lots of zigs and zags) so I am raising my children in the Catholic church. I am trying not to be oppressive about it, but nevertheless they are my minor children and until they are old enough to make such decisions about such weighty topics, unfortunately they will have to submit to my choices for now. If they choose later to make other choices, then that is their right as an adult. But for now, I pick their food, their clothes, their doctor, their church.
So, about that automatic excommunication thing for politicians who vote consistent with a pro-choice viewpoint:
That ain’t what the catechism says.
The Church did not side-step this – the weak archbishop of Boston side-stepped this, because he favored the Democrats in the election. (Again, this is where even our church elders sometimes need correction from the laity.)
Besides, no “official” or public excommunication was necessary, because Canon 915 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law clearly states that individuals who, “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.” Public support of abortion is a grave sin. Therefore, Kerry (and the 11 other “Catholic” senators who support abortion) are automatically excommunicated, and must petition their local bishop to be reinstated.
Public support of pro-choice laws and rulings is not a sin in any way shape or form.
Last bit to chew on before I leave.
Not my words or opinion, but the words of the Catholic Church, as contained in the Catechism, paragraph 2272.
Orthodoxy,
since I can’t access the comments on your blog, I just wanted to say, bravo for an argument that is both well thought out and logical, and based on actual Scripture and doctrine.
Well, if you can show me proof that Ted Kennedy or John Kerry has formally cooperated with an abortion, we can talk.
(Also, why don’t people like you ever mention Rudy Giuliani when you’re listing pro-choice politicians who should be excommunicated?)
Odd — I didn`t hear the Vatican weighing in on excommunicating Kerry — looks like a “sidestep” to me.
So I suppose all of us Catholics who vote for pro-choice politicians and give to Planned Parenthood are excommunicated, too? And publicly promote abortion on blogs?
Uh-huh.
So, how is voting for pro-choice legislation “procuring a completed abortion” such as to incur excommunication latae sententiae?
You’d think that somewhere in the catechism, to which I linked earlier, there’d be something spelling out that merely supporting choice would incur such a grave penalty. But no, just procuring a completed abortion.
Nice try, though.
Fantastic quote from Eden’s comments:
Or Pataki, or Schwarzenegger?
Quartermaster…
As I said, it’s blatantly obvious she thrives on controversy. I’m not entirely sure this is something to be celebrated.
Publically expressing one’s own opinion is one thing. Deliberately misrepresenting other people’s opinions is another. Ms. Eden is dishonest in her representations of what I wrote here. Also, her “opinions” are not only chock-full of ad hominems, but they also invite others to join in with additional ad hominems.
These _actions_ speak louder than her false claims to Catholicism or Christianity. She is no Christian, much less a Catholic. She is a stupid, selfish, mentally ill woman who considers herself the center of the universe.
This little series of posts Ms. Eden has felt compelled to put up are based on all kinds of judgments about other people’s personal lives. She has allowed horribly hurtful and, frankly, sinful, comments to be made regarding nature of the love people who have been married for _decades_ have for each other and for their children. She and her commenters have openly speculated on the worthiness of others in God’s eyes and claimed that not only are they not welcome in God’s church, but that they are happy that they’re rid of us less-than-perfect people. She has held herself above people she doesn’t know and dared to intimate that she knows better than God.
She is also a completely gutless sham, since she bans anyone who dares to criticize her and call her on her ridiculously childish and mentally ill shit, and then continues to bait them on her disturbing little blog – which is infinitely more important to her than God or the Catholic Church. She doesn’t even have the guts to address me here personally. She just sends over little toadies like you instead.
But, like I said, I don’t hang out at your little club anymore, nor does my husband, nor do my children. We’re no longer your problem. Your elitist church of the perfect is rid of us for good.
You want a declaration? Fine. I’m not Catholic. At. All.
I deny the entire kit and kaboodle, I’ll toss all of our baptismal certificates and confirmation certificates and our Catholic marriage certificate into the fire tonight, okay? That good enough for you? That get you some extra brownie points with God?
Whatever, dude. I have no use for whipped men…
Orthodoxy:
Now, see, this is what zuzu was talking about. You are willing to speak for the Church without the authority or knowlege to do so. Kerry has not been excommunicated
Go visit this site.
He did not perform nor procure. He did not publicly advocate abortion. He merely said it’s none of the state’s business. That is the secular sphere.
This is interesting. Does voting pro-choice equal “promoting” abortion? I don’t think so. In fact, I would argue that advocating for abstinence-only sex education and “reforming” welfare to make it tougher for women to choose to have children is, in fact, much better advocacy for abortion than allowing women — many of whom do not share your faith — legal reproductive choices.
That link you provided is extremely revealing, “Orthodoxy”. So the importance of women is not what they do independently, but how well they support their husbands? That’s one of the more vile backhanded compliments I’ve encountered. And I’m pretty sure that ain’t what the Catholic Church teaches.
Not that what the Church actually teaches is any better. Who’re the role model for women there? Mostly the BVM herself, the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose salient features are supposed to be that she never had sex ever (a denigration of the perfectly lovely and valuable experience of sexual pleasure and those who choose it), and that she was a mommy (which is good, but not the be-all and end-all of women’s lives). And most of the other female saints are similarly revered for their martyrdom in defense of their virginity, for their choice of celibate lives, or for their motherhood of somebody famous. It’s a very limiting conception of women’s roles, which the modern Church (with its unwillingness to accept female leadership and its inability to recognize the value of allowing women to control their reproductive capacities) still fails to expand.
The only female saint I ever ran across who was worth a damn was Jean d’Arc, and she was crazy as hell in her own way. But at least she was different from the usual vestal virgin and gentle mother stereotypes. I’m not saying there weren’t a few other saints who were, well, not okay so much as less-bad, but the overwhelming trend is towards treating women as passive symbols and precursors rather than as actors in their own right.
As for the subject of baptism… Well, I’m not inclined to be angry with my parents for having me baptized. They thought they were doing the right thing for me and fulfilling their responsibilites as parents, and I can understand that. But, that said, I do think it’s harmful to induct kids into one particular religion before they’re old enough to choose for themselves. The struggle to escape deeply-inculcated religious views is long and difficult, and, I suspect, usually unsuccessful. And many religious views are, IMO, very harmful.
Moreovoer, I think there is a way to avoid doing this to kids — educate them as much as possible about as many different belief systems as possible, teach them to ask questions and think critically, and don’t tell them that they have to believe in any particular way. Fortunately for me, my parents allowed my education to be broadened accidentally by buying me kids’ versions of Norse and Greek mythology, and I was so earnest about learning that I asked the tough questions just because I wanted to understand. I only hope I can give my own children even more room to learn about the world and make their own choices.
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh, mercy.
How old do they have to be before you’d respect their decision to leave the Church? If and when they do make that decision, will you help and support them?
Have no idea why that didn’t work.
Kerry excommunication scam
http://www.cathnews.com/news/410/100.php
Lauren – great find on that crazy “catholic church is so pro-women” comment.
As a litte girl sitting in Church hearing the Garden of Eden gospel I’d sit there feeling so guilty and mad Eve had to ruin things for everyone. In college (a Catholic university) I find out from a priest that story was written to purposely tied women/snake symbol as a PR battle against popular fertility cults. And then I was pissed off that I didn’t find this out until I was 19 and all those Sundays of feeling bad that women had messed things up.
So when I read this in a trashy chick-lit book was able to feel much better about that gospel:
“When Eve at the apple her knowledge increased,
but God liked dumb women so Paradise ceased.”
As an atheist who allows my six-year-old to go to church with his grandma, I’ve basically taken the stance that he’s allowed to believe what he wants to believe and that I won’t interefere (of course I won’t take him to church either, but it’s three houses down, so whatever). What IS important to me is that he knows what my family values are and that, while he is allowed to go his own way whenever he wants to, there are just some things Mom won’t do. Namely, take him to church.
Where I have been very clear is that there are some values that his mom does share with the church — love your neighbor, sacrifice yourself, resources and time for others, no matter how little you have, etc. This in itself has seemed to validate his continuing decision to attend church with grandma without making him feel as if he’s going against me and my values.
But it was recently revealed to me that as soon as he eats his fill of donut holes before Sunday School, he’s ready to go home. That’s my boy.
JenM, I remember doing the same thing when I was little in the Methodist church, and distinctly feeling that it was bullshit. Not only bullshit that it happened at all, but that a punishment from thereonafter to every woman who ever roams the earth was overdoing it a bit. My feeling was that god was a bit wiser that that.
Lauren –
Good point about punishment being a little bit severe. I always giggled a bit though when Adam was all “but it was HER fault, don’t get mad at me.” Wimp.
My friend Caroline is doing the same w/her daughter in regards to chuch attendance w/the grandparents. She sighed a bit though when her daughter told her Jesus was her best friend, and then Moses her second best friend. I keep asking Caroline if she’s ever moved back into the #1 spot or if other Saints have moved ahead.
PHLAF,
I’m missing where Dawn misrepresented what you wrote. Could you explain what it was?
Have you tried to post a comment on her blog? I’ve noticed people disagreeing with her in the comments. Jill has posted on the blog. As long as your civil and don’t use profanity, she is fair as far as I can see.
I don’t think you’ve read the comments over there. No one that I can see has said that “less-than-perfect” people are not allowed. In fact, no one on this earth is perfect, so that would be senseless. The Church does have the Catechism, which spells out the teaching of the Church. But nobody, from the Pope on down, has ever lived the Catechism perfectly.
Well, if she didn’t delete comments so you could see the ones that got people banned, you might have a point.
Her whole post in response to this one was a mischaracterization of what I wrote and what PHLAF wrote, down to the misattribution of PHLAF’s words to me.
And some, like Orthodoxy, can’t seem to quote it perfectly, either.
Mark:
I tried and was completely civil. She didn’t want to hear it.
Magis,
“I tried and was completely civil. She didn’t want to hear it.”
I’m surprised to hear that. Did you have posts deleted with no explanation as to why it was deleted? I’ve thought that civil communication between both sides can be helpful to everyone. That’s why I’ve commented on both blogs; and to be fair, I’ve never had anything deleted or edited on this site. So thank you to Zuzu, Piny and Jill for that.
Um, that’s a hard one. Each child is different. I have a 9 and a 3 year old. They enjoy church right now, so we haven’t had this issue come up (other than grumbling about putting video games away when we leave for church, which I take as less of a statement against organized religion and more of a statement for wanting more video game time).
They will each make their 1st Communion (2nd grade time frame, the older one has done this already) and then we will continue on with Sunday School until Confirmation (10th, 11th grade time frame), or thereabouts. Ideally, I would like to see them both make Confirmation, but it is that sacrament that I know is more their choice than mine. For it to be a properly received sacrament, they have to want Confirmation for themselves for it to really mean anything. I think that’s even the Church’s view on Confirmation, although I haven’t read up on it since we’re not up to that point yet.
Then, if they choose not to continue on in Catholicism, I will love them anyway and support their choices. In the same way that I love and support my sister and her apostate, and my brother who chose not to baptize his son, etc. These were choices they made as responsible adults.
I used to try and comment at Eden’s but my comments were removed without any particular reason given why. Then I got hostile with her and I know perfectly well why my comments are now deleted. But that’s what happens when someone who’s never met me tells me I cannot have women’s best interests in mind if I’ve never written on a Dawn Eden Approved Topic. I’d try and dig up the link but I try not to visit her blog except for my once a month quota. It’s doing Dawn and I both a favor.
I mentioned on Dawn’s blog that from the time I left High School (Catholic by the way) until about a year ago (and I’m 44), I was pretty much a non-practicing Catholic. I would occasionally go to church, but it was easier just to sleep in. My kids are now 15 and 17. They were baptized and received their first communion; however, since I did not go to church, they’re Catholic upbringing was severely hurt.
In August, to my surprise and happiness, they both came to me and said they wanted to attend Confirmation classes. I did not pressure them to do it. It was totally up to them. Even now, I do not force them to go to Mass with me. Since I had been away so long, it would be hypocritical of me to force them now.
My daughter questions some of the teachings of the Church. We have discussed these issues and it will ultimately be up to her to make choices. I will love her and be there for her no matter what she decides. If she asks me what I think of her choice, I will tell her the truth. But I will not shun her. I’m not sure what you mean by “support”. If she comes to me and says she’s getting an abortion, I will not say, “OK honey, whatever you say.” But by the same token, I will not tell her to leave the house and never come back. I would most likely get angry with her; but then we would move on.
Kat –
Just curious when you say your children enjoy church – is it the singing? Or they really enjoy the entire Mass? They really haven’t gotten bored yet? If so are they allowed any books or Cheerios or anything from the outside?
My dad always picked the 800 am Mass w/no choir and we weren’t allowed to bring anything with us. When my sister was about 3-4 I can remember her stretching out in the pew and falling asleep. One day I started looking at people’s shoes just to have something to do but now I can say that having to sit still while being bored stiff an hour each week has helped me out in the workplace during long meetings.
Of course, when I was 5 and had my first confession in Catholic school I kept giving the priest these “are you crazy” looks and an offended “NO” when he asked if I’d stolen, lied, etc. Finally when he asked if I disrespected my parents I sighed and said “well okay, I guess.” Instead of being nervous or scared I was annoyed by the entire thing. During my Confirmation I wiped the oil right off my head a second after I was annointed and shocked some women who hissed “that is sacramental oil!!” I shrugged and said my skin was too breakout prone to deal w/the oil.
Catholicism is just something that never took with me I guess b/c I”m too rooted in the everyday mundane world, think it would be the same w/almost any other religion.
[By the way, I think this is the longest thread on Feministe that managed to stay both civil and interesting. Go Catholics!]
No, but JPII was against the death penalty to the point of interceding on behalf of people that George W. would later kill. I always found it interesting how many “Orthodox Catholics” totally ignored his opinions on war and the death penalty. They saw his teachings on sexuality, abortion and birth control as being pretty darn near infallible but they all would suddenly go deaf when it came to war and the death penalty.
“Catholicism is just something that never took with me I guess b/c I”m too rooted in the everyday mundane world, think it would be the same w/almost any other religion. ”
I`m probably as rooted in the everyday mundane world as anyone, and I have to give Catholicism credit for what I consider my character strengths — I certainly didn`t learn charity or generosity from my parents. I used to love church when I was younger, because of the music. I wasn`t allowed to sing at home.
I go to mass, but I don`t insist my kids go unless it`s a school mass or high holy day.
Well, for starters, my dad’s Catholic and my mom’s Lutheran, so there was a little bit of arbitrary deciding going on. Secondly, the point is, whatever thought went into it, they decreed that I, who had no say whatsoever in the decision process, was going to be a Lutheran and a Christian. What I might want and how it might affect me were ignored. Regardless of how carefully they selected a religion for me, they still selected a religion for me.
Exactly. No parent can know what is going to be right for the child in advance. Therefore they shouldn’t be making that decision. They should, rather, encourage the child, once he or she is old enough, to explore what all the different people of the world believe in, and decide for themselves what they believe and what, if any, organized religious body they wish to affiliate themselves with. They should be able to do this without pressure, without fear of disapproval, without guilt or shame.
The problem I’m complaining about is twofold: 1) I was told as a child that I was a Christian. I had not expressed any desire to be a Christian. At times I actively did not want to be a Christian; at other times I didn’t care one way or the other. Religion should not be something you’re stuck with. 2) Both of my sisters are Catholic. Their choice was accepted and celebrated. I am Wiccan, and while my dad knows and tolerates this now, I don’t dare tell my mother. My sisters’ choices (and my brother’s, who plays the hand he was dealt) are accepted; mine is not.
My parents’ choice was foisted on me without my consent, and is wrong for me. Therefore, I complain.
No explanation. I even welcomed her to the Church and wished her well.
Shelby,
Personally, I am against the death penalty because people can make mistakes and find someone guilty who turns out to be innocent. As far as the war, I won’t go there because that would take us in a whole other direction. But as far as the church goes, war and the death penalty are not absolutes. There can be disagreement on when they are necessary or not. I loved Pope JPII and everything he stood for. (I know there will be disagreement about that too, because he came out so strongly against many of the things you all hold dear). And I understand why he came out against the war. He went through war as a young student and priest and did not want to see it again. War is not good. (Boy, there is an understatement).
This thread is addicting. I need to go study for a final. I don’t think God (or the Pope) is going to take it for me.
Wow. Very interesting thread, and I’m amazed that it hasn’t degenerated into trolling and name-calling. (Strawpope is maybe the funniest thing I’ve seen today, though.)
Kyra, I find it really interesting that you’re complaining about baptism, just because I was as well and I’m not even remotely Catholic. My brother and sister and I were baptized mainly to please my very Catholic grandmothers, but that was the extent of our religious upbringing. Dad was raised Catholic (went to Catholic school and everything) and Mom was raised half-Catholic, half-Jewish (her dad was Jewish, her mom was raised Catholic but it turns out that whole side of the family was Jewish but hid it when they fled Russia). As we were brought up, there was no church except on Christmas and Easter, and no synagogue but gatherings with families and friends on Chanukah and Passover. My mom called it “any excuse for a party,” and we were always encouraged to make our own decisions regarding religion and spirituality.
>>She then quotes a comment referencing me from another Feministe blog entry (there’s a cottage industry in angry-feminist Dawn Patrol retorts), which reads in part:
The main reason why I no longer attend a Catholic Church and now attend our lovely Episcopalian Church is because of the nature of recent converts. They have all but destroyed our parish.
The commenter then brings up a few of the Church-connected horrors which I have unfairly escaped as a recent convert, including the Magdalene laundries. The message is that I, knowing only the “nice” Church, have no right to assume that the dogmas I learned in the Catechism will lead to a world of niceness. In fact, according to Zuzu and her amen corner, the Catechism points to drunkenness (apparently that professor wasn’t so far off) and white slavery.that’s been…
She then quotes a comment referencing me from another Feministe blog entry (there’s a cottage industry in angry-feminist Dawn Patrol retorts), which reads in part:
The main reason why I no longer attend a Catholic Church and now attend our lovely Episcopalian Church is because of the nature of recent converts. They have all but destroyed our parish.
The commenter then brings up a few of the Church-connected horrors which I have unfairly escaped as a recent convert, including the Magdalene laundries. The message is that I, knowing only the “nice” Church, have no right to assume that the dogmas I learned in the Catechism will lead to a world of niceness. In fact, according to Zuzu and her amen corner, the Catechism points to drunkenness (apparently that professor wasn’t so far off) and white slavery.
First of all, I noticed she’s carefully and sneakily edited the part where she referred to what I had written as a seperate blog entry. While I am an administrator and active member of a group blog, I’ve never posted anything about religion or Ms. Eden there, nor will I ever.
Secondly, what she asserts as my “message” couldn’t be farther from the truth – not that she bothered to ask.
It’s not that she has no right to assume that Catholic teaching will lead to a world of “niceness” (her word, not mine, btw). It’s that recent converts who come flying out of the gate swinging the Catechism at everyone and especially at life-long Catholics who have struggled with the cultural and personal baggage that their particular Catholic experiences have left them with are going to come off as insulting, legalistic and insensitive.
I also never claimed that she “unfairly” escaped any horrors. I only claimed that, had her experiences been overshadowed by the mentality that brought about those horrors, and had she lived in a world where NFP did not exist, she wouldn’t be so glib about the topic, nor so judgmental of those of us who do recall those days. If you’ve been told every day of your life that you were a “mistake” or “God’s joke” or the result of “Vatican roulette”, you’re not going to have quite the same wide-eyed, slap-happy approach to the Church’s teaching on marriage and family. If you’ve seen friends or cousins have their babies taken away from them against their will and told they deserve to be punished because they were “bad” girls (never mind the fact that the Virgin Mary was an unwed pregnant girl herself), you’re not going to buy a pile of horseshit on how the Church has been “pro-woman” for 2000 years.
I’m glad she doesn’t have those experiences – not that she seems to have had very good experiences anyway, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s unfortunate that her untarnished, unprejudiced realization of the “truth” of Catholicism hasn’t softened her heart any, or inspired her to post anything but snarky, baiting crap, the only intent of which is to garner her some blog hits and some rah-rahs from her creepy little cheering squad.
Then “Bookstopper” goes on to A) attribute my comment to someone else, and B) claim that I “converted” to the Episcopal Church, which I haven’t done at all, nor have I claimed to have done.
I am not out to get converts. I dislike a type of convert, and Ms. Eden falls into that category. There are, I’m sure, thousands of lovely, caring, kind, compassionate converts out there who are a joy to be around and a blessing to the Church and their larger communities. I probably just don’t know that they’re converts because they’re not screaming it my ear 24/7, or looking down their noses at me because I’m just a stupid, badly-educated, poorly-catechised, lazy cradle-Catholic. As if Dawn has a clue as to my credentials, Catholic or otherwise, and as if they even matter to the ONLY entity that matters in this entire conversation: God. Let me guess – he’s got a Catholic SAT test all set up right there at the pearly gates, right? It’s not about who you are and how you’ve lived, it’s about what you could memorize and regurgitate. Talk about teaching to the test…yikes!
BTW – don’t kid yourself about Dawn being open to discussion. She pontificates in her usual manipulative, baiting style, and then sits back and gets all gooey over the controversy, only showing up from time to time to remind everyone of the prowess of her “delete finger”. Given her history, one really has to shudder at the thought of where that’s been…
Edit: I screwed something up – let’s try it again…
It’s a matter of individual social conscience, rather than government enforced redistribution of wealth.
Man, I should really be writing my essay on St. Thomas More’s Utopia, shouldn’t I?
I was not aware I had an amen corner.
Mark:
Eh, you’re off to a test, but who makes the decision whether or not they are absolutes? JPII said this, “Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other “bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State’s disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender ‘are now very rare, even non-existent practically’” I think there are other catholics who did take that as an absolute and have been working towards ending the death penalty.
Amen, Zuzu. (Awomyn? Nah….)
You know what`s funny? I first came to this site through The Happy Feminist, and I first went to Dawn`s site very recently, through Holy Fool, another Catholic site.
So for me, it`s like seeing people you know from two different places, arguing at a party, and realizing they`ve clashed before and will clash again.
Some neat Internet symmetry there.
why is it that just being pro-choice – e.g. someone who hasn’t HAD an abortion, or PERFORMED an abortion, or even given $ to PP or NARAL, etc – can mean excommunication when committing pre-mediated murder doesn’t mean automatic excommunication? i seem to remember a story (possibly in the Boston Globe Magazine) re: a newly-ordained priest who used to be an IRA (or a pro-IRA) terrorist. he BLEW PEOPLE UP, and now he’s an ordained priest. WTF?
it’s just soooo NOT about ‘innocent’ life. it’s about women. it’s about sex. it’d probably bother me less (though it would still bother me plenty) if the church would just come out and say as much.
PHLAF,
Which is funny because I’m actually a woman. Just wanted to correct that. I always find it interesting that peoples’ default assumption is that I’m male…
If the internets had loudspeakers you would.
Can we get an amen for Sister ZuZu?
Quartermaster, I’d go out on a limb and venture that people assume you’re a man because your screenname is Quartermaster. I know it’s not explicitly gendered, but it certainly sounds that way.
Yep. It sure is, er, “interesting”…
Not that I have any use for toadies no matter what their gender.
I’m so jealous! I only have an amen cubbyhole. I’m planning to set up an amen paypal tab.
Shelby,
I totally agree with you about the death penalty. I want to see it abolished. It’s too easy and open to mistakes.
I think what the pope said is true. But, according to your quote, he did say ” non-existent practically“. The Catechism is the official source if one has questions about church teaching; that’s why I said it’s not an absolute.
Magis, I don’t recall banning you. Sometimes people who have IP addresses similar to addresses I’ve banned are likewise prevented from commenting. My apologies if I banned you even though you were perfectly civil.
I do recall deleting one “congrats on Pope-ing” type of comment, which might have been yours, only because it was completely unrelated to the thread and, not knowing the poster, I thought it was sarcasm. If that was you, it sounds like I was far too sensitive, in which case I’m sorry.
Congrats on Strawpope-ing?
So, doesn’t the church say that an abortion is allowed in the case of a tubal pregnancy? If it’s okay then, why not at other times? Like when a mother will most likely die if she carries the pregnancy to term. The catechism has been revised many times. The pope and church used to say that torturing & burning “heretics” until they confessed was fine and good. Now it’s not. Morality changes.
And condolences to Mother Church?
PHLAF,
I’m sorry that my comments offended you to such an extent that you felt you had to retaliate by referring to me first as a “whipped man” (which sounds slightly sexist to my admittedly untrained ear; used to denote a man who is so spineless that he actually listens to his wife instead of giving her orders in a manly way), then as a “toady”. I’m curious as to which parts of my argument led you to draw these particular conclusions about my character?
Kristen,
I think you’ll find that the great majority of pro-lifers are earnestly interested in protecting unborn human life, and actually aren’t plotting ways to get women barefoot and pregnant. You might look at Feminists for Life as an example. Also, in the example of the former terrorist priest; the reason I suspect he was allowed to be ordained is that the Catholic Church believes that any sin, no matter how grave, can be forgiven if the sinner is truly sorry, and seeks forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation.
Feminists For Life has no policy whatsoever on birth control last time I checked. That’s a problem.
And QM, what’s up with the link to Du Toit? Is that the kind of feminism conservatives love?
This whole comment thread is interesting to me. I also come from a large Irish Catholic family, my grandmother had 12 children, almost all of whom are catholic. My parents, however, are not. I was baptized as an infant, because “that’s just what you do”. After that, they pretty much gave up on following Catholic doctrine, although my next youngest sister was baptized by my father in the bathroom sink. The following three have not been baptized. I was always interested in religion, I even started going to religion classes of my own accord in 1st grade, until my dad found out that it involved recieving first communion and made me stop going. Dad started going to a protestant church when I was in 5th grade and I went with him while my mom stayed home with my two sisters, she wasn’t interested in anything having to do with religion. My mom converted when I was in 7th grade and we all went as a family… I went through a brief rebellious period of about a year where I declared my athiesm to world at large, but when I was in 9th grade, I realized that I didn’t really believe that. I have always been drawn to non-denominational churches though… one that simply believes in God and Jesus, and does their best to follow what they believe is the correct way to live without being judgemental. I miss the church I went to when I was in college, it was the last church I truly enjoyed being a part of. That being said, infant baptism aside, I really don’t consider myself Catholic. I am quite familar with the teachings (as I stated, most of my family is Catholic) and I never requested apostasy (honestly, I never knew you could) but I simply don’t attend Catholic church, I did not get married in the Catholic church (although my sister is and my parents are ALL sorts of perturbed) and I was rebaptized at the age of 13 of my own free will and free choice. I’m not mad at my parents for having me baptized as an infant because I figure it was just a ceremony with no meaning but the one I ascribe to it.
As a parent, I see it as my responsibility to introduce my children to what I believe without forcing it down their throats, I don’t believe a religion not freely chosen means anything. I actually don’t attend church right now because I intensely dislike the majority in my area, but I do introduce my daughter to the concept of religion, God, Jesus and what I believe. Hopefully when we move to a bigger area and I find a church that I like we can start going again (my husband is pretty much an agnostic at this point and will go or not depending on my preferences. He could personally care less one way or the other) and she can learn that way as well. If, when she is old enough to think and reason for herself, she decides this is not the religion for her, that is her choice and she will be supported. Again, if I cram it down her throat, what good is it? I did baptize my son, but that was more of a symbolic thing, as I don’t believe in the whole concept of original sin and baptism as a way to avoid purgatory/hell, etc.. For me, it was more of a way to symbolize us turning him back over to God. It was done after he passed away, so we would’ve missed the boat on that anyway. The chaplain came in and prayed for us and for Kyle, read a couple of scripture verses and sprinkled a bit of water on him. It was a very powerful time and cermeony… one that I never would’ve thought I would’ve wanted, but when they asked me, I found the desire to do so very strong.
My older son, T, is autistic. He has had in the past some trouble with fidgeting and such in any environment like church. With him, its about routine really, so now that its in his routine, he has no problems going. And really digs Sunday School. Just this year I see that he is able to sit still and listen, which is big, big stuff for him. I get the feeling he is actually starting to get the teaching a bit. H, the younger one, goes to Children’s Liturgy of the Mass (where they take the young kids out for most of Mass and do their own little gospel reading and crayon projects). He loves this. He also enjoys the singing very much. And loves the sign of peace. We do bring a small toy or book for him too, and he is in charge of holding the money for the collection basket. Both kids have their behavior issues from time to time, but for the most part they do very well.
I may be raising my kids Catholic, but I’m not blocking them from other perspectives. T has been with me to several Wiccan circles on the beach under a full moon (we had a few friends in Hawaii who were Wiccan and kind enough to include us in their celebrations) and we spent a few months going to the Church of Christ, again with friends (they had a great Sunday School program). H is part Hawaiian on his dad’s side, his Hawaiian relatives are mostly devout Mormon and we have been around them quite a bit (not to temple, but just in general). So, when the opportunity has presented itself, I have encouraged them to learn about other religions from the inside. But in terms of what I “teach” them, it does tend to be Catholic doctrine.
Same with our family — my Japanese husband is the oldest son, so we`ll inherit his family`s alter someday, and burn incense to the ancestors.
When we joined our present church, I wrote down “Catholic/Buddhist” on the form next to the line asking the kids` religion.
Roman Catholic Orthodoxy is Religious Fundamentalism and TheoConservatism.
Orthodoxy within a racist, sexist, fascist institution like the Roman Catholic Church is nothing to be proud of. It shows a distinct lack of moral fibre, a paranoid belief in superstitious ahistorical lies and a wilful submission to a mendacious tradition run by a morally corrupt hierarchy.
Orthodox Catholics are Catholopaths.
Apart from well known current controversies such as the systematic coverup of the sexual and physical abuse of children and participating in the AIDS genocide in Africa by their suppression of contraception and sex education, the Roman Catholic Church is a leading but often discrete force in reactionary politics worldwide.
The Roman Catholic Church did much to help Hitler to power and even fawned at the feet of Mussolini, Franco and Pinochet and numerous other dictators from South Vietnam to Latin America.
Why?
Firstly you need to understand what it is and what it is not.
It is not a supernaturally ordained human institution that will bring or help to bring humanity to spiritual salvation and immortal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is a mimetic entity which culturally and intergenerationally transmits useful lies, mental hooks and psychological damage to it’s members and the colonised which have proved useful to the European elites for controlling people and power.
That is all it is… Nothing more…
Or do you believe that water can be changed into wine and wine can be changed into blood which should then be drunk to assuage your guilt for being born human?
I think not.
1) I fail to see how one school can differ from another to the extent that Christianity differs from Wicca. 2) Church is not as necessary as school is to everyday life as an adult. Atheists don’t have half the disadvantages of the illiterate. 3) Euclidean geometry doesn’t tell me I’m going to hell if I learn non-Euclidean geometry. 4) Schools don’t tell me I’m inferior somehow because I’m female. Their textbooks don’t say women should learn in silence.
My spirit wants to eat different things than what they decided to feed me. It was tricked into accepting something that tasted bad and caused indigestion due to biased teachings that didn’t mention that there were other foods that might taste better and might be healthier for me.
Oh, so it isn’t Catholics and other Christians who are out trying to make sure I’m as likely as possible to suffer (and suffer through) unwanted pregnancies as punishment for not conforming to their sexual ideals? It isn’t Catholics who deny women access to the priesthood? It isn’t Catholics who use the Bible, with all its assorted misogyny? It isn’t Catholics who practically have heart attacks when I refer to God using a feminine pronoun? They don’t do any of that?
It’s possible to honor someone without granting them equality. It’s possible to hold someone in importance without respecting them. Someone’s importance to you can be an excuse to exploit them, and all too often the honor you mention is based on how well they fit into a preconception of a perfect woman. You can love someone while thinking them inferior. And putting someone on a pedestal makes them stay put, as well as raising them up.
In any case, my complaint was not with what you call “devout” Catholicism, interpreted the way you interpret it. That is all very well and good; where was it when my parents were teaching me to be a good little Christian girl?
And, incidentally, where’s the Goddess? In what branch of Catholicism, or any Christianity, can I call either God or the Virgin Mary by that name?
You mean the history that includes the Magdalene laundries and the Burning Times? The conference that debated whether women had souls? The excommunication of the women who were ordained as priests? The Easter speech by Pope Gregory the Great in 597 AD, which declared that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?
Maybe none of that is because of evil intent from Catholicism. But it hurts just as bad when it’s just apathy, or good intents with bad effects, or side effects that nobody thinks are their responsibility to clean up after. Cancer is as deadly as AIDS. And cancer is caused by a person’s own cells.
But if you want to make the case that Catholicism is not misogynistic, is innocent of all charges of misogyny, you need to consider the effects of what it’s accomplished. If it’s not misogynistic, it’s decidedly careless, and rather apathetic. And it still lacks a Goddess.
Hmmmmmmm. I would say, the church only lacks a Goddess to those who refuse to see all that Mary represents.
Sure, there`s a lot of bad there. But some of us try to focus on the good that`s there, too.
Lauren,
I actually have nothing to do with the links. My sister handles that (which means that they haven’t been updated in about a year), since I am a complete techno-peasant, and have no idea how to change them. I mostly read bloggers with whom I have ideological differences, because I don’t see the point of reading someone else saying what I’m thinking over and over again.
As for the Feminists for Life, I’ve always assumed that their lack of policy on contraceptive use simply means that they are not against it, but that they are trying to stay out of the battles over it to avoid alienating potential partners.
It’s not the baptism itself, done when the child probably doesn’t even remember it. It’s the carrying out of the obligations that my mother’s church, at least, attatches to baptism, that I don’t like. It may be different for Catholics, but they attatch a significance to baptism that is more appropriate for Confirmation or conversion—the child, once baptized, is considered obligated to be a Christian. The parents, during the ceremony, essentially promise to make the child a Christian.
There are times when you can refrain from speaking. When I have children, I will not give them to any god—they themselves are the only ones who have the authority to do that. I will make sure they know, before I tell them anything else about any religion, that what they believe in is between them and the Divine, and no other human being, myself included, is in a position to judge. They should seek their own fulfillment, not human approval. And instead of speaking for them when I don’t absolutely have to, I will devote my efforts to giving them a voice of their own.
I understand this. I want very much for my children to experience the fulfillment that my faith gives me. But more than that I want them to find the fulfillment that they will recieve from whatever faith is right for them. I know that my faith may not be fulfilling for them, and that is where we disagree: I don’t find that it would do them any favors to associate religion in any way with something non-fulfilling. I believe that fulfillment and happiness are the true purpose of faith, that God has given us the gift of faith in order to give us that fulfillment, and that to force anyone to endure beliefs that are not fulfilling abuses that gift.
I hope you succeed in not being oppressive. It’s a fine line to walk. As for me, choosing a church for my children is on the wrong side of that line—I can choose to welcome them into my faith, and I can choose to hold open as many religious doors as possible for them. But what to believe and which doors to go through are for them alone to choose. (Although, it’s fairly obvious that I don’t think non-affiliation is harmful for a child who has not yet grasped the concept of faith. God, as well as I and their other parent, whoever that may be, will be there for them regardless of their ability to return the favor.)
Ooh. Watch it with the scary insults. You might hurt somebody’s feelings. After all, other people aren’t as good at saying one thing and believing another as you are. What gives you such great credentials? You’re all clever and cynical and stuff. Good for you. You think the problem with these Converts is that they believe in something? Something that isn’t wrapped in seventeen layers of disclaimers and with five escape routes planned in advance in case anything like TRUTH shows up? You’re really scaring me. Puhleeze.
WarbleWootTheFrombleNobulator
It is the Patriarchy and its servants and supporters which exploit women. They can use free love to do it; they can also use the church to do it. They have done plenty of both.
In any case, this is from a supporter of a blogger who says the freedom to have sex without risking pregnancy oppresses women, which many of us women will agree with. In any case, the Patriarchy is the problem; we “bash” any institution that is letting the Patriarchy get in a lot of misogyny, doing our best to focus our attacks on the bad parts.
Neither the Church nor free love would be a “license” to bash women if the Patriarchy didn’t keep trying to turn everything under the Sun to its advantage, as though men were entitled to oppress women and deserved the use of women’s freedom to help them do so. It is the Patriarchy which is to blame, and if they have turned “free love” into “open season,” they have hardly been less successful at distorting institutions which they themselves had a hand in building.
I’ll bet, that if I go down to the local Catholic church and pray to the Goddess, they’ll be all sorts of shocked and mad. Even if I insist that I meant Mary, or point out that if God has no gender then “She” is every bit as appropriate as “He.”
In any case, she’s not God’s equal, is she? That’s the problem.
Well, Kyra, I’m not really sure what you’d consider a sufficiently broad or free religious upbringing. Sure, you need to give kids room to question and to figure out what they want, but you also need to impart values that are important to you.
Maybe I’m just a little bewildered by some of your statements to Kat because I know her — she is my sister, after all — and I know she isn’t raising her kids in any sort of fundamentalist fashion. She certainly didn’t give me any crap when I didn’t go up for Communion at Christmas last year when I was visiting or when I started making jokes during the Mass. In fact, she was cracking up along with me. She was also highly amused when T announced to his Sunday School teacher that he hated Jesus and then explained to her that he thought church was boring, and if he said he hated Jesus, maybe he wouldn’t have to go.
I mean, both of us had relatively benign, post-Vatican II religious upbringings in a pretty liberal church (that even had lots of posters with Beatles lyrics and peace doves around). Even when we visited our aunt’s convent (we had a few sleepovers there, which is a little odd now that I think of it), I don’t remember any hellfire and brimstone. Our family’s falling out of the church probably had more to do with moving from our familiar parish in New Jersey to an unfamiliar, and not very welcoming, parish in Connecticut — plus just plain boredom — than anything else. I have a hard time believing that Kat is forcing my nephews into any doctrinal box that they’ll be scarred by forever.
Especially not with the way *she* lives. ;P
A whipped man is one who is easily pushed around by women in particular. That I acknowledge men such as these exist does not mean that I define “manly” as a man who pushes women around.
The fact that you willingly lapped up Ms. Eden’s misrepresentation of my words, which were taken completely out of context and falsely interpreted by that phony, and then came panting over here to defend her pretty much sealed the “toady” deal for me as far as you’re concerned.
Plus, could this be any more full of deliberate misinterpretations:
You could argue anything you want, but it won’t make you right. Yes, a convert could have a better understanding of doctrine, etc., but that doesn’t necessarily mean that every convert has a better understanding than every cradle Catholic. There are some lousy RCIA programs out there, and there have been and continue to be excellent Catholic theology programs in many Catholic schools and universities all around the world. I know your generation likes to write mine off as a bunch of hippy Catholics who all want to screw around and abort babies, but that isn’t true, and, frankly, it’s disrespectful.
You also seem to assume that “raised Catholic” means someone was merely raised in a nominally Catholic household and put through the sacraments of initiation sort of as a series of social events. Again, not true.
As I was the one who originally brought up the Magdalene laundries, I assume you’re directing that little bit of your sophmoric goop at me, but the truth is that I acknowledged Ms. Eden’s technical correctness and that she certainly could make valid points concerning Church teaching. I took offense at her insensitivity and tone and her callous, cold disregard for the genuine struggles cradle Catholics have dealt with.
Next time, girlie, have some respect for your elders, especially when they’ve spent a few decades living what you and Ms. Eden are so quick to pontificate on. Frankly, until you’re a self-sufficient adult, you really don’t get to have an opinion on my marriage.
Well, I’ve read through the archives and most of your writing consists of bashing slutty feminists, Hillary Clinton and NOW, which means you certainly don’t mind writing about the same thing over and over again.
On the other hand, kudos to you for finishing a Hoff-Summers book. “There was this girl? who taught a women’s studies class once? and then there was this student? who was like totally hostile to feminism? but will totally make a great firsthand source for my book? who reported that the TA? like totally indoctrinated the students with like a feminist agenda? America’s going to pot! We must stop them!”
And for the record, I’m not a fan of NOW or Clinton.
I love this thread, and I am so glad to know there are other lapsed Catholics out there that can’t totally shake the Catholic identifier.
Yes, this is mostly just a sad little “Me too!” post. Sorry!
Hey Zuzu,
I forgot about that with T… yeah, that was hilarious. Can’t fault the boy on his logic. Even our aunt the nun cracked up at that one. Kids are great. Thankfully, he has gotten past that phase.
I think bottom line is that most Catholics have a sense of humor about it all. And honestly, I don’t know one case of excommunication off hand. I for one have broken 99% of the rules in my day and they still let me keep coming back. My parish priest and I have a very good relationship, and he is fully aware of my shortcomings (including being disruptive during Christmas mass with Zuzu–even my kids were embarrassed). The Church just doesn’t work in absolutes like that. Conform or begone is just not how it works.
I struggle with my faith and my conviction. People in any religion do, I suspect. There are some rules I try hard to understand but can’t quite wrap my brain around. There are some sins I have committed that I can’t muster enough regret for to have forgiven. But even the Pope goes to confession, so I think in the grand scheme of things I am doing okay.
And I know some folks who resent their parents for not raising them in an organized religion. As a parent, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. My kids will resent me for something anyhow, so for now we do it my way. In any case, I prefer to embrace the absolute dysfunction of my childhood and move forward. What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.
I know this isn’t to me, but as I already described my religious background upthread I felt I should reply to this.
I was never given formal religious instruction. Our church was someplace we walked past to get bagels; I remember less of the rites of the Mass on Easter and Christmas and more of the baby animals they brought in on Easter, and sitting at the priest’s feet during the children’s Mass and watching the Nativity play. Passover was more about the food and songs, and a feeling of cultural heritage, than the idea that we needed to go back to Jerusalem and wait for the prophet Elijah.
I have no idea what my parents believe. I think my dad’s either agnostic or atheist, and my mom is loosely deist and highly superstitious. But I have no idea. They brought us up with moral values that they taught us every day in our normal lives. Be nice to people, share with others, don’t harm anyone, don’t steal. They were as common as things like table manners. We’ve all grown into reasonably decent people without religion forming a basis for our values. Why should we not steal, why should we be nice to people? Because it’s the right thing to do. Because you should treat others as you want to be treated. I remember being surprised when somebody told me the Golden Rule was something from Sunday school when I was about nine or so – I’d never heard of it as any sort of a divine mandate, just a good rule to live by.
I wish I had a witty or thoughtful conclusion for this, but my thesis has drained my brain beyond coherency. Maybe I’ll set up an altar to Athena and the Muses…
PHLAF,
I don’t recall offering an opinion on your marriage, but I guess if you feel that I have misinterpreted your words, then you have every right to misinterpret mine. Also, I hate to break this to you, but I didn’t read Dawn Eden’s post until a few minutes ago. I have never read her blog before, and found this post because I read Feministe whenever I get the chance. Which I do because while I admit that my age prevents me from having a great deal of personal experience, I like to think that listening to what others have to say and engaging in thoughtful debate will help me increase my overall understanding of the world.
You took issue with Ms. Eden’s caustic tone and the disrespect implied; what I originally criticized was the idea that somehow cradle Catholics have a privileged world-view which converts just can’t get. Rereading my own post, I don’t believe that I said every convert has a better understanding than every cradle Catholic.
Also, when I generalized about the upbringing of many of the lapsed Catholics, I was basing it more on the posts of people other than yourself.
I am honestly not trying to insult you, merely to state my own opinions, based on my own personal experience and that of those around me, as well as the education I received at Catholic high school.
Nomie, I don’t think my point is contradicted by yours. “Values” aren’t limited to religious values; that just happens to be what Kat chooses to impart to her kids (who, unlike she and I, have relatives, in H’s case, a father, who follow a different religion).
I knew a woman who was ethically/culturally Jewish but whose parents were atheists. Her parents, nevertheless, sent her to Hebrew school so she knew what they were rejecting. She learned to read Hebrew (and Yiddish, for that matter, considering the way she deciphered the signs in Borough Park when she came with me to my apartment closing there) and she learned more than a lot of people she knew in school about the religion her parents turned away from. Her parents wanted her to know both what they liked about the religion as well as what they couldn’t abide.
I managed to grow up in a Catholic household yet I never knew how my parents felt about, say, abortion. I never needed one, and it was just something we didn’t talk about in general. But even though I didn’t have a terribly hellfire-and-brimstone upbringing, I somehow picked up the values of compassion for other people and not being an asshole to my mother. In fact, at my father’s funeral, my mother’s boss and manager (who was the boss’s mistress) expressed shock that she had managed to have six relatively clean-cut, apparently polite children.
You TOTALLY stole that from my comment at Pandagon.
DID NOT! I blame mind meld.
Lauren,
Yes, I do ‘bash’ NOW and Clinton and slutty feminists because I have serious problems with them (though I would hope that my commentary offers some solid reasons, and aren’t just limited to ‘bashing’ in the most negative, mindless sense of the word). I try not to read too many conservative blogs, mostly because I never want to be the person who forms their opinions based on what everyone else in their political identity group believes. Other than that, thank you for taking the time to look at my blog, I really do appreciate it, and I’ll take a look and see what I can do to diversify my subject matter.
“Mind meld’ my Aunt Fanny.
JenM:
“When Eve ate the apple her knowledge increased,
but God liked dumb women so Paradise ceased.”
I liked that book too ;)
As far as Catholocism goes, both my parents were raised by extremely devout Irish Catholic mothers and absentee/alcoholic fathers, and both fled the church as soon as humanly possible. So neither my sister or I were brought up in any kind of religion, although my grandmother did admit to secretly baptizing us in the kitchen sink when the folks weren’t looking.
I am not a Catholic and never have been one. Although in the interest of full Disclosure I must admit that my Grandmother apparently snuck me off as an infant to have me baptized without my mother’s permission and for some very, very odd reason that I still don’t understand completely, my mother made my brothers and me memorize the Catholic grace before meals. No instruction nor explaination, just an order, “If you want to eat you have to say Bless us O Lord…”
And yet, I know, zuzu, that the people like the kind you are describing, do not understand the heart of Catholicism.
One of my “Aunts” (not actually related to my family but my mother’s best friend from grade school) was nun. She wasn’t just any nun. She was one of the head of her order. She traveled all over the whole world and spent a number of years gathering a consensus among her colleges so that she could help to rewrite the constitution of her order. She also happened to have a Phd in literature and future studies. She not only met the pope but worked with him and his office to get the new constitution of her order just right.
But…my earliest memory of her is seeing her play munch man on my TI 99 while drinking a margarita and wearing a bright red T-shirt emblazoned “my feminist roots” with a picture of a tree with big roots and on each root was written the name of a famous feminist, Bella Abzug, Susan B. and the like. Just as pretty as you please. For this woman, who was deeply devoted to her faith and regularly spent many weekends at special spiritual retreats to get in touch with her Catholic mysticism, there was no reason she could not become a pope. Her faith and her feminism shared a common bond and were not mutually exclusive. She died just as she was about to become the head of English department of a major university and I believe she was about to embark on a quest to change the church’s view of homosexuality. I wish I had known her better and understood how she could hold such unusual views so strongly.
You actually did imply that there is a legitimate argument to be made that all converts do indeed automatically have a better understanding of Catholic doctrine than cradle Catholics merely because they are converts.
And the undeniable fact is that cradle Catholics do have a priviledged world-view which converts can’t get, just as African-Americans have a priviledged world-view I can never get, no matter how many African-American history courses I take. I may be able to get a feel for what it is like to have been, say, an African-American growing up in the fifties, but I can never know what that is. Big difference.
So, yes, I and other cradle Catholics who grew up in exclusively Catholic (and in my case, Irish-Catholic) families and communities, and who grew up during a certain time do have a world-view Ms. Eden can never actually understand.
“Bashing slutty feminists.”
And the thread was going so well, too…
>This does not, however, make the Church wrong or evil.
Let me see how to phrase this .. Evil acts do not make you evil. Hiding evil people do not make you evil. Beliefs that lead to evil acts do not make you evil. Hmm. I dont think that quite works.
The catholic church can be called evil because from time to time it has been, unarguably evil.
It still has evil people withing its elite membershhip ‘the clergy’, it hids from judgement people who commit crimes,
It still hold beliefs can cause unhappiness, misery, pain and suffering.
How can you put down anyone that calls it evil. What foot have you to stand on?
>The acts of individual Catholics can be detrimental, but that’s >because the Church and it’s members are not perfect – if it >were or people were, there would have been no need for a >Savior!
It is not only the acts, its the fact the acts go unpunished. It is also the beliefs and docturine that lead to evil. And those docturines and beliefs can not be argued as sinnless.
Examples of beliefs.
Hiding the truth is evil (information kept from its members, not only about its clergy, but the biblical texts).
Not allowing women to become clergy (even though jesus had men and women followers and apostacles (as the dead sea scrolls prove)).
Covering up for priests who commit crimes.
Not allowing its members to use contraception when aids is in the world (which 20 years too late its reconsidering).
You can argue with me Im being to hard on it, I however think I’m going easy on it. There is some actions (which is what I myself jusge a person or organisation by) that are far worse, the history of the church is filled with war, hate, murder, oppression, lies, considering non-catholics not people (it was ok to eat arabs in the crusades).
You could say well these beliefs have been held a very long time, but its not like the church has not changed its mind before.
Women in the early church could baptise.
Priest coulds marry and monks could not.
And anyone could hear confession.
The devil was not invented till the crusades as the early church belived in reincarnation.
And assuming just because someone grew up catholic they didnt study it. Thats plain arrogent and wrong. I had 4 religion (catholic) classes a week from national school (age 4) till I finished secondary (age 18). And I studyed it outside school to get a less pro church version.
I realise Im going to annoy people regards the last post. But I really really mean I judge things by their actions and words.
So If you disagree with me, feel free to argue but know Im not going to change my mind.
Saying that the discussion might be very interesting. Its always nice to learn something new.
[Back to the writer - she then stated that since God’s message evolves with cultural changes, those who interpreted the bible as literal could very well be sinning themselves, as instead of following the teachings of Jesus and worshiping God, they instead were worshiping a doctrine - the written word of the bible. She pointed out that this type of fundementalism could be seen as a direct violation of the Ten Commandments, specifically, the one dealing with false gods and idol worship. ]
Wow. I like that. Thats really sensible. But how does with work with the whole to be a roman-catholic, rather than a christian (believes jesus is the christ) you have to follow the doctrine?
Apostacles. That needs to be a word. I love the sound of it.
>What’s really sad in all this is that the catholic church is >historicly the most pro-woman institution in history. For 2000 >years, it has stood against the exploitation of women.
Um no. No its not. The celtic church did use women to get a strong hold in ancient ireland by arguing against the anti-women sentiment at the time (women were owned, quite nasty, turns you off the whole celts are all nice lie.) however when they had got what they wanted they started removing the power of women.
Women could not bastise any more, they couldnt become bishops, they could not become priests, they could not hear confesion, they should sit seperate from men, they should cover their head in church etc etc.
Today women cant attain the highest rank and only recently the second lowest (altar boys and girls). I was not allowed to be an altar-girl my sister was.
They are not allowed to control contraception so they is no way for them to prevent diseases that can kill them, or avoid having too many children, or avoid dangerous pregancy. They no longer have to be ‘churched’ after pregency though.
I suppose I should leave it, at that. It cant have been pro-women for 2000 years when paul was anti-women, womens role in the church has been covered up, and rights they used to have, have been taken away.
>Apostacles. That needs to be a word. I love the sound of it.
Spelling, Its really optional isnt it? ;)
FYI–This whole thread and the one at Dawn’s have inspired me to watch The Magadalene Sisters. As an Irish-descent person and a former Catholic, I’d be fascinated (and probably disturbed!)
Marian, try to get it on DVD. I think they include the original 1998 documentary about the Magdalene laundries with the DVD – it’s called something like “Sex In A Cold Climate”.
Mer:
Everything I’ve read about Celtic women differs from what you’ve said.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2682/500kelt/550women.html
However, tribes varied. Some Celts were matrilineal.
I agree on the word. Aposticals [sic] is better than “Holy Balls!”
Slightly off topic, but I believe this is sort of where Ms. Eden’s posts and the various responses here all began, so here goes…
Amy Welborn links to an ongoing debate between Jennifer Roback Morse and Christina Page over at marriagedebate.com on this post at her own blog.
Ms. Welborn references a very interesting retraction of sorts by a couple who were originally anti-non-NFP birth control, too, which y’all might enjoy.
phlaf:
Sure will! We have Netflix! :-)
Also, for Marian, this is a pretty good overview of both the movie and the documentary:
Grrr….THIS
Someone pointed that out to me yesterday on another site. Apparently conservative Catholics found their retraction to be offensive, and I’m not sure why. I do find it interesting that a couple so conservative and traditional can see that artificial contraception doesn’t necessarily “ruin” their relationship. It’s a good testimony.
I never did get the “contraceptive mentality” philosophy, again possibly because I’m not really Catholic. What is wrong with a contraceptive mentality exactly? “We don’t want unlimited numbers of kids, because we just don’t want them” is so horrible why?
Kyra, your post #160 was great, and pretty much elucidates the differences between education and indoctrination.
Quartermaster, I have somehow managed to overlook peoples’ assumption that I’m male unless they pretend to know more about me than they do. My sex aside, you’ve managed to pretend that about several of us, I see, and have long outstayed your turn at bat past those three strikes. Pop-psych at a distance is not a good practice.
Those declarations about what cradle Catholics know are wide of the mark as well. I left the church as an adult, after most of my sixteen years in Catholic schools. During that time I was studious (I still am) and devout as all get-out. I meant it. I loved the Sacraments; I found joy in Mass and other services; I got ecstatic singing with the de-facto choir. I studied history. I thought it through. And I got disgusted at the current behavior of those who called themselves my spiritual mentors and superiors. I don’t mean anything like sexual molestations… Well, maybe I do, in a sense, because that constant second-classing of women and girls is certainly a setup. I’m talking about their subsidizing of evil behavior, their declared principles, and — the first eye-opener — how they treated each other and how the men treated the women. The rest followed from that.
I do live by principles I learned in my youth, including that calling women “slutty” signals at the very least uncharitable thoughts about behavior that’s none of my business, but I’ve also noticed that those principles are not the exclusive property of the Catholic Church or Christianity, that in fact they’re often better practiced by non-Christians.
As for being baptized… It doesn’t bug those of us who don’t think it means anything, who don’t think it’s a magic key to a magic afterlife. I really don’t understand otherwise rational people who think it’s somehow necessary. (I also recall that Limbo, never quite a doctrine even when it was taught, has been dropped as an official teaching. I’m wondering if the babies in Limbo are in the same ethereal waiting room as the people who were convicted pr premature anti-fishism because they ate meat on Fridays before the post-Vatican II changes made that OK after all.
Somehow the idea that the Apostolic eternally-holy unchanging Church has been made all shiny-new-and-improved (It’s not got much rat in it!) without my noticing since 1970 doesn’t wash. There are good people in it and I disagree with them on its importance. I also notice how much support they get from the institution they’re subsidizing with their lives — not much.
I never claimed that the Catechism contains everything about the faith (how can it? the Church is nearly 2000 years old, having started with the Apostles in the upper room, 50 days after the Resurrection). However, here are other sources to check:
Paragraph 73 of “The Gospel of Life” (by Pope JP2) : “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’.” This references the Church’s “Declaration on Procured Abortion” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (specifically, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744.).
Just because it isn’t mentioned all that often from the pulpit, doesn’t mean it’s not still Church doctrine.
Because I don’t live in NY or CA. You better believe, though, that if Giuliani runs for the Rep. nomination for Prez, I’ll be among the many truly pro-life people denouncing his views.
Thank you, QM. Odd that comments can’t be accessed on my site. I’ll have to look into that. (Probably MSN spaces getting hosed or something. Are you using IE or some other browser – maybe MSN spaces doesn’t like Firefox.)
Well, Orthodoxy, the catechism may not be all the faith, but the Vatican itself has said that the claim that Kerry was excommunicated is bunk:
http://www.cathnews.com/news/410/100.phphttp://www.cathnews.com/news/410/100.php
The Vatican, as you are aware, is not only a church but a political state. It’s one thing for the American bishops to make statements about whether they’d give Communion to pro-choice politicians of a country of which they themselves are citizens, the Vatican itself knows enough not to get directly involved in the civil affairs of another nation-state.
So, please. This story has been debunked. You may wish that Kerry and Kennedy were automatically excommunicated for voting pro-choice positions, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
Just to make it an even 200….
Orthodoxy:
If the majority of Americans do not want abortion outlawed should they be otherwise compelled to accept the ‘pro-life’ position.
And, are you Orthodox or RC?
No bites?
Hokay, 201.
Very very interesting, this. Catholics for Choice on the excommunication thingee.
Go visit this
site.
Orthodoxy,
you never addressed Ted’s comment countering your statement:
“Since Christianity is defined as those who believe in the divinity of Christ, it’s an obvious logical fallacy to say that Catholics are not Christians.”
To fundamentalist Christians (and I know, I’m an apostate Southern Baptist), that is not the definition of Christians. To them, the only true definition of the term Christian is to accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your Lord and Savior.
So the conservative Catholics who are making nice with the fundies on common issues, such as abortion, better keep that in mind. They are anti-Catholic and they don’t see Catholics as Christians. I grew up with an anti-Catholic tract in my home describing how Catholics don’t really follow the Bible, decrying the baptism of babies, the praying to saints, the infallibility of the Pope. you guys are pagan idol worshippers to them. And if Tom Delay et al get their way in establishing that the US is a “Christian” nation, watch out. You’re next.
Lapsed Catholics -
Their own religion wasn’t good enough for them, and they’ll be damned if anyone else’s is any better.
I’m not convinced that Catholicism can be blamed for the repressiveness of mid-19th through mid-20th century Irish culture.
You’re totally right in saying that the Church weren’t solely responsible for Ireland’s repression of sexuality. However, the power the Church was given in the independent Irish state after 1922 was truly shocking. They were entrusted with most of the hospitals and almost all of the social services and still retain nominal control over the vast, vast majority of public primary and secondary schools (although many of them, like the one I attended, are pretty liberal and they all admit non-Catholic students). There is still only one non-Catholic state school in the area where I grew up (Mount Temple, famous for being the school of U2), and it has always been oversubscribed as a result.
The Church’s total control over the country’s education led to appalling abuses of power not just in “charitable” insitutions but in “good” schools, because they could really do what they liked and no one would defy them. When my mother was at her private boarding school in the ’60s, girls weren’t allowed to wash their hair ALL TERM because that was “vain” (they all did, of course, but when my mother was once caught washing hers at a sink she was hit on the hand by a nun with a table leg until she fainted. And this was a supposedly posh school, not a charity orphanage). When my boyfriend’s mother started teaching in the late ’60s, all potential school plays had to be approved by the parish priest. This was the norm and this attitude of deference infected all aspects of Irish life.
The church held such power over lay parisioners that in the ’40s, my grandmother’s sister was told by her doctor that if she had another child it would kill her, and that she should go to her priest for guidance. She did. He told her it was her duty to, and I quote, “submit to her husband”. She did. She got pregnant. And, as predicted, she died in childbirth. That’s the sort of power the church exerted in Irish society, encouraged by the government and the establishment.
For fifty years the church was given almost unlimited power over social institutions. In the early ’50s the wonderful TD (member of parliament) Noel Browne introduced the Mother and Child Scheme which would give free medical care to mothers and children. The church and particularly the infamous Bishop McQuaid believed that this was too much interference in family life (that being theChurch’s job, of course) and that the scheme – helping mothers and children stay healthy, basically – was somehow “against Catholic social teaching”. The scheme never came to pass and Browne resigned. He was my dad’s TD and a lifelong hero.
Of course, everyone now knows what terrible things happened in many (though not, of course, all) of the Church insitutions – go and read the Ferns report (the government investigation into just one diocese which caused public outcry) if you can do so without being sick. But when these scandals were unearthed, it was the Irish taxpayer who footed the bill for the vast majority of the compensation payouts – because our grandparents and great-grandparents had voted in the people who gave the Church this power. One could argue that this is fair enough – the country gave the Church this power, and must accept some responsibility. The Catholic church itself, which had protected the abusers and in many cases enabled them to continue their abuses in other parishes until just a few years ago, payed about a quarter of the costs.
So yes, the Church may not have been responsible for some of our sexual hangups in the past. But the power it exerted over everyday life in this county from the establishment of the Free State right up to the ’70s and even today can’t be underestimated. I don’t blame Catholicism the religion for all of this – I have a huge affection for the religion itself, although I profoundly disagree with its teachings on sexuality and gender. But I certainly blame the Catholic Church as an institution for running my country as a theocracy for far too long.
I hear so many stories about this from Catholic boarding schools, and also in the secular boarding schools of the UK. I heard about nuns stomping a 5-year-old half to death, boys being chained to a wall all night just for asking to go to the bathroom, and all sorts of other things. At my father’s Catholic high school, Marquette in Milwaukee WI, the priests used to beat boys over their backs or backs of their legs with golf clubs. If it left marks, so it left marks–the school didn’t care.
I wonder if this came from Catholicism or just from the idea that children were essentially not people, were to be seen and not heard, and could be disciplined any way adults deemed fit, even where cruel and unusual. (example–how there were no child abuse laws up until about 40 years ago, because parents and teachers could basically do as they wished). You find tons of gruesome discipline cases, but some were Christian and some were not, so it might just have been the culture of the time.
QM,
but being pro-choice isn’t/shouldn’t be considered a sin, since being pro-choice doesn’t mean you’d have an abortion; it is simply refusing to inflict one’s religious beliefs on others. i’ve heard high-ranking church officials refer to the ‘American problem,’ i.e. freedom of religion. seems to me that the catholic church doesn’t really believe in democracy. (though when Poland was under commnuist control, they fought hard for ‘democracy.’)
uh, no, because while the organization looks to help women who might abort for strictly economic reasons, they don’t have much consideration for those women who JUST DON’T WANT to be pregnant. the name itself ‘Feminists for Life’ is, to me, a complete oxymoron. being a feminist means you believe that women are entitled to make their own decisions. (there are lots of pro-choice feminists who wouldn’t choose to abort. but they don’t presume to make that decision for anyone else.)
and why DON’T they have a policy on birth control?
FYI there is a religious nutjob who posts often on Free Republic claiming that he and his wife don’t use any birth control. When challenged about what if she gets pregnancy complications or is in extreme pain or danger, he insists that “Pregnancy and its accompanying issues are part of being a woman, so she will just have to deal with it and keep giving birth” or something like that. I hope he’s a troll.
I hope “wife” is code for “figment,” is what I hope. Yeesh. What a catch.
I think he may be FR’s troll answer to Biddy (over at Dawn’s). At least I hope they both are trolls. They both might not be.
The Zeal of the Convert
There seems to be quite a knock down drag out discussion on both The Dawn Patrol and Feministe. I’ve been impressed with the relative level of maturity that has been shown in the comments.
Sorry – I haven’t scanned every one of the 200+ comments on here, so I was not aware of this “challenge”.
That said, I have known for a long time that many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are not Christians. (I am well aware of Jack Chick’s anti-Catholic tracts. I received one that said the Eucharist was “the Death cookie” – hilarious!) Many Muslims and Jews also believe that Catholics are not monotheists. Doesn’t mean that we do not agree on some things and cannot work together on those issues.
Just because I want certain “morality laws” to be enacted and enforced (don’t be fooled by the tired lie “you can’t legislate morality” – murder, rape, and theft all fall under “morality laws”) does not mean I am interested in making this country a theocracy. Just because someone like Tom Delay might claim to agree with me on abortion does not mean that I will support every single thing he does. (See my post that Catholics are neither Republican nor Democrat.)
So much to say about goddess worship, Kyra, but I will leave that to your curiosity. If you wish to read what someone more intelligent than I has said about the topic, please check out this wonderful talk by Dale O’Leary.
Otherwise, suffice it to say that Mary is not God’s equal because she is only human. Some have commented, though, that the Holy Spirit represents much of the “feminine” attributes of the Triune God – breaths life into lifelessness; being the bond of Love between the Father and the Son. In fact, the Song of Solomon and the Book of Wisdom both refer to “Wisdom” (commonly expounded upon as being the Holy Spirit) with the personal pronoun “she”. Sorry you missed that in your Bible studies, but it’s not something they are about to teach to 12-year-old “minds full of mush” – it’s hard enough getting them to sit still to memorize the “Hail Mary” (oh! another positive reference to a woman!) [ / sarcasm ]
Both. I am an orthodox Roman Catholic. I am orthodox (note the lack of a capital), because I happen to believe (and attempt to follow to the best of my knowledge and abilities) all the teachings of the Church – this title is as opposed to the term “heterodox”. Orthodox literally means, “right (correct) teaching”, whereas heterodox means “mixed teachings”.
I’ll concede the point that Kerry may not have been automatically excommunicated. However, by argument of the previous posts and sources, he should still be denied communion, if not by the priest, then by himself, because he has committed grave sin (publicly supporting abortion). His voting record is the evidence of this (NARAL gives him a 100% pro-abortion voting record). Unfortunately, he has obviously become deluded to the point of not being conscious of having commit this grave sin. Hence, the need to point out the error of his ways.
BTW, just to clarify, I am in no way happy to see anybody excommunicated or denied the sacraments. However, my love and respect for Christ, especially present in the Blessed Sacrament, is greater than my respect for any man or woman. The Eucharist is not only the Body and Blood of Christ, but it is also a symbol of Christian unity – that unity being of belief and doctrine. Those that take communion without being in union with the Church’s teachings (especially on something which causes 1.2 million deaths annually) detract from that symbol and cause confusion to those seeking the faith.
As I said before, the main issue is not condemning individuals – I have no right, nor desire, to do that, without persistent evidence of fault (in which case, the rules of Matt. 18:15-17 apply). What we are doing is condemning errors and scandals that weaken the faith and understanding of those who are seeking the Truth. It is akin to yelling at you to get out of the piranha-infested waters: we don’t hate you for being in the water – we are trying to save you from a fatal error, while also making enough racket so others won’t follow the lethal example. It’s love, not hate.
And now, I will follow the advice laid out in 2 Tim 2:23-26. Farewell, God bless, and peace to you.
Hardly the same thing as automatic excommunication, dear boy.
Is Biddy for real? I assumed she was a put-on because of the utter ridiculousness of her posts and her username. Would a real woman call herself “Biddy”? It’s not a very flattering username. And then her posts are so blatantly old-biddy-ish that it really does seem like someone is doing a caricature of a certain type. But who knows? Nothing would surprise me.
It was not uncommon for women of generations past to quietly ask their doctors for hysterectomies at a certain point, not because they were necessary from a medical standpoint, but because their emotional health couldn’t handle yet another pregnancy and child. Many compassionate doctors did perform them. And to this day, there are Catholic women who are visibly relieved when they’re told they need a hysterectomy, or that a hysterectomy is a possible cure for their gynecological issues, even if there are several better and less intrusive options available to them (as is my case – they put me on the pill when I was 46 for polyps/fibroid issues, but they did mention that I could have a hysterectomy if I wanted one – I didn’t – not a surgery person – hence the pill, which I’m lovin’, even if it makes me an official member of the church of Satan, or whatever it is the conservative Catholics think).
Sounds like you’ve been reading too much of the Da Vinci Code. Amy Welborn has many posts on the Da Vinci Code. She also has a book that covers a lot of the mistakes and myths.
Yes, Jesus had both male and female followers. The apostles were all male, and from my understanding, that is why no priests are women. I understand your point about wanting female priests and will not argue your opinion. Maybe some day it will happen; I’m not enough of an expert to say otherwise.
Once again, this comes down to individuals doing evil. The Catholic church, which is all of its members, is not responsible for this. Hopefully, with the changes that are happening, these crimes will not happen again. I want to see all priest and bishops who cover up these atrocities brought to justice also.
Discussing contraception sounds like it belongs in another discussion because this could go on awhile. I understand the frustration with this, but I don’t believe the church’s position is evil. The Catechism explains the reasons very well. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree. But you can check it out if you want.
What I’m wondering is whether if the Church does actually change its position on condoms to prevent AIDS, will orthodox Catholics who believe condoms are wrong no matter what change their opinion too (since it’s approved by the Vatican)? Or, will we literally have some who are “more Catholic than the Pope?”
I never did get how being “open to life” had to mean “open to AIDS.” If you’re using the “contraceptive mentality’ argument that says, “You must share all of yourself, not part, or else it’s not full love” (aka Dawn’s philosophy), then how is it unloving to withhold your deadly disease? I hope the Vatican does come to approve this.
Not responsible for the coverup? Sorry, but no. The Church may not have been responsible for the actions of individual priests, but they sure as hell became complicit when they learned what those priests did and not only hushed things up but transferred those priests to other parishes where they would have contact with children. Moreover, the Church showed its utter contempt for the victims when they tried to defend their actions by blaming the boys for “tempting” the priests.
There’s a reason Cardinal Law hasn’t set foot in the US recently.
Amen – not to mention trying to spin the sex abuse crisis as a “homosexual” problem, which puts the onus back on the priests who were directly involved instead of acknowledging the more serious part of the crisis – the cover-up – and ignores the female victims (a smaller group, but still every bit as human and important as the male victims).
There was a blogger Jill wrote about a long time ago at Third Wave, who was blaiming the priest scandal on what else….contraception! Some priest claimed that the availability of contraceptives allows us to treat sex as recreational rather than reproductive, and that “mentality” spilled over into the priests (or something). It was crazy. So us married folks who don’t want tons of kids are responsible for not only the other ills in the world (what was it? AIDS? School shootings? Wars? Cancer? Hollywood stars divorcing? All of the above) but the priest scandal as well. Yipee!
Preying on children and adolescents and preying on those over whom you hold a position of authority speak to much darker mental disturbances than partaking in casual sex with a consentual partner.
The denial is probably the worst part of the scandal – the actual crimes were horrific, the cover-up is obscene, but the denial, from a Catholic point of view, is pure pride and arrogance and therefore definitely a big huge no-no. And especially coming from the very people who are not only supposed to know better, but who are claiming they know better than and for all of the rest of us!! The hypocrisy is staggering – and it is exactly this kind of hypocrisy and pride and arrogance that Christ himself had very clear and strong words for. This isn’t merely breaking the law or not adhering to the Catechism – this is spitting in the face of God!
Not that I’m implying that engaging in casual sex with a consentual partner is disturbed…that came out wrong.
Marian,
From my understanding, the Vatican is having discussions about the use of condoms to protect one spouse from the other who has AIDS. If after this discussion, it is decided that condoms can be used by married couples in this circumstance, then all Catholics will be called to obey this decision. As with after Vatican II, some Catholics may break from Rome and start their own church. Who knows? But no decision seems to be forth-coming.
Zuzu,
I am part of the Catholic church. I had nothing to do with the cover-up. Cardinal Law was called to Rome by the Vatican. That was still done by individuals, even if the Pope himself was ultimately responsible. The Pope, as an individual, can and does sin. He makes mistakes. But, he is NOT the Church. He is the head of the Church. In the past, popes have done evil things. Everyone is aware of that. But, the Church as a whole was not responsible. Those popes and bishops and priests did those things as flawed individuals. Christ’s Church got through those periods and is still alive today.
That post is here. Note how so many people in the comments defend him.
Well, that’s swell, but if we go with that kind of explanation there’s no way we can hold corporations responsible for the actions of individuals. Any corporate entity is made up of people, and there are people who are authorized to act on its behalf and bind the corporation. Like, for instance, Ken Lay. Or the Pope. Or various bishops and cardinals and others with managerial/executive authority to act on behalf of the Church.
Why have a Church hierarchy at all if even the Pope could throw up his hands and say, “I’m not responsible”?
Very interesting! I wonder if couples will have to show that one is HIV-positive before this would be approved by their priest? What about using them just in case when you don’t know your HIV status? Should be interesting to follow.
I think it would be a matter of conscience. Priests aren’t privy to the goings on in a particular marriage unless a person brings a situation to the confessional, or perhaps just brings it to to a priest for a confidential discussion.
Of course, some members, who were also every bit as much a part of the Church as you are, committed suicide as a result of the torment they received at the hands of evil priests, so, while the Church may be alive doday, it is deeply, deeply wounded and missing parts that can never be replaced.
“The Church” can be defined in a variety of ways, and in the institutional sense, “the Church” was certainly responsible for a great deal of evil in the sex abuse scandal.
Mark:
If you hold stock in a corporation and the corporation is sued, in most cases, you’re being sued to. You may have not done a single thing wrong or even known what was going on.
There is such a thing as group guilt. Even as a lapsed Catholic the pedophila cover-up scandal sickened me. I took it personally. The same way if my alma mater does something horrible even if I haven’t attended in 30 years.
Aw, guys, Biddy is fun. Deranged, yes, but fun.
Wanted to add my voice to whoever recommended “Sex In A Cold Climate”, which we saw when we rented “Magdalen Sisters” on DVD. The both of them taken together are, however, depressing.
I’m pretty sure Biddy is a paradoy troll. The name sure is something else.
Interesting discussion. My Calabrian-born grandfather insisted until his death that St. Rocco was more important that St. Peter. (He was raised in a town with St.Rocco as its patron saint.)
I think the specifics and legalities of theology can be overrated, especially for a certain religious type.
Condoms don’t prevent AIDS. Marrying a virgin as a virgin and remaining true to them throughout your life prevents AIDS.
You withold your deadly disease by withholding sex. This is a pretty simple concept. As far as I know, nobody has ever died from lack of sex.
Well, that was ignorant.
Well, no. People haven’t died from lack of a whole lot of things. But people have been pretty unhappy, that’s for sure. And I, for one, value happiness and pleasure. And I also realize that it’s quite possible to balance happiness and pleasure with physical safety and well-being. That’s what life comes down to.
You know, you’re presuming that people have those kinds of choices and the power to control their sex lives with absolute authority. (You’re also assuming that everyone would want to make them.)
The fundamental problem with abstinence is that it will never be practiced in numbers appreciable to prevent STIs or unwanted pregnancies. The church’s position on birth control really doesn’t address that. I can appreciate ideology purity, but I find pragmatism to be more appealing.
As an aside, what do you say to someone who, like Dawn herself, converts after living a life of sin? And what if that person’s already contracted HIV?
If you find happiness by having sex with someone with AIDS, by all means, have him slip on a condom. But to me, having sex with someone with AIDS using a condom is a lot like jumping out of a plane at 30,000ft using a parachute packed by a stranger.
Would you really want your life hanging on the actions of inspector #32 on the Trojan line? ;)
*Snort*
Fuck no. I make my own condoms. They’re a little thick, and a little ragged around the seams, but at least I know who made ‘em. Slaughtered the sheep myself.
I have a headache, so I’m gonna pop a couple of Advil before bed. If I don’t show up in comments tomorrow morning, you might want to alert the authorities. Some disgruntled employee might have switched out the pills.
I agree that that was about the most ignorant and uninformed little diatribe regarding AIDs I’ve seen in a long time.
Even the Vatican recognizes that the unitive aspects of sexual relations between a husband and wife are _as_ important as the procreative. That they’re even discussing the use of condoms for married couples in which one partner has AIDs shows that they’re finally probably coming around to the fact that all sexual acts don’t have to be both procreative and unitive at the same time, and that the benefits of sexual relations in a long-term (permanent) marriage differ over time and in particular instances. Long time coming, and I still may not see any document approving condom use in my lifetime, but at least it shows they’re trying.
Funny, too, how the Church that claims to be built on forgiveness and redemption seems to have an awful lot of members who can’t seem to grasp the concept, either. And there’s something particularly loathsome about people who would dictate other people’s punishments based on their own personal moral standards.
geoduck:
I am of the opinion that much of these theological ruminations and debates, and much of this focus on doctrine and dogma and rules and regs has a lot more to do with people desiring to control God by reducing him to a theory or intellectual concept.
God is pretty much the last guy you’ll ever hear a Catholic talk about. Mary, the Saints, occasionally Christ (but only in the context of suffering and crosses – most Catholics are gonna keep that poor guy nailed up there for as long as possible – which is why I so appreciate the Orthodox Church’s take on the Passion, but that’s another topic), lots of paraphernalia, form, etc., but never just…God.
He’s been so reduced in the Catholic vision. So…watered down and sort of pathetic and powerless. There’s no longer any sense of awe or amazement or joy left at all in the Church. It’s all about suffering for the sake of suffering (and comparing your suffering to everyone else’s), obligation, duty, submission, obedience (to men, not to God, of course), exclusion, hoops to jump through, approval of other people (who may be engaging in the filthiest of sins themselves),and so on.
It’s so depressing and lifeless and so completely devoid of anything remotely divine.
PFLAF,
Condoms, when used properly, have an effectivity rate of about 95%. Let’s be charitable and say that it is 99%. We know that they are not 100% effective.
You believe it’s an act of charity for me, if I had AIDS, to slip on a condom and have sex with my wife knowing that if we had sex 100 times there’s almost a 100% chance she would be infected with a disease that would kill her?
The unitive aspect of sex is equally important in marital sex, and as a matter of fact, that is what makes in vitro fertility treatments illicit. It is life without love (marital sex) which is a requirement.
The english language is really deficient when it comes to discussing love. In Latin you have caritas which is love of neighbor, you have eros which is sexual love between a man and a woman, and you have agape which is the self-giving unconditional love of God.
In addition to eros (which is easy, because God has designed us to react to each other) we are called to love our spouse with the same love that God loves us with (agape).
This means that should I have a deadly disease, I deny myself the pleasure of sex with my wife for her safety. Should she have a medical problem that makes sex painful for her, I deny myself the pleasure of sex for her benefit. This is the total self giving we are called to practice (as Jesus, who BTW is God, modeled for us on the cross). If I’m called to lay down my life for my wife (as St. Paul admonishes), it’ll be a walk in the park to avoid sex with her.
Contraception, especially in the case of AIDS, makes it all about us. Oh, heck. You can fool yourself into thinking that you are doing it for the “unitive aspect of marriage”, or that you are taking a chance on infecting your spouse with a deadly disease for his or her benefit. We’ve gotten really good at that in the last 40 or so years.
But nowhere is the contraceptive mentality more evident than in this AIDS/condoms discussion.
Not this again! Forget contraceptive mentalities. Forget sexual repression. I want to live in a country where we have respect for math.
Also, “effectivity?” Maybe I’m being elitist here, but I like to get my safer-sex information from people who use real words.
So in other words, you are more conservative than the Vatican on this one, which is actually considering that protecting someone from AIDS is not a “contraceptive mentality.” If the Vatican approves it, will you continue to disapprove?
Also, just because there is a statistical chance of something happening does not mean it will. A 95% failure rate of condoms does not mean that if you use them 100 times, they will definitely break 5 of those times. And having HIV doesn’t mean there is a 100% chance of the other person getting it. The above argument assumes that a) all condoms will definitely break at the statistical failure rate, and b) the HIV virus will definitely be passed to someone else during those breakages.
Finally, what in the world does this have to do with “contraceptive mentality?” Do people have to bring that barely-credible-argument-based-only-on-assumption up at every turn nowadays?
.
Piny: That goes with “contracepting” and “to contracept.” :-)
You know, if I were feeling disingenuous, I’d argue that you just claimed that Jesus’s death on the cross is really just a call not to rape your wife.
*end snark
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t failure rates determined by regular use for a set amount of time, usually a year (so that it can meaningfully be compared to other methods that aren’t “one use only”)? So instead of the failure rate for 100 uses being (1-x^100), it’s more like (1-x). Which (assuming for simplicity’s sake the couple has sex 100 times in a year) is the difference between 5% and 99.4% for the 95% rate, and 1% and 63.4% for the 99% rate.
Tony,
Think about the situation in many African countries with high rates of AIDS for a second:
1) First of all, I think you don’t understand that many wives do not have a choice about sex with their husbands.
2) Many men have had sex with high risk people (such as prostitutes) and then come home and have sex with their wives.
3) This spreads AIDS and other diseases.
4) I don’t know why you think that their wives are excited to have sex with their husbands. Many women are happy when the sex stops, particularly in these types of patriarchal and unequal relationships.
5) Many women, in the above situations, would be absolutely ecstatic if they could tell their husbands to stop having sex with them.
– —————–
I am of the opinion that much of these theological ruminations and debates, and much of this focus on doctrine and dogma and rules and regs has a lot more to do with people desiring to control God by reducing him to a theory or intellectual concept.
Oh yes, I quite agree.
The decision to proceed with a sexual relationship is between the husband and wife. If both are fully informed of the risk of the uninfected partner in every possible situation, and they choose to go ahead with a sexual relationship using condoms, then that’s their business. If they choose to forego a sexual relationship, fine. If they should choose to engage in a sexual relationship that doesn’t include risky behavior (intercourse), good on ‘em. Not ever anyone else’s business but theirs.
Some people may have gotten good at fooling themselves about their true motivations, and some people may have fooled themselves about what they think they know about other people’s motivations, but that doesn’t mean that every couple who uses non-NFP birth control is doing it selfishly. That’s a judgment you cannot and ought not make. It is truly, truly wrong to judge the love a man and wife have for one another based on bits and pieces of information you may think you have about their relationship.
It’s just not your business, and it’s incredibly rude and ill-bred to try and make it your business.
This thread is getting way long, so I’m going to close comments.
Feel free to move the AIDS/condom discussion over to the “Contraceptive Mentality” post.