Of the people I go to church with, about half are ex-(Roman) Catholics who left either because they were tired of the anti-gay nonsense or because they were tired of the anti-women nonsense. Most of the rest grew up low-church Protestant or Jewish. I think only one is a cradle Episcopalian.

I’m all for more fluidity in and out of religious groups. It makes it a lot easier to be honest in your religious life, or to be honest about your non-religious one. I think it makes for a better church, too. Those who show up actually want to be there and have good reasons for doing so, and those who don’t see the point are under no obligation to go through the motions.

I know that there are some churches out there doing good works with the people that they are trying to serve, and I want to be hopeful that the Catholic Church in America, especially, will think long and hard about who is sitting in the pews. I really do. And I want to believe in the potential for radical transformation within the church, that it could stop telling people who to be and instead ask them who they are. But then I remember that “radical movements” that come from the “ground level” in the church have a tendency to get systematically shut down… i.e. the Liberation Theology movement. I want to have hope for the church but at the same time I think it will take action from the outside, from people who aren’t recognized by the institution as belonging to the institution, but who still believe in a Creator who loves all her/his children.

Papist, If your contention is that Jesus is urging people to adhere to the Old Testament laws in those verses, why are you insisting that Jesus was thinking something that’s not even in the Old Testament, namely that killing a fetus is wrong? The Old Testament clearly states that a fetus is not the same as a person and the penalties for causing a miscarriage are much, much lower than causing a death. So you’re attributing something to both Jesus and the Old Testament that not only is not there, but actually contradicts what is there.

There’s a reason that Julia Sweeney only became an atheist after an intensive Bible study class.

I’m curious to know which chapter and verse you are thinking of here.

Matthew 4:33-37. It’s in a little-known section called the Beatitudes. And you’re leaving out the details of what Jesus considers “murder” and “adultery” in that very same section.

Are you worried about going to hell?

Not particularly. If people like me are destined for Hell, I’ll be there with most of my friends and family. If going to Heaven means spending my time with people like Jerry Falwell, I’ll be begging for them to send me to Hell instead.

Which, interestingly enough, means that they’d be the same place. I’m assuming you’ve heard that homily since you go every Sunday.

The Catholic Church under canon law counts as a “Catholic” any person baptized or confirmed in the Catholic Church who has not made a formal renunciation of her or his religion.

Yep. That’s why I fired off letters to the parish that baptized me as well as the diocese when Papa Ratzi got in as Pope and I decided that just being lapsed was no longer good enough.

You did not, in fact, supply chapter or verse. Which, if Jesus was so opposed to abortion and homosexuality, you’d think he would have addressed.

I feel like I am doing your homework for you. I quoted Mt 19:16-18. Perhaps you are not familiar with this notation? It means “Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 19, verses 16 through 18.” I also provide the explanation, since I freely admit that the words “abortion” and “homosexual acts” do not occur in these verses. Note that in this passage Jesus does not specifically teach that you should not kill construction workers, women, the transgendered, or the Chinese. Nonetheless, I believe that the chapter and verses that I cite exclude killing the innocent in these groups as well. Similarly, acts of bestiality and necrophilia are not prohibited by name in the passage I cite, but both are excluded by Jesus here under the more general term, “adultery.”

He was, however, pretty specific about making false vows. Turns out the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right and we’re all going to Hell if we’ve ever sworn to anything anywhere. So much for our court system.

I’m curious to know which chapter and verse you are thinking of here. Are you worried about going to hell?

1) The Catholic Church under canon law counts as a “Catholic” any person baptized or confirmed in the Catholic Church who has not made a formal renunciation of her or his religion. While the Pew poll reports self-described “ex-Catholics,” the Church for statistical or other purposes counts as “Catholic” those who have not publicly either joined another religion or professed atheism publicly. Most ex-Catholics don’t do what an ex-Mormon friend did, i.e. send a formal letter to his bishop requesting disenrollment.

2) No doubt there are a lot of atheists in the Catholic pews. I imagine a lot of atheists go because they like the services, like the incense, like talking to Patricia or Anthony who may be there for devout purposes, like spending time with their families. The Church is actually an excellent place for an atheist; it provides the socialization and entertainment that atheist organizations are miserable at providing. I suspect a large percentage of elected Catholics are atheists who simply made their peace with their culture/heritage in a specific way.

I recall my closest friend from high school who dated the daughter of an Opus Dei member (he may have joined later or then, unclear.) She was the eldest of five kids, attended one of the more conservative Catholic girls schools in Baltimore, devoutly religious, loudly pro-life, portraits of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin AND of Ronald Reagan (!) in her bedroom/nightstand (mid 1980s). The two of them screwed like rabbits for close to three years, whereas I, the liberal, lived a celibate life, committing no major sexual “sin” other than of course that of Onan. Moral: everyone draws lines.