(no subject)

[vicarz]

While I'm getting flack for trashing entire religions, let's all remember that it's the year of the cock!

That really helps me keep things in perspective.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

Here's another gem from Ratzi:

"When civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground and irrational and violent reactions increase."

Or, in other words, acceptance of homosexuality is the cause of gay-bashing.

[wabmart.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't remotely read it as the cause, though can you deny that if people didn't have the gay to gay-bash they wouldn't gay-bash? How can you be violently intolerant of something socially invisible? People didn't make fun of goths before the goth style existed very publicly either.

Again, I must stress that I (and many Catholics besides me) strongly disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger on the clause "to which no one has any conceivable right". Overall, though, it is a minor dogma and hardly central to "what makes someone Catholic".

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

Um, you don't GET to disagree with Ratzinger. He's the guy in charge of enforcing what Catholics should and shouldn't believe. The Inquisition, what a show...

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Your knowledge of the subject is awesome (really) but I'm not a big fan of looking at the history of a group to judge their current positions. The US endorsed slavery and extermination policies, but while I consider that an important part of the shameful history - I'm far more concerned with what the US is doing today.

Similarly, I'm concerned about what the church is doing today, and I hate it. I feel that hate is justified. I don't care if they believe in god, crackers, jebus, or aliens...what they are doing causes harm. I don't feel 'ignorant' for repeating what I am exposed to as news releases.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

Ratzinger isn't history; he's the PRESENT head of the CDF, i.e., the Inquisition. He's the guy charged with reigning in Bishops and Priests who teach things contrary to (his own, very conservative, interpretation) of Church doctrine. Ratzinger wants to do to Vatican II what I want to do to Highlander II.

Thankfully, he is generally no longer considered a likely candidate for Pope, more due to his age than his politics.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Oops, then your point stands and is a strong one. Maybe everyone should form covens so whenever someone goes bonkers they can take off and join another.

[wabmart.livejournal.com]

I feel I need to reiterate that I hate pretty much the same things you do about the church as it's currently run, and for those reasons I stand away from it and work at a distance to bring change: to rub their noses in Paul VI's credo, "If you want peace, work for justice", and point out that it is unjust to marginalize homosexuals and women because of hazy-interpretated points; it is unjust to promote sex for mutual pleasure of spouses and then deny such a method of preventing transmission of disease; it is unjust to require a pregnancy to be carried to term despite the penalty it will inflict on mother and child.

These strong oppositions, coupled with my ambivalence on the core of the faith, lead me to stand apart. Other people really believe the Nicene creed, though. People who agree completely on the above issues, but they really believe in the core doctrines. I know plenty of them, and they've decided to work from within the church to change it.

Ultimately, my point is this: not everyone walking around with a smudge on their forehead is a mindless robot and more than everyone wearing chaps in the Castro is a festering bag of disease. And yes, many of them are doing it because they don't know anything else. But there are plenty of them for whom the core doctrines of the Catholic church resonate deeply and who believe they can remain in communion while working for change. Yesterday they got together to say "everything falls apart; everyone dies and returns to dust", and rub ashes on each other as a reminder. By and large that's why they're doing it, not to show off.

Is the ritual a bit silly? Yeah, and it's not even an absolute requirement to be marked, just to show up that Wednesday. Still, there's a long history of groups doing somewhat silly things together. I believe the modern secular term is "ropes course".

[wabmart.livejournal.com]

Here, I think, is the main problem: I very much can and do disagree with him. As I said, this puts me out of communion with the body of the church, which is why I don not partaicipate in the sacraments.

Others are out of communion and still participate, but often enough these are people who are (as stated in another thread) just in it because their parents have been in it and so on. This unexaminedness is hardly a charge you can only level at Catholics. I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of people around the world do everything they do because they honestly have never really known anything different and never stopped to think about it. Do I think that's "right"? No. It is, however, human.

Now, obviously disagreements can arise. Fides et Ratio did not come from John Paul II suddenly waking up and saying "let's believe in evolution". The currents of Catholics the world over, laymen and philosophers, put pressure on the Holy See to reconsider the church's position on the nature of faith and reason, and the position changed. Yes, it's a rather bizarre method of setting policy -- that you ultimately have to convince whoever's in the seat right now -- but still disagreements can and do arise.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

Here, I think, is the main problem: I very much can and do disagree with him. As I said, this puts me out of communion with the body of the church, which is why I don not partaicipate in the sacraments.

Why on earth would one VOLUNTARILY express affiliation with an organization which forbids one from participation for holding dissenting opinions? Clearly, the Church does not consider your differences "thoeologically minor".

I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of people around the world do everything they do because they honestly have never really known anything different and never stopped to think about it.

Yes, and that's exactly the kind of non-thinking I've been criticizing, whatever its source.

Fides et Ratio did not come from John Paul II suddenly waking up and saying "let's believe in evolution".

Hey, I'll give credit where it's due; the Catholic Church is less backward and anti-intellectual than many fundamentalist Protestant denominations. The difference is, the Catholic Church is much larger and more influential, especially in the developing world, so it's more temperate reactionary teachings cut a wider swath.

The currents of Catholics the world over, laymen and philosophers, put pressure on the Holy See to reconsider the church's position on the nature of faith and reason, and the position changed.

Well, sure, the Communist Party of China is capable of reform, too, but I can't imagine joining up in the hopes that it might get better. Not if I had a choice, at least. In this country, at least, people CHOOSE their religious affiliation, and should not be surprised or offended at assumptions that they share their religion's positions.

[wabmart.livejournal.com]

Why on earth would one VOLUNTARILY express affiliation with an organization which forbids one from participation for holding dissenting opinions? Clearly, the Church does not consider your differences "theologically minor"

Minor as compared to, say, the points in the Nicene creed.

Yes, and that's exactly the kind of non-thinking I've been criticizing, whatever its source.

And I'm all for criticizing it. What I'm not for is finding a visible subset and attacking them on a charge not specific to that subset.

My specific affiliation is.. fuzzy to say the least. All I can say with certainty is that I was born and raised within the Church, and that along that course I picked up a greater awareness of the church's teachings than most of the Catholic laity. I am, by their rules, not a part of the church body anymore, so it's more a case of not completely leaving than signing onto something. I think that (apart from certain specific points which I believe are alterable) the church can be a tremendous force for good and can greatly improve people's lives.

One disagreement which will likely never be reconciled (depending on your reading of the catechism) is the uniqueness of the path to enlightenment. More accurately, I believe (in the church's metaphor) there is "one Jerusalem with many gates". Please don't take my statement that the church could improve people's lives as an admonition that everyone would be best served by a (reformed) Catholic church.