I wonder what a liberal Roman Catholics lurking on this site must think of all these posts.

[hrmjustin]

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2013, 05:38 PM - Edit history (3)

It is a legit question. I know that this may be locked because religion and Meta posts are not supposed to be in GD but I really think this question needs to be asked.

Now I am not talking about the posts that question the beliefs or actions of the Vatican. This is a discussion board and we should discuss. Even asking why people are members of any faith community especially when they have official positions contrary to your own is a valid question. But some of the posters who have posted on this question have gone overboard. Some have said intimated that to be a good dem or liberal you should not belong to this religion. Some have said you should or must leave your church directly to DU Roman Catholics. Some have just been mean spirited. This is not the spirit of DU and we should not go here. I am a former RC and I am now Episcopalian but I stand with those who have remained to fight the good fight inside of the church so that they could change the church from within.

All I ask you is have respect for DU catholics who choose to stay in their church to fight the good fight.

Thank You
Justin.

On edit I see Skinner has clarified what we can post on religion in GD. Thank you Skinner.

I also see that someone has put me on ignore since I posted this. Oh well!

[Marrah_G]

1. sigh

~facepalm~

[Trajan]

2. Atheist here ... ex-catholic

Wasn't long ago I would have been torn apart by sword or burned at the stake for saying something like that ....

[hrmjustin]

3. They have not done that for awhile.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

71. opus Dei still has wet dreams about the good olde days

[hrmjustin]

73. Opes Dei scare me!

They take things to an extreme.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

74. me, too.

I am quite familiar with the local top guy. He has a huge family, all of them loyal to the sect.

I was on a committee selecting a man of the year (actually person of the year) and he was selected. I resigned, rather than to be forced to award this man anything.

[BainsBane]

38. For sake of historical accuracy

There was no such thing as atheism at the time of the Inquisition. It's goal was to enforce religious and cultural orthodoxy, which turned out to be a complete failure.

[MNBrewer]

45. Of course there were atheists at the time of the Inquisition.

[BainsBane]

53. really?

Do you have evidence to demonstrate that? I've read a number of Inquisition documents and have never seen any reference to atheism by name or practice. I don't believe the concept emerged until the Enlightenment. I welcome correction if you have evidence to the contrary, but I think it's wrong to assume. Prior to the Enlightenment, people believed all knowledge came through divine revelation. The entire concept of a separation between the sacred and the mundane only dates from that period.

A colleague of mine runs a program in religious studies at a university. She says the entire discipline of religious studies dates from the post-Enlightenment period. The reason being is that before then, there was no perceived difference in what was religious and what was not. All belonged to God in pre-Enlightenment mentalité.

As I said, I welcome information to the contrary.

[MNBrewer]

56. From wikipedia

"Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment."

So does that mean there were no people anywhere who disbelieved in gods prior to the emergence of atheism as a distinct world view?

You make broad assertions that none existed prior to the Enlightenment and all that's required to disprove that is a single case of one prior. I think your assertion is statistically improbable.

[BainsBane]

61. I think it's important to remember

That how people think is framed by the cultural world in which they live. Certainly, if non-believers were a concern of the Church, they would have been targets of the Inquisition. Instead you see priests and lay people tried for heresy, speaking about God and the cosmos in ways of which the church didn't approve. You also see Jews and homosexual men as targets. I would guess that people who didn't care much for religion went through the motions and didn't attract the attention of the Santo Oficio.

One thing you can know with certainty, no one in the 11-16th centuries thought as we do today.

If case you're interested, there is a great book on the Inquisition in Brazil that's now been translated into English. She also references a number of works on the European Inquisitions and witch hunts. http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Land-Holy-Cross-Translations/dp/0292702361/ref=la_B001IYZL1A_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363813104&sr=1-1

She draws on Inquisition documents, some of which are in published volumes. I'm not sure if any are available in English. Those documents are fascinating to read.

[MNBrewer]

62. Of course the 11th through 16th centuries had different ways of thinking

but that doesn't eliminate the probability that some of those didn't believe in deities.

[BainsBane]

66. possibly

I would need to see evidence to believe it though, just because it was so foreign to the cultural milieu of the time.

[Phillip McCleod]

95. we can call this the 'atheist of the gaps' phenomenon.

if we find an example of an atheist in the 13th century, will you then doubt the existence of atheists in 11-12th and 14-16th centuries. what are the parameters required for your challenge, because honestly, i have no doubt that it could be done without resorting to mythology.

can the same be said for the 'god of the gaps'?

[BainsBane]

100. What are you even talking about?

Have you ever studied any history in your entire life? Do you know what. The Enlightenment is?

[Phillip McCleod]

101. i think i made myself abundantly clear.

[BainsBane]

105. Making yourself clear would require

Actual knowledge of history and philosophy. That you can't see the importance of the Enlightenment as a marker in thinking about knowledge, and humankind's relationship to god and the world tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Rex]

72. How about Cro-Magnon Man?

Did they believe in a God? What is being asked is unprovable. The term 'atheist' was coined in the 18th century - but to ask if there were non-believers in those days, is to completely MISS the point of an Inquisition imo!

[MNBrewer]

82. No, the word was not coined in the 18th century.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

[BainsBane]

88. So are the first known atheists from France?

[MNBrewer]

94. I doubt it

We got the word from them, as we got many of our words, but it has its roots in ancient Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ephesians_2,12_-_Greek_atheos.jpg

The Greek word "atheoi" αθεοι ("[those who are] without god&quot as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:12, on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. This word - in any of its forms - appears nowhere else in the New Testament or the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament.
Catalog entry: P.Mich.inv. 6238; 149; Verso
Date: End of IInd century - first half of IIIrd century A.D. (?)
Origin: unknown
Provenance: unknown

[BainsBane]

96. In the linked text

It uses the term to condemn others, not as a belief people claimed for themselves.

[Phillip McCleod]

97. not that much different from the modern usage if you think about it..

that's a big 'if' i know..

[BainsBane]

98. Excuse me?

How many languages can you read?

[MNBrewer]

58. Christopher Marlowe, for example.

A pre-Enlightenment figure accused of atheism.

[BainsBane]

67. interesting example

I'm going to look further into it.

[Rex]

46. People that did not believe in the Christan God existed long before the term

'atheism' was coined in the 18th century. Just for the sake of historical accuracy.

[BainsBane]

55. but did they believe in no God?

Were they pagan, Muslim, or Jewish? Did people identify themselves as believing in no God before the Enlightenment?

[Rex]

57. I believe it has more to do with being an ex-Catholic then atheist.

What do you think would have happened to a self professed ex-Catholic during the Inquisitions? Lemonade and a free donkey?

[BainsBane]

65. my point is there was no such thing

In Protestant countries, inquisitorial practices were carried out through witch hunts.
Before the Reformation, Christianity and Catholicism were on in the same. Converted Jews, called New Christians, were subject to the Inquisition. Those who did not convert (Muslims and Jews) were expelled from Spain and other Catholic lands.

Believe me, I'm not making an argument about religious tolerance. Far from it. I'm just pointing out that atheism or non-believers was not a concern for the Church.
Indians in the New World, for example, were not subject to the Inquisition because the church deemed them to be the spiritual equivalent of children and therefore lacking the spiritual maturity to commit mortal sins. Diego de Landa, the Franciscan Provincial and Bishop of the Yucatan, set up his own inquisition of Indians in New Spain, but he ended up being recalled back to Spain and punished for it. Again, none of this had anything to do with religious tolerance. No such concept existed at the time.

[Rex]

70. My point is that the poster is correct.

He would have been burned at the stake for claiming to be an ex-Catholic in those days. That he is now an atheist (in modern times) has nothing to do with it.

Let me ask you something, were the cavemen atheists? How could anyone know? What you ask is unprovable.

Actually the entire POINT of an Inquisition is to 'drive out the non-believers'.

http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html

Good bit of information, if anyone is interested.

[BainsBane]

75. No, he is not correct

because there was no such thing as an ex-Catholic under the Inquisition, and only Catholics were subject to it. You underestimate the power of the Church in that period.

I've read a good deal of literature on the Inquisition from leading historians. I'll take that over a random website. The point was to impose cultural and religious orthodoxy. A research project looking for evidence of non-believers before the Inquisition would be an interesting one. You'd need to learn to read Latin and/ or Spanish, Italian, or Portuguese, however.

Anthropologists have pointed to religious practices in all known human civilizations. Whether they are correct, I couldn't say.

[Rex]

76. Well you are wrong. He would be tortured for giving up his faith.

But I see you don't have any intentions of reading anything provided so, have a good day then!

[BainsBane]

86. I read your link, and I apologize for not doing so earlier.

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)

I should have waited until I had time to read and respond more appropriately.

The site, however, doesn't saying anything about targeting non-believers. The website gives a basic procedural summary of the Spanish Inquisition, which was one of several Inquisitorial bodies. It talks about heresy, which was indeed a common charge before the Holy Office. That does not, however, mean ex-Catholic or atheist. It meant something other than orthodox Christianity, which encompassed many offenses.

There are a few points to consider. The idea that if one suddenly found himself in 12th century Italy or 16th century Spain, his current atheism would be rejected and subject to Inquisitorial punishment if he voiced them enough for many to hear is almost certainly correct. However, if he had lived in that time he would not have those same ideas. Our thinking is formed by the cultural environment in which we are raised. Thinking of oneself as an atheist is possible because of our current cultural environment. You would have thought very differently if you had lived centuries ago.

Your use of the term ex-Catholic is misplaced. During most of the life of the Inquisition, there was no distinction between Catholicism and Christianity. There were one and the same. Following the Reformation when some states became protestant, they were not subject to the Inquisition. They did, however, have their own ecclesiastical courts to impose religious orthodoxy and to persecute witches in particular, most of whom were women. Historians have analyzed similar factors involved in witch hunts and Inquisitions and argued that all were about imposing a hegemonic popular culture. Your website mentions Protestants in Spain as subject to the Inquisition after the 16th century. I expect that is accurate. It was in fact not legal to be anything other than Catholic in Spain and other catholic countries. The Inquisitorial documents I have read are for Brazil, where there were no Protestants until the 19th century. Yet most of the history of the Inquisition predated the Reformation. A Protestant, of course, is not a non-believer. And, as I mentioned, Protestant countries had their own courts that imposed religious orthodoxy.

You underestimate the kind of offenses that brought people before the Inquisition. Menocchio, an Italian miller, found himself subject to prosecution for comparing the heavens to the making of cheese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menocchio http://www.amazon.com/Cheese-Worms-Cosmos-Sixteenth-Century-Miller/dp/0801843871
So-called "New Christians," or Jews converted after 1492, were among the most frequent targets. The Church charged them with practicing crypto-Judaism, but historians have argued that they were targeted primarily for their wealthy, since those convicted would have their assets seized by the church. (In fact, Inquisitorial visitations to Brazil follow precisely the chief periods and areas of economic production: first the sugar areas of Pernambuco and Bahia, then the gold areas of Minas, etc...). Priests who preached something other than orthodox Christianity were frequent targets, particularly when they mixed Christianity with African or Indian religious practices. Homosexual priests were a common target, called "sodomites" by the Church, but lesbians were spared because the church defined sex according to penetration (not unlike Bill Clinton). Those charged with practicing witchcraft were also common targets, as in Salem, MA and throughout England. Charges against women for having sex with the devil were also common, as they were in witch hunts in Northern Europe.

So the idea that someone of that era would have stood up and said "I don't believe in God," strikes me as highly unlikely. Did people question church teachings? Absolutely. Did they remake Christianity in ways the Church resented? Constantly. Were there people who doubted the existence of God? Possibly, but if they didn't voice that dissent they would not be subject to the Inquisition. I have not read of anyone who did so during those centuries. Is it possible, yes. But historical research needs to be done to find evidence of such disbelief. The power of the Church was such that the idea of someone proclaiming himself a disbeliever, even if he or she thought that way, strikes me as highly unlikely. It would also be a fascinating subject of research. I expect that, like for all social history, one would have to probe documents for subtle indications of disbelief. Getting at the worldview of the oppressed and ordinary people is always challenging because they only came into view through written historical records through encounters with church and governmental authorities.

[Rex]

114. Well what strikes you as highly unlikely is fine since it is your opinion.

And doesn't really have anything to do with history.

[BainsBane]

116. What evidence do you have to indicate that?

I think the problem is you continue to imagine yourself back in time, when that is an impossibility.

[Rex]

117. The fact that you state that people did not have the ability to believe

in life without God before the term 'atheism' was coined in the 1800s leads me to that conclusion.

[BainsBane]

119. I didn't say that at all.

Firstly, another poster pointed out that the word came into use in France in the 1500s.
Secondly, I never said people "did not have the ability to believe in life without God." I'm not sure what you mean by that. What I told you is who the most common targets of the Inquisition were.

Regardless, I did a search on Amazon for books about the history of atheism. The best solution is to read some of those.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Atheism-Library-Modern-Religion/dp/1848851375
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=history+atheism

[Rex]

120. Go for it, you really should.

The poster in which I was originally reply to was accurate in what he said, no matter how much of a tangent you try to get off on. He was correct, sorry if you cannot understand how.

[BainsBane]

121. I thought you might be interested in learning about something

You seem to care about so much. My mistake.

[Rex]

122. Trajan made a correct statement

I am sorry if you do not understand why.

[BainsBane]

123. well this book connects atheism to modernity

And say its emergence first as a philosophical concept and later as a cultural phenomenon is a product of modernity--and that post-dates the Inquisition. It specifically states that atheism can only be understood in a world in which God becomes an object of thought rather than the source of all thought (through the Enlightenment). It confirms what I have said, but through philosophical analysis.

Now if the poster entered a time machine and went back to the 12-16th century, he would no doubt have been strung up on the rack. But that is obviously an impossibility. The key point is that historical actors did not think like 21st century Americans. We are all products of our time, and the range of philosophical and theological ideals we consider are formed by the cultural context in which we live.

[Rex]

126. You can keep on discussing apples to oranges.

Your failure to comprehend the statement is not my fault.

Keep talking about atheism, while I talk about him renouncing of his faith and getting persecuted for it.

[MNBrewer]

60. Atheism doesn't require the belief in no god, just not believing in A god.

[BainsBane]

64. so you are say pagans are Athetists?

or practitioners of religions of African origin like Candomble and Voodoo?
They certainly don't see themselves as atheists.

I'm confused. I take your post to mean poly-theistic or other religions that don't place believe in a single God are atheistic. Have I misunderstood you? If I have not, I would have to dispute that assertion, based on my own experience in Candomble terreiros.

[MNBrewer]

81. Belief in any number of gods (>0) is not atheism

[BainsBane]

83. so my original statement was correct

Atheism is the disbelief in god.

[MNBrewer]

84. Not quite

It's the lack of belief in any gods (including monotheism). Not believing there is a god or gods is not quite the same logical statement as believing there is no god or gods. It may seem a minor point, but lots of people make a big deal about the distinction.

[BainsBane]

87. Okay

Since it matters to atheists, I respect your definition. I'll try to remember that.

[Warpy]

99. The quickest way to the rack and thumbscrew

was to question anything, even the most minute footnote to official dogma. Do you honestly think anyone would have bothered facing that "test of faith" if he didn't have to, if he knew the whole thing was a bunch of malarkey?

Didn't think so. Probably, neither did they.

[BainsBane]

102. Appearing before the Inquisition wasn't optional

No one hand a choice. What documents reveal is what most concerned church authorities.

[RVN VET]

59. How long ago was that?

And who might have done the stabbing and burning?

[Trajan]

93. Not long enough

[Warpy]

103. No kidding, the consequences were horrific

At least now they let us live. People don't realize how recently the auto da fe was and how long it persisted. Discarding some bit of minutiae could make you subject to it. Discarding the whole business would have involved being tortured until you couldn't take any more and said what they wanted to hear before they murdered you. In that way, atheists didn't exist.

By the way, according to the great Dara O'Briain, we're still Catholics, we're just very bad at it.

[stevenleser]

4. There is a freeper-esque "Moral absolutes" streak running through a segment of DU.

And for some reason it is aimed at Catholics, one of the crucial swing vote groups of the last 40 years.

This is akin to being at a trial where the result could either put you in prison or set you free, knowing the jury is split 4-4 with 1 person unsure and antagonizing that 1 person.

Obviously, DU doesn't have nearly that much power, BUT, RW media organizations have used postings on DU to try to discredit Democrats in general before. Being someone who debates fairly high profile conservative media personalities on a semi-regular basis, I can tell you that taking an obscure Democrat's embarrassing or damaging statement and making it appear as if it speaks for the entire party is very much viewed by them as an acceptable tactic.

[hrmjustin]

5. Thank you for posting this!

Your points are excellent.

[rhett o rick]

10. I am not sure of your point. Are you against criticism aimed at the Catholic Church?

To be clear, I am against attacks on any DU poster and I hope you agree. As far as criticism, that's what we Democrats do. That's what distinguishes us from the "freeper-esque". It seems there are some in DU that want a list of who is immune to criticism. THat doesnt sound very Democratic.

Back to the Catholic Church. The Church deserves criticism and most liberal Catholics will agree. It's the conservatives that believe the Church is immune to criticism. And to suggest that we need to stifle criticism because it might cost Democrats votes is insulting to this Democrat.

Again, there is no excuse to attack DU posters. Attack what they post to your hearts content.

[stevenleser]

12. No, and I have engaged in some measured criticism of the church. As you can hear from my latest show

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/03/17/making-sense-with-steve-leser--cpac-new-pope-and-more

I discuss the new pope in the second segment.

What I object to are the folks here who say that all Catholics are tainted with the worst actions of the Church just for calling themselves Catholic or paying charity to the church.

[rhett o rick]

17. Sorry, I didnt get that at all from your post #4. Seemed to me that you were trying

to stifle criticism of the Catholic Church because it might be fodder for the right-wing.

I must have misunderstood.

[stevenleser]

22. I wouldn't try to do that but I am wary of the potential consequences of doing it awkwardly.

My own critique was a reach out as much as a critique.

[rhett o rick]

25. I would support any effort to discourage attacks on any DU members. Religions, policies, programs,

etc. are fair game.

[liberal_at_heart]

28. a reach out

We sure could use more of that.

[stevenleser]

33. I'd be interested to hear what you think of that segment. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

39. Sure. I haven't listened to it yet but you have peaked my interest.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. I think that you are exactly right.

[pnwmom]

18. Haven't you seen the MANY posts recently condemning rank and file Catholics

for being enablers of an evil Church?

And you know that many DUers are Catholics, right?

So do you think they shouldn't take this personally? Or have you just not these posts?

[rhett o rick]

27. Yes I have seen them. And I have stated over and over that I object to

ALL attacks on posters. That includes attacks on Catholics as well as attacks on gun enthusiasts. The post I was responding to appeared to me to be aimed at stifling criticism of the Catholic Church because it could effect votes for Democrats. While I am against any and all attacks on DU posters I am not against attacks on religions, policies, programs, etc.

Attack posts but not posters.

[pnwmom]

30. I think the post you were responding to was reacting to the many posts attacking

lay Catholics that have been all over DU.

They're alienating more and more people who should be allies.

[rhett o rick]

36. Yes, I have reread the post and might have been mistaken. I will support any effort

to eliminate posts that attack any DU poster. I am a Democrat and even a troll deserves a trial by jury, unless the Admins see otherwise. But never an excuse to attack.

[pnwmom]

14. +1. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

16. I'm not sure you could have said it any better.

There is definitely a freeper-esque moral absolute streak here on DU.

[rhett o rick]

21. I totally agree. Attempts to stifle discussion is certainly "freeper-esque". nm

[liberal_at_heart]

23. attempts to stifle bullying yes

you can criticize the Vatican without telling Catholics that if they don't leave the church they are just as guilty as the people in the Vatican who hold antiquated beliefs or molest children.

[rhett o rick]

29. Yes I agree. nm

[liberal_at_heart]

32. If some Catholics want to leave the church no one here is telling them no to

There are lots of DUers who have left the church and that is okay. But it is also okay to work from the inside to change things, and it's even okay to work with people who are different than you. That is how change comes about. I heard on another thread that the Pope wants to work with people of all kinds. This is a good thing. This could lead to change, if not with him then maybe the next Pope. We can't expect to change things simply by isolating ourselves from them and we can't expect things to change over night either.

[JDPriestly]

63. Funny. No one objects when DUers make fun of Pat Robertson for his

hypocrisy. Goes for all Republicans.

I am not that critical of Catholics. As I have said so many times, I respect the wonderful social work that some in the Catholic Church perform. And I believe that every person should follow their conscience when it comes to religion.

But let's not be so sensitive.

Some people are critical of the Catholic Church because they feel that they have been hurt by it. Same goes for non-Catholic fundamentalists.

It's just got to be so much water off the back. Other people are not always going to like what we do or think.

As I have mentioned, the anti-Israel talk on DU must scare away a lot of Jewish Democrats from DU. It's much worse than anything that has been said about Catholicism or Catholics. It's non-stop. We virtually have an entire group dedicated to dissing Israel.

Let's don't be oversensitive. Takes all kinds to make a world.

[Eleanors38]

68. Good points. Perhaps blue-collar Catholic voters is another constituency

some Democrats think we can shove aside, esp. given that highly-touted change in demographics wherein Hispanics are increasing in numbers.

[JVS]

113. They already are gone to a great extent.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx

Note that white catholic voters went for Romney even more than white mainstream protestants.

[Tikki]

6. Unless they were born yesterday, they might realize this is a discussion board and if they..

read every thread and post they will realize an abundance of opinions, ideas and statements.



Tikki

"Don't be afraid to pogo, don't be afraid to relate, if it wasn't for this kind of music you wouldn't have come to this place....."The GEARS

[monmouth3]

7. I consider the source and move on..n/t

[BainsBane]

8. I only wish all of us on DU

had Justin's wisdom and compassion.
Thank you.

[hrmjustin]

9. .

[Rider3]

11. Easy question for ME to answer

My religion is between me and my God. No one else. So, anything anyone wants to say, let them say it! Their opinions will not have any bearing on my faith.

[liberal_at_heart]

13. respect is pretty rare on DU

[pnwmom]

15. This seems like an excellent way to get Catholic lurkers to decide this isn't the place for them.

And maybe it isn't. I've certainly been wondering lately.

It's been bad for a while but I've never seen it this bad.

[geek tragedy]

19. If the ratio of denunciations of DU bigotry/actual instances of DU bigotry

for the anti-Catholic threads were replicated for racism, anti-semitism, Islamaphobia, sexism/misogyny/misandry, homophobia and transphobia, they would have to rename DU "Meta"

I do find it somewhat amusing that those who complain about the radical feminists pushback on what they perceive as misogyny have no problem backing dozens of "DU hates Catholics" threads.

[hrmjustin]

26. We are all full of contradictions my friend.

People pick their battles.

[geek tragedy]

31. I myself have difficulty with people picking their battles

in defense of an insitution whose core values include radical male supremacism and homophobia.

[hrmjustin]

34. Saying the church is wrong on those issues is my opinion too.

My complaint is with those who say the DU catholics must leave the church.

[geek tragedy]

37. Meh. People can identify how they want as far as I'm concerned.

But, those who have been persecuted or victimized by the Catholic Church--I don't begrudge them their right to make such statements.

The current pope has stated that GLBT rights laws are the work of the devil. He's more homophobic than Brian Fischer and Louie Gohmert combined.

But, he has a lot of admirers here.

So, yeah, that is going to rub the Church's victims the wrong way, and I don't blame them for calling out the double standard.

[Johonny]

20. I wonder why people focus on the noise of the DU

seriously a slim minority advocate something that a poster isn't going to do anyways a suddenly people see an up tick in something that almost certainly doesn't exist. It feels like there are more post about anti-catholic statements than actual anti-catholic statements. At some point a person concludes this topic is a you problem. Is a few posters complaining about the catholic churches policies bothers you, it is probably because deep down inside the policies bother you. Does any one think someone will really leave the catholic church because they tell them to on the Internet... yet the up roar the select few posters created is rather more revealing.

One of the joys of the DU is not the overwhelming consensus you find here: but that sometimes you find two posts on either side of an issue with a huge rec count. That's usually an issue that is striking a cord in people. If your catholic and bothered by the threads of late on the new pope, it is probably because Catholics are bothered by the direction of the church and have been for as long as I remember.

[rhett o rick]

35. Well said. Some here are righteous bullies. They think they are solidly right

and that justifies their behavior no matter how bad. They feel the ends justify the means because they are on the side of righteousness. This often, as in the case of the Catholic Church, leads to a battle of the righteous.

[timdog44]

24. Thanks for saying that.

I am not RC, but believe people have a right to belong to an organization that can come close to what they also believe. And you are correct in your statement that many here have been mean spirited to people who have chosen to belong to DU because it fits into their belief patterns. But maybe they should leave DU because of the mean spirited people who show up and demean them. Or really they should stay and help to clean up the nastiness from the inside, because it surely can't happen from the outside.

[Zoeisright]

40. Nope. Not even a little bit.

Not going to have respect for those who support the Catholic church WITH THEIR DOLLARS. Because you are supporting the Vatican, which is sheltering pedophiles. And before someone whines about how that money in the collection plate only supports their local parish, where the hell do you think the Vatican got all the money so those old men can live in stinking luxury?

I don't give a flying fuck what church you belong to. But when you pay money to enable those creeps, you ARE part of the problem.

[hrmjustin]

41. Your point about financial support is interesting but what about a person who just goes to mass?

Is that ok?

[onehandle]

42. That Catholics are unwelcome.

Lurkers may not pick on the fact that there are some that are just being opportunistic and getting off on being abusive.

Intolerance Underground lives.

[Pakid]

43. Last time I looked you could be any religion you want and still be

a Democrat. If it changed someone forgot to tell me. Religion is a personal matter between you and the god of you choosing.

[MynameisBlarney]

44. I have probably posted some less than polite comments

about the RCC, but I don't recall saying anything mean about practicing Catholics. I may have, but, then again I have the memory of a goldfish.
I certainly have questioned why and how ANYONE could remain a practicing Catholic in the midst of all these disgusting scandals about pedo-priests and the resulting coverup from the Vatican.

I can't think of a more perfect example of hypocrisy and raw abuse of power than the RCC.

[DevonRex]

47. Since brown Christians (and lot of black ones) are mostly RCC,

there's a racial aspect to this as well. I would like people to just stop and think about that. Country by country. Italy. Andorra. Malta. Spain. France. Portugal. Mexico. Guatemala. Nicaragua. Honduras. El Salvador. Cuba. Panama. Costa Rica. Dominican Republic. Haiti. Belize. Argentina. Bolivia. Brazil. Chile. Colombia. Ecuador. Guayana. Paraguay. Peru. Surinam. Uruguay. Venezuela. Trinidad and Tobago. Puerto Rico.
Poland. etc.

How about the African American Catholics in New Orleans and St. Louis? There are multitudes. I got quite an education during my extended stay in St. Louis. I had not realized there were so many African American Catholics. Now I know better. I'm sure the same holds true in the Caribbean and in South America.

Check out the link
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country#section_2

So, is DU ready to discard all these brown and black people? You want to just throw all these people out as if they were nothing? Beneath us, worthy of contempt. Funny, I always thought we welcomed them, all of them. Brown, black, Polish, Mexican, whatever their ethnicity is. That ethnicity comes with lots of things, including religion. Lots of people from these countries wind up here in the U.S. We say we want them in the Democratic Party. Some people here have been saying Democrats are hypocritical if they are Catholic. I guess they're saying they don't want Catholics after all. Or is it that all those other Catholics are OK but American Catholics aren't? Just curious, does that kick in as soon as they enter the US or with citizenship? Or will you be generous and give them a generation or even two?

Thanks for your OP, Justin. It helped, I think.

[hrmjustin]

48. Thank you for your post.

[liberal_at_heart]

50. great post.

[DevonRex]

85. Thanks.

I'm not Catholic but I know that my husband's family has been Catholic for 2000 years. That's a hell of a lot of history. They were Catholic when that's the only church there was, before the Popes' rise to power and when Popes had immense power. Real, political power over their lives - just like a king. And they were Catholic when the Pope lost that power. Hundreds of years ago. They don't have to do everything he says anymore. To Catholics of European origin, especially Italian like my husband's family, the Catholic Church is their history. Every marriage, birth, baptism and death is recorded in it - 2000 years' worth. It means a lot. Far too much to behave as if it's a simple thing to just switch churches.

The other half of his family is Irish. The Catholic ancestry is slightly shorter there. But you might be interested in "How The Irish Saved History" by Thomas Cahill. All about St. Patrick and the monks transcribing the works that would re-enlighten Europe after the Dark Ages. And why Ireland would be known as "the isle of saints and scholars." http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493

I was raised protestant. Never joined a church. We were too Fundy for that. But even I can see that this is way different from going from Baptist to Presbyterian because I disagree with some point of doctrine. This is deep-rooted family history and world history.

[BainsBane]

92. Exactly!

Well said. People here tend to get very angry when I point that out. But it is fact. It's also true that in the US, the vast majority of those brown Catholics vote Democratic.

[SidDithers]

49. IMO, "liberal Roman Catholic" is an oxymoron...

If you're anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-contraception and anti-gender equality, how can you be a liberal?

If you're pro-choice, pro-gender equality, pro-LGBT and pro-contraception, how can you be a Catholic?



Sid

[hrmjustin]

51. Just like not all democrats or republicans agree on every issue not all RC believe in what the

leadership says. That can be seen in voting and polling trends. Liberal Roman Catholics go to mass to receive the sacraments.

[liberal_at_heart]

69. That is a bigoted statement. You are going on ignore.

[corneliamcgillicutty]

78. Virtual yawn!

[BainsBane]

91. millions of people are

That is simply a fact. Obama would not currently be President without their votes.

If you're anti-war, how can you be an American? Catholics don't vote for the leaders of their church as Americans do for our representatives.

[Apophis]

52. What, people can't question the practices of the Catholic church?

[hrmjustin]

54. That is not what i said.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Because that is exactly not what the OP posted.

Try reading it once again, this time slowly.

[Agschmid]

90. Absolutely not what the OP said.

[wercal]

79. Some people are more devoted to Atheism than

others are devoted to religion.

Joe Biden is Catholic. Nancy Pelosi is Catholic. I think its 'ok' to be a Catholic and a Democrat.

[Agschmid]

89. Well the person who is ignoring you is making the mistake. Just FYI. n/t

[hrmjustin]

109. Thank you my friend.

I have not heard from you in a bit. I hope all is well.

[liberal_at_heart]

111. I agree.

[hrmjustin]

112. Thank you my friend.

[Historic NY]

104. Can't they talk about the Protestants & Lutherans a little..

[gollygee]

106. I hate a great number of things about the Catholic Church, and yet

I know a great number of wonderful people who are Catholics. Liberal people. In Michigan, historically anyway, a lot of unions were made up largely of Catholics (at least where I am) and a lot of Catholic people have remained liberal. I think liberal Catholics are in a bad place. I know a great number who hate the rules in their church about sexuality, birth control, abortion, etc. And yet they go. I don't know what all is behind it as religious beliefs like that are beyond me. I guess if you really feel you need to take communion every week in order to go to heaven (or whatever the belief is) you keep going, and if you disagree with some things about the church, you hope those things will change.

I think the Catholic Church is in danger of becoming even more of an anachronism than it is, which will be hard to do, but I'm sure they're up to the challenge. And yet, I have fondness for a number of really good people who are Catholic.

So I don't know. It's a complicated issue. I admit I'm glad I wasn't raised in that church, and I understand why some people lash out at Catholics, but at the same time feel bad for the hit liberal Catholics are taking here. I am torn. I see the point about financially supporting a group that has such a hurtful message about the LGBT community and women. And I don't understand what makes people believe in a church so much that they are able to get past that. But my lack of understanding about religion, and the example of liberal Catholics I know in my life, make me step back and try to understand what they're feeling.

[canoegirl]

107. I don't get it

Catholic Charities makes up one of the most effective charitable originations there is.

[Historic NY]

108. Your exactly right about that...

they were on the ground with the 2004 Indonesian tsunami & stayed for 5 yrs.

http://crs.org/emergency/tsunami/index.cfm

[liberal_at_heart]

110. Some would like to make it an all or nothing, all evil or all good, thing

the entire Catholic church is evil and every Catholic who supports it is anti-woman and anti-gay according to some. The Catholic church is discriminatory against women and gays. There's no denying it and I don't see anybody doing that. I haven't seen a single person defend the discriminatory policies the church has. But yes, the Catholic church and its Catholic Charities have done a lot of good work. Rarely in life can you put something or someone in the entirely good or entirely evil category.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

115. Want the truth from a Liberal Roman Catholic?

It hurts to see so many hate me.

To Add: I don't mind for conservatives hating me, I kind of like irritating them. I had to take the hate from people when I was on the street. But to see such hate pointed at me from people that are supposed to be of open minds, tolerant of different beliefs... it HURTS!

[hrmjustin]

124. I am sorry that some are posting some hurtful stuff.

[liberal_at_heart]

127. I am so sorry you have been the target of hate on this board.

I have always enjoyed your posts about your personal experience of homelessness and about other things as well. You bring a lot of insight and compassion to this board.

[hrmjustin]

128. +1000

As do you liberal_at_heart!

[liberal_at_heart]

129. thank you hrmjustin

[xfundy]

118. NO ONE

has "demanded" that anyone leave their church. In fact, what better way to change it but from the inside?

Getting way tired of the wailing and martyrdom. The only reason ppl are talking about catholics this week is due to the new JiffyPope.

Is that sacrilegious?

I was brought up in a church that said you guys follow the antichrist. I grew out of it.

Is that sacrilegious?

I don't give a fuck what you believe, but keep it out of our government. Is that too much to ask?

[hrmjustin]

125. People have told people to leave there church.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

130. +1 n/t