Catholic Leadership Continues To Make Friends - Page 5

So then by your definition, the church (institution) part of Catholicism is pretty much completely irrelevant and unnecessary? Not just in need of reform, because people who disagree with the reform will still identify as Catholics even if they don't support the new church.

According to you, Catholicism as a religion is tied more to self-identification of individuals than it is by the anchoring presence of the Papacy and church hierarchy. Which would then make the entire structure of it's directorial body obsolete.

Go tell that to those people.

ETA: Just read your last post. So yes, according to you, Catholicism is an entirely subjective designation. Fine. I'm a Muslim by the way. Alah Ackbar, or whatever.

So then...the Pope. And not just this Pope, but every Pope. Any Pope they elect in the future. But then Catholics who do believe that the Pope is the highest human authority would be wrong, as they're partaking in an outright fallacy.

So, can we all agree that Catholics who do think the Pope is god's infallible representative are in the wrong, or am I just being a disrespectful, smug atheist?

I guess the question is if the governing body of the organization to which claim to belong says your way of belonging is incorrect, do you technically actually belong to it?

No, by my definition, it's more complicated than that.

No, according to me, it's more complicated than that.

No, according to me, it's more complicated than that.

No, it's more complicated than that.

No, we can't agree to that either. Want to guess why?

Look, you're trying to boil every possible point down to an easy-to-digest either-or proposition. That sort of thinking is great for talking points, but it's entirely inadequate in approaching something as complex as religious affiliation.

Dave: I think the Appeal To Authority fallacy still applies. Just because your selection of "experts" says they're still Catholics doesn't necessarily make it universally so. It would (probably) be easy to find a similar batch of equally credentialed - but fundamentalist - "experts" who would say very different things about who is or is not a Catholic.

Obviously there are certain spheres of knowledge where we have to rely on authorities, as the wiki entry points out, but we're talking about subjective notions and gray-area definitions here, not stuff like the atomic weight of hydrogen or the proper manner in which to conduct open-heart surgery.

So I'm not saying your experts are wrong, exactly, just that you could probably make a stronger argument with a different approach.

And what you're better than is referring to any of the people who post here as a "fervent pack" of anything, a la Mel Gibson. Before you start screaming at me, I know that's an absurd reduction. This absolutely is not an accusation of bigotry, it's just that phrases like that could potentially turn the debate more personal than it needs to be. I mean, a "fervent pack?"
It's actually been pretty civil in this thread so far, and I'd hate to see YOU, of all people, turn it ugly.

So yeah, I do think you're better than that, and if using reductive phrases like that strikes you as fair play given any sweeping generalizations that you might perceive being thrown around about religious/spiritual people: you don't *have* to respond in kind.

Finally, it probably gets frustrating for our fervent pack of atheists to argue with you, I'm sure. You're pretty damn good at it, definitely better than I. It's why, aside from a couple of links, I haven't engaged in this thread. I feel under-equipped. With that I cede the floor to the other hungry pack members.

But by saying you're Catholic, are you saying that you belong to an organization or that you subscribe to a set of religious beliefs?

Obviously, this same question is not in play if you say you're Lutheran or Buddhist. This is just one reason why the question of religious affiliation is more complicated here.

Sure. But those "fundamentalist experts" are not experts insofar as what these individuals believe themselves to be. A well-educated Roman Catholic nun is probably in a pretty good position to evaluate her own Catholic-ness.

Always going for the hard sciences, aren't we?

Look, academics in the humanities use the same methodology of citation to back up their points. You can't definitively "prove" Foucault, but you also don't have to meticulously recount every one of his points to demonstrate his validity.

There's a long tradition of citation and support in the, shall we say, subjective disciplines, and it's not all "argument from authority" fallacy.

Oh? You mean my argument that reasonably well-educated Catholic individuals who have a problem with the Church are in a pretty good place to determine their own Catholic-ness would be better supported by people who are not reasonably well-educated Catholics who have a problem with the Church?

So why use it? You clearly think your comparison of me to Mel Gibson is absurd reduction; I don't think my characterization of the pack here was. But if it helps keep us on topic here, I apologize to the offended pack of fervent atheists.

It's civil if you don't recognize the bigotry and implied low estimations of intelligence in religious people.

At a certain point, this gets tiresome and a little insulting: "boy, Dave sure is good at arguing"; "Dave sure loves playing Devil's Advocate". Could it be that I'm not particularly great at arguing, but am actually, on occasion... correct?

Yes. Very complicated.

Seriously though, explain what's so complicated. If religion is mutable to the point of pretty much just being the handle one chooses for oneself, despite the alignment of their personal beliefs with the governing body of the religion, or even some of the fundamental moral beliefs espoused by most other followers (homosexuality in the case of gay Catholics) and in certain cases the dogma of their holy book, then how is any aspect of any one religion necessary for it to be dubbed such?

Are there any aspects of Catholicism or Islam or anything that are necessary for a person to believe in for them to refer to themselves as belonging to that religion? Or can I just go around drawing pictures of Mohamed blowing Satan all day and still refer to myself as a Muslim and expect people to respect that?

In Sunni Islam, the Five Pillars are essential to all Muslims. Therefore, you cannot say, "I'm O.K. with the alms-giving, and the prayer five times a day, and most of the other stuff, but I'm not skipping lunch during Ramadan," and still be considered a Sunni Muslim, no matter how fervently you want to consider yourself one.

I was raised Catholic, and eventually got to a point where taking Communion every week became too much hypocrisy for me to bear - I had come to disagree with so many of the Church's social and moral teachings, that I could no longer consider myself a member of the Church, and continuing to pretend to be one was offensive to me, and an offense against the community of devout Catholics.

The Catholic Church is an organization with a hierarchy, membership, and rules. Is the Inquisition going to hunt you down if you fudge the small stuff here and there? No. At some point though, if your personal beliefs diverge significantly from the organization's, you have to be intellectually honest enough to say to yourself, "I guess I'm something other than a Catholic, since I no longer hold the things the organization deems to be true, true." It's not as though there isn't a Catechism, and the beliefs required of a Catholic aren't laid out in some detail.

First of all Dave, cut it out with your 'packs of fervent atheists' and 'rabid disbelievers'. No one during this discussion has been less than respectful towards you personally. If you have a problem with an argument attacking your set of beliefs debate it, don't just ignore it by citing anecdotal evidence, statistically insignificant examples or issuing blanket dismissals of the opposing side.

Because even if you don't have a problem with this thread turning into using 'cute' turns of phrase and name calling, I have.

What.

What do the articles you linked mean?

The first is is a personal opinion about how Obama is not only a pretty good Christian but also more marketable than the Pope. I'd also like to add that he's a more marketable Democrat than Nancy Pelosi. He's also a more marketable African American than Louis Farrakhan.

The second one says that even though most of Italians are not completely crazy, there is almost twenty percent that indeed are. One more example of sane people being religious only so far as their religion doesn't interfere with their life.

The third one is again a personal opinion about how the author doesn't believe that those who don't subscribe to Catholicism are damned to go to hell. Pretty commendable attitude. No problem with that.

And the fourth one is about gay Catholics disagreeing with the Church about that whole them being sinners deal. Another one of "I am what I say I am, no matter the mental and moral gymnastics I have to perform in order to fit."

Self determination is great. Is there, you think a point though, when someone should just say "I disagree with half the stuff you people are saying. Maybe I shouldn't be here?" Tradition and the comfort of familiarity can only take you so far. Martin Luther had more in common with the Catholic Church than some of these people.

EDIT: And this some more evidence about why I think religious people's proclamations of either faith or outrage at the opposing side are mostly reflexes and not indicative of something deeper. Could one's knowledge about religion be inversely proportional to his belief in one?

The information pertinent to this discussion is on the second page (which I'll admit I could have been more clear about). Among other relevant passages: "Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think. Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays. But 54 percent of American Catholics find gay relationships to be morally acceptable, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, against all scientific evidence and protestations from clergy on the ground, the pope claims that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS. Seventy-nine percent of American Catholics disagree, according to a 2007 poll by Catholics for Choice."

These people self-identify as Catholics, but don't adhere to the Vatican's rulings. As I've been saying, one's status as "Catholic" is somewhat subjective (although not entirely. The Pope (and you) may be comfortable saying that they're not "truly" Catholic, but I'm not willing to take the ability to self-define from that many people, many of whom can likely make a perfectly studied defense of their own positions.

Or an example of people interpreting religion in such a way that it conforms to the needs of the times. But this is beside the point - are they Catholics or aren't they? Isn't that what we're discussing - Catholicism as a matter of adherence to the Church or a set of beliefs that emerged from a long tradition that involves adherence to the Church to varying degrees?

It's a NUN. Arguing with the VATICAN. Catholic or not Catholic?

So gay Catholics are not Catholics, then, right?

You're underselling the flexibility of religious belief. It's mutable, and, in their particular manifestations, faiths don't necessarily take on new names. The notion of absolute classification is a scientific one and doesn't always well suit the humanities, the arts, or religion. A single person or organization having the exclusive ability to name rings totally false to me in this case. Are there limits? Sure - but they're fuzzy.

The survey would bear this out, insofar as it applies to Americans and, particularly, Christians. But you can also be highly educated (as is the case with the nun I mentioned), highly aware of your religious background, and still quite devout.

I also find it interesting that, considering the margin of error disclaimer, Jews and Mormons did as well as atheists/agnostics. Considering that these three are considerably smaller groups than mainline Protestants and Catholics, it may simply be that Americans, in general, are kind of ill-informed, and the majority of Americans happen to be Protestants and Catholics, so it was more likely they'd snag ill-informed representative samples for the survey.

So if religious belief is so fuzzy and malleable, than why is the Catholic Church necessary? If even so many Catholics part with it on so many issues (and not just this Pope, he's not saying anything the last one wasn't, he's just perceived as being worse because he's a little more outspoken and looks like Palpatine), then let them stand by their convictions and stop feeding the till until they get rid of the whole structure. And not just the current one, because the next could be just as bad.

Self-definition is all good and well, no one's trying to stop Catholics from fingering their precious beads or seeing the Virgin Mary in their sandwiches, but the Catholic Church is a real thing, that does a lot of real harm, with no fear of reprisal. It makes no sense for self-proclaimed Catholics who recognize or disagree with this to continue to prop it up.

At what point does declaring your faith in a religion despite your massive misgivings towards its tenets becomes intellectual dishonesty? If there really are no hard boundaries, what's stopping me from saying "I'm a Christian. I don't believe in God but I'm a Christian." I'm exaggerating for effect but I hope you get what I'm saying. At some point one must add walking the walk to talking the talk. "Don't ask, don't tell" solutions don't cut it for me personally.

And religions are actually far less fuzzy and ill defined than you claim. I can't claim any absolute authority on the Catholic Church but in the Orthodox Church there are the Articles Of Faith as outlined at the Synod of Nicaea. Not adhering to any one of them makes you schismatic in the eyes of the Church. Doesn't Catholic Christianity have any equivalent rules?

Who cares? Why are you so concerned with these intangible boundaries? Isn't it possible that someone doesn't fit your conception of a Christian (or an existentialist or a social conservative), but considers himself one, nonetheless? Certainly what constitutes "left" or "right"-leaning in the U.S. varies significantly from what constitutes these concepts in Europe.

Probably depends on whom you ask. Again, the tradition is bigger than the Church at this point, so I'm not sure that any issuance from the Church can be taken as a definitive statement on the matter.

I would argue that religious institutional boundaries aren't fuzzy, but religious belief is.

I was being deferential and impugning my own intellectual acumen at the same time. No insult was intended, and I regret implying that I was speaking for anyone else on "my side." And I know you're not playing devil's advocate, you just have a great deal more respect for Karen Armstrong's arguments and for religion as a cultural force *here and now* than I do, and I don't think either of us is going to change his opinion.

And I've been a stay-at-home dad for the past five years. Adult discourse has been hard to come by, and I was never an great debater. I think my judgment is impaired too, otherwise I wouldn't have stuck my nose in this thread as anything but an observer. Again, not saying you're incorrect, just saying A) we differ and B) I might currently lack the tools to even mount much of a cogent argument.

Fair enough.

Slightly OT (since this doesn't really apply to Catholics, who did pretty shitty on the survey all around) -

A note about that Pew poll that's getting a lot of press today (and stelios linked above): it hasn't been clear in some of the write-ups, but this poll doesn't suggest that religious people are always the least knowledgeable when it comes to their own religion, but more that some (though not all - Jews and Mormons buck the trend) are the least knowledgeable about religion across the board. That is, the survey found that Mormons and white Evangelical Protestants outperformed everyone else on questions about Christianity.

So I don't think there's much support for the idea that one's belief is inversely proportional to one's knowledge about his or her chosen religion; however, it certainly implies that people of certain faiths (evangelical Christianity most notably) are less inclined to bother learning about other religions than people of other faiths (Jews) are.

I don't think it's too much of a leap to attribute this to cultural norms. Being Protestant in the U.S. is like being white in the U.S.; you're automatically in the mainstream and you're not forced to think too hard on your status (as the mainstream rather than an "other").

So when it comes to religion anyone can claim anything with no requirements for consistency or backing up for their claims. Free from any set of morals or rules other than the ones they choose for themselves. No need to adhere to any externally set guidelines. Any inconsistency is a product of a misunderstanding, never indicative of something systemic in the concept of religion itself. Blame for any ill deeds can be freely passed along between the flock and the organization of the Church as is deemed convenient. One moment the evils committed in religion's name are the cause of the essential vileness of human nature, the next they're the cause of an archaic bureaucracy not in touch with its enlightened followers. No rules, no accountability, no need for reason. Anything else is simply militant atheism, product of the blind hate cold and dry rationalists have against the spiritual.

That concludes the discussion for me. You win if you want to.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Oh, well, as long as they weren't raped, just rubbed inappropriately...

Bill Donahue is to Catholics as Glenn Beck is to Mormons. He's insane, and to suggest he's a spokesperson for Catholicism as a whole is as deluded and dangerous as it is stupid and silly.

Don't think I suggested that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/wo...e.html?_r=1&hp

Discuss.

If you're already a prostitute, you're going to be well beyond giving a shit whether the pope approves your health and safety equipment.

Oh, how lovely. The catholics now think it's OK to use condoms in certain situations, which Pagans were fine with (goat bladders ETC) over 2000 years ago. Keep up the progress, Monotheism, doing good work!

Disappointingly, that's exactly the type of response I expected. Kind of sad, really -- I guess I thought this place was capable of, you know, actaul discussion and not a reiteration of talking points, especially when this story is actually kind of heartening and optimistic for those of us who still kind of give a shit about the Catholic Church.

What discussion are we supposed to be having? One about how he only endorsed condoms for male prostitutes? The church appears to have the same hostility towards women and general cluelessness about sexual health as it always has had. This is progress only by the slimmest of margins, and only by the standards of a backwards faith from the bronze age. If you're going to insist on a golf clap for this news story, I'm afraid I'm not going to take part in it

EDIT: No offense intended on a personal level, Mr Bandu. You're good people, but I'm unable to mince words on this issue

Sorry, I just don't know what you expect. This new development just makes the pope look stupid - it's not progress at all. If you're having gay sex and you're having sex outside marriage and you're getting paid for sex you're going to hell on three counts already - does it matter whether you're going against the church on one more thing? Really? The pope isn't gonna suddenly think gay male hookers are awesome just because they're allowed to use condoms now.

Plus, here's yet another bit of dogma where sexism is firmly in place. So if anything, we're going backwards. Female prostitutes? Nah, they can get AIDS. It doesn't matter. Just further proves that the Catholic church doesn't give a shit about women.

It's a stupid statement to have made, and there's nothing to discuss. I don't see how ANYONE is going to have their life/morals/viewpoints changed by it. If you're already getting paid for sex you should be well beyond listening to the pope, and if you listen to the pope you probably shouldn't be out whoring.

When is the Church going to realize that contraception is one of the best and most realistic ways of preventing abortions?

Oh come on. Pagans and goat-bladders are no ones talking points but her own.

BTW, I just wanted to add this: it occurs to me that by only endorsing condoms for gay prostitutes, he could actually be further stigmatizing safe sex in many corners of the globe that have a problem with homosexuals (like, say, large parts of Africa)

We won't really know if this is any kind of a first step until more steps are taken. And if it took this long to stick this tiny, insignificant toe in the water, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the whole foot to go in.

This is more in line as to what I expected in terms of "actual discussion." I'm not going to be as patronizing as saying "good job," but at least it's something worth responding to instead of a pithy one-liner. (And I'm as guilty as the next guy when it comes to those these days.)

To be fair, Rath, a lot of time putting "Discuss" after a link or quote is seen as an invitation to start throwing the quips.

That is a fair point. Acknowledged and noted, in true Kate-ian fashion.

Well, the whole Church/condoms thing seems to be happening on two fronts: one is in the Vatican, and the other is everywhere else. The Vatican is kind of towing the conservative line, hence Ratzinger's quick back track of what he said regarding condoms and AIDS. It's the Catholic Church of the well-heeled, people who don't really need to worry about AIDS in their own lives, who hold on to the anti-contraception line really tightly. But on the other hand, there are a lot of African bishops (Africa is one of the few regions in the world where Catholicism is actually growing, by the way), who advocate that their parishoners use condoms. It used to be that these guys would be demoted or excommunicated by the Vatican, but that is not happening. I think the Vatican knows that if they want to keep expanding in Africa, they're going to have to get up to date on ways to realistically deal with AIDS, and they know that that means accepting condom use.

There was actually a rather informative discussion about this on To the Point, here. You'll have to fast forward a bit to find it, but it's there. What I thought was most interesting was the interviewee's take that the biggest hurtle in the debate within the Catholic Church is the actually fairly young infallibility doctrine, which makes it hard for the Church to walk back on certain doctrines over time.