I've been told by an atheist that as a Catholic I have to obey

[hedgehog]

every word the pope says or it's a sin. Also, using birth control is a mortal sin. Comments?

[Tumbulu]

1. There are so many posters on DU who are outrageously rude

particularly about things that they have very little knowledge of.

It seems to me to be a sort of intersection of the wrong wing's attack tactics and plain anti any sort of belief in the non material, currently non measurable. Watch how these same posters attack anyone who tries a homeopathic remedy or even suggests using Dr. Sears vaccination schedule. And they get all upset about people praying for anyone or sending positive thoughts.

I notice such a horrible anti Catholic attitude in particular.

Someone posted a lovely article from a priest describing why he had become a vegetarian. Instead of discussing the points that were brought up by him, they attacked all priests. There is no logic in these attacks and these very posters claim logic to be their religion. Hmmmmm.

Thanks for letting me vent. I just wanted to say, you have my sympathy. And I really enjoy your posts in the general discussions. I am sorry that I am not always able to chime in on these complete distortions.

[hedgehog]

2. Well, it always strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Outside of the

Nicene Creed, the rest is optional. In theory, we could dispense with the Pope and College of Cardinals this afternoon. They are not vital to Catholicism but a convenient way of organizing a large number of people. However, if you define Catholicism as allegiance to the Vatican, then you can say you don't believe or approve of Vatican teachings and therefore are atheist or agnostic or have left the Church or whatever. It's a variation of all the people who've left the Church because of something a nun or priest did 20 years ago. It's very convenient because it sidesteps the entire question of whether Jesus is indeed God Incarnated.

[Goblinmonger]

3. Since I am the atheist in question, I will take any questions.

I will be happy to support my point if you want.

I have edited this from it's initial content since I got here in kind of a roundabout way and did not realize initially that this was the Catholic group. If you want me to defend my position, just respond to this post and I will answer your questions. Otherwise, carry on with no further comment from me.

Sorry for the interruption.

On edit edit: Just to let you know, I spent three years attending a Catholic seminary so my understanding is not just off the cuff.

[rug]

4. The first statemement is obviously false. The second statement is true.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

[hedgehog]

5. What you fail to realize is that just because someone claims to have authority

doesn't mean they have authority. Is the Magisterium really confined to the Pope, to the pope in agreement with the bishops, or in the body of the Church including the laity? There is no way to prove an answer one way or another. However, the current arrangement of Pope and hierarchy of bishops is an entirely optional response developed out of the collapse of the Roman Empire and subject to change.

I would add

"Even in 1968, Paul VI admitted that the primary reason for the teaching of the encyclical was not the moral reasoning as such, but rather the previous commitment of the authoritative teaching of the church and the difficulty of admitting that such a teaching had been wrong."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n34_v29/ai_13201853

In other words, a group of men deliberately ignored moral reasoning and issued a declaration in an effort to preserve their own authority , not to teach the truth.

[rug]

6. This is kind of a bind.

If you belong to an organization that asserts authority, that authority is limited to its members. Naturally no one has to belong to that organization but if he does he takes it at face value.

The Catholic Church has claimed this authority for centuries albeit the papal authority was defined over time. The nonsacramental authority of bishops and archbishops, the temporal authority of the Pope and the governing authority of the College of Cardinals has always been up for grabs and change.

However, the statements regarding birth control are couched in theology and are considered binding. It has little to do with civic or political decisions of the church. It's speaking from its strong suit, its given authority in the area of faith and morals and from no other place.

BTW, Humanae Vitae has not been defined as an infallible statement of the Pope although it's put out there as being damn close to infallible.

Here's a synopsis of the Catholic Church's claim on the Magisterium, albeit from the conservative EWTN.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/chura4.htm

[hedgehog]

7. Read the article I linked to about Humanae Vitae. It's the

best explanation I've seen showing that Humanea Vitea was more about preserving Vatican Authority than anything else! I lived in the Buffalo diocese at the time, and a lot of the priests teaching at the seminary were reassigned to parishes as "punishment" because they refused to teach Humanea Vitea!

I belong to the Catholic Church, not to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church! Right now, parishes are being closed down all over the world not because the pews are empty but because a bunch of old men refuse to allow the Church to grow.

[rug]

8. I did read it but it doesn't answer whether the Church has the authority to make this declaration.

Basically he's asserting it's not an infallible declaration and is flawed to boot.

The basic question is whether the Church has the authority to make such a declaration and whether this is one of them.

Like it or not, from overwhelming sources, the answer to both questions is yes. You don't have to agree or follow it but it's not accurate to say it's not a binding teaching of this Church.

[hedgehog]

9. What are the overwhelming sources? I know it's said that the

Church is not a democracy, but the overwhelming number of active (ie attend Mass weekly) Catholics have decided that the use of artificial contraception is not a sin.

[rug]

10. This is a good discussion of it.

http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/humanae/article_128.shtml

Note: authority does not equal obedience.

[hedgehog]

11. There are dozens of Web sites promulgating a right wing

view of Church. Repetition of an untruth does not make something true. It's akin to all the right wing web sites out there that imply that somehow Saddam was behind 9/11.

[rug]

12. This has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, or politics for that matter.

You're talking about a religion which claims divine origins. If you get over that hurdle you're in another realm. It also claims that God gave to that church authority over faith and morals. If you get over that hurdle, that church applied that divine authority to contraception and proclaimed it wrong. So the question is not really whether the church is right about contraception but whether the church is right in proclaiming divine authority to state such things.

[hedgehog]

13. I think you're missing the entire point. What you have is a group of people

calling themselves Catholics. The group is agreed that there was an event in which the transcendental Creator, the One who is behind everything, the ultimate unknowable, became a man and dwelt among us. We are agreed that he left us in some sort of union with Him called Church. There are a set of basic beliefs that were organized back in the 4th century called the Nicene Creed that we all agree on. Now, one group claims that a small group of self selecting celibate males has a direct line to God and therefore can tell the rest of us exactly what the will of God is. Another group claims that that all of us are in contact with God in the Person of the Holy Spirit and that all of us share that knowledge. What really confuses the matter is that the hierarchy is often referred to as "the Church" when in fact "the Church" is all the members. So when someone says "the Church teaches", they may be referring to the accepted beliefs outlined in the Creed or specific teachings authorized by a select group of certain bishops.

My disagreement with the bishops currently in control of the worldly assets of the Church does not make me a bad Catholic or non-Catholic. It merely means I am a Catholic at odds with certain members of the hierarchy. I say "certain members" because there are in fact bishops such as Geoffrey Robinson and Thomas Gumbleton who themselves are standing up to the Vatican bureaucracy. Oscar Romero, accepted by the common people as saint and martyr, was also on the outs with the Pope.

[rug]

14. Do you also disagree with the notion of apostolic succession?

And what do you think is the function of bishops regarding orthodox versus heterodox beliefs?

[hedgehog]

15. WIth regards to apostolic succession, you may be interested in this:

http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/



Not to mention, I suspect there may be a few on this forum willing to discuss the difference between Orthodox and Catholic beliefs!

[rug]

16. That group may call itself Catholic but it's silly to call itself Roman Catholic.

The Orthodox view on contraception is more varied but you were talking about the Roman Catholic view.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

[hedgehog]

17. Here's the ultimate illustration of my point:

Catholic theologians and priests who've never learned a thing since seminary will tell you that there are no dogs or cats in heaven because dogs and cats do not have souls.

Catholics around the world will tell you that of course there are dogs and cats in Heaven, and that among them is St. Francis's Brother Wolf!


Trying to jam Catholicism into a narrow package of dry rules and regulations doesn't work.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. Don't forget St John Bosco's protector, Grigio! A tremendously insightful

post, if I may say so. Empathy trumps legalism (not to disparage the catechism), and truth is dynamic, not cold.

[hedgehog]

19. St. Roch knew a thing or two about dogs, also.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. I must Google him.

[Two Americas]

21. can't reconcile it myself

I don't see how a person can be Catholic and disagree or dissent from Church teachings. The two contradict each other as far as I can see.

I am probably in a distinct minority on that, but you asked for comments.

What is the problem with seeing birth control as wrong, within the context of Church teachings?

I am sincerely asking, and I hope what I am saying is not seen as merely provocative or argumentative. I do really want to know people's thinking on this, as I - probably all of us - struggle with this.

[hedgehog]

22. It all goes back to the question of who defines Church teachings;

the Church as a whole or a small group of celibate males. Given the recent history of the hierarchy issuing teachings as an effort to bolster its power rather than devotion to Truth, I vote for the Church as a whole.

[Two Americas]

23. thanks

Thanks for responding hedgehog. Appreciate that. I have been doing a lot of thinking about this, and interestingly enough I heard a lecture on the subject last night and came away with some new insights.

It still seems to me that rejecting the Church as the ultimate moral authority is to reject the Church altogether. That is fine, if that is what a person wants to do, but my question isn't about that. To make the changes you suggest or imply would undermine the foundation of the Church, and at that point why think of oneself as Catholic at all? But for those who do not wish to undermine the foundation of the Church, how do we reconcile left wing politics with Church teachings? I think we can, but it is not easy or simple and few are talking about this. This makes Catholics vulnerable to being manipulated by right wing political activism and propaganda, and also weakens the position of Catholics within the political left.

Catholicism is a voluntary society, and what it is is what it is.

Listening to the lecture by Dr. Peter Kreeft - "on Voting as a Catholic" - I realized that there was some dishonest manipulation going on in his advocacy. While he is claiming to be following Church teaching, and then making a solid case for how that dictates that one must vote Republican, I think that the reverse is actually true. He is advocating voting Republican and just using the Church to advance that. This is very common in Evangelical and Fundamentalist circles, but this was the first time that the same phenomenon jumped out at me in the argument from a Catholic.

Of course if one rejects certain Church teachings, one can vote Democrat. That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not one can embrace all Church doctrine and still vote Democratic.

[rug]

24. The trick is knowing where their authority ends.

Matthew 22:21 was read this past Sunday. The Church is free to announce what is moral and to denounce what is immoral. But it has no authority to translate that into electoral politics, particularly when any one candidate or any one issue is unclear. For example, the anti-abortion argument involves imposing criminal penalties shoud it be outawed. That is none of the Church's business. And if voters or politicians choose not to imprison women and physicians, that is none of the Church's business either. It can denouncee abortion as wrong but cannot simultaneously ask the state to lock people up for having them. The Church can oppose and discourage abortions in many ways. To date, it's thrown the bulk of its resources into overturning Roe v. Wade, an endeavor for which it lacks both competence and authority.

"He is advocating voting Republican and just using the Church to advance that." That is exactly what political conservatives are attempting with Church teachings.

[Two Americas]

25. wish we could crack that open

I am certain that the guy I was listening to was advocating voting Republican and just using the Church. Who is kidding whom here?

I found a recording of a talk by the guy. I want to dissect and dismantle it, and fight back between now and the election with all of the contacts I have in the Church.

I think this is important and could use help on it, so anyone who has an interest in this I would welcome your comments. I think there are some false assumptions and premises and some outright lies in what he is saying. For example, is voting Republican voting against abortion? Are Republicans even opposed to abortion?

Dr. Peter Kreeft on Voting as a Catholic
http://catholicmentoday.org/search.aspx?q=kreeft&sc=t&dt=3m&al=

[Dorian Gray]

26. Peter Kreeft

was a professor at my college when I went there. I didn't listen to the recording yet, as it said it was an hour and 25 minutes, and I just clicked on this topic. But, he's known as a respected Catholic theologian, and he's a prolific writer of Catholic theology. I read quite a few of his books while at Boston College. He was big on the emulating the Socratic Method by developing debate among well known historical figures in his works.

That's the only background I know on the man, as I never took a class run by him. But I do think that he's respected as a theologian and isn't just using Catholicism to justify voting a certain way. I would assume he's Catholic first, Republican second. (But it's been years since I've read or heard anything about the man, so I could be extraordinarily wrong, too! And I may change my opinion after listening to the entire recording, as well.)

[Two Americas]

27. thanks

Appreciate that. Since I posted this, I have had some intense discussions with others about this and many saw what I was seeing there. I don't doubt his theological credentials nor his sincerity. I am actually planning on trying to speak to him personally about this at some point. The particular speech he is out making during this election season strikes me as a carefully constructed apology for the Republican party and seems a little shaky.

But I could be extraordinarily wrong about this myself!

[Dorian Gray]

28. It might be

He may be a Republican as well as a Catholic, and he may be using this issue to speak out about it all. I don't know him personally, and I had no idea what his political persuasion was until I started reading this. I actually do want to go back and listen. I meant to do that earlier today, then got distracted.

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. The REAL question is: can one embrace all church teachings and still vote Republican?

It has always bothered me very much that there is endless debate about whether one can be a liberal or a Democrat and still be Catholic, and how one must invariably ignore or reject certain church teachings in order to vote Democratic, but the same standard is never applied in the reverse, as if Catholic doctrine and current Republican politics are one and the same.

I'd like for people to start asking how one can call oneself a "good" Catholic while voting for candidates who support:

- an unjust war (and the Iraq War is explicitly an unjust war, condemned by both popes)

- torture

- environmental degradation (mentioned by Pope B as one of the "modern seven deadly sins")

- worsening economic and social injustice

- the death penalty

All of those things are very much against Catholic doctrine, and most constitute a "grave evil." And yet there is virtually no debate about how one can be a good, obedient Catholic and still vote for Republicans. This is hypocrisy and injustice in the extreme. The right-wing has controlled the dialogue for the past 40 years, and put liberal Catholics on the defensive, which is a shame, because there is absolutely no more reason we should feel "less Catholic" or "less obedient" for voting for Democrats than conservatives who vote for Republican candidates who violate Catholic doctrine on many essential issues.

I no more want to run conservatives out of the church than I want to be run out by conservatives. I would like for the bishops to emphasize that Catholics should allow their conscience to inform their vote, but acknowledge that there is no one political ideology that reflects "the Catholic conscience" in full. Thus they should trust each voter to determine which candidate would best lead America depending upon the dictates of their conscience and beliefs.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

29. Said atheist doesn't understand what he/she's talking about.

Most people don't understand the concept of Papal Infallibility and how it is used. To date, it's only been used twice: once to declare the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the other to declare the Assumption of Mary.

Birth control is more iffy. When I took my morality class, I learned that under Catholic doctrine the conscience is the ultimate moral authority (with the caveat that the believer must keep his/her conscience well informed and that you must be humble enough to admit it when you're wrong and repent). The issue of birth control is between you, your spouse, and God. Even the bishops are not of one voice on the issue. Hope that helps a little.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Tell the atheist he has to obey every word Richard Dawkins says.

While you're at it, ask him why, if atheism is not a belief system, Dawkins haa a section on his website for people to tell their stories of how they converted to atheism!

[Skeeve]

32. Way to contribute DemBones

I was directed to this thread by a friend, and since I'm atheist, I only meant to read through it and not comment. I don't feel the need to discuss how religionists run their faith, but your post just calls for a reply.

The OP started out by retelling something someone had said and asking for comments. Everyone, until you, commented with intelligent replies, opinions and links to related material. Yet you deemed it post worthy to act like a juvenile and play the "attack the atheist" ploy instead of replying to the topic at hand.

Do you feel silly? You should.

[DemBones DemBones]

35. The unnamed atheist made a ridiculous comment so

I think a ridiculous reply was quite appropriate.

[shrike]

31. You know, it's funny, I know priests who don't follow every word the pope says

And they don't seem to live in fear of hell. I'll have to mention the atheist's statement to them: they'll laugh their asses off.

BTW, did you know Fr. Mychael Judge, the Franciscan who died in thr Trade Center, was gay? And, I believe, he had a partner.

[hedgehog]

34. Thanks for reminding me about Mychael Judge. It's good to think of our

saints from time to time.