 |
|
|
|
 The American Catholic bishops celebrating Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
April 15th, 2012
08:00 PM ET
My Take: Catholic bishops against the common good
By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN (CNN)–The U.S. Catholic bishops who claim, increasingly incredibly, to speak on behalf of American Catholics hit a new low last week when they released a self-serving statement called “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.” As this title intimates, the supposed subject is religious liberty, but the real matter at hand is contraception and (for those who have ears to hear) the rapidly eroding moral authority of U.S. priests and bishops. On Easter Sunday, Timothy Dolan, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told CBS that the controversial Health and Human Services contraception rule represents a “radical intrusion” of government into "the internal life of the Church.” On Thursday, 15 of his fellow Catholic clerics (all male) took another sloshy step into the muck and mire of the politics of fear. In “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty” there is talk of religious liberty as the “first freedom” and a tip of the cap to the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. But first and foremost there is anxiety. “Our freedoms are threatened,” these clerics cry. “Religious liberty is under attack.” But what freedoms are these clerics being denied? The freedom to say Mass? To pray the Rosary? No and no. The U.S. government is not forcing celibate priests to have sex, or to condone condoms. The freedom these clerics are being denied is the freedom to ignore the laws of the land in which they live. When I first heard of the HHS rule requiring all employers to pay for birth control for their employees, I thought it should include, on First Amendment grounds, an exemption for Catholic churches. And in fact it did. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Moreover, when Catholic bishops and priests opposed the contraception mandate, HHS modified its rule, exempting not only Catholic churches but also Catholic-affiliated hospitals, universities, and social service agencies. (For these organizations, employees would receive contraceptive coverage from insurance companies separately from the policies purchased by their employers). Once the Obama administration presented this compromise, I thought Catholic clerics would withdraw their objections. I was wrong. Instead they acted like political hacks rather than spiritual authorities, doubling down on the invective and serving up to the American public an even deeper draught of petty partisanship. The bishops refer repeatedly in their statement to “civil society.” But think for a moment of the sort of "civil society" we would have if religious people were exempt from any law they deemed “unjust” for religious reasons. Mormon employers who object to same-sex marriages could deny life insurance benefits to same-sex couples. Jehovah’s Witnesses who object to blood transfusions could deny health care coverage for blood transfusions. Christian Scientists who oppose the use of conventional medicine could refuse to cover their employees for anything other than Christian Science treatments. And Roman Catholics could demand (as the bishops do in this statement) state financing for foster care programs that refuse to place foster children with same-sex parents. As the Roman Catholic Church has taught for millennia, human beings are not isolated atoms. We live together in society, and we come together to pass laws to make our societies function. Virtually every law is coercive, and care must be taken not to violate the religious liberties of individual citizens. But care must also be taken to preserve the common good. In their statement, Catholic bishops accused American political leaders of launching “an attack on civil society.” They also attempted to cloak themselves in the mantle of Dr. King. But theirs is a vision of an uncivil society, and their cause has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement succeeded because its cause was just, and because its leaders were able to mobilize millions of Americans to bring an end to the injustice of segregation. The effort by male Roman Catholic leaders to deny contraception coverage to female employees who want it does not bear even a passing resemblance to that cause. And even the bishops behind this so-called "movement" must admit that it is failing to mobilize even American Catholics themselves. At least since the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960s, Catholics worldwide have been asking, “Who is the Roman Catholic Church?” Is it the hierarchy–a collection of priests, bishops, and cardinals overseen by a pope? Or is it the "People of God" in the pews whom these leaders are ordained to serve? In recent years, this question has jumped by necessity from the realm of Catholic theology into the rough and tumble of American politics. Does American Catholicism oppose contraception? It depends on who speaks for the Church. The 98% of American Catholic women who have used contraception? Or the 15 male clerics who issued this statement? According to “Catholics for Choice,” which has published a rejoinder to "Our First, Most Cherished Liberty," “The bishops have failed to convince Catholics in the pews to follow their prohibitions on contraception. Now, they want the government to grant them the legal right to require each of us, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, to set aside our own guaranteed freedom from government-sanctioned religious interference in our lives." The bishops' statement gives lip service to “civil society” and the “common good,” but what these 15 clerics are trying to do here is destructive of both. To participate in civil society is to get your way sometimes and not others. To seek the common good is to sacrifice your own interests at times to those of others. I will admit that the HHS contraception rule does ask these Catholic clerics to sacrifice something. But what is this sacrifice? Simply to allow the women who work for their organizations to be offered contraceptive coverage by their insurers. To refuse this sacrifice is not to uphold civil society. It is to refuse to participate in it. Toward the end of their statement, the 15 bishops who signed this statement called on every U.S. Catholic to join in a “great national campaign” on behalf of religious liberty. More specifically, they called for a “Fortnight for Freedom” concluding with the Fourth of July when U.S. dioceses can celebrate both religious liberty and martyrs who have died for the Catholic cause. As Independence Day approaches, I have a prediction. I predict that rank-and-file American Catholics will ignore this call. They will see that the issue at hand has more to do with women’s health than with religious liberty. And in the spirit of Vatican II, which referred to the church as the “People of God,” they will refuse to allow these 15 men to speak for them. Whatever moral capital U.S. bishops have in the wake of the sex abuse scandal that rocked the nation for decades will be insufficient to win over lay Catholics to what has been for at least a half a century a lost cause. These 15 clerics write that American Catholics “must have the courage not to obey” unjust laws. I think the courage called for today is something else—the courage not to obey those who no longer speak for them. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.
WOW!!!! AS a Catholic Priest myself (for over 25 years) I must say, this article is AWESOME!!! It tells the truth!!!!
WOW... me too, for 26 years..... shut up, lame attempt , have a point
I don't believe you. Maybe a priest of one those unregistered, unrecognized, 5 member church that adds the word "catholic" like the "Apostolic *&@#$! Catholic Church" to sound good.
That's good to hear coming from a priest. Why are the bishops so behind the times? Why are they not upholding the part of Catholic law that says you have to do what's best for your family in every situation? Why do they want to condemn women for taking the pill when they have medical illnesses that require it and can prevent a woman from becoming sterile? Do they not read medical journals?
You religious folk, who do you pray to. You know the truth I am right in front of you and you still do not and will not acknowledge, this game which you have played with peoples souls ends now. You have all which you are going to get because GOD THE FATHER does not recognize you because you have failed to recognize HIS first born SON. You have had more than enough time to repent for your sins, so away with you, go and serve the one you have pledged to, the prince of the air.
"Any man who says he is without sin is a liar". How are you doing on that Mr. Wallace?
re everatt.... tell us more, i really couldnt put a finger on what you meant to say..... it came across as a drunk preacher?
Rene,
Check it out...How many of the Supreme Court judges are Catholic???
a member of the Church....and a member of Government so Church is government....fallacy?
Prayer changes things .
~Prayer doesn’t not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!.!.!~
LOL... Every credible study that has ever looked into it has proven that prayers don't change a thing. Nothing fails like prayer.
this is a very weird editorial with even odder responses. the author prothero asks "what would happen if religious were exempt from every rule." huh? give the name of some religious who has requested this type of freedom. religious people are using the established political system of free speech and open discussion to argue their case. Name a single threat that a religious person has made if they don't get their way in this matter. Prothero says religious are "political hacks" and use politics of fear. Name a presidential candidate who has not used politics of fear to get elected. Prothero states "The freedom these clerics are being denied is the freedom to ignore the laws of the land in which they live." Huh? name a civil rights worker or community organizer who doesn't argue that certain laws should be changed. I can think of a thousand more arguments Prothero could have used for his case. But he was apparently too lazy and too interested in trying to create controversy than in thinking the issue through. CNN, get rid of this idiot.
The Christian states that God exists. It's not that the atheist claims that God does not exist. But until the Christian can prove that God exists, the atheist will not believe that God exists. The atheist will not believe that God exists just on the basis of the unsubstantiated claims of the Christian. Actually atheism is a very healthy form of skepticism which should be inculcated in children so that they learn not to be so easily persuaded by non-arguments, such as "You will go to hell unless you believe" or "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things" or "All communists are atheists; therefore, if you are an atheist you are a communist."
Great site. Lots of helpful information here. I am sending it to several friends ans also sharing in delicious. And of course, thanks on your effort!
I, for one, won't be participating in the Bishop's "Fortnight for Freedom". My religious freedom was acquired when I left the Catholic Church. My only regret is that I didn't burn a lace doily (cap) during my last church attendance.
Jean,
I am glad you are free. Although my parents attempted to raise me as a Protestant, I've been an atheist since the age 10 because I just couldn't believe the stuff they were saying at church (the minister and Sunday school teachers). Not having to believe in a divine being who is constantly looking over my shoulder and judging me, or fearing that I will go to hell for unforgiven sins has been a source of lifetime happiness to me. I also have always tried to be a highly ethical person and used my own conscience to be my guide.
Jean,
Protestant ministers and Catholic priests make their living trying to keep people believing in God. They never get into any philosophical discussions about the existence of God, but instead talk about God as if there is no question as to his existence. And they use all manner of methods to try to keep you believing–the most effective is fear. Also, especially with priests, they take their elaborate ceremonies with the utmost seriousness as if they were in direct contact with the almighty, although looked at objectively it's just plain silly. I suggest you take a look at the book by Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion", for some refreshing ideas that might help you overcome any fears that may have been instilled in you by religion.
just take a look at those clowns in dresses pretending their appearnce makes them holy..... i would assume they are the same infidels that Jesus made a whip and drove out of the temple.... oh you white washed tombs,,, clean on the outside buy death inside you dwells..... and i am Christian ... not catholic
Chief, how do you feel about gays wearing dresses in gay pride parades?
doesnt bother me unless they are evening gowns, i often trip ...... actually i dont care... in the gay pride parades there are thousands that have been caught abusing kids while mocking God in the process.... i am sure you know what i mean
cor... havent been caught
Chief – It's "whited sepuchres" If you're gonna quote, get it right!
I'll say it again – It's "Whited Sepulchres"
JW's would not insist on denying anyone anything. Your choice of treatment if you are employed by a Jehovah's Witnesses, is YOUR CHOICE. They DO NOT force their beliefs on employees or anyone else.
These bishops are the last people on earth to even mention 'Good'. Just look at the catholic church's history, that tells all. Include the vaticans demand, with threats, to cover up child abuse. The worst crimes, the cover ups, left the small child to fend for themselves. AND these are grown men doing this to children! The catholic church lobbies today to stop laws that would expose the truth.. In the end, all victims of all abuses lose. This is a disgusting religion and a fil-thy bunch of bishops (popes included)
Stephen Prothero is simply wrong about his basic facts. The HHS mandate that was proposed last July and became final this past February and published as law in March, excluded no private, church operated organizations, (Hospitals, Universities, Charities). It excluded only individual churches that served and employed its own members with what HHS defined as "religious activity". Missions of the churches to teach(Universities) heal (hospitals) and more generally help others (Charities) were not "religious activities".
Contrary to popular, politically manipulated, opinion no compromise or accommodation has been made regarding this mandate. What the administration did was to say (as it published the finalized HHS mandate) that it would consider ways for the non exempt church organizations to pay the premiums for the objected coverage (Sterilization, Morning-After pills, and contraception). It alone will decide how that might be done and will announce its decision well after the election. Convenient! And, only these non exempt religious organizations are being considered. Any other employer who has moral or religious objections are not even considered.
A Senate bill to change the Affordable Care Act that would have legislated exemptions on moral and religious reasons failed by 2 votes in March. A similar house bill (HR 1179) with 220 co-sponsors, sits in committee waiting for (ostensibly) an opportunity where it might actually get signed by President Obama when passed by the house. The House sub-committee on health's chairman Joseph Pitts (R PA) says (through his chief of staff) he is not interested in futile gestures of passing a bill (the house has the votes) when it is certain to be vetoed by President Obama.
Despite the writer's opinion this is a very important religious liberty issue with extremely serious implications for every citizen and not only the Catholic Church. If Stephen Prothero does not get that, his scholarship on the subject of religion is deficient.
All of this gets distorted, of course, because the silly season is upon us, and President Obama needed to throw some red meat to his more left wing (many of whom have lost their enthusiasm ) in an effort to fire them up for the coming battle. What better way to do this than inviting them to "have at it" with bishops, churches, religions and the divisions within them.
This Prothero column is just another example of the Democratic political strategy, of the left, at work. It promises to be not only a silly season but an increasingly hostile one. Just what we need.
Could you imagine if that Blunt amendment passed? Your employer could basically dictate whatever they wanted to pay for on your health insurance. They could just say all insurance is immoral if they wanted to and not cover you at all. Why can't we have individual freedom instead of our employer having the freedom to tell us what insurance we can have?
The catholic cult really needs to get over itself. I'm sure spending the time and resources helping the poor will earn more karma points with the the sky fairy than not paying for condoms. Maybe the choir boys really hate condoms?
Religious Freedom was actually discussed at Vatican II....the Author forgot this very important source, which was American drafted! HHS should learn from Vatican II!
freedom means, get the catholic church out of our government now!
the church is not in gov...obama and Sabelius is! Where have you been for the last 4 years?
they sure stick their filt-ty noses in it
i am looking for the day that the church is really involved with the government .... like the defendant in from of the supreme court on abuse
Justice is blind...so if that is how Catholics should be behave regarding real just laws, like abuse etc...I am all with you. Real Laws, just laws...but for an unjust law like this mandate...I think it is self contradictory...Objective, not subjective: Justice!
This writer is amazing! Amazing that he has a job as a religion writer. Sounds like a columnist for atheists. I'm just assuming he is not Catholic nor has he had any in depth study of OUR religion. I see Boston University lets any moron work there so that's a negative. As a political scientist it frustrates me that this "journalist" critiques terms like "civil society" when he obviously has no idea what they are. It's a freshmen term. They are associations outside of the public sphere's influence and a mechanism to protect members and expand the market place of ideas. This "article" is a veiled attempt at scholarly work. When it is really a poorly written opinion piece. Lack of knowledge, sensitivity and liberal values.
I was catholic. I was sod-omize-ed at ages 8 and 9. One is a bishop today. Two other victims told me there are other pedo bishops there too. Most bishops know of each other and cover it up, they lobby to stop laws that would expose pedos. All victims now denied.
Granted this is not a scholarly writing. It's an opinion piece for a blog. If you want scholarly go somewhere else. I don't think the average reader can make head or tale of your critique.
victim. Why don't you name this bishop? Why don't you sue the Church if your claim is correct? I think you are just a spammer.
BTW the mandate does not just apply to Catholic Charities victim.
because statutes of limitations enables child so-d-o-m-y as the perfect crime. By the time the victim wakes from the trauma, it's too late. There are Bill to change this but the catholic bishops lobby to stop that Bill from becoming law. Understand now?
re victom..... i actually agree with gerald..... if i had the background you say you do.... I would be on cnn telling his name or i would be confessing to murder on cnn ...... by your lack of action... you put kids at risk, put up or shut up... i dont care about any excuse, your leaving the door open for others to be abused.
laws need to change.. that simple. I mention the name, then they claim I'm lying – never an end to the denials. This stuff need to be in court where proof can be validated. Until then everyone will make every excuse for the pedo. However, I've been to the DA, FBI and the media already. I'm one of many thousands and the church is successful in stopping us from court with their lobby efforts.Look at snapnetwork. org or bishopaccountability. org these list only a portion, but even at that, the list is huge.
why not name him now
name him now..... your anonymous .... at least let people know his name and parish else just log off and your a pathetic enabler
Colin,
1. That is a fundamental characteristic of the RCC – you are morally obliged to “believe.” - Where are you getting this? What do you mean by 'morally obliged to believe'? Belief is not an issue of morality. Catholics hold certain beliefs - if you identify as a Catholic, you should hold these beliefs. If you don't hold them, don't be Catholic.
If the RCC told you, from the chair or otherwise, that you had to believe that Tokyo was the capital of France, could you do it? - No. How likely do you think it is that they would do so?
Instead of adapting, the RCC threatened them all and even killed one. - Elements of the Church did; others did not; it was divided. And ultimately it did adapt. And recognized and publicly conceded its error. So your problem is with the pace of change, which is fine and legitimate, but it is inaccurate to continue trying to portray it as 'refusing to accept'. At least you've let go of the 'Galileo was/is still excommunicated' rumor.
2. So, putting aside political correctness, you are still saying that Catholics are right and all others are wrong. - I actually said nothing like that. I said they're all right, in different ways. If the only way you can argue with me is to pretend I said something else and argue that, there's little use in continuing. It's a consistent tactic of yours, but it's beneath you.
3. Now you have to squirm in your seat and pretend the RCC always knew it was mythology. - Again, I said nothing of the kind, and am hardly squirming. I very clearly said the Church now understands it to be metaphorical, and reinterprets it in that light. You are breathtakingly dishonest in your engagement with me here.
4. God is in my wallet, if I define him as a credit card... - pointless attempt to be 'clever' and completely irrelevent to the point being discussed. You may define God as in your wallet - Catholics don't. You can further argue that your definition is just as valid as theirs in the absence of proof, which is fine. But you can't argue that both understandings are 'the same' or even 'equivalent' (other than in the generic sense that both exist and are unprovable - true, but not especially helpful in evaluating their relative 'truth' or 'falsehood'). Catholic conceptions of God are totally different from classical Greek concepts of Zeus or your 'wallet god'.
5. There is not one sentence in the bible.... - Completely unrelated digression. So we're letting go of that point then? Progress.
6. To be honest, I suspect that close to 99% of the Bible is totally fabricated...we know now it is most likely myth. Paul’s letters,...are inconsistent with Acts. M,M,L and J contradict each other. Doesn’t sound like th e tome of a god to me. - Inconsistency/contradiction = myth? Hardly. And again you evince an overly simplistic understanding of what we consider Scripture to be.
7. In my entire life, I have never heard any Catholic writing that denounces or criticizes Lot ... - You started by saying the 'Bible lauds him' for it. Now we've at least gotten you to 'I've never heard the Church condemn it', And I trust you are honest enough to recognize that a) this does nothing to prove your point, and b) absence of comment hardly entails condonement, let alone praise. Some things hardly require explicit condemnation - its pretty well clear that his conduct (or that of his daughters) is unacceptable, I hardly think you'll find a single Catholic to disagree, in spite of the fact that they may 'never in their entire lives have heard any catholic writing condemning it'. nevertheless I am sure there are plenty of Catholic doc uments out there condemning it, I suppose I can look some up for you if it will help.
8. I have heard my entire life that a rejection of the Catholic god leads to hell. - Regardless of 'what you've heard all your life', according to Catholic belief it may, yes, (and I think most Catholics would say 'probably'), but it's not certain. Church teaching is quite clear that only God makes that call. It allows that it is possible for athiests to go to heaven. So maybe you'll be fine. In any event, your point is again inaccurate. Also 'athiesm' = 'I cannot accept that God exists'; 'apostasy' = 'I acknowledge God but reject him'. Big difference and I am sure you can understand why the Church would hold different views on them.
9. Cite a Catholic source per-1950 that accepted evolution. - Since we live in 2012, I'm not sure what you think you'd prove by that except perhaps my point, which is that the Church does change its doctrine in light of expanded knowledge. You've at least gotten from 'it doesn't' to 'it does, but grudgingly'. I can accept that.
10. I was educated in a Catholic school. They did a good job. The problem was that they did do a good job and I could not believe in their myths any longer, given what they taught me in science class. - Sounds like they did a good job in the science department but failed in the religion part 🙂 All too common.
11. I have never read a Catholic docu.ment that confronts and resolves them, but feel free to point me to one - I suggest for starters the 'New American Bible', American edition, (which carries the nihil obstat and imprimatur of the Church, so it is 'official'). The introductory essays on the scholarship, liguistics and historiography involved in that translation are very helpful. The footnotes, many of which are tied directly to the example inconsistencies you cite, are very extensive, and very candid. (Actually so much so that it has raised some concerns from more conservative fundamental members of the Church). If I have time this weekend I could look for some other recommendations for you.
Actually, I remain convinced that there is hope for you. - Very kind, thank you. I hope so.
RM
1. That is a fundamental characteristic of the RCC – you are morally obliged to “believe.” – Where are you getting this? What do you mean by 'morally obliged to believe'? Belief is not an issue of morality. Catholics hold certain beliefs – if you identify as a Catholic, you should hold these beliefs. If you don't hold them, don't be Catholic.
You have already mentioned apostasy, blasphemy and heresy, all adumbrations of the same "sin" – not accepting the Catholic view of the World. The RCC does state that one is morally obliged to believe Catholic faith. You can't seriously deny this. I am an ex-Catholic atheist. I heard, cogitated and specifically rejected the concept of the Judeo-Christian god as, and I do not mean to be pejorative, primitive and silly concept, worthy of late Bronze Age Palestinian farmers and herders, but with no place in an educated society. I would love a dollar for every Catholic (including priests) that has told he I will burn in hell. The Catechism says pretty much the same thing. When you have no proof, nor even evidence, you have to retreat to idle threats.
If the RCC told you, from the chair or otherwise, that you had to believe that Tokyo was the capital of France, could you do it? – No. How likely do you think it is that they would do so?
Well, they do still teach that an immortal, all-knowing being, powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies, supervises (and even reads the minds of) 7 billion human beings simultaneously 24 hours a day. I would have thought a geographical "white lie" would be child's play for them – 🙂
Instead of adapting, the RCC threatened them all and even killed one. – Elements of the Church did; others did not; it was divided. And ultimately it did adapt. And recognized and publicly conceded its error. So your problem is with the pace of change, which is fine and legitimate, but it is inaccurate to continue trying to portray it as 'refusing to accept'. At least you've let go of the 'Galileo was/is still excommunicated' rumor.
He recanted at fear of torture and death, no? If you see that as a step up from from ex-communication, in terms of the culpability of the church, so be it. When were his works taken off the list of libros prohibidos? Before or after Keppler, Martin Luther, Jean-Paul Sartre, Voltaire, John Calvin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, René Descartes, Francis Bacon and Blaise Pascal? Why ban books? What were they scared of? Ever heard of a secular humanist or scientist doing that?
2. So, putting aside political correctness, you are still saying that Catholics are right and all others are wrong. – I actually said nothing like that. I said they're all right, in different ways. If the only way you can argue with me is to pretend I said something else and argue that, there's little use in continuing. It's a consistent tactic of yours, but it's beneath you.
Ok, I have to call you out on this. It's black or white. Catholics believe that they are right and all other religions, to the extent they differ from Catholicism, are wrong. That's what makes it a religion. I am not saying Catholics believe others should not be allowed to believe wht they do, but you believe they are doctrinally and theologically in error, and you are right. Alternatively, you have to call yourself a pantheist who gives all beliefs equal credibility – and nobody does that. Stop trying to have it both ways.
This is nothing peculiar to Catholicism, by the way, they think the same thing about you. But, none of you are right or wrong (well, actually, you are all wrong). When you make the whole thing up (and don't even try to say all religions don't do that!!) you can say whatever you want. One god, many gods, eternal life, reincarnation, karma, spirits, Vishnu, Krishna, Allah, other worlds, heaven, hell.
In the absence of evidence to point in one direction or the other, are not all religions simply an attempt to (i) avoid the fear of death; and (ii) explain the unknown, just with different costumes and rituals? Hence my comment about the blind man in the dark room. Geography dictates which religion you will have been brought up with. Do you seriously think you were lucky enough to be born in the part of the World that got it right?
3. Now you have to squirm in your seat and pretend the RCC always knew it was mythology. – Again, I said nothing of the kind, and am hardly squirming. I very clearly said the Church now understands it to be metaphorical, and reinterprets it in that light. You are breathtakingly dishonest in your engagement with me here.
Yes, AFTER science proved you wrong. You didn't work that out yourselves. Why does the official Catechism not say this, then? What is the RCC's weasel-wording on this one now? 2,000 years of Christ dying on the cross to save us from the original sin of Adam and Eve has been conveniently substi.tuted with what? How is 2,000 years of error explained? Is it swept under the rug? I bet it is. Recall we debated immaculate conception in terms of papal infallibility. Why was that concept necessary? Because the RCC had to come up with a way to avoid Mary having the stain of original sin. You can't deny this now – remember, the Pope said it and he is "infallible" on the issue. You have to believe it, which means you have to believe in the whole Adam and Eve myth. Silly stuff.
4. God is in my wallet, if I define him as a credit card... – pointless attempt to be 'clever' and completely irrelevant to the point being discussed. You may define God as in your wallet – Catholics don't. You can further argue that your definition is just as valid as theirs in the absence of proof, which is fine. But you can't argue that both understandings are 'the same' or even 'equivalent' (other than in the generic sense that both exist and are unprovable – true, but not especially helpful in evaluating their relative 'truth' or 'falsehood'). Catholic conceptions of God are totally different from classical Greek concepts of Zeus or your 'wallet god'.
The Judeo-Christian god actually evolved over a relatively lengthy period from various other gods in the Mediterranean region. Like language and culture, gods in any particular region of the World change, develop, and alter along with the underlying culture, just like language and art. That is why, today, if you draw a worldwide map of the various religions, it sits pretty neatly over the various languages and cultures.
Your belief is not magically immune to this. One can see the changes in the Judeo-Christian god, the personality you attribute to it and the actions you ascribe directly to it, over the centuries. Imagine anybody saying today that the Judeo-Christian god caused 7 plagues. Nowadays, he saves people in trailer parks from tornadoes or saves cancer patients (but, curiously, never amputees. Why do you think that is?). Once again, when you create god, you can give him whatever personality you choose.
5. There is not one sentence in the bible.... – Completely unrelated digression. So we're letting go of that point then? Progress.
Not really, see above. God has evolved, along with the underlying culture, to be more loving than vengeful. If you make the doll ,you can paint the face however you feel. Some Christians, like Pat Robertson, still see his vengefulness in natural events like Hurricane Katrina and AID, however.
6. To be honest, I suspect that close to 99% of the Bible is totally fabricated...we know now it is most likely myth. Paul’s letters,...are inconsistent with Acts. M,M,L and J contradict each other. Doesn’t sound like the tome of a god to me. – Inconsistency/contradiction = myth? Hardly. And again you evince an overly simplistic understanding of what we consider Scripture to be.
No, contradictions in and of themselves do not equal myth. Every animal in the Wolrd on an ark for about a year, talking snakes, men rising from the dead, burning bushes, seas splitting, water turning into wine, men living to be 700 years old, men controlling the weather, trumpets causing walls to collapse, men waking on water, evil spirits being driven from men into pigs, blind people seeing again 2,000 years ago = myth.
Contradictions just further undermine the credibility of an already totally discredited tome. Hell, they can't even get his so called "miraculous birth" straight. Surely that must make even the most closed of minds question it a little. Why are the 3 Pastoral "Letters of St. Paul" still in the Bible as letters of St. Paul when everybody knows they are forgeries? Why does the RCC not admit its mistake and move on. And what of the 3 deuto-Pauline letters? Surely they deserve at least a footnote that Paul probably never wrote them. And the end of the Gospel of Mark. Why is it still there? It is a known later forgery.
7. In my entire life, I have never heard any Catholic writing that denounces or criticizes Lot ... – You started by saying the 'Bible lauds him' for it. Now we've at least gotten you to 'I've never heard the Church condemn it', And I trust you are honest enough to recognize that a) this does nothing to prove your point, and b) absence of comment hardly entails condonement, let alone praise. Some things hardly require explicit condemnation – its pretty well clear that his conduct (or that of his daughters) is unacceptable, I hardly think you'll find a single Catholic to disagree, in spite of the fact that they may 'never in their entire lives have heard any catholic writing condemning it'. nevertheless I am sure there are plenty of Catholic doc uments out there condemning it, I suppose I can look some up for you if it will help.
But Lot is held up as heroic figure. He is saved by God from the city, prospers under God and is rewarded by God. God regularly talks to him and instructs him. If this is not "lauding" Lot, I don't know what is.
8. I have heard my entire life that a rejection of the Catholic god leads to hell. – Regardless of 'what you've heard all your life', according to Catholic belief it may, yes, (and I think most Catholics would say 'probably'), but it's not certain. Church teaching is quite clear that only God makes that call. It allows that it is possible for athiests to go to heaven. So maybe you'll be fine. In any event, your point is again inaccurate. Also 'athiesm' = 'I cannot accept that God exists'; 'apostasy' = 'I acknowledge God but reject him'. Big difference and I am sure you can understand why the Church would hold different views on them.
Your "difference" between apostasy and atheism is pretty flimsy. I was taught god and rejected the concept. AM I an atheist or an apostate? But, even for the worst of people – the murderers, the ra.pists, the genocidal maniacs, I cannot conceive of burning them for all time.
Approximately one hundred and ten thousand million (110,000,000,000) people have ever lived on Earth. Given all those who have, over the centuries, rejected (in the apostasy sense) the Christian god, or who have otherwise committed mortal sins, there must be literally thousands of millions of people burning for all eternity in the cosmic oven of hell set up by your "all-loving" god. Some must have been burning for thousands of years by now.
About 100,000 people die every day. There must be a constant stream of thousands of forlorn souls every day into the one way pit of hell your "all-mercifu"l god set up and maintains.
But, far, far worse than sheer overwhelming numbers is the extent of the punishment. There is no way out, no parole, no time off for good behavior. You don’t just burn, you burn for all eternity. Billions of people and thousands of daily new arrivals burning for all eternity!
No criminal justice system in the history of the Human race, even those established by the most despotic of tyrants, comes close to matching the unfathomable barbarity of your “infinitely benevolent” god. I
Hitler murdered six million Jews in his concentration camps, but compared to your god, Hitler was a bleeding-hearted wimp. A goose-stepping girlie-man. Your all-caring god not only burns billions more than Hitler, Pol Pot and all other dictators and tyrants added up, he keeps doing so to them for all eternity!
It is also odd that your all-loving god is also all-knowing and knows which souls will go to hell before they do. He even knows it before they are born, and yet he still creates them. He is worse than a psychopathic teenager than breeds litter after litter of kittens so he can slowly roast them in ovens.
See how silly it gets when you try to use the same god as both the carrot and the stick?
9. Cite a Catholic source per-1950 that accepted evolution. – Since we live in 2012, I'm not sure what you think you'd prove by that except perhaps my point, which is that the Church does change its doctrine in light of expanded knowledge. You've at least gotten from 'it doesn't' to 'it does, but grudgingly'. I can accept that.
I think I said "begudgingly" in my original post. In fact, I'm sure I did.
10. I was educated in a Catholic school. They did a good job. The problem was that they did do a good job and I could not believe in their myths any longer, given what they taught me in science class. – Sounds like they did a good job in the science department but failed in the religion part All too common.
They were good people. We had the odd occasion of a priest or Christian brother molesting a little boy, but, statistically, no more than any other group of males who hang around little boys. In fact, the best teacher I ever had, was a Christian Brother convicted of child molestation. He was a great teacher, though. I am still friends with him. I have a degree of sympathy for him – and for those he hurt. That is the great contradiction of Catholicism – many of its foot soldiers are wonderful people – I just can't understand why they feel the need to predicate their good deeds on the perceived wishes of a Bronze Age sky diety – albeit one that has settled down, stopped the plagues and adopted 21st Century American morality -:)
I'm not a catholic but can see that the so-called compromise is just a back-door way to get catholic organizations to pay for birth control. Whenever someone doesn't agree with you, it sure is easy to call them ignorant. However, if this guy can't figure it out what the compromise really is, then what does that make him.
actually not. What most don't understand is that organizations as Catholic charities is run primarily off our tax dollars, grant money. <– FACT
Victim – First of all Catholic Charities is not the Catholic Church. Second of all how does what you said dispute the FACT that this is a back dore way of having the CC pay for birth contol. Third do you have any kind of a financial statement from Catholic Charities that proves your claim. Fourthly not all Catholic Charities take money from the governemnt. Check out CC in the diocese of Tulsa for instance.
it's all the catholic church. Who isn't the catholic church, the parishioner. That right! They are just customers. They have no vote and do not manage the church. No deflections please.
ONLY FOR THE NEWCOMERS:---------–>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To be fair:
Putting the kibosh on all religions in less than 500 words:
• There was probably no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• There was probably no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
e.g. Taoism
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
No clerics, imams, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired. Time for Stevey P to find honest work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Unfortunately, your claims about Abraham, Moses, and Easter (by which I'm assuming you mean the resurrection of Jesus) have no basis in fact; they are merely your (incorrect) opinion. You provide not only on proof, but no evidence, to back up your claims. Sorry, but that hardly "puts the kibosh" on religion.
@vbscript2,
The proof of the existence of Abraham and Moses, and the proof of the resurrection lie with those who say these things are true. Without proof, these things are just legend and myth. That "puts the kibosh" on religion except for the gullible.
Your comments about Buddhism betray no knowledge or understanding of that tradition whatsoever.
ONLY FOR THE NEWCOMERS:
Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/
From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.
To wit;
From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:
"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.
The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.
Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.
The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "
"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM
The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.
With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:
An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
p.4
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
p.168. by Ted Peters:
Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "
So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.
New Torah For Modern Minds
“Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.
The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."
"prob•a•bly
Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell."
"When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about anything," said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" and a co-editor of the new book. "Today, they are very sophisticated and well read about psychology, literature and history, but they are locked in a childish version of the Bible."
Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circu-mstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.
What pattering drivel. "I think the courage called for today is something else—the courage not to obey those who no longer speak for them." The Bishop's Jesus appointed never spoke for man, they spoke for God. The Spirit who was sent to remain in the Church guides the one, unified Church. Mr. Prothero, you simply are another man trying to usurp God's authority. Recognize your nothingness, and find your unbelievable dignity in the Christ.
There are no contemporaneous accounts of your Jesus or the disciples. Thus, you actually have no idea what your Jesus or his followers said or did.
Sorry.
When did Jesus appoint a bishop?
@WillieLove Re. your comments below.
Mary the Mother of God: catholics don't say that God had a mother. There is a word: Theotokos. From the Greek expression "God Bearer". Mary was God's mother in the sense that she bore Him into the world.
Mary, Queen of Heaven: catholicism does not teach that Mary rules heaven as a queen would. She is considered the Queen Mother of heaven. Jesus reserved a place for her by his side in the same way that Solomon reserved a place for his own mother.
Bowing to statues: This is done as a visible gesture to the Genuine Article (Jesus, Mary, etc.) . A bow is customary to anyone who is venerable or honorable. Bowing to a statue is an outward expression of an inner inspiration.
Pergatory: The black and white, literal, written word is not adequate to express God's word. Some things are implied. Second Maccabees 39-46 strongly implies that salvation may be acheived after death.
Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, said "How is it that the MOTHER OF MY LORD....". Jesus isLord because he is God. If you are Christian and believe in the Bible this should settle the arguement pretty quickly. Because of the stuborness of those who deny Mary's role it usually doesn't.
As for Mary queen of heaven, David is a Davidic King. The Old Testament forshadows the new and Christ reigns as a king in the line of David today until all is at his feet. Now then a Davidic Kingdom has a King. Jesus is the eternal king now. The kingdom has other offices as well, one of which as CatholicEngineer said is the Queen Mother. One should read Ps 45 – "The queen sits at his right hand". Also Rev 12 – the woman clothed with the Sun, wearing a crown, and the Moon and the Stars under her feet on one level clearly represents Mary.
what a load of crap...... you can mumbo jumbo your non Christian belief to say whatever you were told by men in dresses..... if your werent called "Christian" i wouldnt care....
btw anything GERALDH has to say must be kept in the right frame of reference..... he is a priest and protects them against the law
BTW chief is a liar. I am not a priest at all and have told him this many times. He has no proof that I am other than his bigotry against priests. If I were a priest that would not be justifcation for him to show such hatred. He calls himself a Christian yet all his posts are full of hate.
yes, hate to those who are enablers to ped priests via their denial and deflection.... if catholics spent as much time weeding out ped priest as defending the priesthood, there wouldnt be a problem
Stephen Prothero....you forgot to complete your sentence:
"Simply to allow the women who work for their organizations to be offered contraceptive coverage by their insurers."
Should read:
"Simply to allow the women who work for their organizations to be offered contraceptive coverage by their insurers....which the church will then be forced to pay for through higher insurance premiums, since, of course, nothing is actually free in this world."
Like all left-wing propagandists for the Democratic Party......you always forget that last part......that somebody has to actually pay for all these so-called "free" things you love to give away!
If the pope said pap smears were against the church, shouldn't the government still be able to force insurance to pay for it because the AMA considers it part of a normal health check-up or should we get our health advice from a clergyman?
Pat its a pointless question because the Church is not against pap smears, has never been and never will be. Further pap smears detect disease. Contraception for the use of preventing pregnancy detects or cures NOTHING that is not natural and good. Pregnancy is not a problem of disordered biology. It is a result of correct bodily function.
Should I as a catholic be exempt from paying my share of taxes for services/protections which my traditon rejects, ie., taxes I pay to the military so my goverment can engage in a war deemed to be in violotion of the "Just War Theory,"
or taxes I pay which are used to execute men and wome on death row ?
re gerald.... great point about birth control if i were a complete moron that followed men in dresses as yourself
Accept Jesus christ as your lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Trancend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
The world denounces truth....
Accepting Jesus Christ will result in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.
Currently.... your constructing your own path that suits your sin lifestyle.
Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .
Trancend the temporal world.
Just think if you can find a truth you can take with you in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life. You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf, the greatest minds knowledge fate or are eventually plagerzed, your good deeds are forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated, your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over .
Trancend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Relise your a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent....
Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith above reason in Jesus Christ.
Read Ecclesiastes. Read corinthians.
You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth.
Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment. You don't get what you want you get what you are in christ.
I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .
Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?
Down is up. Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.
once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
Your all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
There is not god, stop kidding yourself