<p>Sorry, TD, but I will continue to use the phrase “pro-abortion” because I don’t like euphemisms. I also think the term “pro-choice Catholic” is an oxymoron.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp[/url]”>http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp</a></p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>though the stance of the Catholic church on abortion is quite clear I do not think it is clear that they said it is a sin to vote for Kerry, though one particular bishop may have said so. I believe the official position of the church is that each person is to make thier own informed decision about a particular candidate.</p>
<p>I think it is interesting that for some issues a candidate can say that their religion informed thier opinions while other issues the same person thinks that thier religion can not inform thier opinion. For Catholics this is probably most clear in the discussions about abortion and slavery.</p>
<p>But I digress, the real topic is whether of not there is a certain level of anti-Catholicism. Back in the middle of the 1800s it was very clear that there was. Here is a reference to the founding of Holy Cross in Worcester from the Wikipedia (your references may vary):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>for the full wikipedia article see:</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_the_holy_cross[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_the_holy_cross</a></p>
<p>Whereas me, mine, and many others don’t accept the framing on your terms. I say this not to convert you but to demonstrate to others that the Catholic Church is indeed not monochromatic. I’m not sure, but a pro-Choice vote per se might win outright in our parish. Certainly the parish went for Kerry in the last election. Artificial birth control would win in a landslide, married priests by a good margin, and I think women priests would be a coin flip. Hard to say…participants at the 11am service are as a group a bit more conservative than those at the 9am service.</p>
<p>It’s not just our parish, either. A couple of weeks ago there was a major Catholic religious education conference down in Anaheim, drawing from all of SoCal. Some of the panels and discussions would curl the Pope’s toes, I’m sure…and not in a good way.</p>
<p>TD, there may be those who still consider themselves Catholic who believe that abortion is okay, women should be priests, priests should be able to marry etc. That does not, however, make the Catholic Church “… indeed not monochromatic.” The Church has a specific set of beliefs, which are not open to a vote. I’m familiar with some of the parishes in your neck of the woods, and I understand how ideas become acceptable in a particular milieu. That doesn’t mean it spreads to the hierarchy of the Church, or even to other diocese in this country. Maybe the S.M area will be the setting for the next reformation?</p>
<p>Never confuse the Church, the hierarchy, with the Church, the people.</p>
<p>The Church has, and will continue, to evolve in its understandings and will resolve its errors. Reminds me of the joke about the results of the interfaith meeting of the Catholics and the Jews: the Pope formally apologized for persecution of the Jews, the Inquisition, and the persecution of Galileo. The Jews apologized for the movie “Yentl.”</p>
<p>My outlook, while certainly currently heterodox, is not confined or limited by geography. I do wonder what you would have made of my principle catechist, a Sister of Social Service.</p>
<p>As a side note prompted by current events, about 15 years ago I wrote a short story that received several thoughtful editorial responses but no sale. The title was “The Gospel According to St. Judas.” Publication of “The Gospel of Judas” has rendered it a mere curiosity which, put together with two bucks, would allow me to purchase a cup of coffee at Starbucks. A rare instance of fantasy, not science fiction, being overtaken by actual events. However, I was gratified in reading the snippets of translation in the NYT that I had nailed the tone and general content almost perfectly.</p>
<p><<<< As I said, the Catholic Church is not monochromatic. In our diocese, the Eucharistic ministers are instructed to give Communion to all who present themselves; it is not for the Eucharistic minister to determine who is eligible to receive and who is not, even if they “know” that someone isn’t supposed to receive…it is a matter of that person’s conscience and God.>>></p>
<p>Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are never to deny Communion. However, I have told a priest after Mass that a man came to me for Communion and I know that he isn’t Catholic. The priest asked me to point him out and I did. The priest went and talked to him.</p>
<p>A priest is supposed to first privately tell someone that they are not receive Communion.</p>
<p><<< I’d feel free to tell any American bishop who crossed that line to go stick it. >>>></p>
<p>The Dad: Would you be telling such a thing to bishops that have more theology education than your sis in law? Wow!!! sounds like a big “sneer” to me!</p>
<p>And, didn’t you say that in a previous thread that you are not CAtholic? If that is true, who cares what you think about the Church.</p>
<p>Back to the OP – I’m not aware of overt anti-Catholic sentiment in colleges. I do think, though, that it is difficult for a practicing Catholic to discuss issues like abortion, gay marriage etc in an academic setting. My experience has been that most institutions of higher education are liberal in their ideology, and the Catholic faith would be in opposition to most of the common cultural values. But I’m sure that anyone who is of a conservative persuasion would find some difficulties.</p>
<p>JLauer, I wasn’t born Catholic but have been a practicing member of the Catholic community for 25 years; it did not makes sense to split the family. My foster-mother is an Episcopalian priest and my foster-father was Roman Catholic…I have the interfaith thing down from both sides of the line.</p>
<p>It’s your sneer of my sister in-law’s background that is under discussion here, not the theological education of the various bishops, who range from brilliant to adequate. </p>
<p>And Eucharistic ministers are not “extraordinary” in any sense around here. The vast majority of Communion at Mass is given by lay people.</p>
<p>One of our priests, about twenty years ago, referencing a discussion unlike this one, said, “…the Church ought not be so Pharisaical.” Got it in one.</p>
<p>Note: SJMom, this post is not directed at you. Our exchanges have been perfectly civil.</p>
<p><<< I wasn’t born Catholic but have been a practicing member of the Catholic community for 25 years; >>></p>
<p>I know that your wife and D are Catholic and you go to church with them, but did you formally convert?</p>
<p><<< And Eucharistic ministers are not “extraordinary” in any sense around here. The vast majority of Communion at Mass is given by lay people. >>></p>
<p>Since I have been an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist for over 10 years, I know what the title is and we’re all lay people.</p>
<p>But you are not an authoritative voice of the Church and you don’t speak ex cathedra, whatever you may think. I find your posts offensive and insulting as well. And that’s beyond a view of the Church as rigid and unchanging, a view that’s simply not supportable in light of Church history.</p>
<p>Well, this has made for some very exciting reading! (Pro-choice secular humanist here!!!)</p>
<p>Seems odd. The OP was inquiring about anti-Catholic feelings by non-Catholics, but the real venom on this thread is between members of the same faith. Unfortunately, this isn’t a new phenomenon. The church I grew up in reserved its real fireworks for intramural debates, not ecumenical ones (you’ve never seen such gut-wrenching anger as the argument over whether a pitch-pipe counts as “instrumental music”).</p>
<p>Well as the OP who was away from the computer all day, I was very surprised to see all THIS!</p>
<p>So how ya liking our little forum? All warm and fuzzy enough for you? :)</p>
<p>I’m afraid we’ve left a terrible impression for a new poster like yourself. By and large, we’re a friendly and supportive bunch of people. I can recite a number of topics that are guaranteed to start a cyberfight (greek life, athletics, alcohol use), but sometimes I’m completely caught off guard about what might light a fuse – this subject, for example.</p>
<p>All I know is several Catholic kids who are my kid’s friends have received funny comments regarding their Catholic status at some schools.</p>
<p>I haven’t read through this entire thread, but I have to say that I know two people who are anti-Catholic–both ex-Catholics! . . . Something to do with the hypocrisy of a church who is so concerned with the lives of fetuses while at the same time protecting pederasts! I do think that in the last few years it has been tougher to be Catholic because of that very serious problem. </p>
<p>That said, I like the idea of the living Catholic church as TheDad describes it. Would be a far more peaceful world if organized religion took seriously the idea of love for others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a good point. It was said (by JLauer, I think?) that the Catholic church does not believe that Protestants won’t go to Heaven (call that a mole hill if you wish, but I think it’s an exceptionally large one), but in the Council of Trent, they very clearly said just that. Here’s an excerpt:</p>
<p>“If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.” (H. J. Schroeder, O. P., The Canons And Decrees Of The Council Of Trent, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978, p. 46 – Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, Canon 30) </p>
<p>Protestant doctrine says exactly that. And Vatican Council II reaffirmed the Council of Trent, as stated here:</p>
<p>“This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of the Council of Trent.” (Vatican Council II printed by Costello Publishing Co., Northport, New York. Austin Flannery, O. P., is the general editor and each volume contains the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. 1984 (Vol. 1), p. 412) .</p>
<p>I am not wanting to be a smart-aleck here…I sincerely would like to know if anyone here knows how the church would answer these questions. How could they excommunicate that former priest for saying what was printed in the Council of Trent and confirmed by Vatican II? And how can Catholics today believe that Catholics and Protestants are really all just one big happy family?</p>
<p>Sad thing is religion and faith gets lost when it is ‘led’ by others…the bible was written by man, and passages very speciffically chosen to create a certain kind of Church, which, as we can see has many different interpretations, and as a result many different Sects…not to mention, the Jewish Faith, Mormans, etc.</p>
<p>Look at Islam, and how different the different factions are.</p>
<p>facinating stuff- and when you add in history, culture, egos, nothing is simple</p>