<p>Does this happen in any other church? --Where people who vehemently disagree with church teaching still claim to be “members” of that church? And publish complaints that the church doesn’t align itself with their way of thinking? Why not simply stop calling themselves “Catholics” and join another church, or start their own, that is more in line with their opinions? Why would anyone want to belong to a group they so strongly and angrily disagree with?<br>
Many liberal American “Catholics” have the idea that if a “majority” of people want something, then the Church should give them what they “vote” for. But do they realize that American Catholics are only about 6% of all Catholics worldwide? And the church isn’t a democracy.
BTW, it is no mystery why most new vocations in America are from the conservative minority–because who wants to give their lives to a cause they don’t believe in?(That and the fact that the liberals tend not to have kids.)</p>
<p>I don’t really like the word “resign”–I wish it were said that the Pope is choosing to “retire.” At 85 he simply isn’t up to the task any longer–and I don’t think he wants to have the public decline and death that JP II had.</p>
I’ve wondered that for years. I don’t know any practicing Catholics that follow all the rules. Maybe I’m just too much of a rule follower, but if I’m going to use birth control, believe in gay marriage and allowing female priests, among other things, why would I belong to an organization that is so against all I believe in? Don’t even get me started on the whole protecting pedophile priest thing.</p>
<p>It has definitely happened in the Episcopal Church, in the opposite fashion: some Episcopalians feel the church has become far too liberal, and while some have left to join splinter groups or the Catholic church, many stay and complain. :)</p>
<p>Without getting into my personal opinions about the issues mentioned in #82, some of us just don’t see these issues as central to the role of the Church in our lives.</p>
<p>I was raised to believe that once baptized, you’re Catholic. You can’t “opt out.” You can stop going to Church and even join a different Faith, but you’re still Catholic in the eyes of the Church. </p>
<p>Indeed, Catholic Church teaching is that even those who are cut off from the Eucharist for some reason, e.g., those divorced and remarried outside the Church or gays living non-celibate lives, are still required to attend mass on Sundays and holy days…and I know people in these situations who do. (There is actually a Catholic parish in NYC which is known as the "gay parish.) </p>
<p>I was also raised to think that the key questions were whether I believed in the Nicene Creed, in the doctrine of substantiation, and in the other sacraments. If someone does believe in these things, I see no reason for him to leave the Church because he disagrees with some of its positions and/or because he is appalled by the pedophile scandal. (If someone else feels that compels them to leave, I honor his sincerity in choosing that path. It’s just not my own choice.) </p>
<p>Peter Stenfels once wrote a wonderful column about “cafeteria Catholics,” defending those of us who continue to attend mass and the sacraments even though we are unable intellectually to accept all of the teachings of the Church. </p>
<p>atomom, I kind of sympathize with where you’re coming from. The beliefs of the church are not interchangeable with the organization / bureaucracy of the church. Just because there are priests who committed horrible acts doesn’t mean that Catholic theology is necessarily wrong. </p>
<p>As someone once said, don’t blame Christ for the Christians. Or, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, it’s hard to focus on the cross at the front of the church when you can’t hear anything but the squeaky shoes of the man in the next pew. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there is the theology of the Catholic Church, and the beliefs of Catholics, and they’re not always the same thing. To be a Catholic you’re supposed to believe certain dogma: the Creed, the Holy Trinity, etc. However, other things are not equally fundamental, are they? There is room for disagreement on many things among the faithful, to the extent that they are not considered dogma. For example, when I was a kid, no Catholic would dream of eating meat on any Friday, and now there is no problem with it except for holy days of obligation and then only for people within a certain age range, right? So would you have said back in 1960 that anyone who felt they should be able to eat meat on Friday was not a true Catholic? It seems there are many areas where Catholics may disagree, yet still be Catholic as defined by fundamental dogma. Even the Pope can be wrong, unless speaking ex cathedra, right?</p>
<p>I have never quite understood why the Church opposes the use of condoms, for instance. How is that murder? And if it’s not murder, where is the fundamental dogma the church points to to substantiate the prohibition?</p>
<p>Well put jonri. I have contemplated leaving the church from time to time, but I do believe that change is possible from within. It’s our church as well, even if we don’t agree with everything the leadership says and does, and I am comforted that there are a lot of us who feel this way.</p>
<p>hayden, the reason has been explained to me that sex is primarily for procreation, so condoms are a no-no because they prevent that from happening. (Must be open to new life at all times) Seemed ludicrous when the teaching was used to prevent condom distribution for AIDS prevention.</p>
<p>See, mamabear, that’s something which doesn’t come from the Bible and doesn’t appear in any accepted Creed that I’ve ever read. It sounds just like a “can’t eat meat on Friday” thing.</p>
<p>I was born & raised Catholic, including 12 years of parochial & HS, plus last 2 years of college at Jesuit school (that really doesn’t count…they were very cool and i took biblical history classes for my theology requirements). </p>
<p>I made the conscience decision to leave the Catholic church in my mid-20s, as I could not accept the doctrine and teachings. I don’t believe in belonging to a group that I have such philosohpical disagreements with.</p>
<p>The before mentioned Nicene Creed, the bedrock of Catholic dogma, was based on a consensus of a bishops’ convention. No pope needed.</p>
<p>It’s ironic that some are saying that if you don’t like it, leave it, given that in modern times it was conservatives objecting to Vatican II’s provisions such as vernacular Mass who formed schismatic churches. They fully believed themselves to be Catholic–even when excommunicated. </p>
<p>The Church is 2k years old. It was less than 150 years ago–1870–that the Pope was declared infallible. Early church leaders were not considered priests, i.e., having a special sacramental authority. Celibacy was not mandated until the 12th century. Some priests, e.g., converts from Anglican churches can remain married with children. </p>
<p>It’s not as simple as my way or the highway.</p>
<p>I remember Rabbi’s telling a priest on TV, that the media would never attack them the way they do Catholics, also commenting on a book about it. They said we weren’t loud enough, it was somewhat funny at the time, but true.
I don’t believe all the doctrine but I respect that the Pope does. When John Paul ll said he alone had to meet Jesus without the crowds, without the popularity vote, without the polls. He prayed and believed the rules were right…whether you disagreed or not, I respected his opinion. He’s not a president, he’s trying to be Jesus. When he said it I was younger and more liberal than now, but it touched me, because he was sincere and it was true. I doubt, right or wrong, God cares how many people want abortion or the right to kill themselves or other things. He knows your heart and I respect if the Pope felt that way,for not bowing to popularity even if it wasn’t my choice.
I follow my conscience on certain issues, that’s between me and God, but I don’t force my views on others, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.</p>
<p>Thanks for that. One good thing about the Catholic church is that it welcomes all of us sinners.
Here is a nice commentary on the Pope’s announcement by Cardinal Arinze. The best part, IMO is from about 3:00 to 4:00 if you can’t watch the whole thing.
[Cardinal</a> Arinze reacts to pope’s resignation - YouTube](<a href=“Cardinal Arinze reacts to pope's resignation - YouTube”>Cardinal Arinze reacts to pope's resignation - YouTube)</p>
<p>*I was raised to believe that once baptized, you’re Catholic. You can’t “opt out.” You can stop going to Church and even join a different Faith, but you’re still Catholic in the eyes of the Church. *</p>
<p>yup! Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. That may be shocking to some people, but that’s the way it is. The proof is in the pudding. If a “so-called former Catholic” decides to come back, he isn’t asked to go thru any kind of re-conversion. Usually, the most that is expected is that the person go to confession, and then he’s totally “good to go.” An exception might exist if the person is in an invalid marriage. Then that is expected to get "cleaned up’ before returning to the sacraments (i.e. Communion).</p>
<p>You can’t wash away the indelible mark of your baptism. </p>
<p>Oh, and by the way…(whispering)…the Church considers Protestants as part of the Catholic Church, too. (That’s why the pope considers himself the head of the whole Christian world.) Prots don’t “convert” if they decide to become Catholic because they already have a valid baptism (as long as their church does the correct form, which most do). They just need to “get up to speed” with the rest of the sacraments…Holy Communion, Confirmation, Confession.</p>
<p>The Church is 2k years old. It was less than 150 years ago–1870–that the Pope was declared infallible</p>
<p>A common misunderstanding. When the Church declares a doctrine to be a dogma (as in this case) that does NOT mean that the teaching was just determined. A doctrine (which must exist from the time of the death of the last apostle), is declared to be a dogma, it’s just a reiteration of an a belief that always existed. </p>
<p>Dogmas get declared rarely, but when they do, it’s usually because there has been some controversy/questions, and the Church wants to put the issue to bed “once and for all”.</p>
<p>for example. The Church has never declared a Dogma that “God exists and has always existed.” However, everyone knows that the Church believes that. BUT…if in 2013 some priests began questioning this or teaching something odd, a pope might decide to Dogmatically declare “God exists. He has no beginning and He has no end.” Now, would you later claim that the Church just started believing that??? NO. Capish?</p>
<p>VATICAN CITY (AP) The Vatican says Pope Benedict XVI hit his head during his March 2012 trip to Mexico but denies it had any relevant role in his resignation.</p>
<p>Italys La Stampa newspaper reported Thursday that Benedict hit his head and bled when he got up in the middle of the night in an unfamiliar bedroom in Leon, Mexico. The report said blood stained his hair and sheets.</p>
<p>Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi confirmed the incident Thursday but said it was not relevant for the trip, in that it didnt affect it, nor in the decision to resign.</p>
<p>The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano reported earlier in the week that Benedict had taken the decision to resign after the Mexico-Cuba trip, which was physically exhausting for the 85-year-old pope.</p>
<p>I certainly don’t wish to offend anyone, either. I have left the Church (whether it accepts that or not :)). But I’m disturbed by the willingness some have shown here to condemn an entire faith in mocking or inflammatory terms.</p>
<p>That may or may not be true, but the fact that you don’t get re-baptized isn’t the evidence for that. If a Catholic wants to become a Protestant, no mainstream Protestant church requires a second baptism either, yet Protestants don’t believe all Catholics are Protestants. </p>
<p>All mainstream Christian churches, including Catholics, accept certain of each others’ sacraments, including baptisms performed by an ordained minister or priest, and marriages performed in each other’s churches. In fact, I was married by both a priest and a Protestant minister who administered the sacrament of marriage together.</p>
<p>I have no desire to make this personal, or to get into a fight with either jonri or mom2collegekids, but I do wish to say that it makes me do a slow burn when people say this.</p>
<p>After having been raised Catholic, I made a choice to convert to Judaism. It has been asserted elsewhere in this thread that a fundamental part of being Catholic is faith in basic elements of Christian teaching, such as the divinity of Jesus and his redemption of humanity through his passion, death and resurrection. (It wasn’t expressed in those words, but reference was made to the Nicene creed.) Can I be the only one to whom it seems clear that I don’t share the Church’s belief in those teachings?</p>
<p>If we leave aside for now the possibility that there is transcendent, metaphysical truth in this particular Catholic teaching, I think it’s arrogant in the extreme for the Church to tell people that their own definition of themselves is wrong. I think this in much the same way that I think it’s arrogant of Mormons to practice proxy baptism, as if to say, “It doesn’t matter what principles your grandfather believed in, or how he lived his life. We’ve got him taken care of.” I think it is both arrogant and wrong to say, “It doesn’t matter what you think, you’re still Catholic,” in much the same way it would be arrogant and wrong to say to the grandchild of slaves, “It doesn’t matter whether you call yourself ‘black’ or ‘African-American,’ because once you’re a ‘Negro,’ you’re always a ‘Negro.’”</p>
<p>And if there is some transcendent, metaphysical truth to Catholic teaching on this matter, then the Church has no more proof that it’s right than I have that it’s wrong, because the truth is transcendent and metaphysical. Here in the realm of the physical, I find it hurtful when people assert that I am not, at my core, what I both say and sincerely believe that I am, and I really wish they wouldn’t do so.</p>
<p>Finally, as far as I know, Canon Law has historically held that it is possible for a person, though baptized, to leave the Catholic Church, and one clear way to do that is by deliberate conversion to another religion. Another was to defect formally without joining another religion. Historically, that has been viewed as different from the case of a person who simply hasn’t attended Mass or received the sacraments in a long time. I have read that some changes to Canon Law in the last 5-10 years may make it much more difficult to defect formally in a way that the Church recognizes, but I am not really well versed in this matter. I do know, however, that the Church has a long history or recognizing that there is such a phenomenon as apostasy. And in the Church’s view, I’m pretty sure I’m an apostate.</p>