The New Pope

[carolyn]

<p>TheDad, your comment directed at me about Hilary Clinton troubles me.</p>

<p>It implies that I must be a conservative politically simply because I say I understand the reasoning behind the Church’s actions on matter of doctrine and dogma. And, as we know, the word “conservative” has been used as a not-so-subtle dig here on CC in the past for someone who must be semi-illiterate.</p>

<p>I am very saddened by this for several reasons. First, because it tells me that you have not read my posts carefully or with much thought but instead are only reacting to what you THINK I am saying, based on your own biases. </p>

<p>If you had read my posts carefully, you would see that again and again I have acknowledged that, like you, I am troubled by many of the directions of the Church, and that my posts have merely said that I understand where the Church leaders are coming from and will, in my opinion, continue to go. </p>

<p>THe question I asked is an important one and one that I believe ALL CAtholics will have to struggle with and face in the next few years. If we can not express why we believe the Church has value, even with its faults, then we ALL (including myself) are probably better served by turning elsewhere for our spiritual home. In fact, it is a basic question of faith no matter what religion one practices: what is it you value that makes putting up with the hard parts worthwhile.</p>

<p>It is something I am struggling with and I was hoping that a discussion here of reasons to value the church might provide useful direction and answers for that struggle. Instead, you dismissed my question with a wave of your hand as useless and not worth answering.</p>

<p>Instead of answering an honest question that was not meant to attack you in any way you attacked me, even only if subtly. There is no discussion if two people are talking but only one is hearing what the other is saying.</p>

<p>(And, by the way, if someone I disliked was elected as president I would not leave the country AND I would be perfectly willing to give reasons for why I value the country without feeling defensive. Additionally, you would probably be surprised to know that I have always been a registered independent and have voted for both republican and democratic candidates (yes, even Hilary’s husband) based on my personal conscience.)</p>

<p>But I digress. I do hope you will go back and re-read my posts more carefully and try to keep the discussion open without personal attacks. But, unfortunately, I think it would be best if I leave this discussion until then because it is clear that anything further I say will be seen through a biased lens of pre-judgment. How sad that makes me as I consider you a friend. :(</p>

[lastbastion]

<p>If Pope Benedict prefers a smaller but purer Catholic church, he is likely to achieve it. His election is very good news for evangelical Christians all over the world.</p>

[ohio_mom]

<p>Carolyn and TheDad
<em>disclaimer I am not a Roman Catholic but I have been following this post</em></p>

<p>What I read in this thread (and I could be wrong) is a feeling of bretrayal from both sides. Some seem to feel betrayed by those who do not believe in or practice every item of dogma/doctrine/practice - leading to a shallower form of religion. Others seem to feel betrayed by those that follow - perhaps with grave misgivings that trouble their conscience- all items on faith. Many hurt feelings. </p>

<p>And faith, I think, is what has to be the binding force. I don’t know if your Church faces another schism or not. It seems like all of you would be a lot happier if it happened. But something, whether faith, or stubborness, is operating on both sides. </p>

<p>One of my mother’s favorite quotes from the new testament was ‘in my father’s house there are many mansions.’ Her interpretation of this is that there are many ways to truth or salvation or an honorable life (I am aware that not all interprete it this way). Perhaps, out of civility (if not faith), you can grant that the other journeyers on the road are also struggling against the heat of dead, and cold of the night, and brambles, pitfalls and loneliness. Crabby at times (the Church being, as I understand it, for sinners), but still muddling along as best as possible.</p>

[sempitern555]

<p>wow, these posts are much more thoughtful than the ones at the “other” forum… ie, where usually teens write</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>with age comes wisdom semp ;)</p>

<p>But for my part I see the title thread “The new Pope”
& I wonder if
he will last longer than New Coke</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Carolyn, the total effect of:

Why not just find another religion/church if you don’t agree with all of the beliefs and requirements of the Church? </p>

<p>AND</p>

<p>If you don’t like it or can’t accept it, look elsewhere because as much as we can sit here and argue this, the Catholic Church is never going to change on its view of itself as infallible.</p>

<p>AND</p>

<p>There are other churches out there that are much more open to change. Many of us “cafeteria catholics” might be happier in one.</p>

<p>AND</p>

<p>if one really disagrees with the church rulings on things like priests marrying, gay rights, and birth control, probably the best thing to do is to find another church, stop calling yourself Catholic, and stop bashing the Church for not agreeing with your views.

seems very much to be along the lines of “love it or leave it.” Not one post, not two, but four. It’s difficult for me to read it any other way; this does not appear to be a “biased lens of prejudgement.”</p>

<p>As for what I value in the Church, I decline to step up on to an examining table and “bare all” before a large and largely anonymous audience. If we ever meet in person, which I hope will happen, I will be happy to discuss it in private. Meanwhile, please accept that I do find value and that if I didn’t I wouldn’t give a damn.</p>

<p>====</p>

<p>LateToSchool, you ignore the fact that non-Latin rite (thank you, Jonri) married priests manage just fine, as do Epsicopalian priests, who, save for the primacy of the Pope, follow virtually identical doctrine. Even the Roman rite (thanks again, Jonri) allows married priests for those converting to Catholicism. The general practice is one of mere custom, not canonical necessity.</p>

<p>OhioMom, there is much truth in what you say.</p>

<p>Woodwork, it is not amazing that people are judging Benedict so quickly. I have been following him for at least 30 years…the first conversations I had with my Dad about Hans Kung were no later than 1971 and Ratzinger’s name surfaced thereto. He has a long and appalling-at-many-points paper trail, he is not appearing as Pope de novo with a clean slate, unlike John Paul II who was a virtual unknown.</p>

<p>DocMom, yes I am angry though I will thank you to keep “uptight” to yourself.</p>

<p>You may have overlooked my earlier remark about there being many facets of the Church: Church as faith-community, Church as institution, Church as hierarchy. In the following, employ this last for “Church.”</p>

<p>I am angry about the Church’s response to sexual abuse, moving priests from one parish to another when their deficits were known, exercising a constant pattern of denial and evasion, and even now Cardinal Mahoney…in many way otherwise an admirable man…asserting non-existent rights to protect offenders. I am angry that while quick to condemn the sin, Rome’s response has not been one of openess but of facilitating secrecy and otherwise downplaying the seriousness…an arrogance of power…culminating in Cardinal Law being safely installed in a Vatican position and saying one of the Masses for JP2.</p>

<p>I am angry about the Church’s morally reprehensible position on contraception, placing a greater premium on potential life than on existing misery, poverty, and women thereby chained to a limited potential, not to mention demeaning and abusive relationships. </p>

<p>I am angry about the Church’s active fight in AIDS-ravaged Africa and Asia against condoms, where their use could save hundreds of thousands? millions? from future afflction.</p>

<p>I am angry that everywhere it can–Italy, Spain, Poland, Chile, etc.–the Church fights against liberalization of divorce, a symptom of a dark misogynism where women, often and again, mostly pay the price.</p>

<p>I am angry at the way the Church squanders many of its best talents, limiting them because they happen to inhabit female bodies. And please don’t give me the crap about “priests being in Christ’s image”…the active women are in Christ’s <em>spiritual</em> image…it was the women who were with Christ at the Cross, it was the women who first made the discovery of the Resurrection on Easter day. I look at my sister in-law who has withdrawn from her order after more than four decades with the promises of Vatican II betrayed.</p>

<p>I am angered by the pressures to return to a pre-Vatican II expectation that they laity “pray, pay, and obey,” emphasizing hierarchy and diminishing the role of the laity.</p>

<p>I am angered by the smoldering anti-intelectualism that sets up a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason.</p>

<p>And I am angry that anyone can countenance these issues and suggest that it is I who have the problem, not the Church.</p>

[Skyhawk]

<p>I am closing this thread. There are other places in cyberspace that are probably better choices for discussions of religion.
Moderator Skyhawk</p>