Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
2 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2012 - 9:55PM #11
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Jul 8, 2012 -- 12:45AM, mokantx wrote:


Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:18PM, hewy1952 wrote:


www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/ju...




Hewy


I saw that article a day or two ago, and have been thinking about it ever since.  Her conclusion reads as follows:


Religious institutions need to be held accountable for the injustices and abuses they perpetuate. But "freethinking" organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation must join with religious organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice to promote women's reproductive choices and access to reproductive services. Lasting change will only occur through collaborations and coalition-building: together, we are stronger than we could ever be alone.


While I tend to agree with this overall sentiment, I also have to wonder: where does that "strength together" come from when those in charge refuse to listen, refuse to share any power, refuse to accept accountability, refuse to dialog, and refuse to change?  At what point does that "strength" become little more than just more of the same inertia against change that is behind much of this mess?  I honestly don't have an answer here, but I DO see both sides.


While she seems focused on "women's issues," I think this same concern/logic can be used across a very broad swath of "church" these day, including not just the usual hot button issues, but the scandal, the rollback of Vatican II, the handling of theolgians and attempts to control theology...  (I guess pretty much all the stuff we've talked about here now for years...)


Don't have an answer, but I DO wonder if those urging Catholics to leave have any less of an argument than those urging them to stay and fight from the inside.  Sorta just aggravates this whole sense of "laity as pawns," doesn't it?






Mo and Hewy


Somehow I think Catholics leave for their own reasons and those reasons often vary widely. The JPII and Benedict XVI years have turned our faith upside down. I have a pastor in his late thirties who bops around in a cassock and can't preach. I miss my former pastor, who now is a high school chaplain who could preach from the readings; he is a graduate of GA TECH, a civil engineer, and devoted to Vatican II.


Our bishops might have made much more noise about not accepting the new Roman Missal and antiquated responses. A Fortnight for Freedom was ill-conceived and went nowhere. The prelates here wished that our women religious had taken up their cudgels instead of caring for those in need. So many of these women religious are better educated and more astute than the bishops.


Within the last two weeks I read somewhere that Benedict with his new PR push wanted the image of the Curia polished up. What Benedict still doesn't understand is that this is one big world and that many Americans and Asians do not kowtow to Europeans. For many Americans who follow global politics our eyes are on Asia not Europe; this has quietly been the case with American foreign policy.


The Roman Church is destroying itself.




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2012 - 10:08PM #12
mokantx
Posts: 3,817

Jul 8, 2012 -- 9:55PM, jane2 wrote:


Mo and Hewy


Somehow I think Catholics leave for their own reasons and those reasons often vary widely. The JPII and Benedict XVI years have turned our faith upside down. I have a pastor in his late thirties who bops around in a cassock and can't preach. I miss my former pastor, who now is a high school chaplain who could preach from the readings; he is a graduate of GA TECH, a civil engineer, and devoted to Vatican II.


Our bishops might have made much more noise about not accepting the new Roman Missal and antiquated responses. A Fortnight for Freedom was ill-conceived and went nowhere. The prelates here wished that our women religious had taken up their cudgels instead of caring for those in need. So many of these women religious are better educated and more astute than the bishops.


Within the last two weeks I read somewhere that Benedict with his new PR push wanted the image of the Curia polished up. What Benedict still doesn't understand is that this is one big world and that many Americans and Asians do not kowtow to Europeans. For many Americans who follow global politics our eyes are on Asia not Europe; this has quietly been the case with American foreign policy.


The Roman Church is destroying itself.





Jane


I've gotten to the point where I neither have a clue as to what Benedict is trying to do, nor why.  About all I CAN say about the guy is that he seems bound and determined to turn the clock backwards, all based on an apparent theology based on obedience to bishops.  For me however, the simple truth is that if I'm gonna follow somebody, I'm gonna have to trust them, at least in the matters related to their leadership.  Benedict's failure to enact changes that would hold bishops accountable is a real dealbreaker for me.  The impacts of his choice reverberate just about every day, as I read the stories.


While I'm not at all in favor of tops down micromanagement, I DO think that when you get bishops who have been indicted on criminal charges (as but one basic example), there is absolutely NO excuse to allow them to remain in power.  But much more to the point, when you've seen what the world has seen in terms of how these guys handled the abuse mess, and you STILL chose not to hold them accountable, then that tells me that he and I have a very different moral code.  And once I'm there, I honestly can't see much point in going further.


Benedict is free to rewrite history, and to claim whatever he wants to claim about Vatican II.  Honestly, I was not there.  But I AM pretty sure that some of what he and his boys have been doing, is truly setting the clock back.  And for my generation, this is a tragedy, made worse by his apparent willingness to write our entire generation off so as to achieve his goals.  Again, it's a different ethic, and different morality, and it's one that I simply cannot support. 


He's getting what he and his insiders want, but at a cost I simply cannot get my head around.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2012 - 11:27PM #13
hewy1952
Posts: 2,454

Jul 8, 2012 -- 12:45AM, mokantx wrote:


Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:18PM, hewy1952 wrote:


www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/ju...




Hewy


I saw that article a day or two ago, and have been thinking about it ever since.  Her conclusion reads as follows:


Religious institutions need to be held accountable for the injustices and abuses they perpetuate. But "freethinking" organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation must join with religious organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice to promote women's reproductive choices and access to reproductive services. Lasting change will only occur through collaborations and coalition-building: together, we are stronger than we could ever be alone.


While I tend to agree with this overall sentiment, I also have to wonder: where does that "strength together" come from when those in charge refuse to listen, refuse to share any power, refuse to accept accountability, refuse to dialog, and refuse to change?  At what point does that "strength" become little more than just more of the same inertia against change that is behind much of this mess?  I honestly don't have an answer here, but I DO see both sides.


While she seems focused on "women's issues," I think this same concern/logic can be used across a very broad swath of "church" these day, including not just the usual hot button issues, but the scandal, the rollback of Vatican II, the handling of theolgians and attempts to control theology...  (I guess pretty much all the stuff we've talked about here now for years...)


Don't have an answer, but I DO wonder if those urging Catholics to leave have any less of an argument than those urging them to stay and fight from the inside.  Sorta just aggravates this whole sense of "laity as pawns," doesn't it?







Mo and Jane:


 


Some years ago, I found myself (clergyman then) having marched in Selma, trying to 'come to grips with Malcom X, Farrakhan, the Panthers, etc.'  I was certainly a pollyanna then--probably now too.  But one realization was that, no matter the successes of MLK, there were tons of people that not only reaped no benefits, but probably knew that they never would with the way things were.  So the reality punch (sucker?) was understanding that we (the wealthy--and as Catholic clergy I WAS wealthy, with 3 hots and a flop every day) were never going to 'get' the equalty thing, and that the 'unequal' were going to take matters into their own hands.  Was it right?  No.  Was it the best thing to do?  No.  Were there other means to the end?  Yes.  Was it understandable?  (For me, yes; for others, no). 


I think the comparison to the RCC is taking on this 'cloak'.  There really are people that 'simply don't want to leave, and want change'.  And, they are going to do it.  I think that is what the article is point toward.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2012 - 11:58PM #14
mokantx
Posts: 3,817

Jul 8, 2012 -- 11:27PM, hewy1952 wrote:



Mo and Jane:


 


Some years ago, I found myself (clergyman then) having marched in Selma, trying to 'come to grips with Malcom X, Farrakhan, the Panthers, etc.'  I was certainly a pollyanna then--probably now too.  But one realization was that, no matter the successes of MLK, there were tons of people that not only reaped no benefits, but probably knew that they never would with the way things were.  So the reality punch (sucker?) was understanding that we (the wealthy--and as Catholic clergy I WAS wealthy, with 3 hots and a flop every day) were never going to 'get' the equalty thing, and that the 'unequal' were going to take matters into their own hands.  Was it right?  No.  Was it the best thing to do?  No.  Were there other means to the end?  Yes.  Was it understandable?  (For me, yes; for others, no). 


I think the comparison to the RCC is taking on this 'cloak'.  There really are people that 'simply don't want to leave, and want change'.  And, they are going to do it.  I think that is what the article is point toward.




Hewy


First off, I hope you're right about folks trying to make change from within. I wish them all the success in the world.  But I also worry FOR them.  That's gonna be one tough fight, with few rewards, and a whole lotta stress on them.


I KNOW there are a lot who want change.  Whether they are willing to get bloody over it may be the rest of this story...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 5:33PM #15
hewy1952
Posts: 2,454

Guess who WON'T be bailing out the Vatican?


 


Melinda Gates, the Catholic wife of software czar Bill Gates and co-chair of his charitable foundation, has taken a public stand against the Church’s teaching on contraception.   


The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is spearheading a drive to distribute contraceptives in impoverished countries, and Melinda Gates—who is  described in news stories as a “practicing Catholic”—insists that the initiative “makes sense” to most people. Brushing aside the Church’s condemnation of artificial contraceptives, Gates said that her Catholic-school education taught here to “question received teachings.”    


Claiming that birth control has not increased the level of promiscuity in society, Gates argues that there should be no  longer be a debate about the value of contraceptives. “I think we made birth control and contraceptives way too political in the United States,” she said.


 


Oh well.  There's always the Koch brothers.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 7:03PM #16
cherubino
Posts: 7,277

Jul 9, 2012 -- 5:33PM, hewy1952 wrote:


Oh well.  There's always the Koch brothers.




Strange bedfellows indeed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook