Catholic Church denies communion to pro-abortion voters

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Anarchy 2 : One Thread

This is just bullshit, plain and simple. A couple of bishops in Boston have said that people who vote for pro-abortion candidates can't recieve communion. Their reasoning is that since abortion is murder, then voting for candidates who support it is being an accessory to said murder. Fine. That's their right. But what strikes me as just plain hypocritical is the fact that the Church has said nothing about pro-big tobacco voters, pro-pollution voters, pro-war voters, or pro-death penalty voters. You want to punish the murders? Let's get serious about it. Is it not also murder when a company knowingly pumps ton after ton of toxic chemicals and cancer-causing agents into the air and water? Is it not also murder when our President lies to the American people and a thousand of our soldiers die because of it? Is it not murder when our government supports genocidal regimes such as Turkey and Iraq? What about when the tobacco companies put all kinds of nasty chemicals in their cigarettes while also making them increasingly addictive and the government lets them off the hook? Yeah, abortion ends up killing more babies, but it all adds up to murder, we're only talking about degree here. So why hasn't the Church come out against these voters?

Because they tend to vote Republican, that's why. This is a blatantly political move.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 24, 2004

Answers

Unlike exposure to cumulative toxins such as tobacco or pollution, or in some respects even war(s.) Abortion results in an immediate death against a defenseless sentient being void of choice or liberty, to partake of, to move away from, to avoid, situations & circumstances, or even the capacity to decide for or against ones own mortality. I suppose if someone wants to belong to the Catholic Church, thier 'rules' must be followed. I personally prefer to think for myself.

-- Primary Colors (usayblack@isaywhite_maybewerebothright.com), July 24, 2004.

but it all adds up to murder, we're only talking about degree here. So why hasn't the Church come out against these voters?

Christ taught that one should give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to give unto the Lord what is the Lord's. Now the Pope has never asked me to speak for him, but I'd bet if you asked him this he'd say that 1. you shouldn't do these things because they are against either God's or man's law, and that 2. no one who is considered in a state of sin is supposed to be receiving eucharist, so the bishops could also stop these parishoners if they felt the need.

I don't think it's because they "vote Republican", LOL, I DO think it's because they see it currently as the most pressing thing facing their church. Catholics IMO used to always vote Democrat, btw, but they changed over to Repubs just like a lot of Southerners did when it became quite clear that the Demokrats wanted to be the party of abortion on demand and (in general) moral relativity. Also in general Anti, people of faith do things that they feel go against their best interests politically in a lot of ways, if it means doing the *right* thing. I'd say the anti-abortion crowd of any faith is Republican because they support their belief, and not the other way around.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), July 25, 2004.


Great explanation, Joe. I tried bringing this point up in the Catholic forum, but no one even considered it. All they wanted to do was rattle off the figures of how many babies are killed every year by abortions, as if the degree of people killed somehow made some things ok and other things sinful (talk about moral relativity!).

Primary Colors,

You brought up two points. One was the fact that pollution kills slowly, and abortion kills instantly, which is totaly irrelevant. Like having to spend your entire life breathing in toxic chemicals is somehow more merciful than being killed in the womb. The second point you brought up was the fact that babies are defenseless. They can't do anything about the fact that they're being murdered. But if big corporations are filling our air and water with poison, than neither can we. When is the last time you saw someone boycotting the air?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.


Anti,

The Catholic Church is a religious organization. They have the right to deny their services or membership to anyone for any reason. A carnivore should not belong to an organization for herbivores; if you don't agree with their catechism, you have no business counting yourself among the Catholics.

When I was a child, if you were a Catholic, it was a given that you were a Democrat. These days, Catholics are torn; they agree with the environmental and socio-ecomic face of the Democrats, but then are drawn to the moral ideas of Republicans. Perhaps the Catholics should start their own party. I'm sure if they named it something without the word "Catholic" in it, plenty of Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. would back it.

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.


I'm not disputing their right to their position, I'm just saying it's pretty hypocritical.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.


Actually Anti, I'd have to really disagree with your last statement, which is something I normally don't do. Normally I disagree with you because of age perception as much as anything, when your joints start creaking you see the world a bit differently. However, I think the ONLY area that the Catholic church is hypocritical on was in covering up their own sex-abuse scandal. This was VERY hypocritical of them, although I'm sure they had "reasons" for it, such as avoiding scandal, etc. In that they were 100% wrong.

On other issues though, it's hard for me to say they are hypocritical on anything. Against both abortion and capital punishment, to the left of Ted Kennedy on all social issues, they pretty much say the same thing on every issue. If you remember back a few years it was the Catholics and the Muslims that overturned some pro-abortion agenda at the U.N. ... No, I can't say that other than trying to whitewash their OWN sinners' problems they are hypocritical on anything, although this might not be the right forum for that discussion 8-)

BAzooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), July 26, 2004.


Anti: You missed the points about choice to being exposed to pollution and (self) defense against being aborted, The fact that they can't do anything about it is exactly what makes them defenseless and without choice: Whereas you are not and you do have freedom of choice. Unless you prefer freedom from choice! How about boycotting the products derived from big corps pollution practices. That’s a choice. Not to mention, I think it's hypocritical to complain about corps and not own the responsibility for our own personal lifetime output of pollution (you've never rode a bus or driven a personal vehicle? smoked? lit a campfire, burnt some toast etc) Don't forget, you have the choice to live nearby, move away, or partake in big polluting factories / smog filled cities, for your livelihood and/or convenience sake! Just as you do to join or not join and partake of the activities and mindset of a cult, church, or society. It's all relevant or irrelevant whatever and however you decide to perceive it to be!

-- Primary Colors (usayblack@isaywhite_maybewerebothright.com), July 28, 2004.

I'll give you an example:

In the early 90's, Koch Industries knowingly pumped 91 metric tons of benzene into the air and water supply because it was cheaper than disposing of it properly. Do you think anyone took the courtesy of telling the people who would be drinking that water or breathing that air? Nope. Congress held a qiet hearing on it and let Koch off the hook. Such are the ways of our government. Corporations first, people second. An unsuspecting populace drank the water and breathed the air, not knowing that it contained a deadly cancer-causing agent. Boycott the air and water and see how that turns out, buddy.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.


How much benzene is 90 tons, really? I did some work for the city of Los Angeles many years ago looking at pollution in the harbor, and one thing that I remember from this is that when we sampled the water, for each mL of oil found in our sample buckets, this was equivalent to about one *ton* of oil in the water of just the harbor. There was always about 5 or 10 tons floating around, not to mention the other chemicals. The point is that to single out one company as bad, their actions should be *really* bad. How many people have been proven to contract cancer from the benzene? What environmental impact was there? What *real* harm was done by their action?

I guess that's my overall point, big companies have big outputs, both of products and waste. If you want to say this is bad, please show the real harm it did.

For an example, I think the average tidal volume for someone breathing is about 1.0 liters, and the air is ~21% oxygen, let's say 1/2 of which is taken up by the body, and replaced with carbon dioxide, a so-called greenhouse gas. That would mean each person breathing is producing about .1 liters of CO2 per breath, at 16 breaths per minute, this would be 2304 Liters of CO2 per day or 840,960 liters of carbon dioxide per year, or 8,409,600 liters per decade! That's for ONE person! Now start figuring out how much stool and urine we produce per person per decade, and I think you'd be pretty surprised at how much "waste" people produce just being people. Add up the number of people in the U.S. at what, 375 million? and you are looking at one Heck of a lot of co2 production, urine, and feces, all of which have chemicals known to the state of California to be hazardous to your health. And we haven't even started to talk about India or China.... See the point Anti? Lots of waste, but people aren't dropping like flies. That's why I think you should look at what the REAL effect of said benzene was before going ballistic about it.

Bazooka Joe

P.S. Don't get me started on waste producers like Lance Armstong and all our pro-sports teams. They are the SUV's of the population and use up far more than their share of oxygen, and produce far more co2 than should be allowable by law. If there really is any global warming, make sure Lance is the first one shot for it.

-- 2 (1@3.4), July 28, 2004.


Now, now, Anti: Let's not get all emotional. Big Corporations and big steel biuldings have no emotions. Bitching and moaning about their ethics, or lack therof will prove nothing and result in zero change. As for Boycotting of the air and water I think I will leave that up to you 'buddy' since it's your idea! See how far that gets you!

-- Primary Colors (usayblack@isaywhite_maybewerebothright.com), July 28, 2004.


Joe,

The benzene will undoubtedly take years off people's lives and cause an increase in birth defects and cancer cases over the next twenty or thirty years. The short term consequences may not be so bad, but the fact remains that there will be long-term health risks for the people subjected to this. And the people who are forced to breathe the air and drink the water have no choice. They don't even know about it, so they have literaly no way of protecting themselves. They are truly as defensless as babies in the womb.

Primary,

Who cares is "big steel building" don't have emotions or ethics? The people inside them sure do, and they are the ones who make these evil decisions. My point about boycotting the air and water was to draw a connection between unborn children: they have no choice. We can't simply choose not to drink water or breathe air. And because of that we are at the mercy of big corporations who would destroy the world if it would make them a quick buck.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.


Anti,

When I was a lad, this:

The benzene will undoubtedly take years off people's lives and cause an increase in birth defects and cancer cases over the next twenty or thirty years.

Was called an

Where is your proof to back up your claim that this benzene will do ANY damage to ANYone? What is the government allowable concentration of benzene emission? Did they exceed it? What harmful effects are anticipated? Sorry, you haven't yet surpassed my b.s. meter, please show the expected consequences of this benzene from a reliable source (like a government agency) before claiming that this is harmful.

Benzene isn't just a man-made chemical, benzene rings are found in everyone you know! The amino acids phenylalanine and tyrosine both contain benzene rings, and therefore are in most if not all of your body's proteins. You are a walking benzene storehouse, but hopefully aren't contributing to the world's cancer rate. That's why my question to you: show the harm from it!

My point about boycotting the air and water was to draw a connection between unborn children: they have no choice. We can't simply choose not to drink water or breathe air.

But you CAN choose not to buy their products, which if everyone thought like you would stop the polution. Of course *I* won't stop using their fine products, but that's another story, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), July 29, 2004.


Anti,

When I was a lad, this:

The benzene will undoubtedly take years off people's lives and cause an increase in birth defects and cancer cases over the next twenty or thirty years.

Was called an Unsupported Assertion

Where is your proof to back up your claim that this benzene will do ANY damage to ANYone? What is the government allowable concentration of benzene emission? Did they exceed it? What harmful effects are anticipated? Sorry, you haven't yet surpassed my b.s. meter, please show the expected consequences of this benzene from a reliable source (like a government agency) before claiming that this is harmful.

Benzene isn't just a man-made chemical, benzene rings are found in everyone you know! The amino acids phenylalanine and tyrosine both contain benzene rings, and therefore are in most if not all of your body's proteins. You are a walking benzene storehouse, but hopefully aren't contributing to the world's cancer rate. That's why my question to you: show the harm from it!

My point about boycotting the air and water was to draw a connection between unborn children: they have no choice. We can't simply choose not to drink water or breathe air.

But you CAN choose not to buy their products, which if everyone thought like you would stop the polution. Of course *I* won't stop using their fine products, but that's another story, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), July 29, 2004.


Anti, your proclamations sound a little like back peddling & a lot like contradiction to me. Show me the proof in what you claim!

-- Primary Colors (usayblack@isaywhite_maybewerebothright.com), July 30, 2004.

So I guess we're all agreeing that this "terrible" benzene release was really nothing then, eh?

Baz J

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 02, 2004.



I am a Catholic. I belive in the Holy Trinity, and I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. I have recived all the sacrements that 16 year-olds can. And yet I am pro-choice. Many people's lives have been turned upside down becuase of a child. People who are prepared to have children sometimes have their lives turned upside down. I do not belive that one mistake one night should affect your entire life. If you're a 15 year old living in Texas, in poverty, and you're not ready to go through with having a child, or rasing one, I think that it should be your choice, since it is your body. And Anti this is clearly NOT a political motive. There is a seperation between Church and State, and I get the feeling that you were one of those guys who was afraid to elect a Catholic because you felt he would be controlled by the Pope. Also, some of you're arguments are just wrong. The Church has spoke out openly about the death penalty, war, and pollution. The church hasn't openly declared war on all these people because their is a seperation between Church and State. However, abortion is an issue that is reachable. There will always be cigarettes, pollution, and war. Period. Abortion, is a very fragile institution, one that I support, one that can be prevented from becoming a "problem". My back hurts

-- Tom (MMaddog50@aol.com), August 09, 2004.

The Cahtolic Church believes abortion is murder, and that they would therefore be enabling murderers. There is sortonly no medical journal which would contradict them. Or any word of the Constitution that even mentions abortion, or the States rights to outlaw it. As for that bullshit about "privacy" Women are not allowed to take sorton drugs, prostitute...yet star in boring bullshit porno, that is far more hazardeous to their health, and unsanitary, where the option of a condom is usually out. Porn is legalized prostitution, and has done for more to shit on the standards of this society then prostitution.

There is the very contradictory Lacy Peterson law now, which says if someone assaults woman who is carrying, and causes her unborn baby to die, they can be charged with murder. So it is only murder when she decides she wants to keep it? That elivates her to the positition of the Lord. She cannot create the baby without a father figure.

-- (a@b.c), August 11, 2004.


*or a States right not to outlaw it.

-- (a@b.c), August 11, 2004.

No I had it right the first time.

-- (a@b.c), August 11, 2004.

Hi, Joe!

You are certainly not the highest authority to convince of the dangers of benzene, because these have already decided that it is dangerous, and not just in the long term, but in the short term as well. While it’s easy to dismiss the assertions of long-term danger, something tells me you won’t be in a hurry to deny the short-term dangers, even though our “bodies are walking storehouses” for benzene. Following your logic, if the fact that benzene is present in our bodies makes it less dangerous, then there should be no short negative term physiological effects, either. ‘Course, you’re welcome to test your theory on yourself, if you’re that confident, and drowsiness, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death don’t bother you.  At any rate, please don’t take offense if I give more credence to OSHA than to your reasoning.

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ben zene/

Also, it is the similarity of organic chemicals, such as benzene, to the ones present in our bodies, that allows them to interfere in biological processes as readily as they do.  The fact that similar chemicals are already present in our bodies does not make organic chemicals less dangerous, it actually makes them more dangerous. One may as well say that the fact that we’re walking storehouses for E. coli makes them safe to ingest. Clearly, this is not the case. Of course, some of us are WAY more full of E. coli than others!



-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 15, 2004.

Tom, like I said earlier, if you do not subscribe to the belief system promoted by the Catholic Church, you have no business claiming membership.

I too am "pro-choice", in that I believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not she has children. We differ in that I believe that her choice should be to not have unprotected sex (or no sex at all); not murder her child. If one chooses to have unprotected sexual intercourse, one must be willing to live with the consequences of that decision.

I ask you what I have asked on this board before: At what point is a human a human? At what point may we or may we not murder that person? Should a person's convenience dictate whether or not they deserve to live? The sick and elderly are an inconvenience to the rest of society; should we kill them? Should a mother be allowed to kill her baby as long as she is breastfeeding? Or should we have the right to murder our children until they prove independant from us? At the very least, the mother owes the child she created 9 months of her time; after that, she can give the child up for adoption, and it may grow into a productive member of society instead of a lump of biological waste.

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


Oh, yeah, BJ.

I checked you out on the other thread (If you've got 9 bucks handy...) and I can see now that you’re not a racist…just like you weren’t stereotyping punks when you made that callous remark to Anti-Bush. And, of course, you certainly weren’t the one at fault: it was Anti-Bush...he’s the one who should “lighten up!”

You are just another manipulative, disingenuous little weasel who is too spineless to own up to his own prejudices.



-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 16, 2004.

Omaha,

Nice try with the character assassination, but I see you've failed in your googling to find any evidence against me, LOL! Time for an apology, don't you think?

On the benzene, yes there is an msds on it, of course. The trouble for YOU is that you have to show in the *concentration* released that it was harmful. Taking a very small bit is NOT harmful, at least not detectably, you can open a gallon of benzene, and you won't die from the vapor that comes out. Tylenol is the same way, it's helpful when used as directed, but take over 6000mg per day, and you may end up dying of liver failure. ALL useful chemicals have a good dose and a dangerous dose!

Here we are talking about tons of benzene over years. The important thing is, what was the concentration at the time? Was it harmful? You obviously don't know, and are wasting the forum's time trying to accuse me of something, and concurrently demonstrating your ignorance. I guess chemistry is something you avoided in college, eh?

Oh, and btw, some E. coli ARE safe to ingest, some subtypes are very dangerous. I guess micro is ANOTHER course you didn't bother taxing your (brain) with.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 16, 2004.


Lighten up Joe, it was a joke. I was just too lazy to put the :-) after it.

-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 16, 2004.

You are just another manipulative, disingenuous little weasel who is too spineless to own up to his own prejudices. :-)

There? Is that better? Now you owe ME an apology accusing ME of attempted character assassination.

-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 16, 2004.


So long as you learned something, that's good enough for me. :-)

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 16, 2004.


ahem. That's "for accusing ME.."

-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 16, 2004.

You know, Joe, I'm quite sure I can learn something from you! As my mother used to say, "even a broken watch is right--twice a day."

-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 16, 2004.

Hey Omaha,

You are just another manipulative, disingenuous little weasel who is too spineless to own up to his own prejudices. :-)

There? Is that better? Now you owe ME an apology accusing ME of attempted character assassination.

That first line isn't a quote from ME, you've obviously got your bile worked up so much you can't remember who you're mad at. Of course you can apologize for falsely accusing me of that at the same time, I don't mind a two for one apology.

Happy trails,

BJ

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 16, 2004.


Back to the e. coli. Tell me Joe--do you wash your hands after every bowel movement? Why, or why not?

And as for the benzene, no amount of exposure to benzene is a good thing, and the ideal situation would be to keep these pollutants out of the environment, and out of our bodies altogether. There is no question that benzene does damage, and the question is, indeed, how much damage, what kind of damage, in what concentration, and over what period? These are very complex, research-based issues, and since it is established that benzene is indeed toxic, your argument that benzene is somehow benign because it is also produced in our bodies is entirely irrelevant.

Again, you are welcome to keep an open barrel of benzene in your house, and to keep notes to see how long it takes for you to get leukemia.

I believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that it is far more practical and less costly—especially in terms of the human cost—to find ways to keep toxic chemicals contained in industrial processes than to find cures for the physiological and environmental damage they do.



-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 16, 2004.

Really? Where are the quotation marks?

-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 16, 2004.

I can see you're squirming now, BJ, and grasping at straws. Good.

-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 16, 2004.

Omaha,

These are very complex, research-based issues, and since it is established that benzene is indeed toxic, your argument that benzene is somehow benign because it is also produced in our bodies is entirely irrelevant.

Really Omaha, you should do two things:

1. really go to school, you'll learn there, and

2. *read* the links you post! Both OSHA and NIOSH list the *ACCEPTABLE* levels of benzene for workers in industry and for those of us in the general public. I'm sorry, but you really haven't brought anything to the table. If you want to say it's "bad", PROVE what they did is bad, and that they exceeded accepted safe levels. If you can't, why not take the sage advice:

"better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool than open your mouth and prove it."

Even water can kill you Omaha, you need to learn some perspective. Not all things are bad, even if you disagree with them. As some free advice, you should stop assuming there's some giant conspiracy out to get you. If you died tomorrow, or if you live 100 years, the world will keep going its merry way with or without you. I say this not to belittle you, but to make you understand: the exact same thing applies to me. One person isn't that important, so there's no reason to go nuts thinking about *them* all the time. Try and learn what's going on and THEN decide what's important to you.

BJ

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 16, 2004.


What the fuck? I'm still trying to figure out how big industry and the catholic church giving people little wheat wafers can appear in the same thread. Shit Anti, blaming catholics now? If you're not catholic, shut your fucking piehole. You, once again, don't know what the hell you're talking about. Wow. I was starting to give you a little credit too! Silly me.

-- ProudAmericanWhiteboy (Proudwhitey@antiass.com), August 26, 2004.

Who lit the fuse on your tampon, Joe?! Relax! It's just a discussion. Y'know, for such an insensitive big- mouth, you have awfully thin skin. (Just kidding! You know we're budz!)

-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 27, 2004.

You know Omaha, push comes to shove, I'd much rather be "insensitive" than WRONG. But that's probably pretty obvious by now, lOL.

Bazooka Joe

P.S. In English "Joe" is usually, if not always, a man's name. A tampon insult would be better aimed at a female IMO. Best to work on that a bit.

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 27, 2004.


Lighten up Joe, the "tampon insult" was a joke. I was just too lazy to put the :-) after it.

-- Omaha Normandy (decentralized@sos.com), August 27, 2004.

I know that, no need to clarify, that's what my "LOL" was for. It's often hard to understand people's real thoughts just in short text though.

BAzoooka jOE

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 27, 2004.


Eat Catholic Brand Bullshit.

WHY I AM NOT A CATHOLIC I conclude my study of Catholicism here with a summary of reasons Why I Am Not A Catholic.

I am not a Catholic because I think the Church's theology is irrational, and its moral codes are life-denying, not life-affirming:

Theology: Basic theology

The Church teaches we all bear the guilt of the original sin of Adam. We are cleansed of this sin by the ritual of Baptism. And we are reconciled with God through Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. Thus, our relationship with God is determined by what other people did, thousands of years ago.

I reject this theology as irrational, primitive, and moronic.

I am not responsible for what an alleged Adam did thousands of years ago. And Jesus's death does not in any way mitigate the responsibility I do have for any crime I commit. Furthermore, I reject any theology that puts credulity and submission on the highest pedestal, rather than reason, compassion, and good behavior.

Baptism

The Church considers infant baptism a sacrament essential for salvation; yet, baptism is basically a ritual done to a child not yet capable of making moral decisions. Making a ritual a prerequisite for salvation is primitive theology. Ascribing so much meaning to something so intrinsically meaningless, is irrational theology.

Catholic mothers worry about getting their babies baptized as soon as possible. I reject any teaching that offers salvation to humans based on chance, and not based on the willed good behavior of the person.

I think baptism is a superstitious ritual no different in kind from the childish rituals of other religions. And the idea of Limbo, a place where unbaptized babies go, missing out on Heaven, but not suffering the pains of Hell - is an idea the Church didn't come up with until the 12th century. In the previous thousand years distraught mothers thought their unbaptized babies went to Hell! In terms of spiritual insight, can there be a stupider concept than a just God punishing infants in Hell for eternity? I don't think so.

Priests forgiving sins

The Church claims priests have the power to forgive sins (paragraph 1461 in the New Catholic Catechism.) I say: unless the sins are specifically against them, priests, fallible human beings, do not have the power to forgive the sins of others.

You would think history would have taught people by now, not to be so prone to give credence to all these factions erroneously claiming to represent God and His powers.

Indulgences

The Church can reduce some of the punishment due to us because of our sins, through various good deeds, as prescribed by the Church.

What a scam! The Church is in charge of a "treasury of satisfactions"? How come they didn't even know about this until the 11th century?

What arrogance! An organization deluded into thinking they are God's chosen minister of justice, right down to the details of how to reduce sentences in the afterlife. Give me a break!

Papal infallibility

The Church has had popes who have waged war, popes who opposed scientific truth, popes who sanctioned torture. It's had three popes at one time.

The Church's claim of papal infallibility in matters of faith or morals, is essentially meaningless. When you get down to cases, you'll find Catholic apologists basically presenting a circular argument: The Pope is infallible because he supports the basic truths of the Catholic religion. The Catholic religion is the truth; therefore, the Pope is infallible.

Let's have your mother burned at the stake for being a witch, under the orders of a Pope, and then talk to me about any meaningfulness you find left in your concept of papal infallibility! The Church burned Joan of Arc, then 500 years later canonized her. What sort of divine guidance is this, other than utterly useless and meaningless divine guidance?

Basically the Church wants people to obey everything it says as though it were divinely guided; but, it reserves the right to say it is made up of fallible human beings whenever it screws up, and no matter how atrociously it screws up.

Religious freedom

If the Church espouses religious freedom, why does it require children of a mixed marriage to be brought up Catholic? That is not religious freedom, but religious coercion. Such a policy serves to keep the human race divided in spirit, rather than united.

The Bible

Cannot be God's Word - it is internally contradictory (and genuinely so, not only apparently so); and, it is immoral.

A prime example of its immorality is its support of slavery:

1 Pet 2:18 - "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters... not only to those who are good.. but also to those who are harsh." Ephesians 6:5 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters... just as you would obey Christ." Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything. Lev 25:45 - "Moreover you may buy the children of... strangers... and they shall become your property." Exodus chapter 21, if a unruly ox has killed a man, verse 29 - "its owner shall be put to death." But if it has killed a slave, verse 32 - "he shall give their master... 30 shekels of silver." The Bible clearly does not value the life of a slave equal to the life of a free man. Yet the Church regards the Bible as filled with God's sacred wisdom, and lofty morality.

Hell

The idea of torturing people, forever, eternally, is a monstrously cruel concept, and any God that teaches such a theology, is not a just and loving God, and He can go screw Himself and the barbarians He rode in on. I am convinced of an ultimately loving God, who does indeed judge us, and may punish some, with annihilation, or whatever, but not, with Hell.

Life--denying moral codes

Women priests

Denying women the opportunity to do what they are capable of doing, without reason, is immoral.

Abortion

Prohibiting a raped woman from having an abortion, is validating an act of violence and hatred, in my opinion.

Birth control

I think the Church's prohibition against birth control shows a very negative concept of sexuality. The Church makes procreation such a big concern, and mutual love so secondary. Not to mention the fact that most Catholics in practice ignore the Church's teaching anyway (over 70%, Gallup poll, 1993).

Divorce

The Church is categorically against divorce, but there are many people who get divorced, and then have a very good second marriage. They're more mature, they understand themselves better, they find a person more compatible.

Sure, ideally, there shouldn't be divorces, but human beings are human, and relationships are complex and often unpredictable. Yet, the Church would tie people to a mistake, in an effort to legislate social stability, regardless of the unhappiness it causes.

I think, as in so many issues, the Church really is motivated by power and control, and not at all by compassion or concern for genuine human happiness.

Euthanasia

The Church chooses the prolongation of life, over the dignity of life.

Homosexuality

The Church denies gay people the right to have an intimate relationship. I think this is a cruel and unloving position, born of simple fear and hatred for those who are different from the mainstream.

Most gay people are that way by nature; and it's part of who they are. To have an institution, claiming to speak for God, tell them they are profoundly bad human beings unless they deny their sexuality, is just awful. Just awful. The damage and pain inflicted is tragic. In no way does such a narrow-minded code of morality represent a loving God.

If I found gay people generally or consistently to be inconsiderate, uncaring, lousy people, I might think differently. But my experience tells me conclusively that sexual orientation is not a moral indicator, any more than being left-handed is.

Sexuality

I think the Church's attitude toward sex is life-denying. I think sex is good or bad depending on the context of the relationship. A marriage approved by the Church does not make sex within a marriage a positive thing. And, conversely, sex between unmarried people is not automatically a negative thing.

Love, affection, and caring, sanctify the experience, not an institution that knows little of what is really going on between the two people.

I find the legalistic mentality of the Church militates against what is best in human experience.

Masturbation

Masturbation is a Mortal sin according to the Church. That is, it is a very serious offense to God. You did something really bad. Enough to deserve being punished forever. Yet the vast majority of humans have masturbated. So, the only logical conclusion is that most of the human race is horrible, and deserves to go to Hell.

I don't buy that at all. I think the Church's teaching on masturbation is insane, and springs from a Puritanical, ascetic, life- denying mindset.

Inquisition

The Inquisition was behavior so appalling I could never see the Church as a divinely guided institution. These were not just some misguided individuals; this was Church policy! Pope Innocent the IV officially sanctioned the use of torture in 1252 (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, vol. 7, page 538, vol. 14, page 208.) No matter how much an apologist may try to excuse or rationalize away such behavior, a divinely guided institution would never, never, support such a policy.

The liberals, of course, readily admit this atrocious evil, but they fail to see that it obliterates any meaningful concept of divine guidance for the Church in matters of faith or morals.

Suicide

The Church teaches suicide is a mortal sin. That is a compassionless ethic. It puts a lot of decent, and very loved, people in Hell.

The modern catechism backpeddles furiously, saying extenuating circumstances, like being emotionally distraught, can mitigate the guilt. Well, who isn't emotionally distraught when they commit suicide!?

If the Church had any divine guidance in its moral pronouncements it never would have promulgated such a cruel principle in the first place.

Conclusion

In the middle ages people believed in the divine right of kings. I think that idea was fostered because the people in power wanted it fostered, and because the masses wished it were true (that God is indeed behind the behavior and decisions of Kings.) But it really wasn't true, was it!?

Same with the Catholic Church.

People are attributing divine guidance to this institution because they want to believe in God's definitive presence and authority on earth. But I think the reality is: Catholic theology and moral codes come from the flawed wisdom of fallible human beings, and a gradual, often arbitrary, process, and not .... from God.

I think, on the one hand, Catholicism serves to give fallible human beings unwarranted power and control, and, on the other, masses of Catholics have submitted to that control because they need something definite to follow, and they like having a shared tradition, whether it makes good sense or not.

But I think we honor God by using our heads and hearts honestly, by following reason and compassion, not by being sheep to the religious powers that be.

I conclude that Catholicism is a false and harmful religion, and is not at all what God wants.

-- Darren (dpd4@geneseo.edu), November 27, 2004.


So how many times so far have you cut & pasted this so far? Or are you going to claim that you typed it up specifically for us?

What is your REAL gripe against their church? My guess would be that they don't approve of your "lifestyle", but if you AREN'T just spamming this onto everything that Google came up with the word "Catholic" on, why don't you tell me...

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), November 27, 2004.


The Catholic Church considers abortion murder, plain and simple. There isn't a medical text that will prove them wrong either.

This is not hypocracy on their part. What would be hypocracy is if they denied communion to pederasts and other child molestors. I wonder if they get the same lenient treatment if they are caught with a full grown woman. But definently not if they *gasp* marry one!

-- W (wwils12@netzero.com), November 27, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ