FFRF ad encourages "liberal and nominal Catholics" to quit the Church

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A full page ad recently ran in the New York Times from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in the form of an open letter in which they encourage "liberal and nominal Catholics" to leave the Catholic Church:

FFRF ad

Highlights from the letter:

If you think you can change the church from within - get it to lighten up on birth control, gay rights, marriage equality, embryonic stem-cell research - you're deluding yourself. By remaining a "good Catholic," you are doing "bad" to women's rights. You are an enabler. And it's got to stop.

The Church that hasn't persuaded you to shun contraception now wants to use the force of secular law to deny birth control to non-Catholics.

You're better than your church, so why stay?

What do you think? Are the letter's points valid? Should the FFRF be taking this approach?

Edit - Catholics: how do you feel about the "liberal and nominal Catholics" who the FFRF is trying to reach?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I don't have any reason why a person would or should leave their religion of choice/birth religion. But, that's only if they understand that said religion isn't the only valid world view. On the other hand, the catholic church has inspired and perpetrated some pretty heinous acts, as well as attempting to stop progress, both human and scientific. So, it's a catch-22, in my opinion. But, if someone is a liberal or nominal catholic, then it seems odd to me that they would want to be associated with a religion that has, and seems to perpetrate, such atrocities in the first place. We have to remember, their list of committing heinous acts didn't stop in the Dark Ages with the Inquisition. It has continued to this day. So, I guess I would say it would be better for liberal and nominal catholics to actually decide on another religion. But ultimately, that would have to be their personal and conscientious choice. They shouldn't feel pressured into doing so. But they should be made aware of the facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you agree with their argument that people who disagree with Church positions but remain affiliated with the Church anyhow are "enablers" of those positions?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Do you agree with their argument that people who disagree with Church positions but remain affiliated with the Church anyhow are "enablers" of those positions?

In such a case, yes. I don't see why a person, who for all intents and purposes, does not agree with the church doctrinally or spiritually, would want to stay with such an organization. You might as well be the one carrying the weapons, even if you don't use them.

 

[sojourner]

Leaving the church would constitute passive resistance. Which is good.
Staying with the church and trying to effect change constitutes active resistance. Which is good.

 

[Kathryn]

Leaving the church would constitute passive resistance. Which is good.
Staying with the church and trying to effect change constitutes active resistance. Which is good.

My sentiments exactly.

The letter is a non issue to me. If I were a liberal Catholic, it probably wouldn't make much difference to me one way or another. I would have already thought about all that and made my own decision.

Hey, wait, that's what happened to me already. I was a liberal Catholic! I mean, liberal in some ways. I did leave the RCC because of doctrinal differences of opinion.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Leaving the church would constitute passive resistance. Which is good.
Staying with the church and trying to effect change constitutes active resistance. Which is good.

Realistically, how much would active resistance within the church actually change it? This is a church that is hard-wired to stay the same as it has always been. There have been minor changes, especially at Vat II, but for the most part, they don't really change, and instead, generally excommunicate those who do try to change it from within, like Martin Luther.

 

[Tarheeler]

While I understand what they're trying to say, I think they're wrong. And I think they are forgetting one major factor: while liberal Catholics might stay with the church, they vote like liberals in elections.

Granted, I'm not intimately familiar with the Catholic church, but I see the situation as being similar to that of political parties.

If all of the liberal thinkers leave the group, then it is assured to become even more dogmatic and restricted. Most groups only change when there is enough internal opposition to cause them to do so; if you remove that opposition, you remove any motivation to change.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

While I understand what they're trying to say, I think they're wrong. And I think they are forgetting one major factor: while liberal Catholics might stay with the church, they vote like liberals in elections.

Granted, I'm not intimately familiar with the Catholic church, but I see the situation as being similar to that of political parties.

If all of the liberal thinkers leave the group, then it is assured to become even more dogmatic and restricted. Most groups only change when there is enough internal opposition to cause them to do so; if you remove that opposition, you remove any motivation to change.

For most groups, whether political, religious, or something else, this is the case. The catholic church almost stands alone as a group that does not work in this manner. Their change comes only from the Pope, who doesn't listen to human "invention", but only what he feels god to be saying to him. Which is why it has changed very little in the last 1500 years.

 

[Tarheeler]

For most groups, whether political, religious, or something else, this is the case. The catholic church almost stands alone as a group that does not work in this manner. Their change comes only from the Pope, who doesn't listen to human "invention", but only what he feels god to be saying to him. Which is why it has changed very little in the last 1500 years.

But the Pope comes from the people. Yes, change is slow, but it does happen. And it will happen faster if people who want change take up positions of leadership within the church. Over time, they can have a tremendous effect.

There is always the chance that a mass exodus will trigger radical change, but history shows us that it isn't usually the case. Losing members in droves often forces groups, both religious and political, to revert and "get back to basics" to rebuild the base.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

But the Pope comes from the people. Yes, change is slow, but it does happen. And it will happen faster if people who want change take up positions of leadership within the church. Over time, they can have a tremendous effect.

Possibly. JPII did seem to be much less hard-lined than Benedict XVI.

There is always the chance that a mass exodus will trigger radical change, but history shows us that it isn't usually the case. Losing members in droves often forces groups, both religious and political, to revert and "get back to basics" to rebuild the base.

Even if a mass exodus doesn't enact change from the leadership, it does force certain cases of inhumane practices to drop sharply. So, while it may not cause a direct change, it can still work indirectly.

 

[Tarheeler]

Even if a mass exodus doesn't enact change from the leadership, it does force certain cases of inhumane practices to drop sharply. So, while it may not cause a direct change, it can still work indirectly.

But that assumes that those who would leave the church are currently engaging in that behavior, and I don't think that is the case. I think the people this ad is targeting have most likely already ceased any practices that might be seen as inhumane. And I don't think those who are doing the acts are going to stop, regardless of what the liberal Catholics decide to do.

Honestly, the only reason I can see for someone to leave the church is because they no longer what to be identified with it. And that is a perfectly legitimate reason; I know a lot of Southern Baptists who have left because they didn't want the stigma that went with the name. But I don't think its an effective tool to enact change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that assumes that those who would leave the church are currently engaging in that behavior, and I don't think that is the case. I think the people this ad is targeting have most likely already ceased any practices that might be seen as inhumane. And I don't think those who are doing the acts are going to stop, regardless of what the liberal Catholics decide to do.

Honestly, the only reason I can see for someone to leave the church is because they no longer what to be identified with it. And that is a perfectly legitimate reason; I know a lot of Southern Baptists who have left because they didn't want the stigma that went with the name. But I don't think its an effective tool to enact change.

Not n the organization itself, but in society overall, I think it might be. Yes, if the moderates leave, then what remains will be more extreme, but it will also be smaller. And small, extremist groups are a dime a dozen... and largely irrelevant in terms of political influence.

I guess it all depends whether one's goal is to make the Church better or to make the world better.

 

[Tarheeler]

Not n the organization itself, but in society overall, I think it might be. Yes, if the moderates leave, then what remains will be more extreme, but it will also be smaller. And small, extremist groups are a dime a dozen... and largely irrelevant in terms of political influence.

I guess it all depends whether one's goal is to make the Church better or to make the world better.

Why does it have to be "either/or" situation?
Wouldn't the best possible result be to improve both at the same time?

 

[Kathryn]

Why does it have to be "either/or" situation?
Wouldn't the best possible result be to improve both at the same time?

Yes. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing.

That being said, I left the RCC because if you're really serious about your Catholic faith, it's an all or nothing sort of deal. You either accept the authority of the Church or you don't. Sure, I guess I could have stuck around and tried to enact change, but I didn't see much possibility in that actually happening. I didn't want to reform the entire RCC - or change peoples' beliefs. I just wanted to live my own belief system openly and honestly.

 

[sojourner]

Realistically, how much would active resistance within the church actually change it? This is a church that is hard-wired to stay the same as it has always been. There have been minor changes, especially at Vat II, but for the most part, they don't really change, and instead, generally excommunicate those who do try to change it from within, like Martin Luther.

First off, Vat. II was a MAJOR change.
Second, yes, ML was excommunicated, but his attempt at reform did cause a backlash that resulted in some reform from within.

I don't know how much would change. We have to remember that the RCC is now mostly made up of 3rd world people, whose concerns are not those mentioned here. The US and Europe are no longer major players in the RCC.

 

[Kathryn]

In the US, there are more than 4 times as many Catholics as there are Southern Baptists, and more than 8 times as many Catholics as Methodists. The growth of Catholicism in the US outpaces the population growth.

The RCC is the single largest religious group in the United States. According to the US Census, roughly one in four people in the US indentify themselves as Catholic.
Religious Survey Find Catholic Church Growth Steady In USA | HULIQ

 

[Father Heathen]

They should ask themselves: why would god need self-appointed, self-serving middlemen?

If there is a god, he would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore anything devoid of either reason or compassion is not of god.

 

[Carpenter Rabbi]

It's kinda good if they quit, IMO. A lot of RCC doctrine is both very conservative and very stiff-lipped. People who wish to change it aren't going to have much luck.

Not to say it's a bad idea to try, but maybe losing a couple hundred thousand adherents will help speed up the process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why does it have to be "either/or" situation?

Ask the Pope. When the Vatican decides that it's willing to budge on things like contraception, then maybe there can be a win-win option. Until then, it does seem to me like it's an either/or thing.

Wouldn't the best possible result be to improve both at the same time?

Only if there's value worth preserving in the Catholic Church. I think this is probably going to be a very subjective decision, and I think there would probably be a fair number of "nominal Catholics" whose participation has more to do with things like family pressure than anything else, who don't see much if any value in the Church.

Also, I doubt that it's a "possible" result as things stand now.