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

[Quiddity]

Parts of that letter are simply horse manure; people can believe what they want but it’s simply sad that this stuff is regurgitated without further clarification. And not because I disagree with it, but because it’s simply not true (keep in mind that I said parts). One would think that if they are going to take down such an evil and juggernaut of an organization they could do it at its strongest and truthful points.

This is all from a foundation who claims the following:

“The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism,….”

Educate?.....I’ll leave it at that.

More to the topic at hand. It’s really difficult to completely capture liberal/nominal Catholics. They aren’t necessarily pro-choice or even pro-gay marriage just because they deem themselves liberal (although some are). They come in different degrees and hold on to different aspects of the faith to really speak to them all. Keep in mind that they are only liberal with regard to our internal political/doctrinal spectrum. In other words, they are more likely moderates then liberals.

 

[Tarheeler]

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.

But isn't that where "improving the church" comes in?

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.

Of course it's going to be subjective.
And it isn't going to be possible if no one tries.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Good Catholics Can Use Contraception

Here's an article from the website catholicsforchoice, saying how not only is abortion and contraception use pretty common in the Catholic church, but how some of the hierarchy, including a few popes from the 20th century, even advocated changing the rules of the church to allow for contraception. And yet, today, the church is just as hard-lined against it. So, no, I don't think a change from within will happen, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Walsh: 98% of Catholics Use Contraception | Drudge Retort

Catholics, Conscience and Contraception - NYTimes.com

And to add on top of that, here's two articles showing that 98 % of Catholics have actually used birth control of some kind in their life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

More to the topic at hand. It’s really difficult to completely capture liberal/nominal Catholics. They aren’t necessarily pro-choice or even pro-gay marriage just because they deem themselves liberal (although some are). They come in different degrees and hold on to different aspects of the faith to really speak to them all. Keep in mind that they are only liberal with regard to our internal political/doctrinal spectrum. In other words, they are more likely moderates then liberals.

What if we just consider people whose views on contraception differ from the church's position to the point where they'd actually use it?

My own (now estranged) wife, who went to mass every week and sat on her church's council for years, was actually the one to suggest contraception during the times in our marriage when we didn't feel we were ready for children.

Heck - I have a friend who is fully in support of gay rights, is sexually active outside marriage, uses contraception, and has had her eggs harvested and frozen in case she needs them later for in vitro fertilization... and she still goes to mass fairly frequently and considers herself a Catholic.

I can count on one hand the number of Catholics I know in real life who are opposed to same-sex marriage... and none of them are under 40.

I'm sure there are people who are like you describe: who might not see eye-to-eye with the Church on all issues but are still firmly in the "Catholic" camp, but the number of people who do have major disagreements with fundamental doctrine, and who think it's no big deal to reject Church teaching on fairly major points, is huge.

 

[Quiddity]

What if we just consider people whose views on contraception differ from the church's position to the point where they'd actually use it?

Then you'd get liberals, moderates, conservatives to leave the Church; not just liberals. And this isn't a slam dunk success for those attempting to do this either.

My own (now estranged) wife, who went to mass every week and sat on her church's council for years, was actually the one to suggest contraception during the times in our marriage when we didn't feel we were ready for children.

Heck - I have a friend who is fully in support of gay rights, is sexually active outside marriage, uses contraception, and has had her eggs harvested and frozen in case she needs them later for in vitro fertilization... and she still goes to mass fairly frequently and considers herself a Catholic.

I can count on one hand the number of Catholics I know in real life who are opposed to same-sex marriage... and none of them are under 40.

I believe you. In fact, it's fairly accurate to my own experiences.

I'm sure there are people who are like you describe: who might not see eye-to-eye with the Church on all issues but are still firmly in the "Catholic" camp, but the number of people who do have major disagreements with fundamental doctrine, and who think it's no big deal to reject Church teaching on fairly major points, is huge.

The thing is that this isn't anything new or innovative and it always puzzles me how so many think this is somehow the fall of Rome of some kind. We've had this happen before and it's not like Rome and the clergy aren't aware of it. Anytime Rome has shown to weaken, it's gotten back up. You might think times are different now (science and technology) and it doesn't stand a chance and that's fine; but I'm just telling you that we see what you see and aren't going to roll up and pack because we lose millions of members. Lastly, members are encouraged to struggle within the walls of the church in the same way you'd have family problems and keep them in the family.

 

[Meow Mix]

Fox News also raised a stink that the NYT rejected a similar "open letter" from the same organization about "moderate Muslims."

 

[Scott1]

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:

The New York Times and the FFRF can ***** my ***** with a rusty ****** tire iron ***** lemon pledge ***** shoe horn ***** then choke on my ***** spatula ****** Farm Aid ****** all while reading USA Today.







That's why we have Confession..... :angel2:

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

Ok... back on target.

I believe they have the right to their opinion... and being a atheist organization it does not suprise me that they believe all would be right with the world if people from every religion walked away from their faith... and I think most Catholics who are smart enough to understand their faith will be smart enough to see this for what it truly is... a group that claims to cherish individual freedoms telling others that deciding to fight for what they believe in is "deluding yourself".

A Catholic faithful to the teachings of the Church is not going to be swayed by this sophmoric bulling ---

And this group simply does not know what Catholics know - Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist: BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY... and if THAT is not worth trying to fight for (for those who want change) then nothing is.

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

Heck, I AM ONE.....

... but if I found out that my math professor wanted to kill puppies for sport I would not abandon math!!! One does not toss out their core beliefs because fallible men sin or are slow to learn.

I mean jeez: asking 500 single virgins to teach about human sexuality is like asking me to teach about life on the moon.:no:

You don't deny yourself the Eucharist (I would rather be without air) just because the Church isn't changing fast enough for you... and it will change (of this I have no doubt) as it has on specific moral teachings hundreds of times over the last 2,000 years.

Vatican II was a source of MASSIVE CHANGE --- nothing like what has happened to our Church in the last 40 years has happend in the entire 2,000 year history of the Church.... heck, the REFORMATION was less of an agent for change than VAT2 !!!!!

And as far as those who find this ad a compelling enough arguement to cause them to leave the Church: best of luck and God bless. We'll be here if you ever decide to come home again.

 

[Father Heathen]

You don't deny yourself the Eucharist (I would rather be without air)

That delicious, huh?

 

[blackout]

I think it is moronic to monetarily support an organization
whose efforts and teachings run contrary
to what you feel is right and responsible.

Why would you actively support an organization
that runs counter to your views?

Besides that, lack of money speaks loudest.

 

[Kathryn]

I think it is moronic to monetarily support an organization
whose efforts and teachings run contrary
to what you feel is right and responsible.

Why would you actively support an organization
that runs counter to your views?

I agree totally. We are responsible for our affiliations and what we support, either actively or passively.

For instance, I'm embarrassed by the Saints' behavior right now!

 

[Scott1]

That delicious, huh?

Alas ... It does NOT taste like chicken.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

I more or less agree with this.

Not completely because I think it´s kind of backwards. Leaving is active (because they will feel it, they will be "hurt" by the decrease in followers) and reamining is pasive (because honestly, it is easier to ignore those who do not agree but are still there)

I don´t think there is anything inherently bad with being a catholic and disagreeing with the doctrines. The doctrines and dogmas HAVE changed with time, and hopefully they will KEEP changing in a couple matters yet.

Now it would be better if the ones that are still catholic actualy do some active protest or something. IDK, start a cause.

Just my opinion anyways.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I agree totally. We are responsible for our affiliations and what we support, either actively or passively.

For instance, I'm embarrassed by the Saints' behavior right now!

It's not just the Saints! Just about every other team in the NFL has been doing that stuff. They just got caught.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So the liberal Catholics are to exclude themselves from the dialogue with the greater Church for what reason again?

 

[Me Myself]

At contrair, they should PROMOTE IT.

The problem is this rarely happens.

 

[HerDotness]

The difficulty in leaving the RCC is that once you've been baptized, you're basically a forever-member whether you wish to be or not. Even excommunication doesn't render a person no longer a Catholic, because it's believed that baptism imprints your soul with a particular sign that remains no matter what. As an excommunicant, you're simply denied access to sacraments and some other aspects of being a Catholic in good standing.

If a Catholic submits a written statement that you're leaving the church, the only thing that will happen is that a note will be placed with your baptismal record that you have left the church.
In essence, the RCC still regards you as a member who, it is hoped, will someday return.

(Okay, weird! Since I've not been on the site long enough to be allowed to include a link, go to NPR.org and search for De-Baptism in France if you want more information about why this is so as well as about the various European cases of this type.)

So, for liberal Catholics to leave the church is pretty much an exercise in futility unless altogether they contributed enough money that its absence had enough of an impact to be noticed.

 

[thau]

Yes, that’s quite a list. Perhaps Buddhism should feel grateful it was never put to the test anywhere remotely to what Catholicism endured and was called upon to face globally. It seems your views of the Church’s historical outreach to uncivilized people and lands was for greed or power (mostly) --- and for not what providence may have very well ordained? (charity isn’t always a "tidy"business, but a dangerous one to be sure)


As to your thoughtful considerations on whether “to leave or not to leave?” the Church --- I would like to think “where truth lies” would remain the paramount factor, and not the weakness of some or many of its human followers.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Yes, that’s quite a list. Perhaps Buddhism should feel grateful it was never put to the test anywhere remotely to what Catholicism endured and was called upon to face globally.

What do you mean by this?

 

[HerDotness]

I'm wondering if VofV's didn't copy & paste onto the wrong thread. This posting doesn't seem to relate to this thread's topic.