5 ms·

I'm an ex-Catholic and am likely one of the left leaning people you're talking about. I left the church because frankly, the actions of the church and its polic

by hluska 5y ago

I'm an ex-Catholic and am likely one of the left leaning people you're talking about. I left the church because frankly, the actions of the church and its policies are so far from Jesus' teachings that I could no longer reconcile a belief in Christ with mother church. > We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it. Homophobia != sexual ethics. After my goodbye confession with a good priest I'm still friends with, I never thought I'd have to say these words again. But here we go. Outright homophobia is not about sexual ethics, it's about hatred and closed mindedness. Can you point out a section a single section in the gospels that indicates that this is okay? Can you point out a single statement that Jesus made that implies there is anything wrong with being gay?? I can't, yet mother church won't cut the homophobia. Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.' But they sure like to harass scared, pregnant women and/or people who have had abortions with their shitty propaganda. Can you show me one thing in the gospels that suggest that is okay?? You can't because it's not. None of this is okay. Jesus would not have approved of much of anything. Crap, you don't even have to read too far into Matthew to realize that Jesus would not have been accepting of any of this. Catholics are supposed to worship a dude who stopped a woman from being stoned with the words 'let he without sin cast the first stone.' And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it. Has the church sinned?? Hundreds of thousands of abused children point to the fact that yeah, the church has sinned. Who is the Catholic church to cast stones, particularly when the dude we're supposed to follow was really against casting stones? And why should I stick around something so actively disrespectful? Frankly, I'd rather find a community of people who think love is the solution rather than find a community who preaches love unless you fall into one of about 15,000 boxes..... Edit - Here's another example that really gets my goat. My own archdiocese excommunicated a woman who was ordained as a priest. I know her, in fact, my Mom used to work with her. I even went out on a couple of dates with one of her daughters and she is an absolutely wonderful person. But mother church excommunicated her because she was ordained as a priest? Why can't she be part of the community that she helped build? She worked within Catholic churches for decades, hence her work with my Mom. She was removed from the community and the priest in her own parish read the most disgusting letter about her. Do you know why??? Her calling is not legitimate. Only a man's calling can be legitimate. Let's assume that God in God's wisdom subscribes to the Harvard Business Review. If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions. But oh no, the Catholics know God. They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population. I'm sorry but I can't even write this shit with a straight face. How is a woman's calling totally irrelevant to a point of excommunication when men can fuck children and just get moved to a new parish (for the 17th time)? Serious question.

iammisc 5y ago
I appreciate your candor. You seem to have pretty set views, but I think they're caricatures. In particular, while pro-life work that is most visible is someone praying at a planned parenthood (and of course, the ones that harass are typically not even Catholic, since it's not just catholics in this 'movement'), the bulk of pro-life work is exceptionally boring things like collecting bottles, diapers, baby clothes, putting together mum and baby classes, etc. No one talks about this because it's not polarizing. Or take the issue of 'homophobia'. No doubt many Catholics will say insensitive things, but almost anything about the potential of homosexual acts being wrong is today conflated with homophobia. And you ask for Christ's statement on sexual orientation, but they are abundant in the gospels. You seem familiar with them, so let's start: Matthew 19:5: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?". As you yourself said, Christ was certainly not afraid of breaking social norms of his day. Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time. Don't you think Christ would have said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? Oh yeah, and sometimes a man will leave his father and dad and be united to his husband, because that's the same thing'. The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes, as does Christ's strictifying of existing Jewish sexual ethics, rather than loosening (in his ban on divorce). The second thing that I see is a lack of understanding of repentance. Christ preventing the prostitute's punishment was because she had repented of her sin, not because sin is irrelevant. The same is true of the female priest. Should she repent, I'm sure she'd be welcomed back (otherwise your Gospel passage would be quite relevant). The priests who corrupted children... well this is a very long story and I know of no lay Catholics who really support the church's handling on this. But the existence of sinners doesn't take away from the utility of church. However I'll point out that the reason that happened was that the church bought too much into the mercy rhetoric that you seem to want it to buy into further. A lot of justification for moving priests was based on the assumption that (1) they had repented, (2) the church should be merciful, and (3) based on psychological understandings of sex in the 60s and 70s which were more radical than today, pedophilia was a condition that could be cured. Anyway, I'm guessing this will fall on deaf ears and that there is an impenetrable barrier that will keep either of us from convincing the other. So to end, I'll just wish you the best. I mean that. Thanks for the response.

by hluska 5y ago

iammisc 5y ago

I appreciate your candor. You seem to have pretty set views, but I think they're caricatures. In particular, while pro-life work that is most visible is someone praying at a planned parenthood (and of course, the ones that harass are typically not even Catholic, since it's not just catholics in this 'movement'), the bulk of pro-life work is exceptionally boring things like collecting bottles, diapers, baby clothes, putting together mum and baby classes, etc. No one talks about this because it's not polarizing. Or take the issue of 'homophobia'. No doubt many Catholics will say insensitive things, but almost anything about the potential of homosexual acts being wrong is today conflated with homophobia. And you ask for Christ's statement on sexual orientation, but they are abundant in the gospels. You seem familiar with them, so let's start: Matthew 19:5: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?". As you yourself said, Christ was certainly not afraid of breaking social norms of his day. Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time. Don't you think Christ would have said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? Oh yeah, and sometimes a man will leave his father and dad and be united to his husband, because that's the same thing'. The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes, as does Christ's strictifying of existing Jewish sexual ethics, rather than loosening (in his ban on divorce). The second thing that I see is a lack of understanding of repentance. Christ preventing the prostitute's punishment was because she had repented of her sin, not because sin is irrelevant. The same is true of the female priest. Should she repent, I'm sure she'd be welcomed back (otherwise your Gospel passage would be quite relevant). The priests who corrupted children... well this is a very long story and I know of no lay Catholics who really support the church's handling on this. But the existence of sinners doesn't take away from the utility of church. However I'll point out that the reason that happened was that the church bought too much into the mercy rhetoric that you seem to want it to buy into further. A lot of justification for moving priests was based on the assumption that (1) they had repented, (2) the church should be merciful, and (3) based on psychological understandings of sex in the 60s and 70s which were more radical than today, pedophilia was a condition that could be cured. Anyway, I'm guessing this will fall on deaf ears and that there is an impenetrable barrier that will keep either of us from convincing the other. So to end, I'll just wish you the best. I mean that. Thanks for the response.