(Trigger Warning: Discussion of Child Molestation/Abortion in the Comments)
Achoo!
"Bless you!" I hear in three-part harmony.
I'd much rather my coworkers (and classmates, and...) said "Gesundheit", the way Mom does, if they must say anything; that's a wish for good health, not a prayer that a nonexistent deity will keep my nonexistent soul from flying out my nostrils. But I don't know how to politely tell anyone to knock it off, and I don't know if it's wise.
I'm not out at work. I'm not out at school. I'm not even out at church; the UUs won't care that I'm an atheist, but as far as the Catholics are concerned, I'm one of them. I'm a holly-lily Catholic, because I was baptized and confirmed and I attend Mass twice a year, at Christmas (holly season) and Easter (lily season). I can't not. It's part of being a member of the [Blue] family.
***
My brother: *pro-life and anti-marriage-equality arguments*
Me: *pro-choice and pro-marriage-equality arguments*
My brother, quoted with permission: Clearly we're not going to get anywhere this way, so let's try focusing on the primary cause of our difference in opinion: why do you believe that God doesn't exist?
Me: Bzuh? Slacktivist. MadGastronomer. Amaryllis, cjmr, hapax. [S]omehow I don't think theism v atheism is the "primary cause of our difference in opinion".
My brother: Yes, there are various forms of theists who share your political views. How many of them are faithful, well-informed Catholics? Zero. I didn't ask about gods, I asked about God (and to clarify, I am referring to God as the Catholic Church understands Him). If you really believed in God as the Catholic Church understands Him, you could not hold your current political beliefs.
No offense intended to Catholics who believe God considers women and QUILTBAG folk to be fully human and who consequently support abortion rights and marriage equality; rest assured that I'm not talking about your understanding of deity when I say this:
If I really believed in God as the Catholic Church understands him, I would find myself compelled to oppose him.
***
My brother: No one other than Catholics can trace the authority of their church directly from Peter (I’m sure I could find the list of popes in about 5 seconds). Jesus said that he would build His Church on the rock of Peter, and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it (by introducing false teachings), and as the Pharisees spoke with authority because that sat on Moses’s chair, the Pope and the bishops in union with him speak with authority because they sit on Peter’s chair.
Me: If God's out to keep the Catholic Church as an institution from falling into error, why is the Catholic Church as an institution doing so much to protect pedophile priests?
My brother: Bzuh?
***
My brother: [T]he point of government is to protect the people, which would include their souls even if 'soul' were only a metaphor.
Me: Religious beliefs are not something to base public policy upon.
My brother: [W]ho said anything about basing public policy on religious beliefs? The Church and the state both agree that there should be a separation of church and state.
Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
Yeah, doing a real good job there of keeping the Church out of the affairs of the state.
***
I, [MercuryBlue], do hereby give formal notice of my defection from the Roman Catholic Church. I want it to be known that I no longer wish to be regarded as a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
I further declare that I am aware of the consequences of this act regarding the reception of the sacraments of the Church, including the sacraments of the Eucharist, marriage, and the sick, and also with regard to burial.
I undertake to make this decision known to my next of kin and to ensure that they are aware of these circumstances in the case of my being incapacitated.
I acknowledge that I make this declaration under solemn oath, being of sound mind and body, and in the presence of a witness who can testify as to the validity of this document.
There is no one I can ask to sign my apostasy letter with me. Literally no one I know in meatspace is someone I know to be an atheist.
I could ask my therapist, I suppose. But the model letters I found all have the 'sound mind and body' phrase (ableist much?), and she knows exactly what my mental health is like. I could ask someone at the UU service, but I don't yet feel as if I know anyone there. Damn you social anxiety.
Even if I find a witness, I don't know if the diocese will do anything but laugh.
I'm a holly-lily Catholic and I don't know how to stop.
Between writing and posting this article, I asked the UU congregation's busy-bee to sign my apostasy letter, and same is now en route to the parish in which I was baptized. I'll keep you posted.--MercuryBlue
The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.
{{MercuryBlue}}
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 09, 2011 at 06:52 PM
*applause*
This was extremely touching, MercuryBlue.
Posted by: ZMiles | Nov 09, 2011 at 07:17 PM
MercuryBlue, good luck with your letter. Perhaps you should also send a photocopy of the letter to the parish where you've been holly/lily'ing, just to be on the safe side? Unless that's the same one.
Posted by: Rupaul | Nov 09, 2011 at 07:43 PM
I was ready to write a great long spiel about how to argue with your brother, but that's not really what this is about.
I actually took philosophy classes in college, and nearly minored in it, but I really wanted to finish my degree quickly. One neat word I was introduced to was "epistemeology", (though I often misspell it) which roughly means "a system of knowing". It's the field of examining how we know what we think we know, how we seperate truth from falsehood, how we learn and understand things.
Your brother, and your family, are working from a fundamentally different epistemeology than you are. They literally understand the world differently than you do. Their world is partitioned. On one side (paying bills, driving cars, working, cooking, eating) decisions are made based on evidence and reason and something vaguely resembling logic. (that's not a dig against them; logic is one of those things human brains don't do very well without training and practice)
On the other side of that partition are things relating to religion: gay marriage, abortion, how you should spend your Sundays and Holidays, and probably some other things relating to women, gender roles, sex, and other stuff. Decisions on this side of the partition aren't rational or reasonable. They're not based on evidence or logic. Those subjects are categorically different to their way of knowing. You simply can't use logic to argue for gay marriage any more than you could say that a step-ladder has hurt feelings. Step-ladders are inanimate, nonsentient objects, and to say that it has feelings is a categorical error. Likewise, gay marriage and abortion are subjects that aren't part of reason, logic, or critical thinking. His line about "if you knew God the way the Church knows God" is a classic No True Scotsman argument, but he would reject that claim because we're on the wrong side of the partition for reason or logic.
You're not a Catholic. You're a caring, considerate child, part of a family with its own traditions that you try to honor not out of spiritual beliefs, but out of love for your own kin.
Posted by: Rodeobob | Nov 09, 2011 at 08:00 PM
Oh wow, people on my local Heathen list were discussing letters of...apostasy, I guess. It's important to lots of people.
I would like to meet you in meatspace one of these days.
Does your UU church have an email mailing list? Or a bulletin board? You could request help signing the letter (even if you never send it in). It could be an interesting ice breaker.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 09, 2011 at 09:18 PM
Rodeobob's post is super-interesting. I was thinking earlier, whilst waiting for my haircut, about how annoyed I am by people who try to pretend that there are no harmless superstitions and furthermore that having all human thinking be rational is a worthy and achievable goal. And then I was trying to think through where "harmless" superstition or belief ends...
Anyway, I hadn't made the leap to thinking that people with incomprehensible opinions may just be drawing the "harmless" line somewhere else...I'm not sure that gets it, though. Because I think there are plenty of people who don't consider it important to apply logic to their (profane? mundane? Help, what's the opposite of sacred or religious?) lives. Plenty of stuff can be handled with appeals to authority and tradition and so forth.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 09, 2011 at 09:26 PM
Thank you, cjmr, Zmiles, Rupaul. Wish I'd thought of making a copy of the signed letter before I sent it off.
Your post requires contemplation, Rodeobob.
profane? mundane? Help, what's the opposite of sacred or religious?
Secular?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 09, 2011 at 09:36 PM
I think the opposites are:
'Mundane' (defined in my dictionary as 'of an earthly world and not a spiritual or heavenly one') is the opposite of 'fantastic' (in the original 'unbelievable' sense, not the current use of 'awesome')
'Profane' is the opposite of 'sacred', although the word 'profane' is now mostly used with the alternate definition of 'explicative-laden,' as in 'profanity'
"Secular" is the opposite to "sectarian," but in common use it's also an opposite to "sacred" as well.
So, traditionally, I think the word is 'profane,' but in current definitions 'secular' is probably your best bet, to denote the opposite of 'sacred'.
Posted by: ZMiles | Nov 09, 2011 at 10:05 PM
I was trying to avoid a "wall o' text"; I hope I made my points well enough. It's a longer version of the old saw about "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".
It's a variant on Descarte's metaphysical doubt. There are some positions people hold that can be traced to a rational, reasonable root:
"I wear a seat belt every time I'm in a car."
"Why do you believe that?"
"Because large studies have shown that if there's an accident, I'm much less likely to be killed, and my injuries will be much less severe."
"Why do you believe that?"
"Because the data of those studies is publicly available. If I were to educate myself in statistical analysis, I could confirm the results myself, but I'm content to accept the opinions of the peers who reviewed those studies extensively."
If you try Descarte's doubt on religious beliefs, you'll hit a fairly big roadblock very quickly. The base reason behind "why do you believe God exists?" definition-ally (did I just make up a word? spellcheck thinks so...) is FAITH! "I have faith in God, faith that He exists." Belief without evidence, deeply and fundamentally irrational, that's faith. That's not a snarky atheist critique, by the way; there's nothing inherently wrong with faith being deeply irrational. By itself, there's nothing wrong with choosing faith over evidence.
Speaking personally, I draw the "harmless" line for faith versus evidence around the same place I draw the "harmless" line for "Alternative Medicine"(TM) versus evidence-based medicine. If you have cancer, by all means go to a Naturopath or visit an acupuncturist in addition to your evidence-based medicine. If you have chronic pain from a broken leg, certainly try Reiki... as long as you keep going to your physical therapist. I draw the "harmless" line right where faith is used as a supplement to evidence and reason, versus used as an exclusive alternative. You don't want to put meat and cheese on the same plate, because it violates an ancient covenant with your God? Well, as long as you're not suffering from malnutrition, I see no harm. You want to deny a woman bodily autonomy, even when it aggravates past assaults or even imperils her life, because of your faith? No, I think we have harm done, where a body of evidence argues against faith.
Oh, and the opposite of sacred would be "blasphemous".
Posted by: RodeoBob | Nov 09, 2011 at 10:17 PM
This goes back to Dawkins' second-most-controversial argument*: that belief in any sort of supernatural moral authority, however beneficial, necessarily lends more credence to the moral beliefs or religious fundamentalists. The reasoning being that once one accepts that there can be supernaturally-given moral rules, that someone else's claim to have other supernaturally-given rules cannot be summarily dismissed, even if those rules appear grossly immoral (this is a simplification).
A lot of skeptics hold a similar view with holding superstitions (which at the most extreme end are defined as non-evidence-based beliefs of any kind): that such beliefs necessarily lend credence to the harmful superstitions and beliefs.
I don't know whether I agree with Dawkins, or the skeptics' extrapolation from Dawkins. But I find them interesting and troubling arguments.
*Dawkins' most controversial claim is that bringing children up in a religious tradition is a form of child abuse
Posted by: Leum | Nov 09, 2011 at 10:31 PM
Thank you for this, MercuryBlue. I am glad not to have to deal with arguments like this in my family.* Kudos for handling it well, and for having the courage to send your letter.
* Immediate family, anyway. The extended family is a different matter altogether, so I can still partly relate.
Posted by: J. Random Scribbler | Nov 09, 2011 at 11:32 PM
I am MercuryBlue's brother, and I do not intend to get into internet arguments with complete strangers, but I would like to clarify a couple things:
1. I did not say anything resembling "Bzuh?" I said "I don’t know exactly what the situation is, but I do know that it is irrelevant to this argument...Infallibility can only apply to teachings, not actions, and only when those teachings are about faith and morals."
2. The Church is opposed to laws which support seriously immoral actions. I'm sure all of you agree on that principle, we just disagree on which actions are immoral.
Posted by: C | Nov 09, 2011 at 11:39 PM
{{MercuryBlue}}
MercuryBlue & C: I started writing some responses to the paraphrased family arguments, but then, like Rodeobob, I realized that it's not about debate points here.
I'm a holly-lily Catholic and I don't know how to stop.
I myself have been a holly-lily Catholic, a daily Catholic, a maybe-next-month Catholic, a sometimes-someways Catholic. Whatever, in some way it'll always be a part of me, just as your Catholic childhood in your Catholic family is part of what makes you who you are. But you can choose for yourself now; you have chosen for yourself, and I hope your choice has brought you peace. And that you find some meatspace support in it.
You're a caring, considerate child, part of a family with its own traditions that you try to honor not out of spiritual beliefs, but out of love for your own kin.
Yes, this. Does the twice-a-year attendance keep you on good-enough terms with your family, even if they're aware that your ideas are not theirs? Does the twice-a-year attendance cause you more grief-- sadness for the loss of what you once believed? anger at the admittedly grave failings of the hierarchy? -- than you can handle for the sake of that relationship? Maybe "holly-lily" without belief, without hypocrisy and without arguments, can even give you a little joy, just for the beauty of the tradition and the experience shared with people you love.
You have my best wishes as you work it all out, anyway.
Posted by: Amaryllis | Nov 10, 2011 at 12:32 AM
you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into
True that. But I'm a logic bomber by nature.
I am MercuryBlue's brother, and I do not intend to get into internet arguments with complete strangers
Do, please, it's fun.
The Church is opposed to laws which support seriously immoral actions. I'm sure all of you agree on that principle, we just disagree on which actions are immoral.
TW, pedophilia (also, TBAT, it far too belatedly occurs to me that that warning should be on the post): The Church has made a habit of immoral actions, to wit, taking priests accused of sexual immorality (I hate that phrase, but here it's accurate) towards children and moving them to new parishes where there are new children to victimize, rather than alerting the civil authorities in either jurisdiction. And the Church considers ordaining women as serious an offense as raping children. Forgive me for being unwilling to trust the Church on what is and is not immoral.
Amaryllis: It keeps me from having a fight with Mom twice a year. That's the only reason I do it, and will continue to.
*hugs Pthalo*
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 10, 2011 at 07:11 AM
No, blaspemous is definitely not what I was looking for. I guess it was profane, but I got worried that that definition really isn't recognized...except by erudite folks like y'all?
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 07:55 AM
Welcome C! Thanks so much for coming by to participate!
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 07:58 AM
Mercury, I don't know anything about your mental state, but I can say that having a mental illness is not the same thing as not being of sound mind in the relevant sense for this letter. Unless you or your therapist really believe that your desire to break with the church is irrational, that your mental illness is the cause of this specific disordered thinking, and that if/when you get that illness under better control you will likely change your mind about that desire, there's no reason your therapist shouldn't sign this letter with you.
Posted by: Jake | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:13 AM
I have a friend who did something similar after the Ireland scandal broke. I can put you in touch with him if you like; contact me via Facebook if this interests you.(On FB I'm the Marc Mielke with an image of Cthulhu as my icon; I should also be on slacktvites there)
Posted by: Marc Mielke | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:23 AM
IMO bad priests--from those simply corrupt and greedy to monsters like child molesters and the operators of Magdeline Houses -- are living examples of God's uselessness/nonexistence; God did nothing to stop his chosen representatives from doing evil, and did nothing afterward. Any human agency would have better morals than this (except maybe BlackWater/Xe), so what's the point of God?
Personally, I'll go with Superman and the Endless over the Christian God anyway; they don't have to exist to serve as archetypes.
Posted by: Marc Mielke | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:36 AM
Typepad, if you ate my post, I shall be VERY CROSS with you.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:51 AM
Hmmm, speaking of bad priests, (and animated musicals, which we weren't, but...) I feel I should mention that, thanks to a nifty thread at No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? I have now experienced "Hellfire" and it might indeed be the best Disney villain song EVAR. Does that mean I have to see the movie? I guess I allowed myself to be incidentally exposed to Hercules (blasphemy with great tunes!), so I might as well.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:55 AM
SRSLY, Typepad? It was a very good post! Now I weep.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:55 AM
{{MercuryBlue}}
Re: Sneezing. The "bless you!" thing has bugged me for awhile, specifically because I'm having a hard time NOT doing it. I don't actually MEAN "god(s) bless you" to the person, and it'd be weird if I did because my god is usually not their god, and It's Complicated. And I know it contributes to a hostile environment to atheists, so I'm really trying hard to stop. But it's so automatic, I'm having a lot of trouble. Must try harder.
Re: Arguments in post, I kept wanting to say "Robert Price!" Specifically "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man." I don't know if book-sharing would help or not, but he's a Christian, and he's very respectful in his writings and basically not easy to immediately dismiss as a 'hater' on Christians, but at the same time, he's done this vast body of approachable work that is summed up as basically saying The Bible Is So Much More Complicated Than That. Especially with regards to Jesus and Peter and, well, everything quoted in this post about those two. Whether he's right or wrong, I feel like he really opens a lot of Christian's minds to the idea that Other People Can Think Different Without Hating You/God. :(
All of which is a really long way to say, I love your post, I love your letter, and I hope that your family can respect your decisions and not push "facts" at you that very well may not be facts at all. *hugs*
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:06 AM
I generally don't say "Bless you," but then I'm just rude. I guess I do say "Gesundheit" fairly often. I have said "salud" in the past. (Does anyone else know a sequence that goes "Jesus, Salud, Amor, Dinero" depending how many times you sneeze?)
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:16 AM
Also in my experience most people say "bless you," which I kind of like since it just seems like wishing you generic good stuff, but I guess there's still an implied Higher/more magical power.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:18 AM
If C doesn't consider pedophile priests relevant because its not doctrine, than how about this:
Trigger Warnings: Child rape
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
The story details how a nine year old girl in Brazil was raped by her step father and was pregnant with twins as a result. Her mother and family did what was necessary to get her an abortion. In response, the Catholic church very publicly excommunicated the family and the doctors who did the procedure, even though a pregnancy would have likely permanently crippled or even killed the girl.
In fact, only two people involved didn't get excommunicated. The girl, as she was only a child, and the Church has compassion for children. And the stepfather. Cause while child raping is wrong, at least he didn't try to get her an abortion. That would be just terrible.
Posted by: Nathaniel | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:37 AM
No, I don't agree on that principle. The law exists to protect people--from each other, from institutions, from the state--and to safeguard their rights. Sometimes that means immoral actions must be legal, because to ban them would violate people's rights (look up "Skokie, Illinois" for a good example). Doesn't make them any more moral, it just means the law cannot be used to stop them.
There's a very good reason to set up the law that way, and you say it in your post--"We just disagree on which actions are immoral." There are actions I see as immoral which people have a right to do--voting for conservatives, for example. There are actions the Roman Catholic Church sees as immoral which people have a right to do (abortion, buttsex, using condoms, divorce--it's a pretty lengthy list). In order to base the law on morality, we first have to answer "Who's morals do we use?" And no matter what the answer to that question is, whoever we pick immediately becomes a tyrant.
So no, the difference between me and the Church isn't what we consider immoral. It's that the Church is willing to hijack the state as a tool to impose its morals on others, and I'm not.
Posted by: Froborr | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:44 AM
Well, I wasn't going to get involved in this, but:
the Church considers ordaining women as serious an offense as raping children.
Well, no, not really.
The reference is to a Vatican document which attempted to clarify Church policies in the wake of the scandal. The idea was supposed to be that ordaining women is a misunderstanding of the nature of the priesthood, in a similar way that using a position of a priest to abuse children is a corruption of the nature of the priesthood.
Mind you, I think that they're wrong about that, and I'm very distressed that the Church seems to be going backward rather than forward on this issue. I also think it was graceless and stupid to include that language in a document that should have dealt unambiguously with what it was supposed to be dealing with. It was probably meant to answer suggestions that the celibate male-only priesthood is the actual cause of the pedophilia scandal. And judging by the news out of Pennsylvania, and the Boy Scouts, and on and on, they're probably right about that. People other than celibate priests abuse children; institutions other than the Catholic Church protect them. Still, the conflating of the sacramental issues and the moral issues was confusing, to say the least.
The Vatican did issue a clarifying statement the next day to the effect that of course abusing a child is inherently a much graver sin than abusing a sacrament, and that's the official word.
Practice, now, may still be something else. How many bishops have been disciplined for advocating the ordination of women vs. how many have been disciplined for protecting a pedophile?
God did nothing to stop his chosen representatives from doing evil, and did nothing afterward.
God doesn't stop anyone from doing evil, if anyone is determined on doing it, as far as I can tell. But the Problem of Evil is definitely above my theology grade.
And, while I can be as snobbish as anyone about the Apostolic Succession, I don't think we can say that the Roman Catholic hierarchy is actually handpicked by the Deity.
Posted by: Amaryllis | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:50 AM
No.
I don't agree on the principle that the Church has any business taking any stance whatsoever on secular laws; that's what "wall between Church and State" means. If they want to act like a political action group, they should be taxed like one.
Posted by: Kish | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:52 AM
In fact, only two people involved didn't get excommunicated. The girl, as she was only a child, and the Church has compassion for children. And the stepfather. Cause while child raping is wrong, at least he didn't try to get her an abortion. That would be just terrible.
I'm going to quote myself from the Slacktivist discussion of that case (because I really should get back work):
I’d forgotten, if I ever knew, which particular offenses carry a penalty of automatic excommunication. So I went and looked them up. They include heresy and schism, desecrating the materials of the Eucharist, a priest violating the secrecy of the confessional, or otherwise abusing the sacrament, participating in an invalid ordination, physically attacking the Pope, and participating in or being an accomplice to an abortion.
As we used to say on Sesame Street, One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others.
After all, remember what excommunication is– it’s a church penalty, denying the offender the reception of the sacraments and other full participation in the life of the church, in hopes that he or she will repent and seek reconciliation. So it makes sense that someone who is teaching contrary to fundamental doctrine (no, the ban on contraception is not fundamental doctrine, as far as most of us are concerned), or who abuses or perverts a sacrament, has put himself outside the community he’s scorned.
Abortion is not that kind of offense. Even if you believe that it is an offense, it’s an offense against human life and dignity, like rape or incest or for that matter other kinds of murder. (Again, I’m not personally equating abortion to murder here, just considering the Church’s position on it.) Abortion is not essentially an offense against Church discipline, but the Church has made it into one. So why?
I will charitably assume it’s because they’re trying to emphasize what they see as the gravity of the offense, when other kinds of attacks don’t need that emphasis, being already considered crimes. Murder, rape and incest are condemned by general moral consensus, but there is no consensus on abortion; in fact, the general trend has been a shifting away from the Church’s position. It’s a case of YOU’RE NOT LISTENING, SO WE’LL SHOUT LOUDER.
Any parent knows how well that one works.
Posted by: Amaryllis | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:57 AM
I don't agree with the 'legislating sin' thing either, and didn't even back when I was religious. That way lies theocracy and tyranny.
Posted by: ZMiles | Nov 10, 2011 at 09:58 AM
I know this should probably go on an open-er thread, but I want to spread it around and from what I know of MercuryBlue she probably won't mind too much.
Here is a link to a blog post about 100% For Haiti. It's a post on Peter Dybing's blog, and it was highlighted at The Wild Hunt today. I know several folks around here might be interested in pagan-friendly charities, and/or small orgs with less spent on overhead and PR.
Here is a direct link to 100% For Haiti. They have nice art for sale if you are holiday shopping, or you can just donate directly. (The direct donation info seems to be given on the "Contact" page.) I am really impressed with their site and their organization.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 10:19 AM
Amanda Marcotte had a post at Pandagon a few days back that touching on two strands of this thread: Legislating sin, and the way that social ties/norms/pressure/connections and non-rational thought patterns influence how we behave, but also how we say we behave, or say we believe we should behave, e.g. when answering polls.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 10:31 AM
"After all, remember what excommunication is– it’s a church penalty, denying the offender the reception of the sacraments and other full participation in the life of the church, in hopes that he or she will repent and seek reconciliation. So it makes sense that someone who is teaching contrary to fundamental doctrine (no, the ban on contraception is not fundamental doctrine, as far as most of us are concerned), or who abuses or perverts a sacrament, has put himself outside the community he’s scorned."
The whole idea behind repenting is the notion that you did something wrong. I don't think you'll find many people who think what the girl's family did was wrong. And not only that, but what they did wrong was worse than what the stepfather did. After all, I'm sure he'll have to repent to be a good little Catholic, but he can still receive the sacrament. Because abortion is worse than child rape.
Posted by: Nathaniel | Nov 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM
This thread having gone the way it has, could TBAT please put TW: Discussion of Child Molestation/Abortion in the Comments or some such on the post.
TY.
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM
@Nathaniel: Well, the church (the hierarchy, that is) thinks that what the girl's family and doctors did was wrong. The church also thinks that what the stepfather did was wrong.
It isn't exactly that the Church thinks that abortion is worse than child rape. Excommunication is not meant to indicate the seriousness of the offense, but instead the nature of the offense. What I was getting at was that, whether or not abortion is wrong, it shouldn't be included in the list of "crimes against the church," therefore it shouldn't carry the automatic excommunication penalty as an offense against the church.
IF it's wrong, it's wrong because it's a crime against a person (and I am not convinced that the church has proved its case here, but that's beside the point), not a perversion of a sacrament or a public attack on fundamental church doctrine.
Murder is not an excommunicable crime. The appropriate penalty for murder is not denial of the sacraments, it's whatever the civil authorities exact and then whatever penance is exacted if a repentant murderer seeks reconciliation. Rape is not an excommunicable crime, not because it's not a grave offense, but because it's an offense against a person, and again the appropriate penalties are civil first and then sacramental, but not denial of the opportunity to seek the sacramental path.
What the church is saying here seems to be that, since everyone agrees that murder and rape are wrong, civil society will impose a civil penalty (I don't remember the details, but surely the stepfather faced some consequences for his crime?) while the church offers a path for repentance and reconciliation even for such great crimes. Since not everyone agrees that abortion is wrong, we can't trust the civil authorities to impose a penalty, therefore we will do the only thing left to us and impose an ecclesiastical penalty, just so everyone knows that we believe this is a serious issue.
Which I say is inconsistent. IF abortion is indeed a subcategory of murder, it seems to me that it still shouldn't be an excommunicable offense; the sacrament of reconciliation should be available for that as for any other sin. Also it forces the woman who wishes to be reconciled to the church to repent twice, once for the offense against the church and only then for the actual "sin".
TL;DR: I'm mostly in agreement with you, with the quibble that the problem isn't really that the Church thinks abortion is worse than child rape; the problem is that they're putting abortion into the wrong category of wrong, by their own definitions.
Posted by: Amaryllis | Nov 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM
@cjmr: could TBAT please put TW: Discussion of Child Molestation/Abortion in the Comments or some such on the post.
Done.
Everyone -- please be careful to add trigger warnings to the beginning of comments that contain triggering discussions/descriptions.
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Nov 10, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Also, since C has shown up in a community where he's a stranger and MercuryBlue has home ground advantage, can I suggest that everyone address him with courtesy and respect and keep the aggression down?
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 10, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Mercury Blue, I feel for you in that my Mom is very devout. We try to discuss things, but part of the problem is that we can never agree on the subject to be addressed. We talk past each other. I have trouble giving her arguments weight because she always brings up points that she has never researched and often uses urban legends for proof (which means I have trouble taking anything she says seriously) and she believes I am being willfully disobedient. I used to toe the line, former conservative Southern Baptist, and to her she thinks I'm just confused. If she just ignores my arguments they will go away. I want to verbally nuke her but won't because she IS my Mom, and she refuses to believe anything she does is harmful to me or anyone else. *shrugs*
I wish you luck.
Posted by: Asha | Nov 10, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Hi C: (mmy waves)
I personally find discussions about Catholicism incredibly difficult because although I am an atheist I am most definitely still culturally Catholic and often get into arguments with people where I find myself vigorously defending The Church (I capitalize it in my mind.) Often it is because "its more complicated than that" -- the attack on the church is predicated on a simplification/misunderstanding of church policy/theology.
@Kit Whitfield: since C has shown up in a community where he's a stranger and MercuryBlue has home ground advantage, can I suggest that everyone address him with courtesy and respect and keep the aggression down?
What Kit said.
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 10, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Lonespark: I had a look through the 100% for Haiti sales gallery, and while their stuff is gorgeous and some of it is WAANT, wow, they're really not undervaluing their work, are they?
since C has shown up in a community where he's a stranger
For precisely that reason, I doubt he'll be back, but I'd like to third Kit and mmy.
I have trouble giving her arguments weight because she always brings up points that she has never researched and often uses urban legends for proof (which means I have trouble taking anything she says seriously) and she believes I am being willfully disobedient.
Actual conversation with Mom, paraphrased: Mom, the case of the burglar suing the homeowner for injuries suffered during the burglary and winning? Never actually happened. At least one burglar has sued the homeowner, but I can only find one such incident with names attached, and here, I found the case in LexisNexis and here's the opinion, read it and tell me that doesn't translate to the judge laughed the burglar out of court. The burglar sure as hell didn't win that one.
Actual later conversation with Mom, paraphrased: [Mercury], just because it isn't on the Internet doesn't mean it isn't true.
Also she appears to be of the opinion that this whole liberal atheist feminist thing is a teenage rebellion thing. I'm twenty-two. She might be right about the rebellion bit, but I doubt it. Besides, it was her idea to get me into Girl Scouts, which is where I learned about leaving the campsite better than I found it, and what's the world but a damn big campsite?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 10, 2011 at 02:00 PM
What Amaryllis said. The Church does not reserve excommunication for the *worst* crimes, or the *most serious crimes*: they reserve it for those things which they consider incompatible with being allowed to receive sacraments. Some of the very worse crimes would undoubtedly qualify, I would think, but "X will get you excommunicated while Y won't" is emphatically NOT a statement that "X is worse than Y". In fact, on balance excommunication is _less_ often applied to things which are secular crimes and _more_ often applied to things which are not, because the church is not in the business of being a police force. If you commit a *crime*, the church's expectation is that the civil authorities will handle it.
Obviously, it's icky and wrong that the one group gets excommunicated and the offender does not, and I think it's really off-the-rails terrible that the church has decided that saving that child's life is incompatible with being a memeber of their faith.
I want to make an analogy here, but I'm very worried about it being cruel and insensitive. Unfortunately, I just don't *have* something analogous to the catholic church for comparison purposes. SO I wrote out an analogy about library cards and read it, and thought better of it.
Posted by: Ross | Nov 10, 2011 at 02:18 PM
This might sting a little, but you're really illustrating the points I made quite nicely. I'm not trying to insult or offend, just trying to show how the claims you're making don't work in the light of reason and logic, and how you probably know that but still hold those claims as truth.
You say the Church is only infallable on matters of faith and orals, not actions? So the Church is a good source of dictating morality, but cannot be relied upon to act morally? Isn't this a bit like saying "I can compose the greatest music in history in my head, but don't expect me to write anything or perform it"? Bzuh? If that's true, why should I accept that as a source of authority when there's clearly no evidence?
Fixed that for you. And no, I don't agree with the principle that a religious Church should oppose laws for everyone of every faith and creed based on religious standards, not unless you want to live in a Theocracy. We don't "just disagree on which actions are immoral". We disagree on what methods should be used to judge morality! Do we use philosophy, logic, reason, and evidence? Or do we rely on the "infallable moral teachings" of a Church, whose authority is derived from claims in that church's sacred text relating to the history of the founding of the church and its metaphorical proximity to the avitar of that church's diety?
This is what I mean by "partitioned reality". To a logical, rational person, the claim that "the Church's teaching on morality is infallable because of Jesus and Peter" is obviously and clearly proven as a worthless claim by "the Church has engaged in illegal, immoral cover-ups of horribly immoral, illegal acts comitted by the clergy upon the congregation in a blatant violation of trust". If your teachings are infallable, why would your own ordained servants of God choose not to follow them? There's an obvious contradiction here between the claim and the evidence.
But on the other side of the partition, "the Church's teaching on morality is infallable" is an article of faith. There is no evidence that could challenge that claim, because it does not belong to the category of things that can be challenged. And because it cannot be challenged, it's role as the source of the Church's authority means the Church's absolute authority categorically cannot be challenged.
As for the "teenage rebellion" business... at your age, it's appropriate and healthy to start asking questions about who you are, and to define an identity beyond "Mr. & Mrs. Blue's child". It means you're asking questions about faith and morality and identity, and you're rejecting any answer that starts with "because that's what I grew up with" or "that's how it's always been done" or "because that's what my parents believe". Like the seat-belt example, you're questioning things in the belief that good, true things will have a more solid foundation than "because someone said so!"
Posted by: Rodeobob | Nov 10, 2011 at 03:25 PM
MB, I feel for you on the "someone bringing a lawsuit is proof only that lawyers like to have jobs, and some people enjoy employing them to represent egos rather than to actually win cases," front. I lost a pretty good carpool buddy over the McDonald's coffee case.
Well, I probably should have said "good holiday gifts if you have the money to spend on fine art." My mom was just bemoaning that she never bought any paintings from a family friend, even though she likes them, because they are OMG so expensive, and I just...don't think she is really thinking that he makes his living at it, or something? Also she may be unaware that he now sells prints and calendars, which are not pricey at all...
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 10, 2011 at 03:28 PM
Rodeobob: Don't forget that it's possible to believe something is immoral and yet should be legal. Abortion. Porn. Sex with someone other than one's spouse. The US waging war in Southwest Asia.
One of these days I need to watch that Hot Coffee documentary so I can have an opinion on that case that's more nuanced than 'if she needed skin grafts because of the coffee burns, the coffee was too damn hot to drink, and therefore the court was right to order punitive damages'. Coworkers were discussing that case the other day. 'Sara': Yeah, but she didn't deserve that money! She was stupid enough to put the coffee between her legs in the first place, knowing it was hot! Me, silently because Sara's the supervisor and I'm not sure enough of my position to argue with her: That is so not what this case is about. (Also according to Sara, the woman who found the 'you go, girl' note on her vibrator after her suitcase was inspected at an airport should lose her suit for invasion of privacy, because now she's suing, everyone knows she brought a vibrator on a plane, so obviously her privacy isn't all that important to her. I do not care for Sara's opinions at all.)
I saw an article somewhere to the effect of 'make a piece of artwork, sell it for $300, yay money, vs make a piece of artwork, make prints, sell a hundred of them for $30, YAY MONEY'. Works better with visual art than with jewelry, though, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 10, 2011 at 03:45 PM
MercuryBlue: My misunderstanding
No problem; it was your misunderstanding and most of the rest of the world: did they really say that?! That's why they had to issue the clarifications.
And it's that kind of thing that makes discussion of "The Church" so difficult. On the one hand, it usually is more complicated than the popular notion. On the other hand, the institutional Church has a habit of shooting itself in the foot in these discussions, and it leaves a lot of us kinda "stuck in the middle," moaning, But...but...not exactly...but did you have to put it that way...I give up..."
Ross: The Church does not reserve excommunication for the *worst* crimes, or the *most serious crimes*: they reserve it for those things which they consider incompatible with being allowed to receive sacraments.
Well, technically speaking, you're not supposed to receive the Eucharist if you're in a state of grave sin, excommunicated or not. The difference is, even with serious sin, you can be directly absolved through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If you've been excommunicated, you first have to be absolved of the excommunication and then absolved of the fault. Double jeopardy, sorta. But yes, reserved for things which are incompatible with church membership, not for membership in fallen humanity.
Which brings me to:
Rodeobob: To a logical, rational person, the claim that "the Church's teaching on morality is infallable because of Jesus and Peter" is obviously and clearly proven as a worthless claim by "the Church has engaged in illegal, immoral cover-ups of horribly immoral, illegal acts comitted by the clergy upon the congregation in a blatant violation of trust". If your teachings are infallable, why would your own ordained servants of God choose not to follow them?
Because people are fallible? Because people do the wrong thing all the damn time? Because church officials are people, not demigods or robots? Because ordination confers a specific grace, not effortless general perfection?
Murders happen; does that invalidate the civil consensus against murder?
"the Church's teaching on morality is infallable" is an article of faith. There is no evidence that could challenge that claim, because it does not belong to the category of things that can be challenged. And because it cannot be challenged, it's role as the source of the Church's authority means the Church's absolute authority categorically cannot be challenged.
Whether or not it can be challenged, it can be debated by loyal, faithful Catholics, up one street and down the other, until the cows come home, until the fat lady is sung out, debate will still be going on as to just how far that authority stretches. "Infallibility," depending on who you're talking to, can mean either "three very specific and narrowly defined dogmas," or "everything my parish priest says," or any of a vast range of opinions in between.
And then, when you figure out what you mean by "infallible," then it's time to debate exactly how a particular teaching applies in a particular time and place. And those teachings are applicable on an individual level. Whatever "authority" a church has over its members, it's got none over social institutions.
Dogma doesn't translate to secular law. And shouldn't: I've got no desire to live in any kind of theocracy either.
Posted by: Amaryllis | Nov 10, 2011 at 04:31 PM
The Catholic Church has long ago surrendered any credible claims to moral authority. For me, given their track record, any teachings that I agree with are held to be correct on the broken clock principal.
Posted by: Nathaniel | Nov 10, 2011 at 04:46 PM
Some years after I became a Pagan I did a ritual renunciation of my baptism at the church where it happened (during non-service hours). I found it helpful in getting rid of the "I'm still tangled up in this" feeling. I don't think one has to believe in magic for such rituals to be psychologically relevant--it might be something to think about, if sending the letter isn't enough or has a distressing outcome.
On the way home from the ritual I saw an opossum in my yard, in broad daylight, which is unheard of. My coven has seen opossums a time or two and regards them as significant but completely enigmatic, so I have no idea what this meant, but it was comforting.
Posted by: MaryKaye | Nov 10, 2011 at 04:52 PM
I'd say you definitely don't need to. I've always thought of "How we subconsciously expect the universe to work," as a pretty good first-order approximation for what "magic" means.
Posted by: Froborr | Nov 10, 2011 at 05:05 PM
First, I'm really glad that others have clarified the Church's position on why certain sins are excommunicable (and I really like Amaryllis' postulation on why abortion is included in that list when it shouldn't be).
Mmy, I'm right there with you - not Catholic myself, I tend to be a little defensive on the Church's behalf because there are SO MANY misunderstandings. (Especially, I tend to find statements that vilify the entire institution based on the actions of a corrupt minority more than a little unfair.) However, I don't usually feel qualified to explain the discrepancies between popular belief and Catholic doctrine, and I'm always glad when folks more eloquent than myself jump in to do so.
The Church is opposed to laws which support seriously immoral actions. I'm sure all of you agree on that principle, we just disagree on which actions are immoral.
Here's something on which I've never gotten a satisfactory answer from any Catholic (or non-Catholic). Why should the Church oppose marriage equality laws when it does not recognize certain other legal marriages either? The Church recognizes no couple as married if they weren't married in the Church, so from a practical standpoint, it shouldn't make any difference to them if gay marriage is legal any more than it makes any difference to them that remarriages are legal. They wouldn't recognize gay unions as valid, which is their right - just as they don't recognize many other legal marriages as valid.
Why can the Church simply stay out of the argument about who is and who is not allowed to legally be married, and continue to disallow gay marriage within the Church?
I've never understood that one. Perhaps someone around here has a brilliant answer.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 10, 2011 at 05:51 PM
One of my long-term points of disagreement with the policies of the church is that they are frequently willing to to allow greater harms in order to avoid giving the appearance of supporting something they oppose. Hence, they allow people to die of STIs because anything other than total opposition to condoms might give the appearance that they have some wiggle-room on abstinence.
I think it's the same thing for marriage equality. I think (and I can't swear to this) that it's only recently that the Church started recognizing protestant marriages. If they back down on their position about marriage equality, it gives the appearance that the Church isn't fully committed to the idea that they have the exclusive right to define marriage. If they give domestic partner benefits, it (in their eyes) gives the appearance that there's some wiggle-room on the theological position vis a vis gay rights.
This is also why the Church is so frequently rocked with scandals about their cover-ups: from their perspective, if the church EVER admits to ANY wrongdoing or even to any errors in judgment, to their collective minds, that means that they are as good as telling the faithful, "we're just guessing here," and therefore it is more important that they keep up appearances than that they stop greater harms from happening.
This is because, in their mind, gay rights, or STDs, or assaulted children are a smaller harm than the damage done if millions of catholics suddenly discovered that their church was run by ordinary fallible human beings rather than magially-empowered celibate super-men.
Posted by: Ross | Nov 10, 2011 at 07:16 PM
Phoenix said:
I assume you meant can't? Why can't the Church simply stay...?
I don't see why bloody well not, and I'm Catholic. It certainly is how I feel, which makes me a bad Catholic, by some people's judgement.
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 10, 2011 at 07:19 PM
Ross, millions of Catholics *already* realize that our Church is run by ordinary fallible human beings, not magically-empowered super-men. It's just those who don't have better (?, well certainly louder anyway) press.
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 10, 2011 at 07:21 PM
@cmjr: It's like in politics. No one really believes Obama is a Socialist Kenyan Muslim Atheist Nazi, but the rules of the game are that if you want to be in the club, wink and nod and swear before god and the flying spaghetti monster that you DO believe it. In most of the world, most folks don't believe the church hierarchy has real magic powers, there's a general agreement that the Church will keep up its side of the pretense, and the devoted faithful will keep up theirs.
In Pro Wrestling and the circus, this is called "Kayfaybe".
(Dunno if I've mentioned, but I have a friend who *lives in Italy*, and he was *surprised* to learn that *any* Catholics actually believe in God or any of the religious stuff, and it's not all just a sort of ritual that no one believes in but everyone just does as a matter of tribal identification. It was a concept that he'd never been confronted with until adulthood.)
Posted by: Ross | Nov 10, 2011 at 07:37 PM
What pretense? I'd be willing to bet that my current archbishop, if asked, would freely admit that the Church is run by ordinary fallible human beings. As would my previous one, and the one previous to that.
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:16 PM
I assume you meant can't? Why can't the Church simply stay...?
Oops, yes. I did mean to say can't there.
And, I don't think that makes you a bad Catholic at all. "As a Catholic, I cannot marry a person of the same sex." Okay, fine. Every religion defines its own moral rules. But not everyone is Catholic... so non-Catholics... ought not be bound to the same set of rules as Catholics.
To me, that sounds like simple logic.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:29 PM
Rodeobob: Don't forget that it's possible to believe something is immoral and yet should be legal. Abortion. Porn. Sex with someone other than one's spouse. The US waging war in Southwest Asia.
Absolutely. I think all sorts of things are immoral - but that doesn't automatically mean they should be illegal. Legislating morality has never seemed to work out very well...
This is a fascinating discussion, and I wish I had more to contribute to it.
Posted by: Deird, who is writing this sneakily from her desk | Nov 10, 2011 at 08:53 PM
Phoenix: Mmy, I'm right there with you - not Catholic myself, I tend to be a little defensive on the Church's behalf because there are SO MANY misunderstandings. (Especially, I tend to find statements that vilify the entire institution based on the actions of a corrupt minority more than a little unfair.) However, I don't usually feel qualified to explain the discrepancies between popular belief and Catholic doctrine, and I'm always glad when folks more eloquent than myself jump in to do so.
But here's the thing: the Catholic Church is one of the most, if not the most powerful, rich, and influential organizations on the planet. We're not talking about a minority group with little to no resources, and thus I am inclined to the view that if there are misunderstandings, the Church must first look to itself. If it, of all entities, can't defend itself, then who can?
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 10, 2011 at 11:07 PM
Ross: In most of the world, most folks don't believe the church hierarchy has real magic powers, there's a general agreement that the Church will keep up its side of the pretense, and the devoted faithful will keep up theirs.
It depends on what you mean by "magic powers." That is, I don't believe that the hierarchy has any superpowers of Always Right or Never Sinful. And as cjmr says, I don't think you'd find a priest or bishop who believes it either (although some of them are arrogant enough to act as if they do, but there you go--priests aren't magically preserved from that failing either). But in my more Catholic moments, I believed that priests have a power that could be regarded as magic-- that something happens when a priest says "This is My Body" or "Your sins are forgiven," or when a bishop lays his hands on the head of a candidate for priesthood. I don't feel that we can assume pretense on either side during those kinds of moments.
(Dunno if I've mentioned, but I have a friend who *lives in Italy*, and he was *surprised* to learn that *any* Catholics actually believe in God or any of the religious stuff, and it's not all just a sort of ritual that no one believes in but everyone just does as a matter of tribal identification. It was a concept that he'd never been confronted with until adulthood.)
Sheesh, and I thought religious education in the U.S. was bad.
Why should the Church oppose marriage equality laws when it does not recognize certain other legal marriages either? The Church recognizes no couple as married if they weren't married in the Church,
The Church certainly recognizes non-Catholic and non-Christian marriages as civilly valid, and if the couple are Christians of any denomination, than the marriage is sacramentally valid as well. Whether a previous non-Catholic marriage is an impediment to a later Catholic marriage is the kind of question that keeps the canon lawyers in business.
so from a practical standpoint, it shouldn't make any difference to them if gay marriage is legal any more than it makes any difference to them that remarriages are legal. They wouldn't recognize gay unions as valid, which is their right - just as they don't recognize many other legal marriages as valid.
They-- that is, the bishops-- have stooped to pulling out the "religious liberty" canard-- "Religious business owners like florists, bakers, musicians, or photographers would not have been able to decline to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony."
But probably, it comes down to money: "Employers could also be forced to honor same-sex marriages through health care laws." Yes, they could, and should; including Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, charities, etc, etc. So in that sense, legal same-sex marriage does change the status quo.
Posted by: Amaryllis | Nov 10, 2011 at 11:22 PM
This is quite an interesting discussion indeed, having been raised Catholic but having lapsed a bit over time (and thus finding myself perhaps a bit more aligned with some Anglican moral viewpoints, it seems at times...or perhaps at least a subset of the Jesuits), and completely relate to the rest of you who have mentioned finding yourselves frustrated at lazy arguments against the church itself. I am not about to stick out my neck for a lot of things they have done (indeed, I certainly cannot contest that they are quite morally abhorrent) but...well, obviously that doesn't justify bigotry.
The most I can say is that I've always had a more liberal viewpoint on salvation outside the church. Which is to say that (excerpted from the catechism, paragraphs 839-848), "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation," includes those who are through no fault of their own unable to create some sort of emotional contact with God. This would of course include those wronged by the Church itself.
I do also like what this article (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4085) quotes from Cardinal Franzelin:
Which, on the one hand, implies the Church as the only source of grace (which I feel may well be a different issue from the validity Church's actual moral authority, as I see such grace as primarily through Jesus itself, which the Church claims it has closest connection to -- related to issues of succession, in any case). But on the other the question of what it means to actually desire salvation (i.e., "the implicit desire for membership in the Church") could be interpreted a number of ways.
That is, does something like, say, "Well, I would like to be a part of the Church, but I don't feel comfortable belonging to or associating with an organization that, using the arguments it does against abortion (that it is a grave moral evil to take the rights of the truly defenseless to serve even the less-privileged), feels that it is somehow justified in protecting the ordained over that of abused children and their families," count as implicit desire for membership in the Church? I would be surprised to not find someone here who probably disagreed, but I'd say yes, if only because I never saw Jesus as a bureaucrat in the first place. It's much like the issue of how the sins of a priest do not necessarily prevent the Eucharist from being consecrated.
Struggled to write this post as it's hard to argue this in a way that doesn't end up sounding a bit hollow. My apologies; I don't know how much it's contributing compared to, say, cognitive dissonance issues, but I've been feeling more distracted/headachey than usual lately, and even my regular cups of coffee haven't been helping as much as I'd like. Makes trying to write relatively larger writings or songs, etc. a bit tougher than usual. Can't tell if this is due to a lack of exercise/natural light or if it's just these things just going through a somewhat worse period of time the way, say, chronic pain does.
Basically, my eloquence is not up to snuff.
In any case I certainly agree on the issue of not legislating morality. At the very least because I highly, highly doubt it will in any way coincide with my own. I'm a pretty weird guy sometimes.
Posted by: muteKi | Nov 11, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Here's something on which I've never gotten a satisfactory answer from any Catholic (or non-Catholic). Why should the Church oppose marriage equality laws when it does not recognize certain other legal marriages either?
Erl's previous essay comes to mind here:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/07/proclamation-and-policy.html
A reasonable theory, perhaps, is that the Church views secular lawmaking the way it views clerical commandments: your job is to make a proclamation about what people should or shouldn't do rather than to pass practical laws on the harm-reduction model.
At the same time, you don't get to be a powerful bishop, cardinal or pope without having some sense of realism and what you can and can't do. That's why the Church is more aggressive against contraception in developing countries; they couldn't get away with it in developed ones because there's a higher level of information around.
Secular governments passing laws against non-Catholic marriages is not realistic unless it's a Catholic dictatorship, so that's a lost cause, and on proclamation terms, at least a government sanctioning non-Catholic marriages is proclaiming that marriage is, in general, a good thing. The Catholic church isn't against heterosexual marriages; it just has views on how they ought to be conducted.
Marriage equality laws, on the other hand, are a proclamation that same-sex relationships are as legitimate as opposite-sex ones, and that, the Church is absolutely opposed to.
I think it's about what laws imply, and where you're starting from. Realistically you're not going to win the 'Nobody non-Catholic marriage' fight, and at least non-Catholic marriages sanction marriage in general. Marriage equality, on the other hand, is a battle they actually could win, and its implications cannot be reconciled with Catholic doctrine.
Mixture of realpolitik and proclamation-thinking, is my guess.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 11, 2011 at 03:22 AM
Something I find incredibly fatuous: atheists and other well meaning people claiming that if the conservative Christian vision of God were proven true, they would oppose this God.
No, you wouldn't, and if you did, you wouldn't be brave, you'd be stupid. The conservative vision of God includes the old school notions of hell, and no human being is capable of paying that price. Holding on to your good conscience in the face of infinite suffering is not brave, it is stupid, and no one is that stupid.
If hell exists, Jenkins and LaHaye win.
Posted by: MikeWC | Nov 11, 2011 at 07:08 AM
@MikeWC: that is not a polite or respectful contribution to the discussion. Beginning by calling your opponents stupid is not an intelligent strategy.
Neither is it a good argument: many human beings bravely take decisions that have terrible consequences, and if they regret it on the rack, it's too late. If human beings are capable of damning themselves at all, they're capable of damning themselves out of principle as well as out of sin.
It is not in one's selfish interests to subject oneself to suffering rather than ally with a tyrant, but prisons and torture chambers on earth are full of people who have done just that. People are being tortured right now for reasons of conscience, maybe for the rest of their lives. If you want to call them stupid, then shame on you.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 11, 2011 at 07:39 AM
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church
Which is, in this day and age, who? Literally nobody old enough to understand language, I suspect.
Mike: You're probably right in that if hell exists I'd be screaming for mercy before a month was up, and I'm only saying something as long as a month because I'm stubborn. But in the unlikely event that JREF announces the conservative Christian god exists, and assuming 'conservative Christian god' entails both 'human souls' and 'hell', well then, I'll go to hell. Because, to paraphrase a character or two on Supernatural, I have a soul, and it won't let me do otherwise.
I far prefer the Jewish conception of deity. Rabbis: *outvote God* God: "My children have defeated me!"
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 11, 2011 at 08:15 AM
But here's the thing: the Catholic Church is one of the most, if not the most powerful, rich, and influential organizations on the planet. We're not talking about a minority group with little to no resources, and thus I am inclined to the view that if there are misunderstandings, the Church must first look to itself. If it, of all entities, can't defend itself, then who can?
TW: Reference to abuse scandal (no details, just a mention)
@Ruby - I haven't the time to put as much thought into this question as I want to, but offhand my inclination is to say that if you're talking about the higher authorities in the church, I completely agree with you. Even if they didn't know, part of being in charge is answering for the actions of those below you. They should have known and, once they knew, obviously they shouldn't have taken steps to cover it up.
I think people would have given the Church a lot more credit if they had stood up and said (from the beginning) that the child abuse was a terrible sin and that anyone involved in either the abuse or the cover-up had been removed from their position of power in the Church, and that they would be doing whatever they could to restore healing to the families and children involved. At least, I would have.
However - nearly every Catholic I know felt exactly that way - they did believe it was a terrible thing and a terrible sin, that those men did not belong with them or with God, and they were mortified, angry and saddened by the way the Church responded. Including many priests I know. So I hate seeing them painted all with the same brush.
Keep in mind, though, I'm incredibly biased by the fact that (from my purview), the Church has turned at least one broken, angry, hurtful person into one of the happiest and most peaceful people that I know. After all the awful years and all the bad times, I have a wonderful relationship with this person these days.
I never thought that was possible, and 90% of the reason for it was hir conversion to Catholicism. The Church has transformed and healed hir, and... I can't help but love it for that, for giving me back my parent and offering me the chance to know hir as the person I think zie always tried and wanted to be, but could never manage on hir own.
This is obviously a very personal matter and I know well that it shouldn't influence my feelings on the greater political and theological problems that the Church has (because they are numerous). Intellectually, it doesn't - but emotionally, I pull back from these discussions because I can't help wanting to defend the Church. It did something for me that I thought no one could do... and I'm not even Catholic.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 11, 2011 at 08:51 AM
Beginning by calling your opponents stupid is not an intelligent strategy.
To be sure, I called no one here stupid. I called a particular position stupid, and I called hypothetical future persons stupid - people that I do not believe in any possible world. If you insist on schooling me on what is and isn't an intelligent strategy, please first understand my strategy.
Your comparison of hell to the violence of a tyrant is like a teenager comparing being grounded to a North Korean gulag. Hell (and of course I am referring to the most common American evangelical interpretations of it) is infinite: infinite in length and infinite in misery.
Also, there is no comparison between giving the finger to LaHaye's God and political resistance here on Earth. Political action could change something; it is not necessarily a lost cause. Defying LeHaye's God is a lost cause, as MercuryBlue admits in the comment that follows yours.
Holding on to genuinely lost causes is always a matter of narcissism. Note what MercuryBlue says:
Mike: You're probably right in that if hell exists I'd be screaming for mercy before a month was up, and I'm only saying something as long as a month because I'm stubborn.
So your stubbornness would burn off within a month, at best, and then... what? An eternity of begging for mercy through nashing teeth? Is your stubbornness really worth that much to you? God wouldn't care, the demons wouldn't care, the other people in hell wouldn't care, the people in heaven wouldn't care, nothing would change.
What charge would you have against LaHaye's actually-existing-God, anyways? Long ago genocides? Religious intolerance (keeping in mind that in LaHaye world, no other gods exist)? If LaHaye is right, then Muslims, Hindus and Jews hold a set of beliefs that roughly amount to saying 2+2 = 5. You'd go to hell for their right to believe that? You'd go to hell for the right of a gay person to sleep with whomever they want? Other people's orgasms are worth an eternity of misery?
Your claims are about your own good conscience, a good conscience that - since both of us are well aware that LaHaye is loony - has nothing at stake.
This is all part of the true horror and deep contradiction of American evangelical theology - the concepts of heaven and hell utterly obliterate the concepts of freedom, ethics and responsibility - and yet, as we see every day in American society, it is evangelicals that speak the most about these concepts.
Posted by: MikeWC | Nov 11, 2011 at 08:55 AM
Something I find incredibly fatuous: atheists and other well meaning people claiming that if the conservative Christian vision of God were proven true, they would oppose this God.
No, you wouldn't, and if you did, you wouldn't be brave, you'd be stupid.
Hey, MikeWC? How about doing other people the courtesy of not telling them that you know their own thoughts better than they do? Thanks in advance.
So your stubbornness would burn off within a month, at best, and then... what? An eternity of begging for mercy through nashing teeth? Is your stubbornness really worth that much to you? God wouldn't care, the demons wouldn't care, the other people in hell wouldn't care, the people in heaven wouldn't care, nothing would change.
What charge would you have against LaHaye's actually-existing-God, anyways? Long ago genocides? Religious intolerance (keeping in mind that in LaHaye world, no other gods exist)? If LaHaye is right, then Muslims, Hindus and Jews hold a set of beliefs that roughly amount to saying 2+2 = 5. You'd go to hell for their right to believe that? You'd go to hell for the right of a gay person to sleep with whomever they want? Other people's orgasms are worth an eternity of misery?
And there you go. The fact is that this God would not care about my suffering, or anyone's suffering. He would not care about the massive number of deaths he caused. He would not care about anyone's happiness or freedom, even the freedom to be wrong.
How could you not oppose such a creature?
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:23 AM
@MikeWC: To be sure, I called no one here stupid. I called a particular position stupid,
But since there are people here who claim to hold that position you are defending yourself against calling them stupid by calling them either liars or self-deluded.
The "okay then I will go to hell" response is not something new nor is it the response of someone who is too intellectually immature to understand its import. I feel comfortable standing on the same ground as Mark Twain (in reference to choosing hell or obedience to God).
Further point -- the decision to opt for hell rather than serve an immoral/cruel God is not unique to responses to some of the excesses of American evangelical--for example, one can see that explored in the myth of Prometheus and, of course, in Paradise Lost.
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:27 AM
If LaHaye is right, then Muslims, Hindus and Jews hold a set of beliefs that roughly amount to saying 2+2 = 5. You'd go to hell for their right to believe that? You'd go to hell for the right of a gay person to sleep with whomever they want?
Pardon my Saxon.
YES I FUCKING WELL WOULD.
Other people's orgasms are worth an eternity of misery?
I'm bisexual. We're talking about my orgasms.
More to the point, we're talking about my pride. I have some. Enough that when Cthulhu comes calling, I won't knuckle under and pray for it to eat me first.
And even more to the point:
I am, for purposes of this discussion since the conservative Christian god does not (and I suspect Mike doesn't either) recognize the concept of 'agender' or 'genderqueer', female. My right as a US citizen to have the same chance any US man does at becoming the Speaker of the House or a Supreme Court Justice or the US fucking President, despite the conservative Christian belief that women should not have positions of power over men, is worth something. My right to be paid the same number of pennies per hour to do my job as a man would be paid to do the same job is worth something. My right to be paid, on average, the same as any man with my level of schooling is worth something. My right to speak freely and to be heard without being dismissed for not being male is worth something. My right to not be a mom if I don't want to be is worth something. My right to be a mom if I do want to be is worth something. I'm bored of listing rights that I am supposed to have but, as a woman, mostly do not have. Nor have I begun to expound upon the many other ways in which the kyriarchy, which conservative Christians support, hurts those who aren't lucky enough to be straight white cis Christian men without disabilities. And all those people who aren't at the top of the kyriarchy? They [are supposed to] have a fuckton of rights too, all the same rights that the people at the top of the kyriarchy have, and those rights are worth something.
All those rights I've just said are worth something? They're worth more than I am. If defending them means I get tortured till I can't take any more and then I get tortured some more, then I guess I better stock up on fortitude.
If all that means I'm a narcissist, so fucking be it. Where's my mirror? I'm overdue for my nine-thirty session of admiring my freckles.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:33 AM
What charge would you have against LaHaye's actually-existing-God, anyways?
Hell.
What other charge need there be?
Posted by: chris the cynic | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:33 AM
Hell.
What other charge need there be?
Sing it.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:35 AM
Phoenix: I think people would have given the Church a lot more credit if they had stood up and said (from the beginning) that the child abuse was a terrible sin and that anyone involved in either the abuse or the cover-up had been removed from their position of power in the Church, and that they would be doing whatever they could to restore healing to the families and children involved. At least, I would have.
However - nearly every Catholic I know felt exactly that way - they did believe it was a terrible thing and a terrible sin, that those men did not belong with them or with God, and they were mortified, angry and saddened by the way the Church responded. Including many priests I know. So I hate seeing them painted all with the same brush.
I hope it did not come across as me trying to paint all priests as abusers. Of course they are not. And I know that many Catholics are saddened and angry by the abuse. Though I have heard and seen some try to downplay the enormity of the problem, and write it off as a case of a couple of bad apples instead of a major systemic issue.
I am very glad your loved one was helped by the Church.
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:38 AM
MercuryBlue: If all that means I'm a narcissist, so fucking be it.
And MikeWC further endears himself to me by employing one of my pet peeves: using the word "narcissist" to loosely refer to people he doesn't like, rather than actual narcissists.
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:41 AM
Apologies for the double post! Someone I screwed up the html tags.
Hey, MikeWC? How about doing other people the courtesy of not telling them that you know their own thoughts better than they do? Thanks in advance.
I didn't tell anyone what they actually thought. Improve your reading comprehension. Thanks in advance.
And there you go. The fact is that this God would not care about my suffering, or anyone's suffering. He would not care about the massive number of deaths he caused. He would not care about anyone's happiness or freedom, even the freedom to be wrong.
How could you not oppose such a creature?
Oh, it's very easy given that this creature is fictional. It's so easy that it's not even worth doing. And if this being were real, what good would opposing it be? On a timeline longer than Mercury's one month. What do you picture yourself doing, shaking your fist in righteous defiance for all eternity What are you going to do once you realize that literally no one cares that you are shaking your fist? Console yourself with the purity of your soul? (And wouldn't your arm get tired after a while...?)
If that is all you have to fall back on - the purity of your soul - then that is all you care about. Hence, narcissism. You think you're taking a righteous stand, but all it really is is a spit shine for your soul. Awesome!
But since there are people here who claim to hold that position you are defending yourself against calling them stupid by calling them either liars or self-deluded.
Well, you do have to pick one, right? I'm either calling people stupid or self-deluded. If you want to file self-delusion under narcissism, then I guess I could cop to that.
Further point -- the decision to opt for hell rather than serve an immoral/cruel God is not unique to responses to some of the excesses of American evangelical--for example, one can see that explored in the myth of Prometheus and, of course, in Paradise Lost.
Two interesting examples. First, Prometheus was freed - his predicament was not infinite, and infinite punishment is a hallmark of hell. Second, do you want to take the claim that is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven as some kind of ethical maxim? Because 1) That assumes you are the one in charge and 2) you're still in hell.
Posted by: MikeWC | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:49 AM
I hope it did not come across as me trying to paint all priests as abusers. Of course they are not. And I know that many Catholics are saddened and angry by the abuse. Though I have heard and seen some try to downplay the enormity of the problem, and write it off as a case of a couple of bad apples instead of a major systemic issue.
Oh, you didn't at all, no worries. Actually, you strike me as consistently and admirably respectful of religious individuals even if you strongly disagree with them, and I like that about you. As I said, I agree that there are major systemic problems that led to this scandal.
I was just trying to explain my (perhaps a bit unreasonable) reaction to statements like, "The Church has made a habit of immoral actions, to wit, taking priests accused of sexual immorality (I hate that phrase, but here it's accurate) towards children and moving them to new parishes where there are new children to victimize, rather than alerting the civil authorities in either jurisdiction."
I understand and agree with what (I think) MercuryBlue meant, but I still twig on statements like that because they lump a large institution filled with individual people - including a great many who had nothing to do with the scandal, and also hated the Catholic authority's response - into a single entity. I doubt I would take it so personally if I didn't feel so indebted to the Church.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:51 AM
Sorry - I forgot to add "@Ruby" to my statement above.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:52 AM
Phoenix: I distinguish between the Catholic Church, the institution, and Catholics, the people. Along the same lines as I distinguish between the US government and the US people. Does that clarify?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:53 AM
"Holding on to your good conscience in the face of infinite suffering is not brave, it is stupid, and no one is that stupid."
This seems to me to imply that human beings can comprehend infinite suffering and make rational decisions based on that comprehension. I cannot find the logic in this. Infinity is, by necessity, bigger than the biggest thing that the human mind can encompass. When I learned infinity in math class, they gave us this word problem. "Imagine that you have a million. Now imagine a million of those. Now imagine a million of those. Now imagine[....] It's even bigger than that."
I would have a harder time dealing with limited, precisely defined suffering as a consequence to taking the correct moral action. "Do the right thing and listen to a dripping noise for a week," I can comprehend. "Do the right thing and be tortured for all eternity," makes me want to go, "Screw it, I can't even imagine that. I'm going to go kiss my girlfriend." I don't think I'm being either brave or stupid when I say that. I just can't wrap my brain around the concept of Hell as described by the fundamentalist traditions. This might be not having been raised in the Christian tradition.
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:56 AM
@MikeWC: Well, you do have to pick one, right? I'm either calling people stupid or self-deluded. If you want to file self-delusion under narcissism, then I guess I could cop to that.
Just because you want to call people stupid or self-deluded doesn't mean I have to pick one. I have been told that I am either one or the other because I think evolution is a better explanation of our existence than creationism.
More to the point, I have been told that I must be one or the other because I understand logistic regression. That you can't grasp a concept says nothing about the validity of the concept.
As to Prometheus -- he did not know that his predicament was not infinite. The point of the story is that his choice was noble and correct even though it entailed horrific consequences. As per Milton -- your description of hell would require that Satan also repent/regret his decision. He does not. Ruling in hell does not change the fact that he is in hell.
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 11, 2011 at 09:58 AM
So your stubbornness would burn off within a month, at best, and then... what? An eternity of begging for mercy through nashing teeth? Is your stubbornness really worth that much to you? God wouldn't care, the demons wouldn't care, the other people in hell wouldn't care, the people in heaven wouldn't care, nothing would change.
@MikeWC - I've had this exact argument flung at me multiple times from the same (dear and well-meaning) friend. It comes up every time we have this discussion. Zie can't understand why my response to this is that I still would rather be punished by this God than in heaven with him while he tortured other people who opposed him just because he could.
The disconnect (at least when I discuss this with my friend) seems to center around where we place our respective focus. Zie focuses on the fact that God loves hir so much that he was willing to SAVE hir from eternal damnation and torment, and I focus on the fact that he was willing to allow it in the first place.
"God is NOT cruel for allowing this," zie argues, "because he gives us a way out and that's the most loving thing he could do." But zie says that like God's not the one who created the way of things in the first place.
If God was all-powerful, then he could have chosen a way that didn't involve infinite torture for finite sins. And if God was all-loving, then he wouldn't need to torture his enemies in perpetuity because they made the regrettable error in judgment not to yield to his rule.
He doesn't want them in his heaven, fine. That's fair enough. But why not let them shift for themselves in the universe instead? Why lock them in a place where there is no escape, only eternal pain?
My friend doesn't understand how I can't see the love. I don't understand how zie can't see the hate.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM
TYPEPAAAAAAAAAAD!
In the absence of my former post, I will do this in outline form:
1. Yeah, it's possible that I'd cave when confronted with BastardGod. It's possible that, in a Lovecraftian universe, I'd snap and start eating babies. I don't know. But I know what I'd try to do, and what's right to try and do.
2. Stating things definitively is a pretty common way of bolstering your resolve to do them, even if you don't know for sure that you'll manage it. That's...kind of the point of vows.
3. If everyone in a relatively large and varied population is "misinterpreting" your comments, the problem probably ain't them.
4. Coming onto a board to tell everyone What They're Doing Wrong is what the kids today call a "douche move", I believe.
5. Put the e-peen away and lurk more. Or just fuck off.
Posted by: Izzy | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM
MikeWC: I didn't tell anyone what they actually thought. Improve your reading comprehension. Thanks in advance.
Actually, you did. Twice.
Again, this is simple manners. It is not polite to tell others that you know their thoughts better than they do.
Oh, it's very easy given that this creature is fictional. It's so easy that it's not even worth doing.
And yet, the first thing you asked us to do was assume the creature is real. Nice goalpost-moving, though.
And if this being were real, what good would opposing it be?
The good that comes of opposing evil. The good of standing by what one knows is right, and of supporting the freedoms of yourself and others.
On a timeline longer than Mercury's one month. What do you picture yourself doing, shaking your fist in righteous defiance for all eternity?
Nah, that's just the common RTC perception of atheists. Perhaps you should talk to some with an open mind so that you can better understand our views and not have to resort to stereotypes.
What are you going to do once you realize that literally no one cares that you are shaking your fist?
I count a fair number of people in this thread alone who care. Plus my nonChristian family and friends. We are not so alone as you might imagine.
Console yourself with the purity of your soul? (And wouldn't your arm get tired after a while...?)
I don't have a soul. But thanks for caring.
If that is all you have to fall back on - the purity of your soul - then that is all you care about. Hence, narcissism. You think you're taking a righteous stand, but all it really is is a spit shine for your soul. Awesome!
Again, I do not have a soul to keep spit-shined. And again, please do not tell me what I think, or what I care about. Also, I urge you to do a bit of reading on narcissism--you are tossing the word about with no apparent understanding of its meaning.
As well: around here, we generally either italicize the words of others, or blockquote or otherwise attribute the words to the original poster. In that way, we avoid having walls of text written by multiple people, and constantly having to scroll back to deteremine who said what. You might want to try using some of the HTML tags below the comment box, as they make posts easier to read.
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:05 AM
@MikeWC: Holding on to genuinely lost causes is always a matter of narcissism.
Excuse me -- are you saying that every single one of the people who died/suffered for the sake of cause they believed in was simply a narcissist?
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:06 AM
Phoenix: I distinguish between the Catholic Church, the institution, and Catholics, the people. Along the same lines as I distinguish between the US government and the US people. Does that clarify?
@Mercury Blue - Thank you for the clarification. Yes, it makes perfect sense and I figured that's what you meant. My hang-up about this (which has to do with the fact that most Catholics I know make no such distinction) is my own, and no reflection on you.
I'll clarify in return - I wasn't offended by the essence of your comment to begin with, because I figured you didn't mean it as a blanket statement about Catholic people. As I said, I just twig on the wording (I wish I could describe it more clearly but that's the best word I can think of to describe my reaction - not offended, not upset, just... twigged). It makes me feel, somewhat irrationally, defensive.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM
@MikeWC: Holding on to genuinely lost causes is always a matter of narcissism.
@Mmy - It sure sounds that way to me. Makes a person wonder if slaves who died trying to win their own freedom (which eventually played into securing the freedom of their fellow slaves... but that was totally not what those narcissists were going for, I'm sure... /sarcasm) might have something to say about that.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM
The good that comes of opposing evil. The good of standing by what one knows is right, and of supporting the freedoms of yourself and others.
Yes.
"WE MUST DO WHAT WE CAN."
"And if we fail?"
"THEN WE DID WHAT WE COULD, UNTIL WE COULD NOT."
Pratchett, of course.
MikeWC, if you want to be Pissy Despondent Nihilist Guy, by all means go do that. But trying to sell everyone else on your nineties-era White Wolf philosophy is just annoying. Go listen to Kansas in your room or something, will you?
Posted by: Izzy | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Ah, is there a moderator for this forum? Yes, please, delete the first of my double posts.
I am, for purposes of this discussion since the conservative Christian god does not (and I suspect Mike doesn't either) recognize the concept of 'agender' or 'genderqueer', female.
Yeah, I'm an atheist.
Maybe I'm not expressing myself well. Why do you think that listing off your entirely justified and well-founded grievances with the American right is somehow a refutation of what I am saying? The state of American politics has nothing to do with heaven or hell (again, from the perspective of hypothetical LaHaye world). Let's say that Congress and various corporate CEO positions get filled up with the disabled and quiltbag people. Then these people die. Then God shrugs his shoulders, and never gives them a second thought as they suffer infinitely.
Hell.
What other charge need there be?
Ah! Good one. Feel free to carry out your devastating revenge on god, then.
And MikeWC further endears himself to me by employing one of my pet peeves: using the word "narcissist" to loosely refer to people he doesn't like, rather than actual narcissists.
I'm claiming that people who say they would defy an actually existing LaHaye god are doing nothing other than polishing their beautiful souls. I'm not using the term narcissist loosely: I'm saying the defiance claim is a defense of one's identity, as opposed to an actual political or ethical position with a stake in the world. That is narcissism. When the boat starts to sink, rely on your soul/identity!
Posted by: MikeWC | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM
@MikeWC: Ah, is there a moderator for this forum? Yes, please, delete the first of my double posts
Done
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM
I'm saying the defiance claim is a defense of one's identity, as opposed to an actual political or ethical position with a stake in the world. That is narcissism.
So because I identify as a feminist, even though feminism is an actual political and ethical position with a stake in the world, me asserting my feminist principles is me being narcissistic?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:18 AM
@Phoenix: And thus MikeWC showcases his lack of understanding of narcissism. Doing something because it will support/benefit others is pretty much the exact opposite of being a narcissist.
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM
@MikeWC: Yeah, I'm an atheist.
And so are many other people on this board. Your arguments are landing with an unconvincing thud among people who believe and DON'T believe in God. Suggests that the problem may lie with the arguments.
Maybe I'm not expressing myself well.
Or maybe you are expressing yourself extremely well -- we just think that you are wrong.
I'm claiming that people who say they would defy an actually existing LaHaye god are doing nothing other than polishing their beautiful souls.
No, I am saying that I would defy an omnipotent being that used its powers to further the cause of wrong because I love other living beings as much as I love myself. Maybe even more. And that is the opposite of narcissism.
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM
I'm saying the defiance claim is a defense of one's identity, as opposed to an actual political or ethical position with a stake in the world. That is narcissism.
@MikeWC - These two things are not mutually exclusive. You can take an "actual political or ethical position with a stake in the world" which also runs counter to whatever governing authority under which you happen to live.
See also... just a random example... a little difference of opinion about taxes that turned into what we like to call the Revolutionary War.
And, it is possible to defend the right of other people to hold a position which you happen to hold yourself. Or maybe even one you don't hold yourself, because you still believe others have the right to hold it and are prepared to defend it on their behalf. How about that?
I didn't realize these were such groundbreaking concepts.
Posted by: Phoenix, who is rolling her eyes | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:26 AM
MikeWD sounds like an evil minion out of Conan or something: "You are weak and insignificant before the Mighty Dragon of Storms, fool! Your defiance will be but ashes before her mighty flames!"
That's basically the same thing, right?
Posted by: Marc Mielke | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM
MikeWC: I'm claiming that people who say they would defy an actually existing LaHaye god are doing nothing other than polishing their beautiful souls.
And I'm saying that I would (as much as I can speak with certainty about something that is highly unlikely to happen) oppose such a god. And that I do not have a soul. Many atheists do not believe we have souls. So your whole soul-polishing idea falls pretty flat.
I'm not using the term narcissist loosely: I'm saying the defiance claim is a defense of one's identity, as opposed to an actual political or ethical position with a stake in the world. That is narcissism. When the boat starts to sink, rely on your soul/identity!
Again, you are telling people that you know their thoughts better than they do: that their motivation is not X (as they claim), but Y. Standing up for the rights and freedoms of others is not a narcissistic characteristic. Again, I urge you to do some reading on this subject; narcissism is a fascinating (and depressing) topic, but your cavalier use of the label is insulting to those who have to interact with real narcissists.
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:30 AM
MikeWC - if the LaHaye god exists, it exists now when we are in defiance of it as much as it might exist later after it smote us with fire. Thus, defiance now is as true as defiance then. If it exists, we will go to Hell. Would I then curse my younger self and go insane? Probably. But I have regretted and will regret a lot of things my younger self has/will do. But at that point, I'll be in Hell, so I'll have done what I said I would do. (This is why parenting by consequences 80 years in the future really isn't a great behavior modification tool. Ask my mom and her lectures on brushing your teeth 5 times a day.)
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM
I'll just point out here that this is ope of the days of the year that many of us set aside to remember the millions who have risked their lives for the betterment of others.
Just tell me MikeWC that every single person who suffered in the trenches in WWI, who risked their lives to save Jews from the Gestapo or who spent years on convoy escort in the North Atlantic did it because they were a narcissist....
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:32 AM
@Phoenix: And thus MikeWC showcases his lack of understanding of narcissism. Doing something because it will support/benefit others is pretty much the exact opposite of being a narcissist.
@Ruby - MikeWC also appears not to be familiar with the concept of a community identity. It's completely possible to do something on behalf of your family, your town, your country, whatever, that is ALSO a deeply personal act, because part of your own identity is seeing yourself as part of a greater whole.
So yeah - not really sure where he's going with all this, but I can't wait to hear how it's possible for someone to be a narcissist while actively in the process of risking hir life on behalf of other people.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Again, I urge you to do some reading on this subject; narcissism is a fascinating (and depressing) topic, but your cavalier use of the label is insulting to those who have to interact with real narcissists.
And also: This is very much seconded.
Posted by: Phoenix | Nov 11, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Wysteria said: "Do the right thing and be tortured for all eternity," makes me want to go, "Screw it, I can't even imagine that. I'm going to go kiss my girlfriend."
Well, if we're talking about the myriad gut reactions humans are capable of having, then yes, anything is possible. But I think we are discussing considered positions; would you take your example as a thoughtful, considered position?
Phoenix said: If God was all-powerful, then he could have chosen a way that didn't involve infinite torture for finite sins. And if God was all-loving, then he wouldn't need to torture his enemies in perpetuity because they made the regrettable error in judgment not to yield to his rule.
I agree. LaHaye god is hopelessly contradictory, a square circle. I'm certainly not out to defend this god in anyway. Either way, your dear and well meaning friend does not seem to have the same point I do.
Izzy said: If everyone in a relatively large and varied population is "misinterpreting" your comments, the problem probably ain't them.
Nah, it's a reading comprehension problem. Example:
Ruby said: MikeWC: I didn't tell anyone what they actually thought. Improve your reading comprehension. Thanks in advance.
Actually, you did. Twice.
No, you wouldn't...
...people that I do not believe in any possible world.
Again, this is simple manners. It is not polite to tell others that you know their thoughts better than they do.
Ruby, both of your examples entail me saying that people would not do what they say they would do. This entire discussion -- and my entire point -- is predicated on a belief that MercuryBlue et al actually believe what they are saying now. I'm saying that belief - more precisely, their expression of that belief - is a matter of narcissism.
Ruby, you say I moved the goalposts - but in the very next sentence, I returned to the hypothetical scenario and engaged with Mercury's comments on that level.
Ruby: The good that comes of opposing evil. The good of standing by what one knows is right, and of supporting the freedoms of yourself and others.
Solidarity is great, on Earth. Where it has a hope of changing something.
Ruby: Nah, that's just the common RTC perception of atheists. Perhaps you should talk to some with an open mind so that you can better understand our views and not have to resort to stereotypes.
First, I am an atheist. Second, what else would you spend your time in hell doing? My point is that you wouldn't have anything else to do other than shake your fist, and that this is an utterly impotent action.
Ruby: I count a fair number of people in this thread alone who care. Plus my nonChristian family and friends. We are not so alone as you might imagine.
Was it not clear from context that I was talking about hell? No one is going to care what you are doing in hell - that's one of the hallmarks of LaHaye hell, utter isolation (apart from demons, I guess).
Ruby: I don't have a soul. But thanks for caring.
In LaHaye world, you would. In the context of my claims here, soul is a synonym for identity/ego. Feel free to read "these claims are a spit shine for your soul" as "a spit shine for your identity/ego."
Ruby: Also, I urge you to do a bit of reading on narcissism--you are tossing the word about with no apparent understanding of its meaning.
Yes, my use of the term is idiosyncratic, but I'm not claiming to be making clinical diagnoses. If you want to suggest a different term for "making claims purely for the sake of a moral pose which comfort's one's ego," go for it. I would rather use the term "beautiful soul," but it doesn't have the same cultural cache.
Izzy, here's another example of how the miscommunications are not my fault:
Mmy said: Excuse me -- are you saying that every single one of the people who died/suffered for the sake of cause they believed in was simply a narcissist?
Phoenix said:It sure sounds that way to me. Makes a person wonder if slaves who died trying to win their own freedom (which eventually played into securing the freedom of their fellow slaves... but that was totally not what those narcissists were going for, I'm sure... /sarcasm) might have something to say about that.
As I've repeatedly said, defiance of God is a lost cause, and that is a major part of my point. Abolitionism was obviously not a lost cause.
Izzy said: MikeWC, if you want to be Pissy Despondent Nihilist Guy, by all means go do that. But trying to sell everyone else on your nineties-era White Wolf philosophy is just annoying. Go listen to Kansas in your room or something, will you?
You're going to have to rephrase, because I have no clue what you're talking about. Criticizing investments in a lost cause based on nothing other than the purity of one's identity makes me a nihilist?
Here's my point in a nutshell.
There is nothing to gain through defiance of God other than a pure identity/soul. Absolutely nothing. God's not going to change his mind and start thinking that homosexuality is a-ok. For someone engaged in a political struggle against flesh and blood foes and malicious memes, purity of soul is great, but the point is to change the world. Because changing the world is off the table in LaHaye world, all that is left is purity. When someone who understands that LaHaye god does not exist claims they would defy this god, the only thing they are doing is signaling the purity of their soul. Stakeless claims that only say "look how moral I am" are, in my admittedly idiosyncratic use of the term, narcissistic.Posted by: MikeWC | Nov 11, 2011 at 11:00 AM
MikeWC: it may make you feel above it all to declare that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It may make you feel self-righteous about your unwillingness to suffer for a cause to insult those who think it's worth doing.
It doesn't make you look intelligent or impressive to anyone else. It makes you look unhappy and aggressive, nothing more.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM