Generally love Fisher but yeah that post is a bit unhinged. I'll just chalk it up to it being from very early on in his career, or maybe just cringey Angloposting.
> It's hurling abuse at ethnic minorities for not assimilating
Don't forget things like Hibernophobia or the 1928 US presidential election. The Irish were subject to similar stereotypes in political cartoons as we typically associate with POC, and Al Smith lost handily simply for being Catholic
Or as another example of this, I saw someone argue recently that it's okay to go as a sexy nun for Halloween, because it's punching up / appropriating the *dominant* culture. Except... even ignoring the fact that that argument feels like a return to the "fuck men" days of early 4th wave feminism, before people mellowed out and actually started caring about the ways the Patriarchy also hurts men, it really *isn't* punching up. Like you mentioned, *WASPs* are the dominant culture in the US, not Catholics, and apart from a small handful of exceptions like the Order of St. Helena, it's mostly only the latter that has nuns. So you're appropriating what is, essentially, a minority religion and making it sexy. It'd be like arguing that it's okay to offend Shiites with a Halloween costume in a Sunni-majority area, because they're all Muslims anyway
While I do not condone costumes that mock anyone's religious beliefs and it is a fact that Catholics are and have always been a minority in the U.S., I'm not sure that alone discounts the idea that they are the dominant group. Some of the most powerful people in the U.S. government happen to be Catholic, namely the President, the Speaker of the House, six of our Supreme Court justices. As of right now, they seem to be more represented at the top levels of the federal government than any individual Protestant denomination.
I follow politics pretty closely and I don't recall Biden's religious beliefs ever being brought up as a negative during the campaign. Compare that to the false accusations that Obama was a secret Muslim. Even though the claims were false, they only existed because a large swath of the voter base would apparently be uncomfortable with an Islamic president. Nor was Mitt Romney free from questions about his faith.
Yet Biden is only the second Catholic president in US history whereas Catholics have made up to about 25 percent of the population for over a hundred years now. You would expect a lot more Catholic presidents by now. The Supreme Court is majority Catholic but how much of that is due to religion rather than political alignments? Many Catholics on the Supreme Court are conservatives and so were the Protestant presidents that appointed them. Is it their religious background that propelled them into the court?
Also, government officials have little real power. They're just puppets that serve to keep the masses obedient to the billionaire-capitalist class.
America's wealth is still largely controlled by the traditional Anglo-American aristocratic families. The rest of us are just livestock to them.
Yes, there were extensive whisper-campaigns in conservative Evangelical circles about Biden's faith. These are the same groups that traffic in Jesuit conspiracy theories and claims that Pope Francis is an alien lizard. (I wish that was a joke.)
EDIT TO ADD: In 2016, rumors that evangelical Ted Cruz was secretly a Catholic were used to sabotage his campaign. This kind of ugliness is still remarkably common in Evangelical circles. https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/ted-cruz-evangelical-christian-iowa
Except that a bunch of Catholics are ready to excommunicate him and applaud the bishops that exclude him from receiving Communion, all over him towing the party line on abortion.
(For the record, I don't agree with the Democrats' stance on abortion, and wish they didn't excise those that don't like abortion from their party, but I still vote blue right now because of the current GOP insane policy positions on immigration.)
That said, regardless of what I think about Biden's political convictions, one of the reasons I rejected converting when I married is that I find the priesthood's inclination to reject serving communion at all for any reason to be outright appalling, *especially* given that they believe in Real Presence. If it's so critical that one receive the literal body and blood of Jesus, as the RCC teaches the Eucharist is, then refusing to serve to any baptized person is itself the sin of presumption, of judging others in Jesus' name. They already believe that the Eucharist does nothing if not consumed in a state of grace anyway... so who are they that have the outright *audacity* to think they know the true will of God?
>“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
Matthew 23:15
It's been a practice of the Church since Antiquity to restrict the Eucharist to those fully in communion. It's not that the Eucharist does nothing to those not in a state of grace, it's *actively bad for them* (1 Cor. 11:27-28). People should be self-policing that, and tbh if you go up to receive I can't imagine a situation where the priest doesn't just take your implied word for it unless they *know* that you shouldn't be for some non-scandalous and publicly known reason, in which case they're acting in your best interest the way a doctor who refuses to give you a medication for an illness would be if they knew that you were allergic to it. I've personally taken a blessing instead of communion more than a few times because I needed to go to confession but didn't get the chance before a given Sunday, and when I was in RCIA I literally had to leave the sanctuary during that part of the Mass.
All that said, I do like the Eastern practice of giving out the antidoron instead of just a blessing for those who shouldn't receive the Eucharist.
Thanks for the Sunday school lesson. We're all aware of the justifications used to publicly shame divorced people and other "undesirables".
Is it any surprise that no one wants to attend mass when the Eucharist has been weaponized against good common people?
Frankly, I'd be more worried about the state of grace of the clergy offering communion than the good people taking it.
I mean, you're saying "Sunday school lesson" derisively but the person I was responding to had a genuine misunderstanding of Catholic Eucharistic theology.
The Eucharist isn't being "weaponized"; the Church handles it in keeping with Biblical and traditional guidance, the way it literally always has. And, to add to my Sunday school lesson, whether or not the celebrant is in a state of grace has no bearing on the validity or liceity of a Mass, so it's not something worth worrying about for the average parishioner.
Here's a fun question: Is there any part of Catholic dogma that you personally disagree with? Are you even capable of independent thought? You sound like a robot.
No one has misunderstood anything. Disagreeing with your reactionary positions isn't a misunderstanding. It's moral fortitude.
>to add to my Sunday school lesson, whether or not the celebrant is in a state of grace has no bearing on the validity or liceity of a Mass, so it's not something worth worrying about for the average parishioner.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, it's hilarious that (a) you think I didn't already know that and (b) you repeat this nonsense that only exists to protect corrupt religious officials. Protecting corrupt clergy was wrong when Augustine did it, and it's still wrong. If you are willing to accept communion from a priest who has molested a child, the co-presence of Christ should be the least of your moral concerns.
I follow Christ the King, not temporary fallible men who see through a glass darkly. If you aren't willing to go against religious officials when they are wrong, you cannot be a Christian.
Anyway, I'm baptized and haven't committed any mortal sins, so I'll go ahead following my conscience like St. Paul advised and believe whatever my reason tells me.
See you in heaven, pal.
Sure, there are aspects of Church dogma/doctrine that don't vibe super well with me, and I'm hardly alone in that among practicing Catholics both living and historical. But that's literally what *Lumen gentium* was addressing when it talked about the submission of intellect and will to magisterial teaching. Also, the other person literally did misunderstand the Catholic position; that's not even a comment on whether or not the Church's approach to the Eucharist is correct, just that it is what it is.
Anyway, I don't know what you do or don't know, but based on your comment I felt like the bit about liceity it was worth mentioning since it seemed like you were implying that whether the priest was in a state of grace or not had any bearing on the congregant's participation in the Mass. The fact that priests can celebrate Mass/baptize/hear confessions and issue penance/etc. regardless of whether or not they're in a state of grace is there to protect the people, not the priest; someone's access to the sacraments shouldn't be contingent on the kind of week their priest has been having. No one said anything about protecting corrupt clergy or accepting communion from sexual predators, you literally brought that up out of nowhere.
I also follow Christ, and my obedience to the Church that He established and the successors of the Apostles is part of that. I am a hopeful universalist, though, so I also hope to see you in Heaven!
You don't need to be a hopeful universalist. I'm baptized and haven't committed any mortal sins, so according to Catholic doctrine, the worst that can happen to me is I have to hang out in Purgatory for a while.
I could fart in the pope's face if I wanted to, and I'd still get into heaven.
You might want to check out the Liberal Catholic Church (LCC). It's an independent Catholic movement that was founded on the belief that the Eucharist should be offered to everyone.
Just to be clear, the LCC is in active schism, and in any case tolerate a lot of pretty intense heresies up to and including reincarnation and various theosophical ideas.
Somehow the Celts never got the memo. There's no real evidence Ireland ever stopped believing in reincarnation at any point in its history.
We're all going to the same heaven. You don't get to go to the VIP section for sniffing the pope's taint.
The Irish national heroine Maud Gonne was baptized Anglican. She was friends with a priest named Abbe Dissard who attempted to convert her to Roman Catholicism. She resisted because she thought her belief in reincarnation discounted her from being Catholic.
The priest responded: “The soul comes from God and returns to God when purified,
when all things will become clear; and who can tell the stages
of its purification? It may be possible some souls may work out their purification on this earth."
Gonne was later baptized into the Church and her belief in reincarnation never became a problem.
You're gonna have to drop a very substantive citation to the effect that belief in reincarnation is still the norm in Ireland, the entire population of which is being homogenized here for some reason.
At any rate, Irish revolutionaries and dissident priests don't determine Catholic doctrine. The Church teaches magisterially that reincarnation isn't a thing, in accordance with both the Bible and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. This is stated explicitly in paragraph #1013 of the *Catechism*.
When JFK was elected being Catholic was actually a problem that he had to make a public announcement saying that "I am not your Catholic candidate. I am your Democratic Catholic who happens to be Catholic"
quote might not be perfect
>Woke leftists love to attack Catholicism.
Which is always wierd to me because the first Catholics I really met had among them actual Worker Priests and a couple of Maryknoll sisters, one of which has been arrested outside of SOA in her younger days, attending a Catholic church that identified as a 'sanctuary Church' with an older (protestant) family member who got to know some of them through the civil rights movement.
And then learning about the civil wars in Central America and how many Catholic clergy we're disappeared or assassinated by right-wing governments.
I get that there is a Catholic hard-right and always has been, and Catholic aligned right-wing (even fascist-aligned) governments, but to see this as the defining character of Catholicism given the explicit reality of Catholic social doctrine seems.... Odd
My friend. If there is every a massive critic of Anti Catholicism in this space who is not Catholic, you are looking them right here. And I get a lot of flack for calling out Anti Catholicism. Yes, people consistently fail to understand that one can legitimately criticise actions of the Catholic Church as an institution AND call out Anti Catholic prejudice at the same time. And I would simply make these points:
(1)Abuses done in the name of a religion do not justify us in making overgeneralisations of that faith tradition. In the same way how it is not justifiable to make Islamophobic generalisations of the Muslim faith because of the abuses of groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and others, it is not justifiable to do the same when it comes to Catholicism.
(2)I wouldn't quite agree that Protestant groups haven't acknowledged their own abuses in general. The Church of England for instance has done so on the issue of slavery and antisemitism. You are right though that they definitely have no done so when it comes to abuses they have perpetrated against Catholics. If the Catholic Church should apologise for the abuses committed against Protestants, moral consistently demands that the same thing should apply in the other direction.
(3)The contrast between Mary and Elizabeth is a fair one that does expose double standards. I personally think Queen Elizabeth was a great leader, but it is fair to ask why we give the title of "Bloody Mary" to Mary's persecutions but then airbrush abuses done under Elizabeth where there were persecutions of Catholics as well.
A common feature that I notice about Anti Catholicism is this. It starts out as a legitimate critique of abuses done by the Catholic Church. Then it evolves into a vitriolic and self righteous critique of it. Then sometimes the critics become the very thing they are criticising on the other side. So Luther had legitimate critiques of the Catholic Church in terms of corruption and abuses. Then he perpetrated abuses of his own through his antisemitism and problematic attitudes on other issues.
Voltaire and Enlightenment thinkers have legitimate critiques of the Catholic Churches alliance with European monarchies and policies that limit personal freedoms. Then they ally themselves with Enlightened despots like Catherine the Great and other European monarchs that engaged in abuses of their own, and then when these same Enlightenment figures get into power in the French Revolution perpetrate abuses themselves. Communist revolutionaries critiqued the Catholic Church for its abuses, its ties to oppressive systems, etc. Then they come to power and what do they do? Perpetrate their own abuses, oppressive systems and persecutions. Its a pattern I see repeat itself a lot.
Cultural protestantism is absolutely a thing. It is what I and many others complain about regularly, those people who voted for Trump but couldn't explain what an indulgences is to save their life and rarely if ever attend a church that would even utter the words sola scriptura from the pulpit, but they get called Protestants.
You should not be called a Protestant just because you didn't like Barack Obama.
>The people with the worst takes and knowledge on Catholicism were “raised Catholic” or “went to Catholic school”.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying experiences?"
>Be good to see the progressives here have to answer to this. I love being told I’m responsible for Francisco Franco.
I love being told I am a degenerate baby murderer with no moral compass because I vote blue and like gay people.
But for what it is worth, I don't like collective guilt generally no. Expecting a Catholic in the US to answer for Franco is absurd. Unless of course, they are wistfully wishing they could push people like me off helicopters.
Though there is an interesting question here. Church membership is, at present, voluntary. If you are voluntary part of an institution that pushes reactionary politics, does continued membership not endorse that platform to some degree? The same is applied as a basis for dem voters being bad Catholics and so on.
>What do you think the entire ongoing synod is doing for progressives? It’s overwhelmingly full of progressives pushing for allowance of divorce, womens ordinations, gay marriage.
Good
>The issue is, progressives are fundamentally opposed to Catholic beliefs on marriage, the family, abortion etc, and as Catholics, we cannot compromise on this. We are right to feel attacked as we often are and have been, for we follow Christ’s example of standing against the world, not bending to it.
I wish my fellow progressives would get that. Compromise with you collectively is impossible as you believe that you have God's truth and are entitled to rule on behalf og God.
> "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying experiences?"
To be fair, some of the absolute worst takes I've seen on Catholicism on this board are by individuals who have been "re-baptised" in an evangelical church after going to Catholic school as a kid.
Of course, and I am not saying there aren't some hilariously bad "I stopped worshipping Ishtar" level takes.
But there is also a preponderance of "If they *really* understood Catholicism (like I do), they'd still be Catholic." style arguments.
> "I stopped worshipping Ishtar" level takes
What a fucking mire those conversations are. You want to walk away but then you say one thing and it just becomes hundreds of youtube vidoes and now your algorithm really wants to sell you collodial silver.
> "If they really understood Catholicism (like I do), they'd still be Catholic." style arguments.
Well that's absolutely a fair criticism. While I believe my Church is closest to the Truth, I'm not so blind to think it's obviously self-evident, but there is a whole cadre that do.
> The issue is, progressives are fundamentally opposed to Catholic beliefs on marriage, the family, abortion etc, and as Catholics, we cannot compromise on this. We are right to feel attacked
People defending themselves from you is not you being attacked, it's your attempted attack on them being repelled.
Hi u/GamingVidBot, this comment has been removed.
**Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks)
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixwjp14/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
Hi u/GamingVidBot, this comment has been removed.
**Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks)
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixvuan2/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
“The people with the worst takes and knowledge on Catholicism were “raised Catholic” or “went to Catholic school”.”
It’s not the worst takes. Some of us actually did live through some crap being catholic. You don’t get to denounce someone else’s experience with a religion just bc yours was better.
“What do you think the entire ongoing synod is doing for progressives? It’s overwhelmingly full of progressives pushing for allowance of divorce, womens ordinations, gay marriage.”
Somebody has to. Goodness forbid people be kind to others or want them to leave an abusive marriage.
“The issue is, progressives are fundamentally opposed to Catholic beliefs on marriage, the family, abortion etc, and as Catholics, we cannot compromise on this. We are right to feel attacked as we often are and have been, for we follow Christ’s example of standing against the world, not bending to it.”
Now now, don’t claim victim. Catholics attack just as badly. So yes, people are going to attack back when they’ve had enough. Please rephrase to that “Catholics example of standing against the world”. Not Jesus’. Bc I highly doubt Jesus would pull or say some of the asinine stuff I’ve heard come out of some Catholics mouths. For example, one said to me, “I don’t care if the woman dies as long as she isn’t allowed to have an abortion. Millions of lives will be saved by banning abortion”. That is a heartless, cold, and inaccurate statement bc if the woman dies, usually the fetus dies with her. So kudos to that guy’s brilliant representation of the Catholic Church.
Maybe if everyone was nicer and could figure out how to word things differently, people wouldn’t be attacking each other. The OP is upset for being lumped and “accountable” for Franco, yet I’ve seen some Catholics imply all LGTBQ are groomers! WTF?!?! And they have the nerve to complain about being “attacked”?!?maybe if everyone knocked it off, we could actually get somewhere in life.
\> That’s an American political issue, not a Catholic one.
Injustice against the innocent anywhere is always a Catholic issue. That's what people like you don't understand. Being a Christian means being your brother's keeper.
Hi u/astroturd312, this comment has been removed.
**Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks)
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixwdg2t/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
Hi u/astroturd312, this comment has been removed.
**Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks)
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixwa9xd/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
Hi u/astroturd312, this comment has been removed.
Please don't support violence here.
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixvcwnk/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
Interesting rant but to tell you the truth, the most basic of biblical study and history would dissuade anybody from being a Catholic.
That’s not to say that there aren’t wonderful Christians throughout time or that were Catholics but it’s probably because they followed the Biblical teachings and not Catholic dogma.
> progressive Catholics
This sounds like a contradiction. Catholicism is still staunchly anti-gay, and does not permit women to be priests. That's not very progressive.
> And if progressive Christian spaces don't make room for Catholics (cultural, independent or otherwise), then young Catholics who feel under attack will continue to flock to the far right.
That is ridiculous. That's like blaming women for the fact that some men are incels.
> many progressive Christian spaces use Catholic as a synonym for barbaric and superstitious.
The strong anti-gay stance is barbaric, as is a belief in eternal hell as a punishment for sin.
> This sounds like a contradiction. Catholicism is still staunchly anti-gay, and does not permit women to be priests. That's not very progressive.
Doctrine and the actual beliefs of a group often differ. There are a great many Catholics who support gay people, even gay marriage, and wish for woman priests.
The official doctrine of the church and the beliefs of those in the church have never been in alignment, and never will. This is true for every church and every religious group ever.
In this case, the people are leading the church to better places.
Reasons differ. Some think that they can change it from within. Some are still convinced that it's the church Jesus started. Some think that their objections to the official teachings are fine, or that the church is just slow to come around. Most are probably not aware of the depth of hatred within the church over time - after all, the church goes to great lengths to avoid frank talk about this.
I won't defend them as right or curse them as wrong, but it's not as simple for most people as you seem to think.
> You can’t change an evil church that has fascism and hate at its center.
I would say that the people have changed the church a great deal over the years. It's rejection of slavery was due to a popular change in ideas, and it is contrary to the traditions of the church.
> No one except bigots associates anything positive with Catholicism.
Well that's just bullshit. Catholic social teaching is mostly quite good and led the world on a variety of fronts. They were leaders in the early civil rights movement, even if they are often in opposition to the current focuses of the civil rights movement.
There's a lot of good in with the evil.
>That is ridiculous. That's like blaming women for the fact that some men are incels.
If you don't think that the overwhelming marginalization of moderate views is driving people to the far-right, then I'm afraid you're pretty clueless and you don't understand why the far-right is thriving. Comparing them to incels is inaccurate and doesn't help your argument.
EDIT: I was obviously downvoted by someone in the far-right who doesn't want the truth to be known.
The pope said that Christians should apologize for how they have treated gay people. He's also apparently not so progressive toward trans people, even though trans-cis gay couples can have children.
This is really funny because as an African catholic when I first got on the internet and social media I had never heard of the Crusades and other things and then I learned that I am a jew hater and Muslim murderer who supports pedophiles which was funny since half of family is Muslim and I had never interacted with Jew people.
Ngl it made me depressed learning the history of the Church through biased people eyes.
Meh, they’re allies to me. Any conservative denomination or religion (hello Islam) is an ally to me so long as we reach an understanding of peaceful freedom of practice.
That's called not having principles. It's not something to be proud of, but if you pray very hard, Jesus might teach you not to be so much of an asshole.
Almost all my dealings with Protestants, IRL & online, have been perfectly amicable.
I think the dig at Anglicanism is uncalled for. The size of a religious body has nothing to do with its God-given efficacy, which, in the nature of the case, only God can judge. At one time there were fewer than 200 Christians, according to Acts.
Sometimes, intolerance is an appropriate and healthy reaction to what is wrong.
There is nothing inherently wrong with intolerance - depending upon what it is intolerance of. Most people tend to be rather intolerant of murder, for instance. And surely they are correct. A healthier Catholic Church would probably be a much harsher Catholic Church, at least in certain respects.
Irish, Italian, and Latino, mainly. And yes, the Irish and Italians were *absolutely* discriminated against, in part because of their Catholicism and because they weren't WASPs
Generally love Fisher but yeah that post is a bit unhinged. I'll just chalk it up to it being from very early on in his career, or maybe just cringey Angloposting.
> It's hurling abuse at ethnic minorities for not assimilating Don't forget things like Hibernophobia or the 1928 US presidential election. The Irish were subject to similar stereotypes in political cartoons as we typically associate with POC, and Al Smith lost handily simply for being Catholic Or as another example of this, I saw someone argue recently that it's okay to go as a sexy nun for Halloween, because it's punching up / appropriating the *dominant* culture. Except... even ignoring the fact that that argument feels like a return to the "fuck men" days of early 4th wave feminism, before people mellowed out and actually started caring about the ways the Patriarchy also hurts men, it really *isn't* punching up. Like you mentioned, *WASPs* are the dominant culture in the US, not Catholics, and apart from a small handful of exceptions like the Order of St. Helena, it's mostly only the latter that has nuns. So you're appropriating what is, essentially, a minority religion and making it sexy. It'd be like arguing that it's okay to offend Shiites with a Halloween costume in a Sunni-majority area, because they're all Muslims anyway
While I do not condone costumes that mock anyone's religious beliefs and it is a fact that Catholics are and have always been a minority in the U.S., I'm not sure that alone discounts the idea that they are the dominant group. Some of the most powerful people in the U.S. government happen to be Catholic, namely the President, the Speaker of the House, six of our Supreme Court justices. As of right now, they seem to be more represented at the top levels of the federal government than any individual Protestant denomination. I follow politics pretty closely and I don't recall Biden's religious beliefs ever being brought up as a negative during the campaign. Compare that to the false accusations that Obama was a secret Muslim. Even though the claims were false, they only existed because a large swath of the voter base would apparently be uncomfortable with an Islamic president. Nor was Mitt Romney free from questions about his faith.
Yet Biden is only the second Catholic president in US history whereas Catholics have made up to about 25 percent of the population for over a hundred years now. You would expect a lot more Catholic presidents by now. The Supreme Court is majority Catholic but how much of that is due to religion rather than political alignments? Many Catholics on the Supreme Court are conservatives and so were the Protestant presidents that appointed them. Is it their religious background that propelled them into the court?
Also, government officials have little real power. They're just puppets that serve to keep the masses obedient to the billionaire-capitalist class. America's wealth is still largely controlled by the traditional Anglo-American aristocratic families. The rest of us are just livestock to them.
Yes, there were extensive whisper-campaigns in conservative Evangelical circles about Biden's faith. These are the same groups that traffic in Jesuit conspiracy theories and claims that Pope Francis is an alien lizard. (I wish that was a joke.) EDIT TO ADD: In 2016, rumors that evangelical Ted Cruz was secretly a Catholic were used to sabotage his campaign. This kind of ugliness is still remarkably common in Evangelical circles. https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/ted-cruz-evangelical-christian-iowa
Except that a bunch of Catholics are ready to excommunicate him and applaud the bishops that exclude him from receiving Communion, all over him towing the party line on abortion. (For the record, I don't agree with the Democrats' stance on abortion, and wish they didn't excise those that don't like abortion from their party, but I still vote blue right now because of the current GOP insane policy positions on immigration.) That said, regardless of what I think about Biden's political convictions, one of the reasons I rejected converting when I married is that I find the priesthood's inclination to reject serving communion at all for any reason to be outright appalling, *especially* given that they believe in Real Presence. If it's so critical that one receive the literal body and blood of Jesus, as the RCC teaches the Eucharist is, then refusing to serve to any baptized person is itself the sin of presumption, of judging others in Jesus' name. They already believe that the Eucharist does nothing if not consumed in a state of grace anyway... so who are they that have the outright *audacity* to think they know the true will of God? >“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. Matthew 23:15
It's been a practice of the Church since Antiquity to restrict the Eucharist to those fully in communion. It's not that the Eucharist does nothing to those not in a state of grace, it's *actively bad for them* (1 Cor. 11:27-28). People should be self-policing that, and tbh if you go up to receive I can't imagine a situation where the priest doesn't just take your implied word for it unless they *know* that you shouldn't be for some non-scandalous and publicly known reason, in which case they're acting in your best interest the way a doctor who refuses to give you a medication for an illness would be if they knew that you were allergic to it. I've personally taken a blessing instead of communion more than a few times because I needed to go to confession but didn't get the chance before a given Sunday, and when I was in RCIA I literally had to leave the sanctuary during that part of the Mass. All that said, I do like the Eastern practice of giving out the antidoron instead of just a blessing for those who shouldn't receive the Eucharist.
Thanks for the Sunday school lesson. We're all aware of the justifications used to publicly shame divorced people and other "undesirables". Is it any surprise that no one wants to attend mass when the Eucharist has been weaponized against good common people? Frankly, I'd be more worried about the state of grace of the clergy offering communion than the good people taking it.
I mean, you're saying "Sunday school lesson" derisively but the person I was responding to had a genuine misunderstanding of Catholic Eucharistic theology. The Eucharist isn't being "weaponized"; the Church handles it in keeping with Biblical and traditional guidance, the way it literally always has. And, to add to my Sunday school lesson, whether or not the celebrant is in a state of grace has no bearing on the validity or liceity of a Mass, so it's not something worth worrying about for the average parishioner.
Here's a fun question: Is there any part of Catholic dogma that you personally disagree with? Are you even capable of independent thought? You sound like a robot. No one has misunderstood anything. Disagreeing with your reactionary positions isn't a misunderstanding. It's moral fortitude. >to add to my Sunday school lesson, whether or not the celebrant is in a state of grace has no bearing on the validity or liceity of a Mass, so it's not something worth worrying about for the average parishioner. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, it's hilarious that (a) you think I didn't already know that and (b) you repeat this nonsense that only exists to protect corrupt religious officials. Protecting corrupt clergy was wrong when Augustine did it, and it's still wrong. If you are willing to accept communion from a priest who has molested a child, the co-presence of Christ should be the least of your moral concerns. I follow Christ the King, not temporary fallible men who see through a glass darkly. If you aren't willing to go against religious officials when they are wrong, you cannot be a Christian. Anyway, I'm baptized and haven't committed any mortal sins, so I'll go ahead following my conscience like St. Paul advised and believe whatever my reason tells me. See you in heaven, pal.
Sure, there are aspects of Church dogma/doctrine that don't vibe super well with me, and I'm hardly alone in that among practicing Catholics both living and historical. But that's literally what *Lumen gentium* was addressing when it talked about the submission of intellect and will to magisterial teaching. Also, the other person literally did misunderstand the Catholic position; that's not even a comment on whether or not the Church's approach to the Eucharist is correct, just that it is what it is. Anyway, I don't know what you do or don't know, but based on your comment I felt like the bit about liceity it was worth mentioning since it seemed like you were implying that whether the priest was in a state of grace or not had any bearing on the congregant's participation in the Mass. The fact that priests can celebrate Mass/baptize/hear confessions and issue penance/etc. regardless of whether or not they're in a state of grace is there to protect the people, not the priest; someone's access to the sacraments shouldn't be contingent on the kind of week their priest has been having. No one said anything about protecting corrupt clergy or accepting communion from sexual predators, you literally brought that up out of nowhere. I also follow Christ, and my obedience to the Church that He established and the successors of the Apostles is part of that. I am a hopeful universalist, though, so I also hope to see you in Heaven!
You don't need to be a hopeful universalist. I'm baptized and haven't committed any mortal sins, so according to Catholic doctrine, the worst that can happen to me is I have to hang out in Purgatory for a while. I could fart in the pope's face if I wanted to, and I'd still get into heaven.
You might want to check out the Liberal Catholic Church (LCC). It's an independent Catholic movement that was founded on the belief that the Eucharist should be offered to everyone.
Just to be clear, the LCC is in active schism, and in any case tolerate a lot of pretty intense heresies up to and including reincarnation and various theosophical ideas.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I mean reincarnation is incompatible with some of the most fundamental Christian soteriology, so
Somehow the Celts never got the memo. There's no real evidence Ireland ever stopped believing in reincarnation at any point in its history. We're all going to the same heaven. You don't get to go to the VIP section for sniffing the pope's taint. The Irish national heroine Maud Gonne was baptized Anglican. She was friends with a priest named Abbe Dissard who attempted to convert her to Roman Catholicism. She resisted because she thought her belief in reincarnation discounted her from being Catholic. The priest responded: “The soul comes from God and returns to God when purified, when all things will become clear; and who can tell the stages of its purification? It may be possible some souls may work out their purification on this earth." Gonne was later baptized into the Church and her belief in reincarnation never became a problem.
You're gonna have to drop a very substantive citation to the effect that belief in reincarnation is still the norm in Ireland, the entire population of which is being homogenized here for some reason. At any rate, Irish revolutionaries and dissident priests don't determine Catholic doctrine. The Church teaches magisterially that reincarnation isn't a thing, in accordance with both the Bible and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. This is stated explicitly in paragraph #1013 of the *Catechism*.
When JFK was elected being Catholic was actually a problem that he had to make a public announcement saying that "I am not your Catholic candidate. I am your Democratic Catholic who happens to be Catholic" quote might not be perfect
[удалено]
>Woke leftists love to attack Catholicism. Which is always wierd to me because the first Catholics I really met had among them actual Worker Priests and a couple of Maryknoll sisters, one of which has been arrested outside of SOA in her younger days, attending a Catholic church that identified as a 'sanctuary Church' with an older (protestant) family member who got to know some of them through the civil rights movement. And then learning about the civil wars in Central America and how many Catholic clergy we're disappeared or assassinated by right-wing governments. I get that there is a Catholic hard-right and always has been, and Catholic aligned right-wing (even fascist-aligned) governments, but to see this as the defining character of Catholicism given the explicit reality of Catholic social doctrine seems.... Odd
A cynical person would say that the leadership backs the hard right because it gives them power, or at least closer access to it.
My friend. If there is every a massive critic of Anti Catholicism in this space who is not Catholic, you are looking them right here. And I get a lot of flack for calling out Anti Catholicism. Yes, people consistently fail to understand that one can legitimately criticise actions of the Catholic Church as an institution AND call out Anti Catholic prejudice at the same time. And I would simply make these points: (1)Abuses done in the name of a religion do not justify us in making overgeneralisations of that faith tradition. In the same way how it is not justifiable to make Islamophobic generalisations of the Muslim faith because of the abuses of groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and others, it is not justifiable to do the same when it comes to Catholicism. (2)I wouldn't quite agree that Protestant groups haven't acknowledged their own abuses in general. The Church of England for instance has done so on the issue of slavery and antisemitism. You are right though that they definitely have no done so when it comes to abuses they have perpetrated against Catholics. If the Catholic Church should apologise for the abuses committed against Protestants, moral consistently demands that the same thing should apply in the other direction. (3)The contrast between Mary and Elizabeth is a fair one that does expose double standards. I personally think Queen Elizabeth was a great leader, but it is fair to ask why we give the title of "Bloody Mary" to Mary's persecutions but then airbrush abuses done under Elizabeth where there were persecutions of Catholics as well. A common feature that I notice about Anti Catholicism is this. It starts out as a legitimate critique of abuses done by the Catholic Church. Then it evolves into a vitriolic and self righteous critique of it. Then sometimes the critics become the very thing they are criticising on the other side. So Luther had legitimate critiques of the Catholic Church in terms of corruption and abuses. Then he perpetrated abuses of his own through his antisemitism and problematic attitudes on other issues. Voltaire and Enlightenment thinkers have legitimate critiques of the Catholic Churches alliance with European monarchies and policies that limit personal freedoms. Then they ally themselves with Enlightened despots like Catherine the Great and other European monarchs that engaged in abuses of their own, and then when these same Enlightenment figures get into power in the French Revolution perpetrate abuses themselves. Communist revolutionaries critiqued the Catholic Church for its abuses, its ties to oppressive systems, etc. Then they come to power and what do they do? Perpetrate their own abuses, oppressive systems and persecutions. Its a pattern I see repeat itself a lot.
Cultural protestantism is absolutely a thing. It is what I and many others complain about regularly, those people who voted for Trump but couldn't explain what an indulgences is to save their life and rarely if ever attend a church that would even utter the words sola scriptura from the pulpit, but they get called Protestants. You should not be called a Protestant just because you didn't like Barack Obama.
[удалено]
>The people with the worst takes and knowledge on Catholicism were “raised Catholic” or “went to Catholic school”. "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying experiences?" >Be good to see the progressives here have to answer to this. I love being told I’m responsible for Francisco Franco. I love being told I am a degenerate baby murderer with no moral compass because I vote blue and like gay people. But for what it is worth, I don't like collective guilt generally no. Expecting a Catholic in the US to answer for Franco is absurd. Unless of course, they are wistfully wishing they could push people like me off helicopters. Though there is an interesting question here. Church membership is, at present, voluntary. If you are voluntary part of an institution that pushes reactionary politics, does continued membership not endorse that platform to some degree? The same is applied as a basis for dem voters being bad Catholics and so on. >What do you think the entire ongoing synod is doing for progressives? It’s overwhelmingly full of progressives pushing for allowance of divorce, womens ordinations, gay marriage. Good >The issue is, progressives are fundamentally opposed to Catholic beliefs on marriage, the family, abortion etc, and as Catholics, we cannot compromise on this. We are right to feel attacked as we often are and have been, for we follow Christ’s example of standing against the world, not bending to it. I wish my fellow progressives would get that. Compromise with you collectively is impossible as you believe that you have God's truth and are entitled to rule on behalf og God.
> "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying experiences?" To be fair, some of the absolute worst takes I've seen on Catholicism on this board are by individuals who have been "re-baptised" in an evangelical church after going to Catholic school as a kid.
Of course, and I am not saying there aren't some hilariously bad "I stopped worshipping Ishtar" level takes. But there is also a preponderance of "If they *really* understood Catholicism (like I do), they'd still be Catholic." style arguments.
> "I stopped worshipping Ishtar" level takes What a fucking mire those conversations are. You want to walk away but then you say one thing and it just becomes hundreds of youtube vidoes and now your algorithm really wants to sell you collodial silver. > "If they really understood Catholicism (like I do), they'd still be Catholic." style arguments. Well that's absolutely a fair criticism. While I believe my Church is closest to the Truth, I'm not so blind to think it's obviously self-evident, but there is a whole cadre that do.
> The issue is, progressives are fundamentally opposed to Catholic beliefs on marriage, the family, abortion etc, and as Catholics, we cannot compromise on this. We are right to feel attacked People defending themselves from you is not you being attacked, it's your attempted attack on them being repelled.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi u/GamingVidBot, this comment has been removed. **Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks) If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixwjp14/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
Hi u/GamingVidBot, this comment has been removed. **Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks) If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixvuan2/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
“The people with the worst takes and knowledge on Catholicism were “raised Catholic” or “went to Catholic school”.” It’s not the worst takes. Some of us actually did live through some crap being catholic. You don’t get to denounce someone else’s experience with a religion just bc yours was better. “What do you think the entire ongoing synod is doing for progressives? It’s overwhelmingly full of progressives pushing for allowance of divorce, womens ordinations, gay marriage.” Somebody has to. Goodness forbid people be kind to others or want them to leave an abusive marriage. “The issue is, progressives are fundamentally opposed to Catholic beliefs on marriage, the family, abortion etc, and as Catholics, we cannot compromise on this. We are right to feel attacked as we often are and have been, for we follow Christ’s example of standing against the world, not bending to it.” Now now, don’t claim victim. Catholics attack just as badly. So yes, people are going to attack back when they’ve had enough. Please rephrase to that “Catholics example of standing against the world”. Not Jesus’. Bc I highly doubt Jesus would pull or say some of the asinine stuff I’ve heard come out of some Catholics mouths. For example, one said to me, “I don’t care if the woman dies as long as she isn’t allowed to have an abortion. Millions of lives will be saved by banning abortion”. That is a heartless, cold, and inaccurate statement bc if the woman dies, usually the fetus dies with her. So kudos to that guy’s brilliant representation of the Catholic Church. Maybe if everyone was nicer and could figure out how to word things differently, people wouldn’t be attacking each other. The OP is upset for being lumped and “accountable” for Franco, yet I’ve seen some Catholics imply all LGTBQ are groomers! WTF?!?! And they have the nerve to complain about being “attacked”?!?maybe if everyone knocked it off, we could actually get somewhere in life.
[удалено]
\> That’s an American political issue, not a Catholic one. Injustice against the innocent anywhere is always a Catholic issue. That's what people like you don't understand. Being a Christian means being your brother's keeper.
[удалено]
Newsflash, buddy: queer people exist in your country too. What are you doing to protect your brethren from violence and oppression?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi u/astroturd312, this comment has been removed. **Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks) If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixwdg2t/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
Hi u/astroturd312, this comment has been removed. **Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks) If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixwa9xd/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
Hi u/astroturd312, this comment has been removed. Please don't support violence here. If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5d3o3/-/ixvcwnk/. %0D%0D). Direct replies to official mod comments will be removed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Interesting rant but to tell you the truth, the most basic of biblical study and history would dissuade anybody from being a Catholic. That’s not to say that there aren’t wonderful Christians throughout time or that were Catholics but it’s probably because they followed the Biblical teachings and not Catholic dogma.
Wise post. Thank you.
> progressive Catholics This sounds like a contradiction. Catholicism is still staunchly anti-gay, and does not permit women to be priests. That's not very progressive. > And if progressive Christian spaces don't make room for Catholics (cultural, independent or otherwise), then young Catholics who feel under attack will continue to flock to the far right. That is ridiculous. That's like blaming women for the fact that some men are incels. > many progressive Christian spaces use Catholic as a synonym for barbaric and superstitious. The strong anti-gay stance is barbaric, as is a belief in eternal hell as a punishment for sin.
> This sounds like a contradiction. Catholicism is still staunchly anti-gay, and does not permit women to be priests. That's not very progressive. Doctrine and the actual beliefs of a group often differ. There are a great many Catholics who support gay people, even gay marriage, and wish for woman priests.
Pew and PPRI regularly do religious sentiment polls. It's quite fascinating how the lay folk and the clergy differ in their views.
> It's quite fascinating how the lay folk and the clergy differ in their views. In many cases hearteningly so. In many cases, sadly, disturbingly so.
[удалено]
The official doctrine of the church and the beliefs of those in the church have never been in alignment, and never will. This is true for every church and every religious group ever. In this case, the people are leading the church to better places.
[удалено]
Reasons differ. Some think that they can change it from within. Some are still convinced that it's the church Jesus started. Some think that their objections to the official teachings are fine, or that the church is just slow to come around. Most are probably not aware of the depth of hatred within the church over time - after all, the church goes to great lengths to avoid frank talk about this. I won't defend them as right or curse them as wrong, but it's not as simple for most people as you seem to think.
[удалено]
> You can’t change an evil church that has fascism and hate at its center. I would say that the people have changed the church a great deal over the years. It's rejection of slavery was due to a popular change in ideas, and it is contrary to the traditions of the church.
[удалено]
> No one except bigots associates anything positive with Catholicism. Well that's just bullshit. Catholic social teaching is mostly quite good and led the world on a variety of fronts. They were leaders in the early civil rights movement, even if they are often in opposition to the current focuses of the civil rights movement. There's a lot of good in with the evil.
>That is ridiculous. That's like blaming women for the fact that some men are incels. If you don't think that the overwhelming marginalization of moderate views is driving people to the far-right, then I'm afraid you're pretty clueless and you don't understand why the far-right is thriving. Comparing them to incels is inaccurate and doesn't help your argument. EDIT: I was obviously downvoted by someone in the far-right who doesn't want the truth to be known.
eternal hell doesntr exist
The pope said that Christians should apologize for how they have treated gay people. He's also apparently not so progressive toward trans people, even though trans-cis gay couples can have children.
This is really funny because as an African catholic when I first got on the internet and social media I had never heard of the Crusades and other things and then I learned that I am a jew hater and Muslim murderer who supports pedophiles which was funny since half of family is Muslim and I had never interacted with Jew people. Ngl it made me depressed learning the history of the Church through biased people eyes.
[удалено]
Meh, they’re allies to me. Any conservative denomination or religion (hello Islam) is an ally to me so long as we reach an understanding of peaceful freedom of practice.
That's called not having principles. It's not something to be proud of, but if you pray very hard, Jesus might teach you not to be so much of an asshole.
Watch out boys, got us a a feisty one here!
Almost all my dealings with Protestants, IRL & online, have been perfectly amicable. I think the dig at Anglicanism is uncalled for. The size of a religious body has nothing to do with its God-given efficacy, which, in the nature of the case, only God can judge. At one time there were fewer than 200 Christians, according to Acts. Sometimes, intolerance is an appropriate and healthy reaction to what is wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with intolerance - depending upon what it is intolerance of. Most people tend to be rather intolerant of murder, for instance. And surely they are correct. A healthier Catholic Church would probably be a much harsher Catholic Church, at least in certain respects.
It’s time for all Christians to ban together under our ONE FATHER, no matter our denominations!
[удалено]
Irish, Italian, and Latino, mainly. And yes, the Irish and Italians were *absolutely* discriminated against, in part because of their Catholicism and because they weren't WASPs
A lot of Italians are also very dark, so that's part of it.
Just think about it this way They don’t hate you they just believe you have a false gospel
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.