A bit late, and far too short

It is nice to see at least a few mainstream outlets acknowledge perceptions of the current Pope are inaccurate even if those pieces tend to be rather shallow and weak. One of the few recent articles to feebly point out this disconnect from reality came from Time in the form of "The Top 4 Misconceptions About Pope Francis." In comparison to all the misconceptions surrounding Francis this really is pathetic. If it were just a starting point for a series of short pieces on the myths surrounding the current Pope it might work well as a gentle way to broach the subject but I doubt Time will follow it up with anything even remotely resembling a substantial analysis. The author, a liberal leaning Catholic activist, never bothers to point out that the Pope has not actually even hinted at let alone attempted to change a single Catholic doctrine. The few practices he's made minor adjustments to are of little to no consequence and are easily ignored and/or over-ridden by local clergy. Sadly, this does not seem to be accidental either. The minuscule steps taken by Francis to combat economic corruption and child rape seem to have been designed to allow a lot of leeway for those most responsible for such crimes. The very few who have been punished in some manner are simply being used by the Vatican and its pontiff as a relief valve, a public relations sacrificial goat.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this Pope really is no different in reality from his predecessors.

CiNO?

You may have heard of RiNOs (Republicans in Name Only) and probably various other "in Name Only" acronyms/labels. I've never come across anyone using Catholic in Name Only? Why not? This isn't a new idea. A recent post by Cathy Grossman at the Religious News Service brought this back to mind. Her review of a recent study in "Catholic families: strong on prayer, weak on sacraments" is rather entertaining though slightly puzzling. She seems genuinely surprised by the findings. Doesn't she know any Catholics or have any awareness of related surveys and studies?

A growing number of self-identified Catholics do not actually agree with or follow many of the Catholic Church's doctrines. They certainly don't, as a whole, agree with most of the policies and practices that the church has created based on those doctrines. Many seem to be Catholic by heritage/culture rather than by belief and behavior. Many of the Catholics I know personally do not seem to abide by any of the doctrines or policies that distinguish the Catholic church from any other Christian sect or denomination.

I'd be willing to bet that the CiNOs outnumber the more orthodox, conservative Catholics by a long shot.

Synod Silliness

It is nice to see that at least a few people are paying more attention to details during the latest round of "Pope-a-palooza." Far too many are still being incredibly naive and delusional about the Synod Pope Francis has been heading. Many of the reports in the mainstream media have taken the minor step of pointing out that the document being talked about is "preliminary." Sadly, virtually none of the mainstream sources have acknowledge that it is at this point strictly a matter of rhetoric. A few sources have even confused this report as having actual substance. The subtitle to a Salon piece read "The Church issued a document indicating a profound shift in doctrine on civil marriage and homosexuality." It is not only misleading but blatantly false. The "document" in question is a draft and does not contain anything that will alter official doctrine or practices.

One of the most talked about phrases from the draft that relates to the church's views on homosexuals is about the “gifts and qualities to offer.” Few have really looked at what that really means. Many of the mainstream sources are still bending over backwards to make it seem like this is a major breakthrough for homosexual rights. They have used terms like "earth shaking" and "revolutionary." It isn't. Even if it is taken at face value, which there is little reason to do so, it is at best a very, very tiny step in the right direction. Again, there is nothing to indicate a change in doctrine or policy. There is nothing to bar the church from continuing to lobby against homosexual right on a variety of fronts (marriage, adoption, workplace, housing, etc.). Homosexuality is still viewed as a sin. Basically, it is the equivalent of the clergy smiling at homosexuals while explaining they are welcome to sit in the pews, donate to the church, serve as volunteers for the church, but that they will still be receiving a one way ticket to hell from the church.

I still don't see how the current Pope is that different from his predecessors. There isn't any reason to see this latest round of reporting as an intentional move to generate positive PR for the church after decades declining membership and increasing criticism.

Below is a short list of some of the more intersting pieces floating around about the synod.

At the Vatican, a Shift in Tone Toward Gays and Divorce (New York Times, 10/13/14)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/world/europe/vatican-signals-more-tolerance-toward-gays-and-remarriage.html

Vatican urges Catholics to recognize “gifts” same-sex couples have to offer (Salon, 10/13/14)
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/vatican_urges_catholics_to_recognize_gifts_same_sex_couples_have_to_offer/

A new welcome for gay Catholics in the church (CNN Belief Blog, 10/13/14)
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/10/13/a-new-welcome-for-gay-catholics-in-the-church/

Under conservative assault, Vatican backtracks on gay comments (CNN Belief Blog, 10/14/14)
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/10/14/under-conservative-assault-vatican-backtracks-on-gay-comments/

Never Mind, Catholic Church Will Probably Just Keeping Hating Gays Like Always (Wonkette, 10/14/14)
http://wonkette.com/563359/never-mind-catholic-church-will-probably-just-keeping-hating-gays-like-always

Everyone Keeps Falling for the Catholic Church's Good Cop/Bad Cop Routine (Slog, 10/14/14)
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/10/14/everyone-keeps-falling-for-the-catholic-churchs-good-copbad-cop-routine

Initial Report From Vatican on Families Is Criticized (New York Times, 10/16/14)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/world/europe/initial-report-from-vatican-on-families-is-criticized.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

The "disconnect" isn't new

Michael Boorstein's Washington Post piece, "Catholics find disconnect with divorce doctrine but are drawn to faith", should not be surprising to anyone who knows more than a handful of Catholics. The majority of Catholics I'm familiar with don't really seem to accept any of the church teachings that distinguish the Roman Catholic church from other Christian sects and denominations. Divorce is not the only doctrine that many self-identified Catholics disagree with the hierarchy over. It has often baffled me that many "Catholics" remain in a church that they share very little in common with. As far as I can tell many simply stay out of sense of tradition and misplaced loyalty.

A Better Question for US Catholics

I found Adam Lee's recent piece on Patheos, "Who Speaks for American Catholics?", to be very thoughtful and well written. Even though he seems to use the title rhetorically he does skirt around a far better question for US Catholics. The question is itself pretty simple. Why are you "Catholic"?

Numerous studies and surveys have revealed that the average American Catholic does not agree with the policies of the hierarchy. They also do not seem to either know or support those practices and doctrines that separate the Catholic Church from the various other Christian sects/denominations. So why stay in a church that doesn't really represent what you actually believe and practice? It is not as if you have to be specifically Catholic to uphold your perception of Christian values and practices.

The rationale that it is cultural or traditional is only partially acceptable. It cannot be all that is in play. Americans both as a whole and with the context of the American Catholic community have altered or even set aside other traditions and customs over the years. A sense of identity as a rationale is also only partial.

This situation is very baffling. If anyone has any further thoughts on why so many choose to remain attached to an organization that clearly does not represent them or serve their actual values I would love to hear them.

Better PR Doesn't Equal a Revolution

I really didn't expect the mainstream media's love affair with Pope Francis to end just because the facts refute their favored view of him. However, I also didn't expect such a ridiculous piece to come from the BBC. Of all the mainstream outlets the BBC is usually one of the better ones. "Pope Francis gives Catholic Church gentle revolution" is chock full of bullshit. Most of the changes referenced are either completely imagined or exaggerated far beyond the superficial nature of them. The main piece of evidence that there has been any sort of revolution, gentle or otherwise, is that Francis is making the Church more palatable. People's perception of the Catholic Church has improved. Improvements in public relations does not qualify as a "revolution." The church has not actually changed. Not even a little.

Definitely Anti-gay

I would love it if the mainstream media finally started paying attention to what the Pope actually does, or doesn't do as opposed to the frequently disingenuous superficial rhetoric he offers on a regular basis. It is doubtful but one can hope. Francis has once again provided ample evidence that when it comes to substance he is no different than his predecessors. He has made his opposition to extending adoption rights to gay couples known. How is opposing equal rights to homosexuals "gay friendly"? Seems to be rather anti-gay to me. Even though some mainstream outlets have reported on this they are comparably short and unenthusiastic. Time's "Pope Francis ‘Shocked’ by Same-Sex Adoption Proposal" is an excellent example. It's wishy-washy tone is predictable. They did afterall just name Francis their Person of the Year. For a better piece on the incident read Hemant Mehta's December 30th blog post "Pope Francis Encourages Bishop to Condemn Same-Sex Parenting."

The Catholic Church is Anti-gay

Michael O'Loughlin's entire HuffPo piece, "The Catholic Church Isn't Anti-Gay, but Are Its Bishops?", is based on a rather foolish conflation. What he seems to be trying to say is that the average self- described Catholic isn't anti-gay. On that point I agree. The majority of people who identify as Catholic are not homophobic and don't seem to have an interest in telling others how they should live their lives. That is not the same thing. The average Catholic has no power or influence when it come to either the church hierarchy or the church's doctrines.

The Catholic Church as an organized religion is indisputably anti-gay. The hierarchy and doctrines still insist that homosexuality is a sin and that equal rights for gays (including but not limited to gay marriage) is unacceptable. That is the church's official stance and it routinely meddles in politics to enforce that view. Anyone who cannot see that being anti-gay is a complete moron.

Bad idea, slightly better location

Conservative Catholics can be such whiny assholes. Now they're pissing and moaning about US Vatican Embassy being moved. There shouldn't be an embassy at all! Grow the fuck up. These are the same assholes who will go on about their "religious" rights when what they really care about is their power and influence. If Catholicism is focused on "spirituality" why does it so often behave like a political organization? What other religion has an embassy? These over-privileged bastards will never be satisfied.

It is also interesting to note the overlap between conservative Catholics and fiscal conservatives in the GOP. If they are so interested in slashing budgets and reducing government should they be salivating at the possibility of consolidating two separate embassies into one. Oh, that's right, they are self-serving liars and hypocrits.

The Devil Made Me

And here we have more fun with absurdist theist theatre, "Catholic Priest: Disbelief in the Devil main cause of atheism." That's right fellow non-theists, our beliefs, or lack there of, are the direct result of a theistic imaginary frenemy. The devil didn't just make me do something the red-hued horned one actually made me what I am. Good to know.

Since father's day is coming up, should I consider getting a card for Satan? Like usual, while reading this ridiculous piece a couple things popped into my. For a good hour, or so, I could not get out of my head either the Grateful dead song Friend of the Devil or one of the SNLChurch Lady's catch phrases, "Could it be SATAN?!"

Oh, and remember kids, If you believe in the Boogey Man you're not really a monotheist.

Just kidding, and F You

Wow, didn't have to wait long to be proven right about the Pope's latest PR ploy. A day after the Pope made his comment about atheists being redeemed a Vatican spokesman nullified the sentiment. That wasn't what surprised me. I was assuming they'd find a weasle-way to negate it without drawing too much attention to their intention. What did make me pause was the way Rosica attempted at reconciling the Pope's statement with it's correction*.

"[Pope Francis] is first and foremost a seasoned pastor and preacher who has much experience in reaching people...His words are not spoken in the context of a theological faculty or academy nor in interreligious dialogue or debate."

To me, that sounds like an admission that it really was a PR ploy. It also seems to imply that the Pope has little to do theological doctrines. Really?! Isn't he the top guy? "God's vicar" here on earth?

In comparison to a few other implications from the statements made by Rosica this is also of little consequence. Inadvertently, this spokesman has effectively admitted to a number of other points I, and others, have been making for years. He made it clear that the Catholic version of Christianity is by its nature divisive and bigoted. He justified his alterations to the Pope's statement by pointing out that the Catholic Catechism states,
"All salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body,..."

If you stop and think about that for more than a minute it is a rather horrible statement. Essentially, only Christians can be "saved." It implies, at best, that everyone else is automatically damned. All non-Christians, whether atheist or theist, are wrong. It implies that billions of people are morally and ethically inferior to Christians. That is the theological equivalent of a big old Fuck You to the rest of us.


*Officially, the Catholic Church still maintains the doctrine that the Pope is infallible. They won't even admit that his statement was corrected since that would imply a mistake. They like to couch such corrections in terms like "clarified" or "amended."

Can there be any question that Catholicism is political?

This past week it was announced that the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops would be using a right-wing media flack for his spokesperson. A former adviser of Sarah Palin will now serve as the mouthpiece of the Catholic church in the US. The USCCB is already a far right cabal of politicians that market themselves as spiritual leaders. The use of a far right pundit only seems to confirm it even further. Given the track record of Kim Daniels it seems all but a forgone conclusion that any pretense at claiming to be honest and ethical is a deceitful ploy. I would also assume that the USCCB is preparing to interfere in public policy even more than they already do.

Catholic by Tradition Alone

Thomas Moore's recent HuffPo piece, "Catholic Without a Church", seem to be quite representative of the attitudes/mindsets of many of the Catholics I have known over the years. Needless to say I have never really understood it, or them*. It is truly mind boggling to me that so many remain within the Catholic church since they do not seem to accept the doctrines or the leadership's views. Moore's very first sentence sets the tone that offers a minor and rather dissatisfying answer, "At a time when the world wasn't divided into liberals and conservatives, I was born into a devout Catholic family, went to a Catholic church and elementary school and then to a seminary, run by a community of friars -- monks in the world -- to study for the priesthood."
Nostalgia and tradition are powerful but can that really be the only rationale for sticking with an institution that neither represents or cares about you?

Setting aside the rather blatant fallacy that the world was ever united in anything, let alone religion, I can partially sympathize with becoming attached to something for reasons of nostalgia and tradition. There are a lot of aspects of my childhood that I value despite being able to see the flaws as an adult. However, I have no illusions about them and certainly don't seek to venerate them. Why do Catholics, and other religious individuals, continue to do so? Moore's further statement, "I still love the Catholic way, though I have no use for the pomp and authority", only adds to my confusion since it doesn't seem to connect with his criticism of the church. What is this "Catholic way" once you strip out the "pomp and authority"? What differentiates it from other faiths? For that matter, how are the appealing elements innate to Catholicism?

I just don't get it.


* I sometimes feel really bad about this. I can't help but view their beliefs as nonsensical and ridiculous yet they are very intelligent people. I tend to hesitate speaking my mind for fear of alienating or hurting those I care about. I also often worry that they will misinterpret my views and feelings. I don't think any less of them for believing things I think are complete crap and don't want them to ever think that I do. At the same time I cannot, and don't want to, suppress my own thinking. I have always tended towards curiosity and skepticism. Perhaps I do sometimes over think matters but that is a part of who I am. Overall I think my constant questioning has served me well.

Is it any wonder....

"It's 11 p.m. Do you know where your atheist child is? An alarming number of Catholic parents these days have seen their deepest fear come true. Not only have their children rejected Catholicism, they no longer believe in God"

This is the opening paragraph to Brian O'Neel's recent (April 2013) Catholic Digest piece, "My child the athesit." Not only is he comparing atheism with drug abuse by riffing on one of its 80's-90's anti-drug campaign catch phrases he reveals just how fucked up his own parental priorities are. "Deepest fears"? Really?! He's such a self centered arrogant prick that failing to blindly accept his beliefs is somehow more worthy of concern than any number of disorders/diseases that children end up with or any number of accidents than can occur? Is it any wonder atheists end up becoming hostile towards religion?

This asshole follows this up a handful of paragraphs later with, "....a Pew center study shows they [teens] become more likely to abandon religious beliefs. This all seems alarming, as if atheism was some contagion preying on children and rapidly spreading throughout the nation." Why do so many religious people find atheism so alarming? We aren't the ones using our beliefs to harass, smear, and outright persecute others. In fact, virtually every atheist I have ever come across routinely points out that everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose! As for "preying on children", this is absurd coming from a CATHOLIC. The Catholic hierarchy has all but instutionalized pedophilia. And, it's not an opinion. How many ranking officials have either been reprimanded internally or have now been investigated or indicted by civil authorities? How about that letter that got leaked a few years back that has Ratzinger ordering his fellow Bishops not to investigate any sex abuse allegations and ordering them to impede any such outside investigations?

O'Neel's piece never gets any better. He goes out of his way to find (assuming they are not outright fabricated) individuals who fit some of the worst stereotypes about atheists in order to present them as proof that we are all horrible. It's rather convenient there are no literary mirrors. This asshole's level of ignorance and bigotry is astounding. The pinhead actually thinks he's doing something good by offering advice based on lies and the most outrageous smears. Maybe if Catholics cleaned up their own faith they would have no reason to be "alarmed." Oh wait, they can't. Catholicism like all faiths are built on deception, delusions, and coercion. Maybe that's why people like O'Neel despise us so much: our refusal to be blind ignorant sheep.

Happy Zombie/cannibal day!

Female Gap

Even before the GOP candidate circus started winding down there were random comments about the lack of enthusiasm for any of the potential nominees among women voters. Now that it seems all but decided that Romney will be the Republican candidate, the talk of a "female" gap has increased. Unfortunately, the majority of media pieces on this aspect of the presidential campaign are incredibly superficial. Virtually all of them have focused on perception and strategy. The various pundits, politicians, and journalists have been talking about how to more effectively sell the Republican platform and/or Mitt Romney.

It is sad that no one in the mainstream media is even bothering with assessing whether the platform is bad for women. Even when a brief comment gets made that women voters are wary of a given issue the line immediately goes into how this view can be changed rather than whether the view has merit or not. Personally, I see the platform and all the candidates as being very bad for the well being of everyone, especially women. Regardless of anyone's personal opinions the media should be assessing the issues and encouraging discussion rather than always playing up the strategy and marketing.

Another point that no one is bringing up at all is the role that religion has played in encouraging sexist policies and political positions. I do not think it is a coincidence that the major candidates all belong to denominations that are patriarchal and outright sexist. Just look at the last four contenders for the GOP nomination. They include two Catholics (Gingrich and Santorum), a Lutheran (Paul), and a Mormon (Romney). Though in theory each of these has liberal factions, the majority and, more importantly, the leadership is very conservative and quite sexist. None of these denomination allow for women in leadership positions or even in the clergy. The closest any of them come to female clergy are Catholic Nuns. Currently nuns are being rebuked by their own religious leaders.

A lot has been said lately about Romney's wife, Ann. Whether, women choose of their own accord to fulfill what are considered traditional roles is not really the issue. I am in no position to guess whether Ann really does like being a "homemaker" or not nor do I particularly care. What is not being examined is that the Mormon faith pushes women into those traditional sexist roles. According to the Latter Day Saint's (Mormons) doctrinal Family: A Proclamation to the World, "... father's are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The Catholic Church is not that far from this position either. The entire gang of GOP candidates seemed to subscribe to the mentality that women should be barefoot and pregnant in kitchen.

Maybe, just maybe, that "female gap" exists for a good reason. The convergence in each of the candidates, Romney included, of the conservative movement and the religious right ideologies is just plain horrible when it comes to women.

Females Need Never Apply

Well ladies, here's a pleasant little theological Fuck You. Fr. Longenecker's tortuous justification for treating women as inferiors is entertaining only in terms of the level of bullshit he is able to pile on in such a short blog post. His March 26, 2012 piece titled "Why Women Cannot Be Priests" doesn't really contain anything new. It is mostly warmed over theocratic rationalizations. I just find it mind boggling that anyone with enough intelligence to tie their own shoes or complete a sentence still can't see this crap for what it is.

He dresses it all up in a considerable amount of verbiage, of course, but in the end his premise is not that sophisticated. According to the good father women are "co-equal" they just should never expect to put that equality into practical use. See woman are equal mainly because men need them to procreate. See how that works? Women are the other half of the coupling needed to produce more people. Since God commanded us to be fruitful women are needed. After that, women lose their significance in terms of theology. Fr. Longenecker, as you might expect, tosses out a few Biblical verses to justify the demand that women be subservient and like it.

He even goes further in pointing out that failure to accept this second-class role amounts to an assault on the Catholic Church. It's interesting how often abusers fall back on the claim that they are the victim. There was one aspect of the piece that did surprise me. In the last chapter Longenecker actually states that,"The Church does not have the authority to ordain women as priests." Really? I had gotten the impression over the years that most priests had long ago given about the delusion that the Church was entirely created by divine revelation. Most seemed willing to admit that the modern Church was predominantly a human affair, though still seen as divinely inspired. How can the Church not have authority? I haven't come across that justification before.

In the end, these excuses don't amount to much. The Church is still basically treating women as inferiors. Just saying the Church respects them as equals doesn't mean squat. And when most of the doctrines and policies are geared to treat women as an afterthought I fail to see why women put up with this kind of shit. I say flip the Golden Rule. To Father Longenecker and his fellow mysogynists I say Fuck You and your lame-ass excuses.

"Real" Catholics

I certainly agree with Stephen Prothero that it is important to "distinguish between the Catholic hierarchy and rank-and-file Catholics". However, I'm not sure I fully accept some of the other implications of his CNN Belief Blog piece, "My Take: 'Real Catholics' not opposed to birth control." It is true that there are a number of differences between the leaders of the Church and the followers of the Church. I have noted in previous posts that Religions, Catholicism among them, are not democratic. The average Catholic has no direct say in how doctrines are created and enforced or who leads the Church.

These circumstances do not absolve "rank-and-file Catholics" of the consequences of the hierarchy's policies and behaviors. Leaders can not lead if there are not those willing to follow. I do agree that when evaluating and criticizing a specific religion the focus should be on the doctrines and the leadership. But the average follower should not be excluded from scrutiny. Just last week I pointed out that we are all responsible for the institutions we belong to. If Catholics find fault with the Church's doctrines and/or leadership they have an obligation to make those objections known. There is always the option of leaving the church. The simple act of joining a specific religion does carry with it a certain level of responsibility and accountability.

Personally, I consider any Catholic who self-identifies as such to be a "real" Catholic so long as they accept the consequences of that identity. Simply shrugging off what you don't like about the group you have chosen to be a part of does imply a lack of commitment. It is the individuals who take that approach that I would consider superficial rather than real Catholics. If you have a strong connection to your chosen Faith why would you not want to see it thrive. Nothing thrives without change and progress. Criticism and protest can be healthy and reinvigorating.

This approach does lead to somewhat of a dilemma since religions by their nature resist change, especially from below. I do not know if this innate conflict can ever be resolved. I just know that the average Catholic needs to accept their share of the responsibility. Otherwise, I strongly encourage them to just shut up and go away. When non-Catholics point out legitimate concerns about the religion you have no grounds to attack them since you yourselves have done nothing about the problems.

Pontificating Doublespeak

Orwell would be proud, or perhaps horrified at one of the Pope's more recent speeches. The Catholic Online piece on the event is nearly as bad as the speech itself in its feeble attempts at spinning the real intent behind it.
The "news" piece opens with this gem, "Grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres." This from the organization that not only has covered up the most widespread instances of sexual abuse but continues to refuse any responsibility. What "moral witness"? Who's threatening the church? It's utter nonsense.

In his speech the Pope rambles on about "radical secularism", "suppression", and "limits." I'm unaware of any rules, regulations, or laws that prevent individual Catholics or groups from worshiping as they see fit. Nor are there any preventing the Church from conducting its affairs. I think the last word is the key to what really bothers the Pope. The church, though still overly influential, is losing some of its sway. The Church is not happy that it can't simply bully people and get whatever it wants whenever it wants. What the Pope objects to is being held to some basic standards of conduct. Considering how lax even that it is, the arrogant prick aught to be grateful.  If clergy were held to the standards the rest of us are far more of them, including the Pope, would be behind bars.

Recently there have been a number of instances where the church was not awarded publicly funded grants. Contrary to the false statements made by the Catholic Church, this is not due to any discrimination. The church has outright refused to meet the requirements of the grants in question. An excellent example is a Health and Human Services grant designed to aid the victims of human trafficking. Many of these victims have been sexually abused, especially those forced into prostitution. Guess what the Church refused to do? They would not even refer individuals to those willing to supply contraceptive or reproductive services and/or advice. Not even advice! Basically, they cried foul when they were not allowed to re-write and dictate the terms of the grant.

The Pope and the Catholic hierarchy don't really give a shit about freedom of religion, at least not beyond their own faith. When they talk about "suppression" and "limits" they are unconcerned about limiting anyone else's rights they are concerned with legitimate checks on their power.  I see no difference between their whining and the tantrum of any spoiled brat who doesn't get their way. Grow up!

The December 28, 2011 edition of Jesus and Mo does a pretty good job summarizing not only The Catholic Church's  idea of what religious freedom means but what most organized religions mean when they talk about religious freedom.