[Debate] Rise up people of faith and rewrite the rules.

Do Catholics and other religious people bare a responsibility to throw out old dogma rather than just pretend they follow it?

Making this so as not to derail the Post a political news story thread.

In a wider sense, this thread could discuss the difference between what some religious people say and what they actually do, especially when matched with politics by which I mean both events like the current Biden birth control debacle and generally when the church impacts the lives of other people.

Personally I have a grudge I already described in the other thread that I'll quote here.

strangederby wrote:

Catholic birth control nearly destroyed my marriage amoung other negative outcomes. I wasn't Catholic myself but respected my wife and families beliefs.

Ask me how rage inducing it was years later when I heard thousands of Catholics on line say "Lol no we don't actually do that we just pretend we do when we are at mass". Never have I hated a group of people I've never met so much in all my life.

Anyway I'm an atheist now so f*ck em.

I think that (and again this is born of my own personal grudge) because the Catholic church as a whole wields so much power more Catholics (and other denominations) have a responsibility to speak up and make it clear when they disagree with the "party line." Not pretend they do but live differently in secret.

Heres a view from the Salon

For the record, the priest who married my wife and me in 1967 advised us that we could in good faith practice birth control. He reasoned that as Pope Paul VI was then preparing an encyclical regarding faith and sexuality, young Catholics could reasonably assume that church dogma regarding contraception would soon change to reflect contemporary realities: specifically that a couple intending to bring children into their marriage might legitimately seek to do so in their own time.

A university chaplain, he no doubt understood how the combination of Rome’s authoritarianism and theological nit-picking tended to drive educated young people from the church. Anyway, everybody knows how that worked out.

“Vatican Roulette,” we called it, and like the vast majority, declined to play. Surveys have shown that approximately 13 percent of the faithful agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s categorical ban on birth control; a mere 2 percent actually practice what the bishops preach. For most, it isn’t a serious personal issue. Sure, Your Grace, whatever.
If the reader detects bitterness, that’s an error of tone. The best priest I know is prone to remind his parishioners that the church is not God; rather, it’s a human institution, prone to sin and error. Recently watching him bless four little girls who carried alms to the altar, I was moved to think how humble, hardworking priests like him are also victims of the church hierarchy’s grave moral failure.

So you’d think they’d be a bit more modest in their rhetoric, the bishops. Particularly in anything touching upon human sexuality. This may be the place to say that I speak for nobody but myself. Not for Irish Catholics, Catholics in the South, Catholics Who Raise Fleckvieh Simmental Cows, nor even for my wife.

Continued from the Post a Political News Story thread:

OG_slinger wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Has he, personally, been denouncing and vilifying homosexuality / hookup apps?

Burrill's the equivalent of the CEO of the most powerful organization in the American Catholic church, which as a very clear and well-defined position on homosexuality:

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

They have a bit more of the "hate the sin, not the sinner" attitude on homosexuality than, say, evangelicals, but being gay is still a big no-no according to the Church.

The Church's 'solution' to someone being gay is that they remain celibate their entire lives.

Ironically Burrill also took a vow of chastity when he became a priest making his behavior a sort of double whammy of hypocrisy for himself and example eleventy billion of how the Church's forbidding clergy and consecrated religious from having sex is a truly stupid and f*cked up thing that hasn't worked since it became law in the 11th century.

Yes. I'm familiar with the stance of the Catholic Church, as an organization, on homosexuality, and there's a certain amount of hypocrisy inherent in a high-ranking member of that organization being a closeted homosexual.

Has Burrill, personally, pushed the Church's stance, or that of the American subset of the Church over which he has direct authority, in a more homophobic direction? Has he pushed homophobic rhetoric or policies?

I'm just trying to get a sense for the extent of the hypocrisy.

Sacred scripture... that may actually have meant not lie with young children. Which incidentally the Catholic church should have paid more attention to. Two passages out of the whole book that didn't get translated to mean "homosexuality" until the 1900s. Yeah, whatever.

I always thought catholic doctrine said that sex for any reason other than procreation was a sin, hence the anti birth control stance.

strangederby wrote:

I think that (and again this is born of my own personal grudge) because the Catholic church as a whole wields so much power more Catholics (and other denominations) have a responsibility to speak up and make it clear when they disagree with the "party line." Not pretend they do but live differently in secret.

The Catholic Church is hierarchical as f*ck. The average parishioner will hardly ever see their diocese's bishop or archbishop, let alone cardinal. And even those bishops and archbishops are far removed from the real center of Catholic power: the Vatican. So the average parishioner essentially has no power to affect any change within the Church and about the most effective thing they can do is to leave.

The Catholic Church is also old as f*ck. If you think modern institutions are resistant to change, just imagine how inflexible a 2,000 year-old bureaucracy who spent the Dark Ages creating and justifying all sorts of nonsense rules and regulations is. Not to mention the most effort and energy expended among the church leadership isn't about helping people and spreading the good word, but rather internal politicking and power struggles.

For me the final straw was Pope John Paul II going to Africa in 1990, witnessing the devastation of the AIDS epidemic, and then saying that using condoms was still a sin. I believe that the Church's opposition to birth control hardened in the Middle Ages not because of some better scriptural interpretation or understanding, but because Vatican leaders wanted the peasants to crank out as many children as possible, children who would grow up Catholic, tithe the Church, and increase the Church's power against kings and nobility.

John Paul condemned millions of people to suffer and die because of a bullsh*t rule made up centuries ago by sexually frustrated clergy playing a medieval version of House of Cards. There was nothing I could do as a parishioner to affect change--having my diocese's bishop drop by for mass was rare and he never stuck around to hear from the riffraff--and a millennia-old organization wasn't going to suddenly change its teachings that themselves were carved in stone centuries ago.

So I left. And the disconnect between John Paul's actions and what I thought were the values of Catholicism was so vast that I abandoned by belief in God because I didn't think that a supposedly compassionate and loving deity who sacrificed his own son would see the death and suffering in Africa and have their earthly representative say the real tragedy was wrapping your dick with some latex.

Clumber wrote:

I always thought catholic doctrine said that sex for any reason other than procreation was a sin, hence the anti birth control stance.

Like Dr. Hibbert said to Homer about medical marijuana:

Homer: Isn't marijuana illegal?

Hibbert: Ho ho ho, no! Only for those who enjoy it!

Yes, the no birth control thing is all about increasing membership.

No birth control > baptism of infants > indoctrination of children > more Catholics to have babies and repeat the cycle

hbi2k wrote:

Yes. I'm familiar with the stance of the Catholic Church, as an organization, on homosexuality, and there's a certain amount of hypocrisy inherent in a high-ranking member of that organization being a closeted homosexual.

Has Burrill, personally, pushed the Church's stance, or that of the American subset of the Church over which he has direct authority, in a more homophobic direction? Has he pushed homophobic rhetoric or policies?

I'm just trying to get a sense for the extent of the hypocrisy.

A certain amount of hypocrisy? It's rank hypocrisy.

It's rank because he took a vow of chastity to become a priest and repeatedly violated that vow. It's rank because he was in a leadership position and was supposed to be an example for other clergy. It's rank because the Church's official stance on homosexually is chastity. It's rank because he was formulating the American Church's response to sexual impropriety and abuse by clergy while he himself was committing sexual impropriety.

Professionally Burrill was in charge of an organization that has a standing committee--the Committee for Religious Liberty--which has a long track record of opposing LGBTQ equality in the name of religious freedom. And by opposing I mean big sh*t, like trying to change public policy and waging court battles to make sure their religious views are secular law.

The Committee still publicly supports DOMA and has repeatedly gone to court to make sure that the Church can fire they gay people who work for it in schools and hospitals. And Burrill's job was to make sure the Committee for Religious Liberty has the money, resources, and administrative support to continue to do those things.

I don't know what Burrill's personal views were outside of the fact he was widely considered to be a conservative force in the Church leadership. Nor does it matter. He climbed the ladder at an organization that pushed homophobic rhetoric and policies to the point he was in charge of an organization that pushed homophobic rhetoric and policies. There's zero signs he did so to reform from the inside and every sign that he was comfortable with the hypocrisy of him being a powerful gay man in an organization that really didn't like homosexuals.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's rank because he was formulating the American Church's response to sexual impropriety and abuse by clergy while he himself was committing sexual impropriety.

By the standards of the Roman Catholic Church, yes. Not by my personal standards, as long as everyone involved was consenting and of age to consent. So hypocrisy yes, sexual impropriety no.

Sexual impropriety but what should be his standards. Hence the added hypocrisy.

Tagging for future. Also, what could go wrong with a thread & this title? Lol.

Catholicism sure could use just letting people boink policies. Contenting, non judgmental. Also they could pony up to all the horrible things they've done recently and over history.

I am still a practicing Christian but like at a church that I think Jesus would be more proud of? Vineyard churches are more left and liberal, tries to do right by help the poor part of Jesus teachings. We have free meals, food give aways, a homeless shelter, and try to do more. I wish I did more. Hope I can one day.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Sexual impropriety but what should be his standards. Hence the added hypocrisy.

At that point the impropriety isn't in the sex but in the standards. The thing he did wrong wasn't f*cking some consenting adult dudes, the thing he did wrong was lie about it and try to hold other folks to different standards than he himself lives.

hbi2k wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Sexual impropriety but what should be his standards. Hence the added hypocrisy.

At that point the impropriety isn't in the sex but in the standards. The thing he did wrong wasn't f*cking some consenting adult dudes, the thing he did wrong was lie about it and try to hold other folks to different standards than he himself lives.

That's where the conversation started before you tried to build a different hill to die on!

I'm confused. What hill did you think I was dying on?

*peeks inside*
IMAGE(https://c.tenor.com/FOL3V2bPqP0AAAAM/bait-thats-bait.gif)

Okay, now I'm REALLY confused. Apparently everyone thinks I was sneakily advancing some agenda that was so sneaky that even I didn't know I was advancing it.

I was just curious because I'm not very familiar with the guy and it seemed like there might be some greater context that I was missing. That's all.

Yeah the story is that a person in power denounces and vilifies an action they do constantly. It is not judging the action.
At that point the impropriety isn't in the sex but in the standards. The thing he did wrong wasn't f*cking some consenting adult dudes, the thing he did wrong was lie about it and try to hold other folks to different standards than he himself lives.

Everything you posted between the 1st quote and quote below it where you finally say the same thing since no one was saying consensual sex was the issue.

Right, the point I was trying to clarify is to what extent he "denounces and vilifies" homosexuality. Where on the spectrum between "complicit as a high-ranking member of an organization that does it, but not actively doing a lot of it himself" and "it's his pet cause, his passion, his raison d'etre" he sits. And it seems like the answer is "somewhere in the middle?"

And I guess I have a hard time fully getting into the spirit of "bad thing happens to bad man" when the bad thing that happened to him is a thing that shouldn't happen to anyone. It would be nice if he were going down because of the actually objectionable sh*t he's been up to, like trying to deny a sacrament to the President in order to put political pressure on him, rather than for something that's unobjectionable in and of itself.

You are saying that *you* don't think it is a big deal(which is fair and subjective - for you), but everyone else is pointing out that objectively, due to his position of power and his strong "moral" stances about others, it kind of really is a big big deal.

SallyNasty wrote:

You are saying that *you* don't think it is a big deal(which is fair and subjective - for you), but everyone else is pointing out that objectively, due to his position of power and his strong "moral" stances about others, it kind of really is a big big deal.

What's the "it" we're talking about here?

I don't think it's a big deal that he f*cked some dudes.

I think that getting sanctimonious about who f*cks whom *is* a big deal, and to the extent this dude does it, *that* is a big deal, and I think it's reasonable to interrogate exactly what that extent is.

But I don't think the number of dudes he has f*cked particularly moves the needle on any of that. It would still be wrong to get sanctimonious about other people f*cking dudes even if he'd never f*cked a dude in his life.

That's great you don't feel that way - I personally agree. So long as everyone is consenting, I have no judgement whatsoever.

HOWEVER, he is the representative for a monolithic organization that is telling people not to do what he is out there doing(and doing quite actively). Sealioning about how it's not that big of a deal what adults get up to is really missing the point.

So what are we disagreeing about again? What is the thing that I'm saying that you're objecting to?

I guess you aren't angry enough. Stop being reasonable!

I dunno, maybe I don't belong in this thread-- certainly I no longer define myself as a "person of faith," I just came in to continue the convo that started in the other thread.

And part of it's that there's a certain baseline level of hypocrisy that I've just come to expect from organized religion. Like, read a certain way that anecdote I told about my old Sunday school teacher is the story of a hypocrite teaching hypocrisy to a new generation of hypocrites, and she was one of the "good ones."

So maybe I just expected there to be something more to the story to make THIS guy extra sh*tty instead of the ordinary baseline level of sh*tty. My big takeaway from the story was, "wow, I know some guys who use Grindr, it's really disturbing that apparently anyone with a bank account and the motivation can buy an itemized record of who and where they've f*cked as easily as I can buy a Kindle book."

And if this particular individual goes away because of a tempest-in-a-teapot sex scandal and gets replaced with someone whose views and policies and agenda are exactly the same but just doesn't happen to f*ck dudes on Grindr, have we really accomplished anything?

These are some good questions and I don’t have easy answers. I just figured everyone in every organization obey the ironclad moral rules that will get you fired/arrested/keep you awake for life and fudge the dumb ones. For example, there’s lots I don’t like about the Democratic Party and feel some of the members like AOC are a bit more liberal than I’m comfortable with. That being said, there’s enough good about the party that I still feel like I can register Democrat vs Independent.

Catholicism is my spiritual tradition and at least till recently I felt the good (sense of belonging, caring local priests, excellent charity work) outweighed the bad. I backed away from the Knights of Columbus because the local chapter became more and more loudly pro Trump over other concerns like local food drives. I may now be leaving the church altogether but that’s probably a topic for another thread.

I’m not going to weigh in on the Grindr debate because I agree it’s hypocritical. I also agree that all special interest groups - churches included - should have less power in American politics through campaign reform. But at a certain level the Catholic Church is a private, independent organization. It’s been a battle just to get our local priest to fire a terrible teacher at my son’s school. How much power do I have to really make huge changes? My main power is to stay or go, which unlike other religions is still an option.

Final thought - YMMV a lot in American parishes. Here in the Seattle area the local archdiocese is way more laid back and LGBT friendly than say my childhood parish in Kentucky. Both are way more liberal than some Central American or Eastern European churches.

hbi2k wrote:

My big takeaway from the story was, "wow, I know some guys who use Grindr, it's really disturbing that apparently anyone with a bank account and the motivation can buy an itemized record of who and where they've f*cked as easily as I can buy a Kindle book."

I completely agree but...

They discovered it by purchasing signal data--which tracks the time, location, and a unique ID of mobile devices collected from apps like Grindr--from a data vendor and analyzing it.

The Pillar was able to filter through the unique device IDs and determine which one came from Burrill's phone by comparing the data with Burrill's official schedule.

So it's more a case of taking what could be called anonymous data and doing detective work with it. And I'm willing to bet that grinders terms and conditions allow this.

jdzappa wrote:

I may now be leaving the church altogether but that’s probably a topic for another thread.

That's a big decision and I just wanted to send you my very best wishes whatever you decide. Don't forget to look after yourself. I don't know your circumstances, but when I left Christianity I went through a phase of feeling a bit rudderless and also isolated. If you need to remember to reach out to people you trust.