Growing up Catholic. This simple saying can have so many meanings for different people. For some it means growing up in a repressive religion that was forced upon them by guardians but for others it is a different experience. This is just now becoming recognized within society at large and I think it is time to explain to the public that Catholics are not really that crazy at all.
I attend a Liberal Roman Catholic Church. No that is not a mistake it is truly liberal. I have had multiple conversations with my priests, all off the record of course because technically he still has to promote what the pope says, however he is supportive of the LGBT community, does not disapprove of pre-marital sex and is against the larger Catholic doctrine in many instances. With his religious guidance I have come to respect the Catholic church while also having conflicting thoughts with the rules that they dictate.
As I have talked to a variety of peers, they immediately thought negative thoughts about the catholic church most of which isn't catholic at all. They confuse the political right with the catholic church. Yes Catholics are generally anti-abortion but they are also anti-death penalty. I believe in life and regardless of what life has done I would never want to be the one to decide to end it.
So as the church is evolving in my area I am curious if it is the same throughout the nation, are we entering a new era of catholicism or have I have just been blessed to have learned about Jesus in an all inclusive church that is accepting of all life choices.
I have had multiple conversations with my priests, all off the record of course because technically he still has to promote what the pope says, however he is supportive of the LGBT community, does not disapprove of pre-marital sex and is against the larger Catholic doctrine in many instances.
Why the heck is he a Catholic?
Lots of people are Catholics by accident of birth. I can understand why people like that remain Catholic even if as they grow up and form their own opinions and find themselves disagreeing with the Church. Personally I thought my birth religion was whacky hooey and I left but I understand why people who are equally lacking in faith stay with their religion out of a sense of community or because their family attends. It is hypocritical but only mildly so.
But that is completely different from becoming a priest. By the time a potential priest is ready to enter the Seminary and certainly by the time they are ready to take SOLEMN HOLY VOWS BEFORE THE GOD THAT THEY CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN they are familiar with the teachings and dogmas of their religion. I can't find any other explanation for hypocritically assuming a position of leadership in a religion and taking religious vows espousing fidelity to a religion that one profoundly disagrees wtih except extreme intellectual dishonesty. If they don't agree with Catholic teachings why not join the Unitarian or some other Church which has teachings that fit their beliefs?
I can't imagine why anybody would want a person who lacked the character to be intellectually honest with themselves and then follow through on those convictions as a spiritual guide or any other sort of council. Priests like this are morally and intellectually bereft. How can someone so absolutely lacking in faith in the teachings of their own religion guide others in that faith? I'm sure there is an appropriate biblical quote that fits here describing evil and corruption from within.
Love the phrase "intellectually dishonest", by the way. Koukl?
Anyway, I was thinking the exact same thing reading this as you. It brings a clear example of someone, litterally, not practissing what he preaches.
These "new" takes on religious beliefs are simply protected lies. If it was true in the begining, it is true now. Truth is always true, regardless of circumstance or somebody disliking aspects of it.
I really don't like that if my dog crosses the highway, she'll probably be hit and killed by a car. Still...its true.
Blatant, yes, but it was the only example I could think of. :)
"Happiness only real when shared".
I disagree with you guys that just because you have different views on some of the more minor parts of a religion, such as disagreeing with the stance on sexuality, means you can't guide people of that religion.
Catholicism is not about sexuality it is about accepting Jesus Christ and firmly believing that communion is the body and blood of Christ. In my church our understanding of Jesus is that he would accept everyone, even people of different views.
Not to mention there is not 1 religion that is practiced today as it was when it began. Every religion changes and evolves with time. That is my point that Catholics in my area are changing and slowly but surely we believe that the Vatican will change also.
I disagree with you guys that just because you have different views on some of the more minor parts of a religion, such as disagreeing with the stance on sexuality, means you can't guide people of that religion.
I probably would not find too much to disagree with in that statement either. If you had said that in your blog I would probably have not bothered to comment.
But that is not what we were talking about. Here is what you initially wrote:
however he is supportive of the LGBT community, does not disapprove of pre-marital sex and is against the larger Catholic doctrine in many instances.
This priest is intellectually dishonest because he took religious vows when in fact he not only does he disagree with the church on sexual issues but he is also against many instances of the larger Catholic doctrine. He took those vows apparently with his fingers crossed behind his back. He is spiritually and intellectually corrupt. If there is a hell, he will probably be headed there because one of the major Commandments is that thou shall not bear false witness.
Unlike many churches, the Catholic Church is a hierarchical Church with a distinct line of command. They don't make doctrinal decisions by committee or by democratic vote either at the clerical or laity levels. They take direction from the Pope. This Priest swore an oath to be faithful to the Church and then as soon as he steps away from the pulpit he starts stabbing his leadership in the back.
If he does not agree with his Church, the intellectually honest thing to do is to recant his holy vows and leave the Church.
If this Priest is not telling you that LGBT behavior is sinful or that pre-marital sex is sinful, he may be guiding you on some sort of spiritual journey but it is not Catholicism because it is not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. It sounds more like Episcopalians or Unitarianism.
When Churches "change" they take a huge risk. Churches exist because they convince people that their teachings are the "everlasting truth" and that people need to have faith and accept those teachings as "truth". When churches change, it means that something that was "true" yesterday is not "true" today. If the Church makes the admission that part of their doctrine in untruthful, they run the risk that people will start questioning the truthfulness of other parts of their doctrine. Faith is tough to hold onto in the best of times and when the "truth" turns out to be only partly true, people start losing faith. If the Church does not stand for enduring truth then the church really is just a social club that stands for no truth.
The Episcopalians have been bleeding membership ever since they recognized the "new truth" by elevating Vicky Gene Robinson to Bishop of New Hampshire. Enrollment and Sunday attendance has declined and is continuing to decline drastically. Typically the largest and richest and most evangelical churches in dioceses have been leaving and at least one entire dioceses has fled from the Episcopal Church. By changing, they revealed that their doctrine was merely the teachings of humans and were therefore changeable by humans, rather than the everlasting and unchangeable teachings of God. That is a pretty worthless basis for a religious institution.
I don't know why people insist on changing churches. Why can't people practice tolerance and let people believe what they want to believe. If you don't like the doctrine of one church, simply go to another church!
It is all a bunch of hocus pocus hoohey anyway
We're saying that if a religion states "this, this, and THIS are Truth", you can't decide years down the road that only two of the above are true, because the other one is inconvenient and intolerant. Either its all true, or it is all wrong.
"Happiness only real when shared".