What is your main disagreement with the Catholic Church?

[Rochir]

This question is mostly for our liberal/Old Catholic brethren here .... with which doctrine or policy put forth by the Catholic Church do you disagree with most?

[JasonV]

I don't have a problem with the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines. I simply don't accept them as true, and my time, talent, and money speaks accordingly.

(PS. You might want to change the celibacy to "Mandatory" celibacy?)

[Rochir]

(PS. You might want to change the celibacy to "Mandatory" celibacy?)

Unfortunately, I cannot seem to be able to edit the actual poll :(

Maybe Prot could do that?;)

[Loki]

I'm technically really really agnostic. I haven't much faith or belief, but I'm trying. And I have moral objections to many of the sexual issues. It's not just "I wanna have sex with whomever," but more like "It's healthy to have an intimate relationship with someone whom you're well-acquainted and monogamous," or "It's morally irresponsible to bring unwanted children into the world, or children that one cannot afford to support."

[Fantine]

I would not call myself a complete 'moral relativist' (a term that used to be called situation ethics) but I don't see good and evil as completely black and white.

Case in point: Mrs. ________, married for 35 years to Mr. ______, who is 16 years older than her. Married outside the Church (prior marriages for both, she widowed, he divorced.) Mr. ____________ helps raise Mrs. G's children, and they have a child together. Always went to Communion because in the liberal north, their liberal priest gave them Communion.

They move to the conservative south, and make the mistake of confiding in a conservative priest, who no longer gives them Communion. They flee to another Catholic parish where they keep their own counsel, and swear never to go back to Church with the offending priest again.

But where is the real sin here? Is it "moral" to end your unsanctified marriage with someone who helped you raise your kids and supported you, now that he is elderly and ailing and needs your help?

But to me the only moral, ethical choice is to stay with someone who has shared your life for 35 years and not to abandon him when he is old and sick and needs you.....

I am comforted by the Catechism, which takes many factors into consideration when determining sinfulness. So much more progressive than the Baptists, especially the ones who don't believe in mental illness (?????)

And no, I don't believe the ten commandments are the ten suggestions, but sometimes I think they are the ten guidelines.

And to be fair, sometimes I think things are sinful that aren't in the book......

My friend was going through a dreadful divorce from her evil, controlling, extraordinarily financially successful husband. I learned that he had fired one of my neighbors because he had wanted her to cook the company books and she wouldn't....

I told my friend, because I thought she could use the information in some way to help her case....instead, the evil controlling husband had had her phone tapped, and fired the husband of the employee he had fired as well (the husband was the one who told me about the dishonesty....)

I have a lot of trouble forgiving myself for having said something that cost him his job, even though I told my friend to help her in her divorce case (the man was hiding assets big time...)

[Fish and Bread]

I think my qualm about Roman Catholicism is not necessarily it's vision of what is ideal in abstract way, but it's seeming lack of recognition that sometimes people, whether through individual makeup or circumstance, may not be best suited to meeting that ideal. Indeed, for some, it might even be impossible or at least psychologically unhealthy for them to do so.

In other words, I love the standard idea of people growing up, getting married at say eighteen or nineteen, being always faithful to each other, having lots of children, and so forth, and dying in each other's arms at the ripe old age of 102. I also can see that for some there might be a beauty in pursuing celibacy as a priest or a monk or a nun, if they genuinely want that sort of life.

There's this other kind of situation in life, though, where, say, someone really wants to marry and can't (I know, I know, I get caught up on that one a lot. :) Perhaps because it's me ;)). Or can marry; but can't afford children, can't afford *more* children*, or is unsuited to caring for children in some significant way. Or really wants to become a priest or religious but doesn't meet the criteria. Or is gay. Or is temperamentally unsuited to either marriage or celibacy, or can do marriage but not children, or whatever.

I feel like sometimes the church's response to anyone who falls into those categories or similar categories is "Suck it up.", essentially. And then further "If you can't, you're in danger of eternal torment". Something about that just doesn't seem right to me, from an ethical perspective. Maybe it is indeed the will of God, but I still even then would find it questionable. I know that's probably not something not many people feel, or at least something that not many will admit to feeling. But I wonder everyday why God would create a system he demands everyone fit into and then creates people or situations, or at least allows for situations, where they either can't fit the system or would lead miserable lives trying.

[Cosmic Charlie]

Humane Vitiae is just reasoned incorrectly

[PaladinGirl]

I have a problem with the stance on abortion and a woman's right to choose and the stance on birth control. Those are my two main complaints.

[BBAS 64]

Unfortunately, I cannot seem to be able to edit the actual poll :(

Maybe Prot could do that?;)

Good Day, Rochir

It is done.... :hug:

In Him,

Bill

[Fantine]

Case in point 2: I couldn't ever vote for the 'pro-life' candidate who put big business and profits before people 99.999999999999% of the time (as about 99.9999999999% of the so-called 'pro-life' candidates do.)

If they (or the Church) calls them pro-life, then they are not reading the same dictionary I am.....

Or the corporal works of mercy.......

Or the prayer of St. Francis........

When I read conservative posters say that the only moral vote was a vote for one of these self-named 'pro-lifers,' such as George W. Bush, I thought, "The only way you could get me to vote for George W. Bush would either be through brainwashing or by knocking me out as I was about to fill out an absentee ballot, filling it in and forging my signature."

The man whom I sincerely believe history will proclaim as the worst President in all US History is an opportunist telling one-issue voters and their pastors what they want to hear, but if he was really pro-life, he'd change almost all his positions.

Catholics need to vote their consciences, and, if they go to Church and pray at home, the Church should respect them enough to believe that they are trying to make the best choice they can out of imperfect choices."

I also believe that if we had a more socially just society (don't look to the Republicans for that) many abortions would be eliminated, and that Democrats want to reduce abortions just as much as Republicans, and are just going about it in a different way.

[Fish and Bread]

Case in point 2: I couldn't ever vote for the 'pro-life' candidate who put big business and profits before people 99.999999999999% of the time (as about 99.9999999999% of the so-called 'pro-life' candidates do.)

If they (or the Church) calls them pro-life, then they are not reading the same dictionary I am.....

Or the corporal works of mercy.......

Or the prayer of St. Francis........

When I read conservative posters say that the only moral vote was a vote for one of these self-named 'pro-lifers,' such as George W. Bush, I thought, "The only way you could get me to vote for George W. Bush would either be through brainwashing or by knocking me out as I was about to fill out an absentee ballot, filling it in and forging my signature."

The man whom I sincerely believe history will proclaim as the worst President in all US History is an opportunist telling one-issue voters and their pastors what they want to hear, but if he was really pro-life, he'd change almost all his positions.

Catholics need to vote their consciences, and, if they go to Church and pray at home, the Church should respect them enough to believe that they are trying to make the best choice they can out of imperfect choices."

I agree with you. I am pro-life on abortion, but I can't and won't believe that the abortion issue is of such overriding concern that we should vote for people who advocate making life miserable for people *after* they're born. I'm glad many Republicans want to protect life in the womb, but what good is that life if the child is born only to die of a preventable illness because he or she isn't covered by health insurance or has a bad health insurance policy? What good is that life if the person is going to be doomed to poverty and homelessness? Now, by no means am I saying we should have abortions to prevent people from the dangers and tragedies of life, but I am saying that a real pro-life ethic means not only outlawing abortion, but also providing health care and more expansive welfare and food stamps and public housing and so forth. It means being careful about under what conditions we'll wage war. It means protecting the environment so that our children don't face flooding and food and water shortages and so forth.

If we believe all life is precious, then we out to live that out as a country and have laws and governmental programs that reflect that value. I believe the Democratic Party is a lot closer to that ideal on 99% of issues. The Republican Party is basically a party that advocates for the rich at the expense of the poor, the powerful at the expense of the disposesed, and a party that treats people as if they have no intrinsic worth. I don't feel like the fact that the Republican Party is right on one issue that the Democratic Party is wrong on (in my view), abortion, absolves them of everything else. So I'm a pro-life Democrat.

I really feel like some of the rhetoric we saw from Archbishop Burke and others in the lead up to the 2004 election was fairly disgraceful. EWTN was even worse. Some basically implied that those who voted for any pro-choice candidate was going to hell. I am glad Cardinal Ratzinger (Now the Pope) publicly corrected them. I applaud him for that and hope that people take his message to heart. Catholicism is not the same thing as Republicanism, by any means.

[Rebekka]

I think my qualm about Roman Catholicism is not necessarily it's vision of what is ideal in abstract way, but it's seeming lack of recognition that sometimes people, whether through individual makeup or circumstance, may not be best suited to meeting that ideal. Indeed, for some, it might even be impossible or at least psychologically unhealthy for them to do so.

In other words, I love the standard idea of people growing up, getting married at say eighteen or nineteen, being always faithful to each other, having lots of children, and so forth, and dying in each other's arms at the ripe old age of 102. I also can see that for some there might be a beauty in pursuing celibacy as a priest or a monk or a nun, if they genuinely want that sort of life.

There's this other kind of situation in life, though, where, say, someone really wants to marry and can't (I know, I know, I get caught up on that one a lot. :) Perhaps because it's me ;)). Or can marry; but can't afford children, can't afford *more* children*, or is unsuited to caring for children in some significant way. Or really wants to become a priest or religious but doesn't meet the criteria. Or is gay. Or is temperamentally unsuited to either marriage or celibacy, or can do marriage but not children, or whatever.

I feel like sometimes the church's response to anyone who falls into those categories or similar categories is "Suck it up.", essentially. And then further "If you can't, you're in danger of eternal torment". Something about that just doesn't seem right to me, from an ethical perspective. Maybe it is indeed the will of God, but I still even then would find it questionable. I know that's probably not something not many people feel, or at least something that not many will admit to feeling. But I wonder everyday why God would create a system he demands everyone fit into and then creates people or situations, or at least allows for situations, where they either can't fit the system or would lead miserable lives trying.
What a wonderful post. I bolded the parts that I particularly agree with. God created us because He wanted to, and He created us to make us happy. We all have our crosses to bear, but we shouldn't create crosses that really needn't be there.


Fantine, I agree with you that the pro-life issue isn't the only reason to vote for someone or some party. As an outsider my opinion is flawed of course, but I think that the two-party system the US have is far from ideal because it makes you choose between two things that are both not what you want. Indeed, if a party is anti-abortion, that doesn't mean that they are pro-life: the death penalty is an example. I don't think that people who are pro-death penalty should call themselves pro-life.

The fact that one party is against abortion doesn't mean that it represents you in other things, too (assuming that you want to vote pro-life). That's a simplification that I see a lot on CF: if you don't agree with one thing, this means that you don't agree with everything - and vice versa.

I'm not sure (sorry if this offends Americans - I don't mean to) if this has to do with the black-and-white thinking of the US (two party system, you're either this or that, you're either republican or democrat, you're either fundamentalist/conservative or liberal, etc.) - in Europe, where many countries have a multiple party system, there is more diversity, less either/or thinking.

I can vote pro-life here and leftist/environmentalist (this political party is the CU), or pro-life and moderate (CDA), or pro-life and conservative (although they are only half pro-life because they are pro-death penalty - this party is the SGP). So if I want to vote pro-life (and I do), there are three parties for me to choose.

Also, in politics you have to compromise. I can understand if you think there are more urgent problems to solve than abortion (there aren't many abortions in the Netherlands), that you want to vote for a party who might not be pro-life, but who has ideas that you overall agree with, except that one issue. I mean, it is naive to think that a political party exists that you agree with 100%.


Anyway, back on topic, my only disagreements with the church are their stance on birth control within marriage, and homosexuality.

[Rochir]

Good Day, Rochir

It is done.... :hug:

In Him,

Bill

Thanke!!!:hug: