In which the meerkat is is more sad than angry, and has a question....

[lagilman]

Well, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops seems to have had their way: a woman's right to choose apparently being more of an evil than anything else the Church might ever encounter -- oh, except Teh Gays, of course.

Why, I ask again, does the Catholic Church retain tax exempt status in the United States, when they blatantly act as a PAC? And why, I wonder to myself, would anyone not a straight white male think that the Church has their best interests at heart?

(This is not a religious question, but purely a socio-political one; I know that faith makes people do the illogical. But it is a serious question.)

EtA: lots of discussion about side matters, but still no response to my question: why do non-straight-non-white non-males believe that the Church has their best interest at heart? I'm not asking the heathens and infidels among us, but those who consider themselves part of the Church. Anyone? Bueller? Go out and grab your friends and ask them, because I'm seriously interested.

Comments

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

The Church retains tax-exempt status because, paraphrasing the immortal words from GHOST BUSTERS, they represent millions of registered voters. Who are officially sheep, and the parish priest their shepherd.

[lagilman]

And what I'm asking is -- WHY are they sheep? What benefit do women, gays, minorities, etc gain from remaining faithful to a mother who has repeatedly, over generations, sold them to the white male? Because I don't understand it, and I'd like to believe that those folk have some sort of rational thought behind their actions, and can explain it to me.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Being not a member of Holy Mother Church, I can't answer that one. But I have seen a large flock of sheep driven to the polls here in Maine, just last week. So the phenomenon still exists.

I was raised Presbyterian, and my wife Jewish, so we have each received biased perspectives of Catholicism with our mother's milk . . .

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

What benefit do women, gays, minorities, etc gain from remaining faithful to a mother who has repeatedly, over generations, sold them to the white male?

I know the answer! Because if you suffer in this world, you will be exalted in the next.

No, honest. They taught that in Catholic school. You'd think grownups would poke at that a little, and try to get a look at the man behind the curtain -- but obviously not.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

No, honest. They taught that in Catholic school. You'd think grownups would poke at that a little, and try to get a look at the man behind the curtain -- but obviously not.

Yeah, as a veteran of the Catholic school system, I can confirm that. Not sure how much of it they still push on you, however, as the nuns are now few and far between.

Then I read The Pearl in high school and almost instantly understood all the references Steinbeck was getting at. (Yes, they actually let that book be read in a Catholic high school that wasn't run by Jesuits.)

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

I always assume they are sheep because being a sheep is 'easier' than thinking for oneself, than making ones own decisions, than taking responsibility for them.

Sure - I couldn't live that way. I'd bet any amount of money and a lifetime's worth of chocolate that you couldn't live that way. Neither could the majority of people I choose to surround myself with. But sadly - we aren't most people.

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Faith and rational thought don't often go hand in hand. You know that.

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem is the number of religions that act as PACs esp. the conservative right wing part which have more influence than the catholic church but hide their participation very well through a number of faux fronts. So if one goes then all should go which would stink for those religious organizations who do follow the rules.

The history of the catholic church is politics as is just about any form of organized religion including non-judeo-christian ones.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

I personally am in favor of the removal of tax exempt status on all religions -you want to play, you pay like everyone else- but I will say this: if the priest abuse scandal couldn't decimate the ranks of Catholics, demographics will. The number of priests is declining rapidly, and probably in about 10-20 years the Church will be forced into changing their positions with women priests or they'll end up with no priests to lead parishes.

That said, you'd be surprised at the number of people who simply accept whatever they're told no matter what. When our (ex)parish closed the parish school, there were three distinct factions: those who fought to try to keep the school open with fund raisers and protests, those who accepted whatever the priest said without question, and those who didn't care about the school or church as long as athletics wasn't impacted. The bait-and-switch of the archdiocese in terms of what it would take to keep the school open ("$200k a year... no, wait, $600k a year! No, it won't matter anyway, we're closing it, nyah-nyah-nyah!") was breathtaking in it's arrogance as was the reaction of the sports-uber-alles crowd.

When you see the meeting through that filter, it's simply a continuation of their current modus operandii.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry that the amendment went through, but I also think that it's massively important that a health care bill passed at all. Now that it is passed, we can work on tinkering it... and considering the possible unConstitutionality of that amendment, I'm fairly confident that it will not stand up to legal scrutiny.

All our rights came in increments. We had to make talking about sex legal before we could even begin the journey to legal abortion.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Actually, we had to make sex legal first. I grew up in a state where any form of sex outside of monogamous marriage was illegal, and where contraception was illegal even within marriage . . .

[lagilman]

as I just said to Nea, however, this is taking AWAY what we already have, at least in part and certainly in intent. Not sure I see that as 'progress.'

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I would not be surprised if contraception is the next target. The bishops don't like that one, either. It violates God's Plan for man.

[lagilman]

What part of "not your sheep, hands off my ovaries" does the Church not understand? That's what gets me -- if they want to preach that it's sinful and wrong, fine. If they want to ban their members from doing what they deem sinful and wrong, fine, great, go for it.

Where do they get the right to legislate MY life? And why do Catholics seem to think that's okay -- but not okay for someone else to tell them what to do? Okay, getting into rant territory here, backing off a bit...

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

That's the substance of the email I just sent our Congresschicken (stealing Sharon's term) -- how can he support such a breach of the separation between church and state? This legislation forces *all* women to obey Catholic doctrine . . .

[dancinghorse.livejournal.com]

They believe they're completely, morally and divinely right, as in "God decrees that our beliefs are the one true set of beliefs." Therefore when they legislate your morality, they're "saving" you from damnation. In that context, you have no rights. You only have what their specific definition of God says you have. Everything you are is subservient to that.

Your objections are immoral and misguided. You want to commit murder. Therefore you won't be heard. They're saving you. Whether you like it or not.

As a writer, I take that as an exercise in thinking like the Other. (I do have a home-field advantage: I was brought up Catholic. I have a thorough knowledge of the paradigm.) As a citizen, of course, I'm with you. Make the bastards pay frakking taxes. And fight like fury to get the piece of crap rescinded.

It's genius for sustaining a power elite. All they have to do is say "God wills it" and poof! millions do what they they say. And give them lots and lots and lots of shiny money.

[lagilman]

Where have I heard that argument before...?

Oh, right. The Inquisition.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

The evangelicals have been against contraception for decades. It already has been the next target, openly.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Not sure I see that as 'progress.'

Closing the donut hole is progress, as is eliminating the ability to discriminate for pre-existing conditions and not being able to drop people for the "crime" of becoming sick. We desperately needed to pass those reforms, and they also were an uphill battle.

That's the progress I'm talking about.

The abortion amendment... that's going to be tricky to close, but with effort I think it will be closed out. Telling people what they can't buy with their own money is going to be Constitutionally tricky and is probably going to fall on its own - the Supremes who think abortion is icky also think the free market rules all, and this is going to gridlock them.

Otherwise, it's going to take a court case. Which will happen. There are too many activists not to make it happen, and who will probably argue just that, that rights have been taken away.

But in the meantime, we've closed loopholes that were also killing people.

[lagilman]

mmm, except 1) it hasn't gone all the way through yet, and 2) this amendment, at least in the form I saw, impacts what PRIVATE insurance can offer WRT abortion services. In other words, they've taken away existing rights.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

And, to repeat you back at yourself... it hasn't gone completely through yet. They've got to argue, in Congress and then to the Supremes, that they can take away an existing right and furthermore, to hinder the free market of what the private plans offer. That's going to be a hell of an argument.

[lagilman]

also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, this bill does not specify affordable health care. That's sort of a stinger, IMO. I have health care insurance right now... and the cost is killing me.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

The Maine version of a "government option", Dirigo Health or some such name, costs about the same as Anthem unless you qualify for a subsidized rate. I've checked. Believe me -- as a self-employed drudge, I've checked.

And enrollment is closed to new applications.

[(Anonymous)]

The really infuriating part of this issue re: the health care plan is that, unless I really missed something, there are no plans to have it cover birth control or voluntary sterilizations.
Or to get private insurance companies to start covering them (for strictly birth control purposes, not for other medical issues).

Want fewer abortions happening, folks? Then PROVIDE ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL. *headdesk*

There's no reason why insurance should be paying for ED drugs for guys, but not for women's birth control.

On the main post topic: why does the US still have the tax-exempt policy for any religious groups? I never understood why this existed in the first place.

The Resurrectionist

[rovanda.livejournal.com]

My guess is brainwashing.

And it's not about faith, or even the tenets of their religion. It's about power over other people, any way they can get it.

*disgusted*

[jennifer-dunne.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a life-long Catholic, of the sort that spent years in choir attending multiple masses each weekend, and at one point was the lead cantor... I would *never* assume the Catholic Church had my best interest at heart. They are now, and have been for centuries, a power structure devoted to furthering their own ends. The best way to ensure they are top dog is, as many dictators and abusers know, to make those less powerful completely and totally dependent upon them, to prevent that pitiful amount of power from ever being used against them.

If they honestly believed "every life is sacred" (the justification for prohibiting abortion), then they'd fight to pass laws supporting these unwanted children, or the victims of sex crimes. But it's simply a palatable excuse for reestablishing their dominance.

One of the recent Church kerfluffles was the Pope's recommendation that churches stop encouraging people to think for themselves, because this led to them not needing the Church, and to get back to terrifying them about their afterlife. (The NY Times covered it, I believe, in a discussion about indulgences.) This is just more of the same.

I love my religion. If there was any way to get it other than dealing with my Church, I'd be out of there in a heartbeat. But sadly, if you want the one, you're stuck with the other.

[lagilman]

well, unless you're the sort to nail things to Church doors, anyway...

Thanks for the other POV. I admit, as someone raised in Reform Judaism (it's not organized religion, it's DISorganized religion) the idea of some human power structure telling me how I should worship/behave/think is... well, utterly alien.

[my experience follows]

Each synagogue chooses and hires their own rabbi and cantor, which prayer book they will use (most go with the one favored by their particular genre (Reform, Reconstructionist, Orthodox, Conservative, More-Orthodox-Than-Thou) but I don't believe it's required). There are boards and councils, but each synagogue is complete within itself, and everyone's got a be-damned opinion (often two or three, in fact).

More, at least in Reform and Reconstructionist views, we're ALL encouraged to think of our relationship with the god-figure-of-choice as individual, and indeed to argue and haggle with said figure, as we are moved to. So if someone said "God says this is how you must do something" there would be half a dozen people replying "when did that commandment come down, oh Modern day Moses? Support your claim, and don't forget to cite at least two instances in the Talmud."


(unless you belong to one of our more...fringe cults, which are often led by a charismatic rabbi who is authority in all things, but even there it's very much a community case, with disagreements between different communities with different rabbis, and although they might want to bring us all in, there is no assumption that we will behave as they do. And you gentiles...oy)

[deire.livejournal.com]

Huh. My mom and her sister were raised devout Catholics. One of them just hates the pope. The other actually suspects him of being touched by Satan. This goes for the last pope too.

CCAB & the vote

[(Anonymous)]

LIbco sent me this in a link. I hope you don't mind my 2 cents. I am a practicing traditional Catholic. I have studied the Catholic voting trends and the Catechism of the Church.
I am not a straight white male and so believe that the Church has my SOUL'S best interest at heart. There is a lot of confusion on this thread about the role and position of the Church.
First the Bishops have an obligation and right to state their opinion, because the Catholic Hospital system is one of the largest in the country.
Also part of the social doctrine of the Church states that all Catholics must look out for the basic needs of all people-food, clothing, shelter, healthcare. Which is where Catholics like me get caught in the middle. The majority of politicians that agree with our social doctrine, also support abortion. Abortion is not an issue which is debatable, because the Church's viewpoint is derived from Biblical passages. The Doctrine of the Church is based on the Bible. Anything which relates to Divine Revelation/The Bible will be changed unless new revelation is given. Revelation comes directly from God, so it is not likely this will happen (no we do not believe the Pope is God on earth).
Just to clarify in regards to homosexuality, the Church teaches its flock to love and embrace all people, specifically we are to embrace homosexuals because of the difficulties they face in society.

That being said, polls have shown that the overwhelming majority of Catholics vote for candidates who support abortion and gay rights. I think it is because when they weigh the issues they realize that they would rather have things like well paying jobs and insurance, than to attempt to overturn Roe V Wade which most doubt will ever happen.

So why do they have my interest at heart? The Church upholds the Bible through Doctrine and Teaching. This is not open to debate or interpretation, it is there in black and white. If I want to live a life according to God's law then I must look for guidance in the Bible, the Church and its leaders. NOT in a politician or civil law. If you look at what the CCAB lobbies most for it is healthcare for all. YES they do not support abortion, because it (according to God's law) is murder. There are indeed times when abortion is the only option-like neither mother or child will survive. This is not what they really take issue with, it is when abortion is freely given and used as a form of birth control. Basically they are standing up for the rights of ALL beating hearts.

You might ask why would I, as a woman, think they are acting in my best interest by opposing contraception. I answer because Natural Family Planning as it is taught NOW, is 99.9% effective, same stats as the pill. It is also natural no risk of health problems or death. It teaches a husband and wife respect for their sexuality. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden, so there is no use for condoms.

So now that I have answered I ask why is it always the Catholic Church that is targeted when Evangelistic Churches and other Fundamentalists also uphold these same values? They literally tell their members they are going to HELL for not voting for the CORRECT candidate. THey actually pass out their own voter's guide which highlights the candidates that they should vote for, you would have to be an idiot not to get who they are telling you to vote for. The Catholic Church prints sections of the Catechism and gives them to their members, instructing them to pray and reflect on the candidate whom they feel will best uphold the Church teachings. They are not telling you who or how to vote, that is between you and God.

Re: CCAB & the vote

[lagilman]

hrm. A lot here, and much I don't agree with, but I'm not sure I want to get into dissecting it right now, especially if [since you don't have an account] will have no way of knowing if I responded, and I don't know if this was a flyby retort, or an actual dialogue...

However, I certainly do take a stance against the Bible being there "in black and white," considering it's been through umpteen interpretations and translations, and I doubt many people preaching now have read the original in its original language...
(if you're going to go by Jesus' words, then you're going to get a raaaather different code of behavior than what the Pope is laying down, for instance...)

Re: CCAB & the vote

[lagilman]

Just to clarify in regards to homosexuality, the Church teaches its flock to love and embrace all people, specifically we are to embrace homosexuals because of the difficulties they face in society.

But not to grant them equal rights, as fellow human beings and children of God? That puzzles me...