Dissent is Not Discrimination

Jack has a right to his opinions. However, his either/or, false dichotomy reasoning paints a false picture. If Catholics disagree with their church their only alternative is not to leave, like Luther. They can stay, like Erasmus, and fight for reformation from within.

However, that is only one area of a false dichotomy in his reasoning. The other is the logical conclusion to Jack's non-interference of religion into politics. If Jack will not stand up and fight for the rights of the innocent and powerless, because he believes that religion has no right to interfere in politics, then who will? It was religion that supported the rights of the powerless and fought to abolish slavery. It is religion that tells us that murder and stealing is wrong.

That is the problem with either/or thinking. It is either a TOTAL or NO religious influence in politics kind of thinking. That is ludicrous. The real question is how much religious influence should a society allow, not getting rid of it entirely. We certainly do not want the pope banning condoms, or worse, Protestantism. However, the basis of European and American law is Christian morality.

Rickardo, are you saying Jesus was wrong because he called himself master and king, accepting being called Lord?

There are two communions of independent thinkers! One is the unitarians, where what ever floats your boat is the only doctrine. The other is the united church of christ, where anything but orthodox teaching is allowed. Both are shrinking and irrelevant. Why go to a religious organization that can't state anything as truth? You can make one up at home without commitment.

I am reminded of a Japanese shogun by the name of Tokugawa Ieyasu. He, at first, allowed Christians into his country to propagate their faith as they pleased. Then he banned Christianity. Why? Because he was convinced that the Christians were a fifth column. At the time the Europeans "discovered" Japan the wars of the Protestant Reformation were in full vigor, with nationalism being confused with religion and the Protestants calling the Catholics "evil Papists", while the Catholics derogated the Protestants. Ieyasu saw through this blatant infighting - much too clearly - the nationalism and violence between Christian groups that underlay the missionary and other Christian efforts. Having just completed the unification of his own country, Ieyasu wasn't about to let it fall apart. So he kicked all of the Christians out and banned the religion. But why did the dissenters feel the need to fight to begin with? Because of papal intolerance of dissent. The Vatican (or its equivalent) served as a quasi-United Nations before the Reformation, and it had popular support - an excommunication actually had teeth back then, for people kicked out of the Church were often banished or could be harmed with impunity in many areas. However, when Reformation broke out, the papacy made agreements with Catholic heads of state to retake the schismatics by force. That obviously didn't work, and led to much bitterness stretching on for centuries afterwards. Had the Church accepted dissent calmly back then, there wouldn't have been a need for such force or violence.

Bill L.,

First, let's make a distinction between the doctrines and the believers. If one were to argue that religious doctrines should not be the basis for secular law, that wouldn't constitute
discrimination against the believers.

Yes, I would say that personal opinion alone isn't sufficient basis for law, religious or secular. (A secular example would be a hypothetical law against meat-eating.) Legal scholars talk about the principle of "compelling government interest" as a basis for law.

At the same time, I see a practical distinction between religious opinions being forced into law and secular opinions being forced into law. While both are wrong in principle, I believe the former is much more dangerous in practice. Throughout history, there have been governments that have imprisoned or executed "blasphemers" or "unbelievers" because the rulers honestly believed that they were commanded by deities to do so.

Catholics have a right to dissent from the teachings of their Church. Call them heretical, call them dissidents, excommunicate 'em, but the fact still remains: CATHOLICS ARE NOT THE CHURCH. They have independent minds. Overlording a religion with a central authority is wrong anyhow, because it attempts to preclude freedom of speech and freedom of worship, and thus the Papacy shouldn't even exist. An undemocratic religion is more a cult than a religion in my view. What's wrong with having a communion of independent thinkers? Other than that, no further comment.

Sledge, Vatican 2 had no effect on Catholic doctrine. It did effect the way the mass is celebrated and is used by dissenters to practice perversion in the name of "the spirit of Vatican 2".

CANDIDE, what do you mean by right of conscience?

Tonio, does that apply to anyones opinion being forced into law, or are you seeking discrimination against people of faith?

Tonio,

Amen, brother.

"If Roman Catholic people want to do what their Church requires, that is no problem for me. If that Church seeks to make non-Roman Catholic people abide by their teaching by seeking to write it into the laws of this land, that is a different matter."

That should apply to all religions, in my view.

Reverend Webster,

I asked you a question and while you have responded to others you have not responded to me. Is this an oversight, or do you not have an answer, or are you discriminating against my question (or against me) for some other reason?

Roberto

Rev Webster

I am not convinced that the Twelve were historical. They may have been invented to provide authority to one or other early Christian groups in struggles over authority and dogma.

It ill behooves an institution like the Roman Catholic church to talk about discrimination. Until 1964 it did not admit the right of conscience for non-Catholics.

Bill L:
Your last reply suggests that you PERSONALLY value
1) No change in church doctrine
2) No splitting up of the church

You seem to express these values as though they are true for all.

Besides that, what was the effect of Vatican II on church doctrine?

Rev Webster – thanks for getting back to me. You’re right, you …“never suggested that the writers of any of the Gospels are known. You made no statement about the gospel writers and never mentioned their names. What you did was mention the names of 3 non-gospel writers as if they were related to writing the gospels: Here’s what you said: “Each Gospel relied on many sources for their information. It seems that while each is very different, having been written in different times and places for different audiences, the important facts are essentially the same. St. Paul, Peter, James, seem to have been real people who wrote either from first hand knowledge or with access to the testimony of actual witnesses.”

It seems like an odd place to mention Paul, Peter and James, considering that the subject being addressed had nothing to do with works attributed to them (Acts, epistles, letters) and everything to do with the gospels, which are not attributed to them.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I consider that you may have been doing this out of years of habit, without thinking about it. Maybe you’ve never been challenged before because your listeners didn’t know the difference or they hesitated to question a respected clergyman. I’m asking you to think about it now and to not engage in this type of conflation anymore. I’m suggesting that whether you mean it that way or not, it’s confusing and misleading and antithetical to furthering Christian education, which by your participation on this forum and self-labeling as clergy, I presume you are trying to do.

E Favorite

I never suggested that the writers of any of the Gospels are known, though they were probably students of or had access directly to the apostles or their writings, just as many well known professors in the U.S. are known by the writings of their students. Theologians have noted similarities in content to indicate that there existed early information sources that no longer exist (letters, notes, memories, litanies, hymns, who knows?). The people I mentioned, St. Paul (theologians recognize him as author of at least some of the letters attributed to him), St. Peter (referred to in Acts and by St. Paul as an early leader of the Jerusalem Church), and James, the brother of Jesus (also a powerful leader and either a co-equal with Peter or even his superior in the Jerusalem Church and also documented in St. Paul's writings). We could believe that St. Paul made them up, but I can't imagine the motive.

As I stated before the Gospels were written in different places and times for different audiences. It doesn't mean that they couldn't still be inspired by God, though I would not argue for the inerrancy or literal interpretation of scripture, any more than I would intepret Jesus's parables as literally having happened, or the story of Job (probably one of the most important stories in the Jewish Testament) as actually having happened---again, a parable to teach a point. And I know this will cause all sorts of readers to become irrate and demand more responses from me. Unfortunately, I don't have time and just as Jesus permitted people to follow or not follow, I am not here to force my point of view.

BA'AL, it has only been recently that legislatures have passed such laws. The U.S. Supreme Court foisted it on us while claiming they don't know when life begins. All medical text books say that life begins at conception {both then and now}. If you don't know when life begins, shouldn't you error on the side of caution? The truth is that several justices belonged to firms that represented pro-abortion groups and should have recused themselves. It is told that they even had their staff at the Supreme Court secretly compile evidence for pro-abortion groups.

Sledge, that is true with many practicing and non-practicing Catholics. The fact still remains that the Catholic Church does not change her doctrines and does not split. Until recently the rules were enforced on all Catholics. There may be a large exodus soon when she does enforce them again, but they didn't have their minds and hearts there anyway. Most cases are because they don't want to live according to the moral issues the Church teaches! Why belong to what you don't believe in?

Bill L commments "It has been the law of the land from the beginning banning gay marriage and abortions until a change was forced upon us by unelected political appointees."

Actually in some states this has been done by the courts, but in others it has been passed by legislatures, comprised of people who are elected. It is not some anti-democratic wave that is behind this.

Rev Webster – I’m glad to see you here. I responded to you (as did several others) at Bishop Spong’s discussion on education. It would be great if you went there to respond.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/john_shelby_spong/2007/03/religion_should_be_learned_not.html#comments

Here’s an excerpt from my latest post:
Rev Webster mentions that “St. Paul, Peter, James, seem to have been real people who wrote either from first hand knowledge or with access to the testimony of actual witnesses.” … but he unfortunately fails to mention the obvious – these people were not the supposed Gospel writers – Mat, Mark, Luke, John. Rev Webster, assuming he was trained in a mainline protestant seminary…would have been taught that the Gospel writers are unknown and considered anonymous….. For Rev Webster to mention Paul, James and Peter with reference to the gospels seems disingenuous…It seems like purposeful conflation of information… like the conflation of 9-11 and Saddam that was made to justify the Iraq war. There is no connection, though a majority of American thought there was for a long time and some still do.

Reverend Webster,

Are you suggesting it corresponds to the state to decide who is entitled to receive catholic communion?

Bill L.
Protestants do seem to have a history of splintering when they disagree. But there seems to be some element of intellectual integrity to this, in a way. They demand consistency between the belief system that they associate themselves with and what they are personally willing to abide by. I'm an X-Catholic and have many professing Catholic family members and friends. My personal observation is that Catholic's as individuals deal with their differences differently that protestants have historically. When differences arise, they don't band together and split off and find a religion that works better for them. They simply flex their intellectual integrity enough to permit the contradiction implicit in claiming to be a Catholic while not abiding by much of what that entails. But that's based on a very small sample and just my personal assessment.

Rev. Webster, your understanding of history and Church doctrine is lacking, or you're reading from Lorraine Bottemers book. The Pope is a man and is only infallible on matters of faith and morals and only when speaking officially as Pope.

The Papal infallicy was formally defined in the last couple of centuries, but was held as truth since the first centuries! Notice when the Bishop of Rome's delegation spoke at different councils in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries it was accepted by all, even though they may not have taken to heart back home. Read the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. Popes and Bishops sin as we all do, they make mistakes in personal conduct. They seek forgiveness {or should}. What was telling is that when John Paul 2 sought forgiveness it was the far right or far left protestants who mocked or at best were silent at accepting or offering their own repentance!

Jesus never had a democratic style leadership because he is the totally authoritative King. As Jesus said to the Apostles, "The Father has given me all power in heaven and on Earth. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And again, "what you bind on Earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven". Also "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the One who sent me." Don't forget the warning of Gamaliel! If they are of human origins they will destroy themselves, but if they are of God you will find yourselves fighting against God.
As your own Christian community devides over and over again in the few centuries you've been around, the Catholic Church is still unchanged in doctrine and unity. I'm not trying to be triumphal, but history speaks loudly.

Bill L.

Sorry, I didn't answer your first question.

As I recall, Jesus didn't leave much of a formal structure for Church Governance. Originally, there were councils and the Primitive Christians operated on informal concensus. Paul and others used the circulation of letters to attempt to reign in excesses and to develop Theological underpinnings. The evolution of the Bishop of Rome into preminent among all bishops was a slow process according to all of the histories I have read. Such Dogma as Papal inerrency only came about in the 1600-1700's. Current Popes have backed away from that theory.

When Catholicism became a State Religion it copied the model of Empire for it's formal structures. In the same way the Methodist Church and the Epicopalian churches that were formed at the time of the American Revolution set up structures based upon constituions, separation of powers, independent judiciaries, representation from the governed with Bishops only acting as administrators governed by the will of the governed and with constitutionally set terms of office.

As you recall, the early Hebrew Tribes only got God to go along with them reluctantly with regard to the notion of absolute monarchy. According to the Jewish Testaments, God much prefered Judges and temporary heros in time of need. He said they would regret Monarchy. Proudly pointing out that the Catholic Church is not a democracy, while correct, is hardly something to be proud of, in my opinion. Some of the results has been the abuse of children in parishes across America and elsewhere in the world while the leadership in Rome just move the offenders from one place to another.

Bill L.

I don't see a politician as being dishonest if he is taking into consideration the interests and concerns of his constituency (RC or otherwise). We elect our officials to represent U.S. citizens who have duly elected those officials. For foreign heads of state (the Pope, Ayatolla, Israeli Lobby) to blackmail our elected officials with threats to their soul, is a sin and bad theology.

How Medievel to think that God will kill us for having taken communion without 100% perfection. I seem to recall that Jesus had to remind the pharisees of his day that they too were sinners and unworthy in God's eyes. Even the Pope has had to write appologies for errors made in the past for the treatment of Jews, victims of the Crusades, to Galileo and others. For any man/woman to decide the worthiness of others to approach Christ's table is presumptous and "looking for the mote in the eye of a brother" or "casting the first stone".

I remember a few years back when Pope John Paul II came to the U.S. and stood on a platform next to Ronald Reagan and condemned abortion. The next day he flw to Caracas, Venezuela and standing next to the president there condemned divorce. Funny; he didn't mention that unforgiveable sin when he stood next to Reagan. Even Popes have "feed of clay" when it comes to political interests and coalitions.

Again, I say, religions of any ilk that presume that they can use communion or excommunication or fiat or jihad to blackmail elected officials of other countries to achieve ends contrary to the personal view of the politician in question and to the electorate of the country who elected them are tantamount to a "fifth column". Theocracies are inherently open to abuse by those at the top who, unfortunately, often are as focused on the things of this world as on the things of God. We would all be Roman Catholics today if this weren't so.

Rev Webster, the Catholic Church is not a democracy! Did Jesus lead a democracy? The Church is not authoritative in ruling over its people, just in teaching the doctrines!

Paul tells us in the Bible that to recieve the body and blood of Jesus unworthily brings illness, sickness, and even death! That you then eat condemnation upon yourself. Therefore, the Bishops are actually protecting the offender and when they allow the person to recieve the Eucharist {the communion} they are being neglegent of their duties as a sheperd of Christ.

You may not believe that to be true, but that is actually the teaching of the Church! Some Bishops were doing the right thing by protecting Kerry.
You ask if non-Catholics fears are unfounded, and no they're not if they're pro-culture of death. The Church only speaks out on the issues of life and death when it comes to influencing Catholic public figures. Remember the Pope condemning the invasion of Iraq when Bush went to seek his blessing? The Church also speaks out against the death penalty in most cases, not to mention against restricting the human rights of immigrents. It depends on your political views on whether the Church is liberal or conservative.

Sadly most Catholic politicians don't believe what the Church teaches. They only claim Catholicism to gain Catholic votes. If you're not Catholic you should take their dishonesty into account!

I think that RC Bishops that openly condone threats of excommunication and/or denial of the sacrements to their members, who have taken an oath to serve all of their constituents by vertue of their election to public office, is not only anti-democratic, but tantamount to racketeering. If the mafia told a judge or a senator to vote a certain way or their business, reputation or property will be destroyed or substantially damaged, it would be a case for prosecution under RICO legislation. Taking away the right of communion with God is a serious threat to most Christians and expecially to Roman Catholics.

In Italy the debate is about same-sex and partnership legislation. The Catholic Church is in full force threatening legislatures on pain of separation from God through the denial of sacrements. This despite the fact that Italy has a civil constitution and is not in anyway a Theocracy ruled by the Pope. This falls only a little short of "kneecapping" for true believers in the Universal Church.

If non-Catholics react by not wanting to vote for Roman Catholic candidates for public office for fear of legislators "taking orders" from the Vatican rather than from their constituents, are their fears unfounded?

Dear Bishop Spong,

I have purchased and read many (over six) of your books, and I am a dedicated fan of yours. You are truly a beacon in the stormy night of ignorance.

May God bless you and your works.

Think please! For the Roman Catholic Church to deny communion to Kerry is the right of a church to enforce its practices on its own. If Kerry doesn't like it he could join Spongs church!

It has been the law of the land from the begining banning gay marriage and abortions until a change was forced upon us by unelected political appointees. So the Catholic Church is not pushing Church views as much as asking for a return to whats worked from the beginning. Besides, when did a democracy disallow someone to voice their opinions and try to participate in influencing public views?

Bishop Spong is correct in his opposition to the Catholic Church, the Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Right, the Taliban or any other politico-religious authority imposing its views on the body politic. Bishop Spong, however, is incorrect in saying that a dissenting Catholic must leave his hierarchical church since there is no structural manner for the body of faithful to communicate their views to the hierarchy. Devout Catholics out of filial piety may choose to stay within the Church and seek reform, to restore the Church to its earlier pre-monarchical form when bishops, including the bishop of Rome were chosen by vox populi. Unfortunately, Luther broke with the church instead of reforming within, doubtless out of fear of the Holy Office and Inquisition and needing the political power of princes and electors whose suport was predicated at limiting the power of the Holy Roman Emperor who supported the Pope.

As always, Jack Spong knows what he is talking about. Go Jack!

Catholics were divided regarding which presidential candidate to support given both contradicted one or another official Catholic position (e.g. against invasion of Iraq, against abortion, against death penalty).

Some Catholic bishops obviously did not adhere to the official catholic position and threatened to deny communion to suporters of J. Kerry, while keeping quiet regarding G.W. Bush (eg. Iraq, death penalty). Yet even said absolutely deplorable action, such 'force', only applied to catholics, not to the nation, not to non-catholics, and it was not the official Catholic position.

Yet John Shelby Spong accuses the Catholic Church, the official Catholic church one must suppose, of trying to 'force' its 'precepts or practices into the laws' of the entire land.

It was neither the offial Catholic position nor did it apply to the whole land. To argue that it was requires quite a jump. The accusation is false with respect to the official Catholic church.

Oh, please do explicate. Any religion that thinks a dishwashing sponge is a threat to their eternal absolute morality, Gods, I've been waiting for a close analysis from for just *so* long...

(You do realize you expect politics to take your Spongebob paranoia more seriously than the lfe experiences of people you villify, right?)

Bring the spongebob, spud.

I think sponge bob has more insight than you do when it comes to the catholic approach to worldly issues.

"Why does John Shelby Spong accuse the Catholic church of trying 'to force the precepts or practices of their church into the laws of the land´?

What does he mean by 'force'?"

Force: possibly like threatening to deny Communion (thus threatening *eternal torture*) from a Presidential candidate who has progressive ideas about sex, while tacitly supporting candidates who support and have a history of (gleefully)using 'captial punishment' (also a mortal sin, in Catholic dogma, if I don't recall incorrectly,)

Force. Fear or threat of violence.

The Church threatens fear of *eternal* torture and violence against those who 'sin,' and if that's not political force, I don't know what is, unless you happen to be used to kissing rifle barrels.

Know what I'm saying?

Bishop Spong is quickly becoming one of my heros.

Why does John Shelby Spong accuse the Catholic church of trying 'to force the precepts or practices of their church into the laws of the land´?

What does he mean by 'force'?

Yep, that's pretty much spot on.

I'd go further to say that generally these claims of discrimination are a further part of their practice of demonizing dissenters and dissent, both inside and outside the Church. And it's not just the Catholic Church, either.

Bishop Spong Makes Important Discriminations
Concerning the Word "Discrimination".

In the legal sense, there is a pretty clear meaning to the word.

A person is denied basic rights due to their status, a status which is Non-Criminal.
ie Homosexual, Black, Muslim, Female.

In this sense, it is absurd to say that Catholics are discriminated against.

One might ask: why is On Faith wasting time with this question?

Do people have serious problems with the practices and policies of the Catholic Church as they affect the rest of the world (Aids in Africa, Child abuse coverups, demonizing homosexuals)?

You bet. Should they? You bet.

There's some debate about whether or not Pope Pius XII said or did enough against the Nazis during WW2. According to Mr. Spong the debate is settled. Catholics, including the Pope, had no business telling other people what to believe or do at all.

If people of RC background who openly reject the moral and doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church should leave in conscience,should not those who are Episcopalians leave TEC if they in conscience reject the liberal teachings on gay bishops and gay marriage,abortion,etc?
In the area of laws on abortion and gay marriage, Catholics say that they are not imposing their religious teachings through support of laws making these issues illegal but that they are urging all regardless of religion to uphold Natural Law concepts of marriage and the human right to life from the moment of conception.

Tonio-

You know, if your last sentence were taught to young children along with their "pleases" and "thank-yous", religious discrimination would have a hard time taking hold. Of course, you'd have to get the adults who teach the children to grow up, and that's a lot harder for most adults.

"Roman Catholics certainly have the right to define their faith and practice for Roman Catholics. They do not have the right to define the faith and practice of the non-Roman Catholic population."

Excellent sentiment. I would go further than that, and say that no member of any religion has any right to tell nonmembers what to believe and what not to believe.

I think Spong got it exactly right. The same principle applies to Muslim extremists who want to punish non-Muslims for drawing cartoons. Adherents are the only ones bound by the constraints.