Pope Francis

MiceElf great to see your comments, which don't come across as defensive, and give some insight into why catholic women do stay within their church. Thanks for the link - I was thinking yesterday that more links to information and articles about that aspect of religion ie dissent and movements for change, would quell those constant queries about why catholics put up with oppressive, abusive amd mysoginistic treatment within their church. I would appreciate seeing more.

I can understand catholics who are ashamed of the behaviour of certain individuals and groups with their church and its hierarchy not wanting to answer to such behaviour, especially when it could give oxygen to the criticism being piled on top. It must get quite wearing. However, most reasonable people can cut through the sensationalism of distorted media stories and amplified appraisals of what priests are like (it's estimated that 4% have perpetrated child abuse, which is lower than estimates for the general male population). But also, the emerging accounts of cover-ups and corruption do need to be flushed out, and the general population don't see ordinary catholics rising up and coming to the fore in demanding change and the truth. Perhaps that's the essence of catholicism - obedience, guilt about not appearing completely and unquestioningly faithful. I wonder if pope Francis is open to this shift.

If you, or anyone else, can point us to those protesters who are questioning and challenging, the continual debates that are said to be rather one-sided on here would have more balance. Thanks again

Mishap I can't speak for MiceElf or other Christians who have posted here but I think it might help if when you are thinking about the/a church you think also about a family. Individuals do break all ties with family or with family members but most of us try to get along with the rest of the family members and accept that none of us is perfect and that people make bad decisions and choose to do the wrong thing. That doesn't mean you condone criminal behaviour or that you should keep your mouth shut. Community is a very important part of Christianity and although some individuals have chosen to live apart from the rest of us, most admit the need of companionship and collective support. I can echo Mice when she says the church is not the buildings or the hierarchy but all the people. Mice, thank you for posting that heartening link.

Mice - the man in your link sounds to be a good example of how one might wish all priests to be.

I too agree that abortion is not morally neutral, and, as an agnostic, regard it as the taking of a life and a last resort that should be used wisely and thoughtfully.

Thank you fro trying to answer some of the questions.

I suppose I am interested in what keeps you within the church, when you are motivated to see some changes - and wish they would be speedier. Is it not possible to hold a belief and act it out in one's life, but steer clear of the churches with all their flaws: hierarchies, male domination, unrealistic edicts, aspects that you cannot subscribe to etc.? I am presuming that what draws people to acting out their faith within a church context is either up-bringing or the sense of community that they provide.

I guess that if I were a believer I would prefer to distance myself from such flawed institutions and get on with loving one's neighbour and worshipping the god that one believes in.

You could be right, Jess. I can't remember if it was a general poll or if they asked only Asian men.
I am also shocked by some of the photos of young British people, at home and abroad, drinking themselves into oblivion and lying around in their own vomit, but I don't think that makes it right for Muslim women to be coerced into marriage against their will. It isn't an 'either - or' situation, surely?

I think the nature of the relationship between the pope and the people is changing and it is quite interesting. The crowds gathered in St Peter's Square went quiet when the name of the new pope was announced as they were not familiar with it but quite soon they were cheering and crying and generally behaving the way that a large gathering of the public reacts to any celebrity. The same celebrity style was apparent when the previous pope visited the UK. Perhaps it all started with the introduction of the pope-mobile. It seems to me that there is still reverence but there's this very superficial feeling too.

Yes well Joan there is a faction that think like that - Some of it comes from a desire to control women and prevent change and I guess some of it comes from a fear of the effect western morals could have on their daughters (and on the honour of their family) If I was a muslim parent living in the UK I would look around and be more than a bit shocked and scared (I'm shocked and scared for my own GD)
If we go back just over 100 years our g grandparents had similar views about the exposure of female flesh.
As to that statistic greatnan - 25% of asian men thought they were asking for it - did they ask white men? It would not surprise me in the least if they got the same answers from young white men living in the same area.

Mice, I admire your brave arguments, but I don't agree with some of them – such as the one about ordinary Catholics running the church. No body of people that is run from the bottom up needs the kind of top heavy heirarchy that the RCC has. That's not to say that many parishes don't organise themselves in very community aware ways and so forth, but the rules still comes from the top, and poor, uneducated people still take what the pope says (or what filters down as what he says) as god's law that it is sinful to break. That's quite a weight to have hanging over your conscience. I do know this, having been brought up as a Catholic.

Whether any individual woman personally wants to be a priest is irrelevant to the basic premise that women priests should be allowed, that women should have equal status with men within the church. Not until a woman can be pope (not saying is, but ^can be^) will I be convinced that The Church regards women as equal to men.

Greatnan said: Of course not all Muslim men want to control their womenfolk, but my point is that if enough of them said so attitudes could change.

That is the point I was trying to make too.

JessM As for western values - I do believe our core values are caring - even though there are plenty of neanderthals who ignore these values. And at least our religious leaders, for all their faults, do not usually belittle women in their sermons. We've had imams here preaching in their mosques that women 'ask for it' by their western dress. That they are like rotten meat attracting salivating dogs.

Of course not all Muslim men want to control their womenfolk, but my point is that if enough of them said so attitudes could change. I read one report that 25% of young Asian men in the Lancashire area thought that the women/girls who were groomed by the Asian gang were 'asking for it'. Many disappearances of girls must have been noticed by their community, but nothing was said. Many people are so frightened of being called 'racist' that a blind eye has been turned to immense suffering, torture, and murder of women who would not comply with their family's demands.
I don't understand why any religion does not accord women exactly the same rights and respect as men. I know that women were very important in spreading the word about Jesus and for many years afterwards, but their work has been air brushed out of history by the men who dominated the church. I have been told so often that there cannot be women priests because Jesus did not choose any women amongst his disciples - well, not amongst the twelve that we hear most about, but there were many women amongst his followers. Anyway, we are also told whenever it suits a church to change its teaching that we cannot be bound by the mores of an uneducated people, two thousand years ago.
I would not want to belong to any organisation that did not treat me as exactly equal to the male members.
I am more than willing to acknowledge the good works done by many religious organisations, but that does not change my views on the treatment of women.

Joan I don't think it is fair to equate western with caring. I am certain that the majority of men both western and middle eastern are caring about women. There are a minority of both who are, not. I'm sure they are just as shocked about the way some western men behave towards women as vice versa.
I also think the muslim population in the Uk now contains as many shades of westernised vs non westernised attitudes and behaviour as we could dream up as new generations are born and grow up here.
micelf - nobody ever thought all priests were paedophiles did they?
How are you going to convince us about the contraception thing being ignored in the back streets of third world countries?

About Muslim men: from what I've seen in West Yorkshire, many are like the Catholic laity: they totally ignore what their Imam says and does, if it interferes with their marriage and happiness, but accept that the Imam does things differently. My husband was a bus driver, working with a young married Muslim man, at the time we were a youngish married couple. This man shared the housework, shopping etc, totally respected his wife and generally lived a quiet, Western-type life. When DH asked about the women in black burkhas, his conductor just curled his lip and said: "those are the imam's family - don't take any notice of them"

When I was in the ante-natal ward, pregnant with my first and suffering various complications, I suddenly went into labour while my husband was on shift. After the hospital rang, the Muslim inspector moved heaven and earth to get DH off his bus and on his way to me asap, then ensured he had enough leave to look after me. Talking to the inspector later, DH realised he was just like his conductor in his attitude to women - totally western and caring.

Seems that both Catholics and Muslims, well most of them anyway, put up with bovine excrement from their leaders, quietly cherry-picking what to accept and what to ignore.

We shouldn't - none of us should, because that way nothing changes for the better.

This was 33 years ago though - things might be different now.

Well, I'm not long back, having been to Mass and then, with the pastoral committee to our local centre for the homeless to cook dinner with them and finding that that there was burst water pipe and all the chaos that ensued.

And I've just looked here and I must say its a teensie weensie bit like being being put against a wall with the might of many of the grans firing against me.

But - there are some very fair questions here and I'll attempt to answer those that I think are posed in good faith.

However, this is not about belief. That can be, and has been, debated elsewhere.

First of all, the church - and I'm saying yet again the church is NOT the clergy or the hierarchy - is run by those who are involved in its life. We have a parish council, seven committees and lots of smaller ad hoc groups. Women and men are equally involved with the leadership. 70% of our Eucharistic ministers are women.

Yes, there are scandals in the RCC. This has been discussed here too. Child abuse and its cover up are perfectly appalling and those involved are guilty of grave sin. But not all Catholics or even all catholic priests ate paedophiles, despite the best endeavours of some sections of the media to persuade that that is the case.

Yes the official teaching on contraception is ridiculous, it is ignored. Not only in the west but world wide too. Adultery and fornication are against the teaching of the church are both seen as much, much more serious. As I have mentioned before I have lived and worked in the subcontinent and in Africa with women and I know of what I speak.

Abortion is another matter. And a huge matter for debate. We all have our views, but it seems to me that the frequent casual destruction of an unborn child is not a good way to live. Of course there are circumstances and reasons when it is the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't make it morally neutral.

Women priests? Well I can't think of a job I would rather not do than that! Even being a social worker, but I'm pretty sure it will happen in time, the RCC does move at a glacially slow pace, but it will happen.

And - why don't liberal Catholics leave? Well, why should we? It's our church too, and we make our voices heard. There are many distinguished women theologians, often within religious orders of women, who are very influential and women are, actually pretty powerful in the church at local and national level. Not as much as would be desirable, but very much there.

This post is too long already but I would like those who have an open mind to read this about my relative. He was the voice of the liberal church and there are many many more like him.

www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jun/03/guardianobituaries.religion

I am somewhat at a disadvantage as I read your posts 12 hours after they are written (it is 8.30 am on Monday morning here). However, much of what I would have said has been very well covered by Mishap, Joan, jess, Bags, and several others.
I don't think my life has been damaged by my catholic upbringing - I just stopped believing in any god when I was 12. My opposition to the institution, not to individual adherents, is based on the Vatican's attitude to contraception, abortion, women priests, homosexuality, and the dreadful cover-up of the child abuse scandal.
I would ask our devout Catholics one question - if so many Catholics ignore the teaching of the church on some of these subjects, why is there not a groundswell of opinion from the ranks, telling the hierarchy that you don't want to follow its teaching? If there is no mechanism for the views of the laity to be heard in Rome, what are you all doing to try to get one put in place?

Similarly, I am often told that I must not condemn Muslim men for the awful crimes committed against women in their culture, but if enough Muslim men said 'We don't want our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters' to be treated as mere possessions of their men, then surely the attitude of their leaders would have to change. I can only conclude that the majority of Muslim men like their present power over women.

It is interesting (and heartening) to hear that those within the RC church do question its teachings and dogma.

Do you feel that this questioning leads to change either locally or globally?
And do you think that this same questioning goes on in S America and Africa amongst less well educated catholic communities?

The puzzle for non-catholics (and non-church subscribers of any kind) is the idea that adherents align themsleves with a particular church and then set about trying to change it by (quite reasonably) wanting to be rid of those things that seem unfair or unreasonable. What is it that makes them join in the first place if they are unhappy with the dogma? I know that some are "cradle catholics" (or whatever denomination), so that they are brought up within the church.

Believers are free to worship outside of the church, so I presume that the desire to be a part of a like-minded community plays a part in that decision. I suspect that this is a bit of what A de B is talking about in his idea of secular organisations to fulfil that community cohesion role for non-believers.

I feel that the central hierarchy of the catholic church needs to take a long hard look at some of the effects of its doctrine (as outlined by JessM) and take responsibility for initiating changes to address these, rather than waiting for grass roots objections to filter through from educated catholic communites in the west. It can then concentrate on the positive elements of its doctrine that encourage peaceful co-existence and loving one's neighbour, which no-one could argue with.

Can't see him changing anything of any importance tbh.

I have been taking instruction to become a Catholic for the last six months and have always been encouraged to question. Some of the most influential people in the parish are woman without who the Church could not function - these are strong willed intelligent women who do challenge and question.

As for the "infallibility" of the Pope, this is a misconception. According to the Catechism the Pope is only deemed infallible when he defines a dogma in a solemn ecclesiastical act, in other words makes an authoritative decision in doctrinal questions of faith.

Like MiceElf I am also about to leave to go to Mass but hope to be able to find time to rejoin the discussion later

I, too, am off to have Sunday lunch with my son and his family, so back at teatime. Just reflecting on this thread, perhaps the arrival of pope Francis has at least opened up opportunities for change now that the world has seen the refreshing way he set his stall out as soon as he was appointed.

I'm just about to leave home to go to Mass! When I return, I shall do try to respond to the points which have been made.

But in the meantime, although you may well not have read comments I have made on other threads, if you can find them, I think you will find that I am very critical of aspects of the RCC. And I have said so in no uncertain terms. And I say so in places other than this forum.

Good post when. I think one of the things that distinguishes the RCC from anglicans and non conformist churches is that it has an international top down power structure that is very distinctive. There appears to be no representation of the members. C of E has synod. Non conformists have various assemblies and representation. Not only a lack of "democracy" and "customer consultation" or any kind of upward feedback mechanism in the RCC but a completely hierarchical structure with the pope as a kind of mediaeval emperor who is "infallible" and cannot be challenged at the top of it. The corollary of this seems to be a life long conditioning of those who grow up in the RCC to not question.

I think the argument about atheists being dismissive of catholics (I personally don't dismiss them, or accuse them of being stupid) would have more strength and credibility if the protests about ill-treatment came from within catholic congregations. The impression given (and I am open to this being a false one) is that the church is so powerful that protests and demands for change will not be tolerated. Let's see more ordinary catholics protesting that their church is neglecting the plight of African AIDS sufferers by denying them permission to use condoms, or pressing the Vatican to allow freedom of information about the internal politics that have resulted in the last pope stepping down. All I experience of catholics at present is that they are defensive about this dysfunctional organisation and will not hear a word said against their holy father or the hierarchy. Everyone, every organisation, has its faults, so what's stopping them being aired by catholics? Or by catholic Gransnetters? It's not being disrespectful to want to debate these issues.

I have been used to challenging organsations I belong to, no matter how passionately I support them. Being open to challenge and change enables individuals and organisations to transform themselves for the better. The face that catholicism presents to the world is a 'sweep problems under the carpet' culture, which we Gransnetters don't hold to in our many and varied debates about other issues, so why shouldn't it be challenged? The incongruence of not addressing such church issues is never going to go away, as long as the catholic hierarchy has this stranglehold on its worshippers. What are they afraid of? Perhaps pope Francis will loosen the shackles, although it takes more than one man to cut through the secrecy and dogma.

By the way, this is addressed to catholicsm, but applies equally to many other organised religions. Surely we can debate and ask curious questions in a healthy, open way without being called hostile to catholics, or dismissive of their beliefs. Each to their own.

#peaceandloveman

Well I prefer the word kindness.

Not at all. Respect is perhaps the more apt word, though. What I see, running through most of this thread, from believers and non believers, is a concern for the politics and structures surrounding and often dominating the major churches.

As ever, debate is healthy and I have seen little acrimony here.

I think it should be borne in mind that, however much people hate the wrongdoings within their chosen church, and however difficult they find it to come to terms with some of its reasoning, they still love that Church and the religion behind it. And, therefore, kindness should be shown when discussing it.

Does anyone here really find that difficult?

I have. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Apparently.