Catholic DUers: help me take back my church...

[cap]

They are starting to do a Catholic Guide to Voting (aka Republican guide) and I am wondering what is the best way to get an even playing field...

Please, no anti-Catholic responses here. We are a large parish 5,000+ families, a swing constituency in a swing state, so persuasiveness goes much further than argumentation.

I am soooooooooo annoyed with the church that I've stopped donating; but I don't want to go public with this.

[meegbear]

1. Approach them directly ...

thell them that you want to be a part of the process and you want to ensure that all inputs are considered.

[eleny]

2. How can you make change without going public?

That seems to be the first hurdle for you.

[wryter2000]

3. That's probably illegal

Contact Americans United for Church and State. They've warned churches that they're putting their tax-exempt status at risk by telling parishioners who to vote for. (They can take a stance on issues, though.)

AU is www.au.org.

[Taverner]

23. I was just going to suggest this

but wryter beat me to it!

[Iris]

4. Can you find a like-minded group of people to create an alternative guide?

Who is creating this guide? Certainly not the priest. Is it a group of people within the church?

If you created a guide, I would use the Pope's own words regarding Iraq and the death penalty and the treatment of the poor to get the message across.

[happynewyear]

11. great idea - use the pope

That is why we have the Holy See isn't it? Use the + aspects of the pope's anti-war and peace messages and deliver it to these people putting this thing together.

Why isn't the parish priest involved in this? It seems that he'd have a whole lot to say about it, at least that is how it is where I am (he actually writes the weekly bulletins and prints them out himself). If you don't like what the parish priest thinks, go to the Archbishop over the parish for "advice".

Got a monsignor around?

[Iris]

13. I might have caused confusion.

I'm assuming the priest would not be directly involved with this, but the original poster did not say.

I'm glad to see some people are willing to stick around and fight the good fight. I haven't been to a Catholic Church in over 3 years.

[happynewyear]

18. well I fight with them to a point

I'm not really into myself much - a member via lineage so to speak. However, the contact I've had here has been fairly loose I'd say. The Church locally changed drastically once the pope condemned the war last year.

I went a few weeks ago after not having been there for a long time and the mass was being said in Spanish! What a shock - no more of the rich fundies to be seen. It was ok, just ok. I might go back.

Its between God and myself. To me the Church is just a way to hear a few readings a think about the Christ and the messages that he left behind. The rest of it is up to the individual. You can go as far as you want with them. I care not to go too far personally.

[CO Liberal]

5. Call The Local Media (Anonymously, Of Course)

Let them know your church is engaging in activities that may be contrary to its tax-exempt status.

[salib]

6. What about the death penalty!?

Isn't that a fundamental issue for Catholics and pretty much antithetical to the repug platform?

[Iris]

14. Yes. And in my opinion

it takes a lot more spiritual maturity to be against the death penalty than to be against abortion.

[salib]

17. So, shouldn't that be an equal part of the criteria?

I would think that would leave almost no one to vote for and make the lists pointless!

[Iris]

24. Good point!

But the ideas of the church are bigger than those 2 issues and could lead you to a "lesser of the 2 evils" type of candidate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Speak up! Is this guide about who to pick or is it

suggesting what issues the parishoners should use to decide on who the best candidate is? (Re abortion and homosexuality)

The most you can do is hammer home that there are other important issues in the world such as the environment, poverty, democracy, civil rights, peace,--they ought not to allow tunnel vision based on a couple of issues alone sway their choice of which candidate to vote for.

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[K8-EEE]

8. OMG -- I'm 44 And Just Stopped Going To Church

The Catholic Church in the US has sided with the Pharisees, totally....no more envelopes from our family, I wrote the parish and asked the pastor to take a stand against the expoitation of our faith to propagate immoral wars to the benefit of the rich, was ignored, am out of there.

Looking for a church that doesn't totally blow off Jesus's teachings; that doesn't accumulate and protect wealth as their first priority.

This has been building inside of me ever since our evil Cardinal Mahoney built that monument to his own ego here in downtown L.A., the multi-million dollar cathedral among the poorest of the poor. The church has totally lost its way; it's gonna crash and burn and maybe out of the ashes will come a new church that is truer to the teachings of its founder.

[whistle]

9. Why does this come as a surprise to catholics....

...the Roman Catholic church has always been neo-con around the world, supported fascism in Italy during Mussolini's term, looked the other way during Hitler's persecution of the Jews, supports corrupt fascist regimes in Latin and South America and elsewhere. The BushCo political philosophy is right up their alley. If you want a change, try the American Catholic church, they seem to be more liberal.

[K8-EEE]

10. No, Not Always

The Catholic priests and nuns took a stand against the Reagan-supported regimes in South America in the 80's and many of them were killed by the death squads as a result....something that the Reaganites don't like to talk about much.

btw: The pope condemned this war, and yet I don't hear anybody in the Church having a problem with pro-war pols!!

[whistle]

16. Of course, individual catholics have always stood up for what was...

...right and just, and have paid a heavy price too. I use the St. Francis prayer everyday. Perhaps this DU're can ask his/her priest to repeat it at the next mass when asking the congregation to vote republican. Here it is:

The Peace Prayer of Saint Francis

"O Lord, make me an instrument of Thy Peace!
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, pardon.
Where there is discord, harmony.
Where there is doubt, faith.
Where there is despair, hope.
Where there is darkness, light.
Where there is sorrow, joy.

Oh Divine Master, grant that I may not
so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life."

Then ask the congregation to decide which party republicans under Bush or the Democratic party best represents these values.

[FlemingsGhost]

12. Sorry, I left that abusive relationship a long time ago.

Good luck.

[pinto]

15. speak with the Church. I'd work up the ladder, your parish's priest, then

the diocese, to see how the "voting guide" was developed and why.

I remember the church's (for)God and Country campaign in the 50/60's in New England. I assume it was nation wide in those days of pervasive commie fears. The campaign faded over time and seems to be reintroduced in the social framework...i.e. the recent threats of denial to communion for politicians...

If you disagree with the guide and/or feel the church ought to stay out of politics altogether, let those you speak with know how you feel. Encourage other parishioners to do likewise.

Or, another tack would be petitioning your parish for a voters' guide on death penalty laws.

Good luck.

[happynewyear]

19. yep once the Archbishop comes into the picture

it changes very quickly I've noted ... :D

[hunter]

20. Don't let them break the bond between you and God.

I participate in the church community and I don't put up with any bullshit from the right wing. I figure eventually, maybe in a few hundred years, the Church will have a better understanding of what Christ was truly about.

I'm lucky, I don't have to be terribly strong or patient because our diocese tends to lean towards the left.

I've been to Catholic parishes where they are competing with the wealthy right wing God Loves you more than fags and poor brown people so He gave your wife a Lexus non-denominational "Christian" churches, and I don't know what I'd do there except maybe to pray a lot, and to imagine the worst sons of bitches among them ruined and homeless and living on the streets in their broken down hummers.

Oh dear... I'm certain I should feel guilty about this, but I don't.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. good for you

I am a protestant so if my church goes to a place I do not like I can find another denomination to attend. I am a presbyterian but would have no problem going Quaker, Conregationalist or Methodist if I needed to.
But since our political stucture is democratic in nature (any changes in the book of Order/policy have to come from representatives voted into office) rather than Top down authority like the RCC, we find it easier to have power over what happens in our denomination.
You know that there are congregations in the RCC which will tend to be more liberal. If worse comes to worse you could leave and find one. I hope you are able to effect change where you are for your sake and the sake of the other people there who may feel as you do.
The other option is to consider leaving the RCC altogether. Catholic simply means the one church or church universal. We are all part of the same religion. Though tradition and habit are very powerful pulls on your spirit, Jesus can be found in other denominations.

[TlalocW]

22. I'm assuming abortion will be the major factor

In giving the thumb's up or down to a candidate. Push hard to get them to also consider being against the death penalty as the Church's official position is anti-penalty. Of course, if they actually did that, they would probably just have blank voter guides as it's somewhat rare to find an anti-choice demo candidate and even more rare finding an anti-death penalty repub.

TlalocW

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

25. you can have your church...I used to be a Catholic,

...but theres no place in the Chruch for me. Took me awhile to realize it, but I do now.

[cap]

26. I think it's important to fight back but

it must be done tactfully. The pastor is involved. We've had the Republican Congressman (pro-choice) be invited to a health care event. What I want to do is to make sure that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops positions are represented and not just the right wingers. OK so the USCCB comes out against abortion and birth control but other positions are very liberal: like universal health care, anti-death penalty, etc.

I am thinking of asking the local and state Democratic Party to call the pastor and ask for equal time. A public call to yank donations or the tax exempt status is not something I am ready for yet.

We need to work the swing voter.

Swing voters in a swing state... cant give up on them.

[merh]

27. Have you seen the May 2003 article in New Catholic Times?

I'm not sure if the Vatican has come out and said this, but this is an article on the Pope's fight against the war in Iraq. You may want to let your church consider this.

Articles > New Catholic Times > May 18, 2003

Pope fears Bush is antichrist, journalist contends - Church - journalist Wayne Madsden - Brief Article

WASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."

Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.

(snip)

Full article found at
http://www.looksmart.com/
http://www.findarticles.com/

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880

[happynewyear]

30. the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through.

Seems this is the real message from the above link (last one):

Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."

The pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they had not seen the pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the pope did convince the leaders of Mexico, Chile, Cameroon and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution.

Madsen contends that "Bush is a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult."

-----------

There is a poll off of that last link of yours for president. Kerry is at 59.6%. Bwaaahaaaaaaaa!!!!

:dem:

[merh]

28. Send it to the Vatican - their publication. It probably has

not been approved by the Vatican. Start at the top.

[dryan]

32. In 2000

and in 1996 the National Council of Catholic Bishops came out with a voting guide that just stated the church's beliefs on various issues. Yes, folks it said abortion is wrong. But the church's teachings on other social issues were pretty progressive. Also, check with various encyclicals such as the one on work that Leo X came out with and also some from the early part of the century. Also, John Paul II has come out agains the war in Iraq.

Good luck and God bless you!

[AndyTiedye]

29. Remind them that the Pope Condemned Bush*'s Iraq War

and that the stuff going on at Abu "Redemption" isn't exactly the sort of thing that Christ would do.

[donhakman]

31. As long as abortion is an issue

Your church will follow the pro life and torture crowd.

Qhat are you going to do?

Challenge the infallibility of the Pope?

[merh]

33. The Pope has called for prayer and reverance to the Virgin

Mother in the form of the recitation of the rosary.

No calls have come from the Pope or the Vatican to vote Repug.
It your church is so concerned, they should organize prayer vigils, pray the rosary 24 hours a day (the Virgin Mother has pleaded with all on earth to pray to avert war and to bring peace.)


http://www.catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=1

[DaveSZ]

36. Does the CC sanction torture of innocents?

You can show them the torture memos:


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060804A.shtml

Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture
Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued

by Jess Bravin
Monday, June 7, 2004
Wall Street Journal

Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners.

The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal technicalities. In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for declassification in 2013.

The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/05728/71738



WP: Bush's PERSONAL FINGERPRINTS are on the torture policy!
by grytpype
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 00:57:28 EDT

Holy mackeral!!!! According to the Washington Post, Bush's PERSONAL FINGERPRINTS are on the torture policy!
They keep demolishing my low expecations... every time I think it can't get any weirder or any worse or any stupider, they surprise me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html

Quote:


Memo Draws Focus To Bush
Aide: President Set Broad Guidelines
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03

The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that Bush set broad guidelines, rather than dealing with specific techniques.

...

A former senior administration official involved in discussions about CIA interrogation techniques said Bush's aides knew them he wanted them to take an aggressive approach.

"He felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do everything within his power to keep the country safe, and he was not concerned with appearances or politics or hiding behind lower-level officials," he said. "That is not to say he was ready to authorize stuff that would be contrary to law. The whole reason for having the careful legal reviews that went on was to ensure he was not doing that."



And what did the "careful legal reviews" decide? That Bush can torture any motherfucker he wants!


Quote:


The August 2002 memo from the Justice Department concluded that laws outlawing torture do not bind Bush because of his constitutional authority to conduct a military campaign. "As Commander in Chief, the President has the constitutional authority to order interrogations of enemy combatants to gain intelligence information concerning the military plans of the enemy," said the memo, obtained by The Washington Post.








How could they let the President get his fingers on the issue of torture? Just how stupid are these people?

They didn't give him deniability for Plame, either. What a bunch of fuckups. Evil, omnipotent, and incompetent. Not a good combination.

Now, who is going to ask the question: did the President's "broad guidelines" permit the atrocities that occurred at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and elsewhere?

[DaveSZ]

37. Legalizing Torture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26602-2004Jun8.html


Legalizing Torture

Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A20


THE BUSH administration assures the country, and the world, that it is complying with U.S. and international laws banning torture and maltreatment of prisoners. But, breaking with a practice of openness that had lasted for decades, it has classified as secret and refused to disclose the techniques of interrogation it is using on foreign detainees at U.S. prisons at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a matter of grave concern because the use of some of the methods that have been reported in the press is regarded by independent experts as well as some of the Pentagon's legal professionals as illegal. The administration has responded that its civilian lawyers have certified its methods as proper -- but it has refused to disclose, or even provide to Congress, the justifying opinions and memos.



This week, thanks again to an independent press, we have begun to learn the deeply disturbing truth about the legal opinions that the Pentagon and the Justice Department seek to keep secret. According to copies leaked to several newspapers, they lay out a shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture. In a paper prepared last year under the direction of the Defense Department's chief counsel, and first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, the president of the United States was declared empowered to disregard U.S. and international law and order the torture of foreign prisoners. Moreover, interrogators following the president's orders were declared immune from punishment. Torture itself was narrowly redefined, so that techniques that inflict pain and mental suffering could be deemed legal. All this was done as a prelude to the designation of 24 interrogation methods for foreign prisoners -- the same techniques, now in use, that President Bush says are humane but refuses to disclose.

There is no justification, legal or moral, for the judgments made by Mr. Bush's political appointees at the Justice and Defense departments. Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes, of dictatorships around the world that sanction torture on grounds of "national security." For decades the U.S. government has waged diplomatic campaigns against such outlaw governments -- from the military juntas in Argentina and Chile to the current autocracies in Islamic countries such as Algeria and Uzbekistan -- that claim torture is justified when used to combat terrorism. The news that serving U.S. officials have officially endorsed principles once advanced by Augusto Pinochet brings shame on American democracy -- even if it is true, as the administration maintains, that its theories have not been put into practice. Even on paper, the administration's reasoning will provide a ready excuse for dictators, especially those allied with the Bush administration, to go on torturing and killing detainees.

Perhaps the president's lawyers have no interest in the global impact of their policies -- but they should be concerned about the treatment of American servicemen and civilians in foreign countries. Before the Bush administration took office, the Army's interrogation procedures -- which were unclassified -- established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law. Now, imagine that a hostile government were to force an American to take drugs or endure severe mental stress that fell just short of producing irreversible damage; or pain a little milder than that of "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." What if the foreign interrogator of an American "knows that severe pain will result from his actions" but proceeds because causing such pain is not his main objective? What if a foreign leader were to decide that the torture of an American was needed to protect his country's security? Would Americans regard that as legal, or morally acceptable? According to the Bush administration, they should.

[merh]

34. Delete

Delete Duplicate

[antigop]

35. Durbin, other Catholic Senators release Catholic Issue Analysis

Take a look at this...

http://durbin.senate.gov/~durbin/new2001/press/2004/06/2004602A39.html

>>
Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and other Catholic senators today released an analysis of votes and actions of Catholic Senators based on the official positions taken on legislation by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The report analyzes votes and legislative cosponsorships for the 24 Catholic U.S. Senators regarding issues for which the USCCB has taken an official position. The issues are broadly divided into three areas: Domestic Issues; International Issues; and Pro-Life Issues. The scorecard includes a total of 48 votes or actions Senators have taken regarding these 24 issues, 47 of which took place during the 108th Congress (2003-2004), plus the Iraqi War Resolution, which the Senate passed on October 11, 2002.
>>

Click on the link at the bottom to get the analysis.

Pass it around to all your Catholic friends!

[hunter]

38. Okay, I ranted, but now I reply...

Who is "they" and how do they plan to distribute this little gem?

Are they going to be like the radical anti-abortion and anti-gay crowds at our church and sneak out in the parking lot during Mass and put it under the windshield wipers of all the cars? Are they going to put in in the foyer along with the rest of the pamphlets? Are they going to mail it out to all the parishoners, and if so, who is paying postage?

If it's a windshield wiper flyer kind of thing, don't stoop to that level.

If it's a pamphlet in the foyer kind of thing, you could probably get your own "non-partisan" pamphlet right there next to it, and if not, you turn any refusal into a nice political debate.

If it's a mail kind of thing make a very big issue about the money. Remind everyone how it will not look good for the parish if it looks like they've been "bought."

Peace!

[revree]

39. DO A DEMOCRATIC GUIDE...

Or take legal action, as this smacks of being unconstitutional. But if they ignore it, do a guide yourself that you can pass out to those who may not like having a leader who is a liar, cheat and a thief.

[wellstone dem]

40. On Sunday

a fellow parishioner asked me how I could have Kerry and Wellstone bumperstickers on my car. (I guess he missed the Clark one.) I said I thought that Wellstone had done so much good for Minnesota. He replied "but he was so much for abortion." I told him that when I vote I look at Pro-life issues as the most important. I told him that I had to look at whether when children were born whether they would have a good place to live, enough to eat, be safe from abuse. I told him I considered whether the candidate supported my faith's teachings on abortion, free and available treatment for people with addiction disorders, a strong public education system, a way that all folks can afford college, hunger, environment, agriculture, war, health care, pre-natal care. I told him that I was concerned that when people with no hope got pregnant, that they felt they had to get an abortion. So I was going to vote for the candidate who was most likely to create a world where folks who are low-income or sick didn't have to consider getting an abortion. I was going to vote for a candidate where those folks who are born can have a high quality life filled with hope and opportunity. I was voting for John Kerry. He told me our votes were going to cancel each other out. So, I didn't "convert" anyone, but it felt good.

[cap]

41. kick

eom

[Quahog]

42. The guide only works in rethugs' favor on one issue

I've seen a guide prepared by the council of American bishops in our church in the past, but it never named a specific candidate. It merely outlined the important social issues of our society that the bishops felt folks should be thinking about when they made their decisions in the voting booth.

Yes, abortion was on there. But my experience of Catholics (granted, in California and Rhode Island, not in more conservative states) is that we are not single-issue voters. As I have pointed out here at DU before (usually in response to a Catholic-bashing thread), the two states with the highest concentration of Catholics, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, consistently vote for Democratic candidates and liberal issues (except for our governors, don't know what's up with that). So I can't imagine that abortion is the issue that's driving most people's voting decisions.

If your pastor is condoning the distribution of this guide, I'll bet it's the same one we've all seen before... and frankly, when you look at ALL of the issues mentioned (aid to the poor, war and peace, equal opportunity, death penalty, etc), rethugs come out on top on the abortion issue only. On every other issue, Dems have them beat. So really, there's no point getting your undies in a knot if this is the guide in question, because it probably helps us rather than hurts us.

If the guide is mentioning candidates by name, I would bet good money that the source of it is not the church, and I doubt that any pastor with a modicum of common sense would allow its distribution. Our pastor, who is liberal on most social issues and who speaks out against the war regularly, would not allow me to place a flyer in the foyer describing the Moon connections of Tim LaHaye and warning Catholics off of the Left Behind series, because he said that it would give the mistaken impression that the message was coming from the church, and the bishop would be upset by this. Even though he was fascinated by the information and agreed that it shed some very damaging light on the books, he had to shut down my plan because the message did not originate from the church and was not approved by it.

It's not like a flyer announcing the annual spaghetti dinner, or the ads for local businesses that appear on the back of the weekly bulletin. These voting guides are instructing parishoners in how to live out their faith, and I doubt any pastor would want that instruction coming from a lay person with a specific political agenda. If he does approve of such electioneering in his parish, then you need to go over his head and write to the bishop. That will put a stop to it.

[DemBones DemBones]

43. Excellent points! Hope your post is read by many,

Catholic and non-Catholic, as there seems to be a lot of confusion over how things work in Catholic parishes, what a Catholic-sanctioned voting guide might say, etc.

[shrike]

46. I agree with this

It's been my experience they never tell you who to vote for. In my parish they do emphasize pro-life, but there's never been an actual endorsement of a candidate.

The pastor always just asks people to vote, no matter who they vote for; exercise their civic duty.

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. Non religious, but not an attack. :)

Maybe you should try getting their tax exception removed. After all, if they are playing in politics, then they shouldn't qualify for it any longer.

[Seabiscuit]

45. Don't look now...

...but you just "went public with this" when you posted here on DU.

That's a *big* first step. Kudos!

I was raised Catholic, and was married in the Catholic Church, but have not been a regular Church goer for decades. I've popped in a few times after the wedding, but that's about it. No organized religion really does it for me - I'm more of a free thinker and free spirit.

The priest molestation scandal turned me off, but the recent Repuke attempts to corral the Catholic bishops and the Pope's recent disgusting pronouncements meddling in American legal and political life and supporting Dubya's Repuke agenda has me so disgusted I will not be contributing a dime to the Church for a long, long, long time, nor will I be attending. Our plans to baptize our children are also on hold as a result.

[Maeve]

47. Sigh...the prayer petitions at church Sunday included

"That politicians will refuse to cater to special interest groups, we pray to the Lord.."

Now, I gave that a hearty "Lord hear our prayer", but I consider the bishops to be a "special interest group". I also tore up the check I had written and won't go back there for a while.