Dear TBC,

I think that Father James Kavanaugh
sums up my feelings in his
book, "A modern priest looks at his
outdated Church," when he says:

"Faith has passed from the passive and
complete acceptance of a body of truths
to the honest search for total commitment.
The world has become man-centered,
meaning-centered, and the individual measures
the traditional truths in terms of personal
value. The individual refuses to accept
irrelevant sermons, a sterile liturgy, a
passe and speculative theology which explores
publicly dry and distant formulas, a law which
does not explain its own origins. He/she demands a
pastor who reaches them in honest dialogue.
They will not be bullied by an authoritarian demand
nor by moralizing which ignores the true and
complex context of modern life..."

I may not be a very good Catholic, as I will not be
forced to believe that the present structure of the
Church is an adequate representation of the Christ
of Gospel and history. I however, shall be a Catholic
who follows her conscience, demands meaning and
relevance from her Church, and will not permit my
God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absorbing law.

Dear Pelly,

You dear friend, are not capable of offending anyone.
Don't give it another thought. I always value
your input.

Dear Pelican - it's all ok; no offence taken. I share many of your concerns (and Foxy's).

<"Why do normally intelligent and reasonable people go along with this rot.">

Well we don't; I'm a feminist as well and I see the way that Churches have incorporated male dominance (pre-Jesus) into their structure and laws; and clung to them as 'tradition'. Frankly they are not living up to the promise brought by Jesus, but merely perpetuating ancient laws that favour (traditional) masculine dominance.

Galatians 3
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=KJV

Here is an example of the argument about faith and law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism

(I would be somewhere on the continuum towards antinomianism I suppose).

Just FYI: This has to be one of the most horrific stories:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?passage=Judges+19%3A1-30

- and here is an analysis; though it has a few typos - the writer presents some significant ideas about the way that story compares to the nonsense interpretation of the destruction of Sodom (as if it says something about homosexuality, which has been the favoured (mis) interpretation of the mainstream dominant culture:

http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/03/abomination-of-heterosexuality-sin-of.html

If nothing else, what these readings and debates illustrate is that there is no immutable law; all has been negotiated and reinterpreted many, many times throughout history. The only constants have been Jesus - his way of being in the world; the promise of salvation through faith; our duty to protect the vulnerable and outcast; the statement that love covers many sins.

It's Jesus that keeps me tied to Christianity; not all the hoo-hah-hippy-crap that supports patriarchal power.

Btw: I'm not Catholic. I was raised mainly as Presbyterian (family tradition) but because we moved a lot and often lived in remote locations, we were encouraged to visit any church with an open door. I quite early pondered the way that almost every church organization had different ideas and beliefs (like speaking in tongues; or taking communion) and yet how each one claimed to have a corner on THE TRUTH.

When I was in my 20s I was studying for my first degree. The local Presbyterian Church that we attended disapproved of my study and pressured me in many ways to stop. For example, if the guild wanted me to cook or work on a stall or something there would be many offers of help to mind the children. However, if I was to sit an exam, people would preempt any request to mind the children by making it clear with a disapproving 'air' that they wouldn't be available for that.

Strangely, one exam supervisor was an old Anglican priest and he was most helpful. When I went to an exam and had my baby with me, he would allow me to sit with baby on my knee while I wrote and sometimes he'd rock the baby for me while I did my exams.

No church organization is perfect. They think they are doing good by pressuring towards conformity, but they aren't, though they also did many real kindnesses.

About then my spouse had a serious fall off a horse; hospital for 6 months then invalidism. Fortunately, because of my study I was able to secure a higher paying job that gave me some flexibility in time so that I could still care for our kiddies to school age myself.

I've never since joined a church organization; though I still attend Church - whichever door is open. I usually go in the evening so that I can have quiet communion with God. It's a meditative time. I don't go often enough, but I go. My daughter chose to be married in an Anglican Church rather than the family-traditional Presbyterian.

Philo. "For you as an atheist I suggest you look rather at the culture of women under the Taliban and you might have a campaign worth fighting for"

As far as I'm aware we have not yet had a PM, premier, or significant number of politicians who are members of the Taliban (not many muslim pollies for that matter). We had plenty of PM's and other politicians who are members of christian churches. The situation in Australia is nowhere near what the Taliban did but the teachings and attitudes of the christian churches are much more likely to impact on Australian legislation than those of the Taliban (or other muslim groups).

That's not to say treatment of women within muslim groups should be ignored, rather that for local impacts the christian churches teachings and attitudes are more significant.

R0bert

What RObert said in response to Philo. I particularly included Islam in the previous comment to recognise I was not singling out Christianity perse, it is only that Christianity is the culture within which I live and feel more able to comment.

I am thankful I do live in a moderate Christian country and as an atheist would not be set upon while walking down the street, but this does not mean the Church is perfect as Pynchme points out - the relationship is between a person and their God.

Thanks Foxy and Pynchme for your understanding of my basic premise.

sonofgloin
Traditions can be a good thing but not always. Comparing the male dominated Christian hierarchy with possible 'entry into a women's club' is stretching things a bit. We are not talking about men invading the CWA or women seeking entry into male country clubs.

Faith is not a man's club but includes women otherwise there would only be male parishioners. The relationship between God and the believer is a personal one I would imagine and who leads or influences administrative matters would hardly impede that relationship. Traditions set in concrete by men during a time when women held lesser status is hardly a tradition to uphold IMO but I can understand, even if I don't agree, that some would find changes to those traditions difficult.

I'd suggest you begin to talk to women in the Church and find out their real feelings - Do they feel suppressed or restricted or second class? For feminist atheist to attempt to demean men in the Christian Church is a weak issue and identifies the depth of reality they understand and the hostility they try to whip up outside Christ. That the Roman Church maintains old Roman world gender traditions does not demean women as second class.

Wake up! Australia's only Catholic saint is a woman.

I am not Roman Catholic but find fine women within the Roman Catholic Church with devotion and care they give to family and community. Some of the atheist feminists could learn much from these women's fulfilled lives and attitudes.

In the Church I attend we do not have priests as we believe each believer is a priest and can act on the behalf of another before God. This prieshood includes both men and women.