Lapsed Catholics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

[Anonymous]

Using lofty language with a “holier than thou” tone won’t hide some important truths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions. A preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise. Persons in authority with knowledge of abuse who did nothing….for years. Pedophiles being reassigned to different parishes. Instances of abuse being covered up, ignored, and glossed over. Pedophiles being given free reign to prey upon the innocent and destroy their lives with little worry about punishment or retribution. Yes — the Church did allow abuse, and it wasn’t until lawsuits started to mushroom across the country when the Church was forced to amend its ways.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others. Mary and most female saints are venerated by the Church for their virginity and so-called purity, not for the fullness of their womanhood. Women are ranked as inferior in the Church simply because of their gender. They are barred from ordained ministry due to a conveniently narrow view of the theological concept of priesthood, as well as a subjective interpretation of Scripture. And go talk to a typical nun in North America about how she is overworked, underpaid, and receives the bare minimum support from the Church.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful. Tough to be homophobic when the supermajority of your clergy is gay. It’s a pity, however, the Church doesn’t practice what it preaches.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

The Church does good in this world, but it’s also challenged by major issues that threaten to undermine the good it does. You would be wise to get your nose out of the Catechism and live in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please don’t criticize me for choosing to be a practicing catholic and raising my kids in the faith.

But, if you are a lapsed catholic, is there anything your parents did or did not do that contributed to you wanting to leave the church? I don’t care about any of the issues with the church. I’m well aware of the issues. But, when it came to family devotions, practices, schooling, etc...do you think your parents did or didn’t do anything that factored into your teen/adult thoughts and choices?

I’m a fallen Catholic and have serious problems with the hypocrisy and bs of the church. My parents didn’t have open discussions about organized religion. We were just expected to practice. Don’t gloss over the issues. Openly discuss them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

Yikes you have your head in the sand. Blind followers like you scare me and is partly why I left.

[Anonymous]

We stopped attending after my mom was excommunicated, which I thought was hyperbole, but other family members have confirmed that she was formally excommunicated (she was very involved in state level abortion rights activism post Roe). As a teen/young adult I found out that my grandfather was abused by a priest as a kid, my grandmother was sent back to my grandfather after he beat her badly enough to put her in the hospital (told if she didn't go back she would go to hell), my aunt tried to return to the Church but was hit on by the priest who was her spiritual advisor. So, how could I go back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using lofty language with a “holier than thou” tone won’t hide some important truths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions. A preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise. Persons in authority with knowledge of abuse who did nothing….for years. Pedophiles being reassigned to different parishes. Instances of abuse being covered up, ignored, and glossed over. Pedophiles being given free reign to prey upon the innocent and destroy their lives with little worry about punishment or retribution. Yes — the Church did allow abuse, and it wasn’t until lawsuits started to mushroom across the country when the Church was forced to amend its ways.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others. Mary and most female saints are venerated by the Church for their virginity and so-called purity, not for the fullness of their womanhood. Women are ranked as inferior in the Church simply because of their gender. They are barred from ordained ministry due to a conveniently narrow view of the theological concept of priesthood, as well as a subjective interpretation of Scripture. And go talk to a typical nun in North America about how she is overworked, underpaid, and receives the bare minimum support from the Church.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful. Tough to be homophobic when the supermajority of your clergy is gay. It’s a pity, however, the Church doesn’t practice what it preaches.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

The Church does good in this world, but it’s also challenged by major issues that threaten to undermine the good it does. You would be wise to get your nose out of the Catechism and live in the real world.

Lofty? Sorry. I’ll try to simplify it for you.

1. The Church historically has handled abuse allegations more or less the same way as other institutions at any given time. When there was no psychiatry and personality was understood primarily in philosophical terms, abuse was thought to be a moral failing that could be handled by removing at least particular temptation. Later, when there were psychiatrists and psychologists to consult, they told the bishops that persons with inappropriate attractions could be treated and returned to ministry. When that unfortunately turned out not to be true, and it became apparent that persons disposed to abuse are incurable, the Church responded by laicizing them. The present policies are very strict. They laicized a Cardinal.

2. The “typical” nuns in North America that I know are well educated; operate essentially independent professional ministries; have apartments and cars; eat in restaurants; get their hair done; shop for clothes, etc. They are amazing, apostolic women who do a great deal of good. What they are not is some movie stereotype of poor women pushed into the convent against their will and made virtual slaves of the clergy. I do know nuns who live very simply, in a way that was more common before Vatican II; who wear traditional-style habits; and who do humble work taking care of people nobody else wants anything to do with. They are some of the happiest people I’ve ever known. The practical fact is that women have long had important roles in the Church. (St. Teresa of Avila, whose feast day is today, reformed the Carmelite order.). The obsessive focus on ordained ministry as the be all and end all of Christian service is a superficial and worldly thing that entirely misses the point.

3. The allegation I responded to was that the Church is homophobic. That rebutted, now the allegation is that a “supermajority” of priests are gay. Priests, regardless of their personal orientation, are called to lead chaste, celibate lives. The ones who do (and that is most of them) are an example to others that active sexuality is not the only means of expressing love. Celibate gay priests understand the challenges of other gays trying to live in accord with the gospel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

Yikes you have your head in the sand. Blind followers like you scare me and is partly why I left.

My head is neither in the sand nor in the clouds, nor anywhere else it doesn’t belong. I’m no blind follower. To the contrary my beliefs are the product of a lifetime of experience with the Church, including its failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We stopped attending after my mom was excommunicated, which I thought was hyperbole, but other family members have confirmed that she was formally excommunicated (she was very involved in state level abortion rights activism post Roe). As a teen/young adult I found out that my grandfather was abused by a priest as a kid, my grandmother was sent back to my grandfather after he beat her badly enough to put her in the hospital (told if she didn't go back she would go to hell), my aunt tried to return to the Church but was hit on by the priest who was her spiritual advisor. So, how could I go back?

Easily. None of those things happened to you. They were the results of human failings. The reason to go back is the divine truth the Church is charged with husbanding, however poorly its representatives might do that in any particular case. The vast majority of people who reject the Church look for excuses to justify themselves, instead of acknowledging that their problem is that Church teachings make them feel guilty about their own actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using lofty language with a “holier than thou” tone won’t hide some important truths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions. A preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise. Persons in authority with knowledge of abuse who did nothing….for years. Pedophiles being reassigned to different parishes. Instances of abuse being covered up, ignored, and glossed over. Pedophiles being given free reign to prey upon the innocent and destroy their lives with little worry about punishment or retribution. Yes — the Church did allow abuse, and it wasn’t until lawsuits started to mushroom across the country when the Church was forced to amend its ways.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others. Mary and most female saints are venerated by the Church for their virginity and so-called purity, not for the fullness of their womanhood. Women are ranked as inferior in the Church simply because of their gender. They are barred from ordained ministry due to a conveniently narrow view of the theological concept of priesthood, as well as a subjective interpretation of Scripture. And go talk to a typical nun in North America about how she is overworked, underpaid, and receives the bare minimum support from the Church.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful. Tough to be homophobic when the supermajority of your clergy is gay. It’s a pity, however, the Church doesn’t practice what it preaches.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

The Church does good in this world, but it’s also challenged by major issues that threaten to undermine the good it does. You would be wise to get your nose out of the Catechism and live in the real world.

Lofty? Sorry. I’ll try to simplify it for you.

1. The Church historically has handled abuse allegations more or less the same way as other institutions at any given time. When there was no psychiatry and personality was understood primarily in philosophical terms, abuse was thought to be a moral failing that could be handled by removing at least particular temptation. Later, when there were psychiatrists and psychologists to consult, they told the bishops that persons with inappropriate attractions could be treated and returned to ministry. When that unfortunately turned out not to be true, and it became apparent that persons disposed to abuse are incurable, the Church responded by laicizing them. The present policies are very strict. They laicized a Cardinal. Psychiatrists and psychologists were no longer telling church officials to treat and return to pedophile priests to ministry by the early 2000s when the dam started to break. Furthermore, not all pedophile priests were being treated. Many were simply moved to a new parish in a vain attempt to make their problems go away. You summarize the clergy sex abuse crisis in a nice little package. Unfortunately, it's disconnected from reality. It also fails to show any recognition or acknowledgment of the emotional damage and trauma inflicted upon thousands of innocent children, as well as the irreparable damage it did to the Church's credibility. Who cares of a pedophile priest or the pedophile former Archbishop of Washington are laicized? They should be behind bars.

2. The “typical” nuns in North America that I know are well educated; operate essentially independent professional ministries; have apartments and cars; eat in restaurants; get their hair done; shop for clothes, etc. They are amazing, apostolic women who do a great deal of good. What they are not is some movie stereotype of poor women pushed into the convent against their will and made virtual slaves of the clergy. I do know nuns who live very simply, in a way that was more common before Vatican II; who wear traditional-style habits; and who do humble work taking care of people nobody else wants anything to do with. They are some of the happiest people I’ve ever known. The practical fact is that women have long had important roles in the Church. (St. Teresa of Avila, whose feast day is today, reformed the Carmelite order.). The obsessive focus on ordained ministry as the be all and end all of Christian service is a superficial and worldly thing that entirely misses the point. Nuns can be well educated with a professional ministry, apartment, car, and some disposable income, and still be overworked, underpaid, and not supported by the Church. You know nuns who are some of the happiest people you've ever known? Great. I know nuns who are in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, utterly exhausted, underappreciated, and quietly question their Church and faith. And your dismissal of any talk about ordained ministry for women simply points to the Church's rotten patriarchy -- clinging to subjective beliefs and interpretations that fall further and further out of alignment with the Western world (which, I'm sure, you simply and smugly dismiss as a world rife with apostasy anyway).

3. The allegation I responded to was that the Church is homophobic. That rebutted, now the allegation is that a “supermajority” of priests are gay. Priests, regardless of their personal orientation, are called to lead chaste, celibate lives. The ones who do (and that is most of them) are an example to others that active sexuality is not the only means of expressing love. Celibate gay priests understand the challenges of other gays trying to live in accord with the gospel.You, frankly, have no idea what you're talking about. You think you do, but -- once again -- your words are disconnected from reality. I went to seminary. It wasn't long ago. I saw the rampant unsanctioned relationships. I was propositioned at least three times. There was nothing being done to promote a healthy sexuality among the seminarians. It was a major reason why I left, and why I said that the Church does not practice what it preaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

Yikes you have your head in the sand. Blind followers like you scare me and is partly why I left.

My head is neither in the sand nor in the clouds, nor anywhere else it doesn’t belong. I’m no blind follower. To the contrary my beliefs are the product of a lifetime of experience with the Church, including its failures.

Yeah you keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

Yikes you have your head in the sand. Blind followers like you scare me and is partly why I left.

[phone] %

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We stopped attending after my mom was excommunicated, which I thought was hyperbole, but other family members have confirmed that she was formally excommunicated (she was very involved in state level abortion rights activism post Roe). As a teen/young adult I found out that my grandfather was abused by a priest as a kid, my grandmother was sent back to my grandfather after he beat her badly enough to put her in the hospital (told if she didn't go back she would go to hell), my aunt tried to return to the Church but was hit on by the priest who was her spiritual advisor. So, how could I go back?[/quote]

Easily. None of those things happened to you. They were the results of human failings. The reason to go back is the divine truth the Church is charged with husbanding, however poorly its representatives might do that in any particular case. The vast majority of people who reject the Church look for excuses to justify themselves, instead of acknowledging that their problem is that Church teachings make them feel guilty about their own actions. [/quote]

The vast majority of the people who stay in the church excuse it’s many failings because they feel guilty they did nothing to stop them, and will do nothing to stop them because they are scared/abused themselves, don’t care, or think the people that got hurt deserved to get hurt. Nothing divinely inspired about it. There’s all this talk about the “good” that has been done, but I’m still waiting on a credible example because in all my years in that church I’ve never seen one unselfish act.

The Catholic Church- just like every other institution on this earth - is its representatives and membership. That’s it, there’s nothing bigger. Nothing magical. An institution created by people for people. If the people are failing, the institution is failing.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous] The vast majority of the people who stay in the church excuse it’s many failings because they feel guilty they did nothing to stop them, and will do nothing to stop them because they are scared/abused themselves, don’t care, or think the people that got hurt deserved to get hurt. Nothing divinely inspired about it. [b]There’s all this talk about the “good” that has been done, but I’m still waiting on a credible example because in all my years in that church I’ve never seen one unselfish act. [/b]

The Catholic Church- just like every other institution on this earth - is its representatives and membership. That’s it, there’s nothing bigger. Nothing magical. An institution created by people for people. If the people are failing, the institution is failing. [/quote]

I’m not Catholic, but you completely lost credibility with this.

[Anonymous]

Lapsed Catholic who posted on the last page about lapsing without feeling negatively about the church.

Theologian trying to convince people they are wrong, this really isn’t the thread for you. Neither op nor any of the responders is looking to debate these issues or re-examine them. We’re just answering op’s question which is tied to her raising her own children. So chill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using lofty language with a “holier than thou” tone won’t hide some important truths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t care about any of the issues with the church” - what? I can perhaps see remaining a Catholic while fighting for change/reform - but staying in a faith that allows the abuse of children, is misogynistic and homophobic makes no moral sense. “I don’t care” negates any sense of ethics or personal responsibility. I left because of these factors - the superiority, clericalism and hate for others was not Christian.

You might try actually researching things before posting these calumnies:

1. The Church does not “allow” the abuse of children; like other institutions, it has handled such allegations poorly at some times and places and better at other times and places. At present, the Church (particularly in the US) has child protection programs that vastly exceed those of many other institutions. A preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise. Persons in authority with knowledge of abuse who did nothing….for years. Pedophiles being reassigned to different parishes. Instances of abuse being covered up, ignored, and glossed over. Pedophiles being given free reign to prey upon the innocent and destroy their lives with little worry about punishment or retribution. Yes — the Church did allow abuse, and it wasn’t until lawsuits started to mushroom across the country when the Church was forced to amend its ways.

2. The Church is not “mysogynistic.” It treats men and women differently in virtue of their unique characteristics. How can a Church that venerated the Mother of God as co-redemptrix, and produced hundreds of canonized female saints be mysogynistic? Focus on perceived ministerial opportunities to the exclusion of all else is narcissistic and ignores the plethora of opportunities within the Church for women to live lives dedicated to their Faith and the well being of others. Mary and most female saints are venerated by the Church for their virginity and so-called purity, not for the fullness of their womanhood. Women are ranked as inferior in the Church simply because of their gender. They are barred from ordained ministry due to a conveniently narrow view of the theological concept of priesthood, as well as a subjective interpretation of Scripture. And go talk to a typical nun in North America about how she is overworked, underpaid, and receives the bare minimum support from the Church.

3. The Church is not “homophobic.” It draws a distinction between persons and their actions. Homosexual orientation is recognized as morally neutral. Homosexual actions, like heterosexual actions outside Christian marriage, are objectively sinful. Tough to be homophobic when the supermajority of your clergy is gay. It’s a pity, however, the Church doesn’t practice what it preaches.

Have you ever actually studied the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the teachings and practices you deride as making “no moral sense?”

The Church does good in this world, but it’s also challenged by major issues that threaten to undermine the good it does. You would be wise to get your nose out of the Catechism and live in the real world.

Lofty? Sorry. I’ll try to simplify it for you.

1. The Church historically has handled abuse allegations more or less the same way as other institutions at any given time. When there was no psychiatry and personality was understood primarily in philosophical terms, abuse was thought to be a moral failing that could be handled by removing at least particular temptation. Later, when there were psychiatrists and psychologists to consult, they told the bishops that persons with inappropriate attractions could be treated and returned to ministry. When that unfortunately turned out not to be true, and it became apparent that persons disposed to abuse are incurable, the Church responded by laicizing them. The present policies are very strict. They laicized a Cardinal. Psychiatrists and psychologists were no longer telling church officials to treat and return to pedophile priests to ministry by the early 2000s when the dam started to break. Furthermore, not all pedophile priests were being treated. Many were simply moved to a new parish in a vain attempt to make their problems go away. You summarize the clergy sex abuse crisis in a nice little package. Unfortunately, it's disconnected from reality. It also fails to show any recognition or acknowledgment of the emotional damage and trauma inflicted upon thousands of innocent children, as well as the irreparable damage it did to the Church's credibility. Who cares of a pedophile priest or the pedophile former Archbishop of Washington are laicized? They should be behind bars.

2. The “typical” nuns in North America that I know are well educated; operate essentially independent professional ministries; have apartments and cars; eat in restaurants; get their hair done; shop for clothes, etc. They are amazing, apostolic women who do a great deal of good. What they are not is some movie stereotype of poor women pushed into the convent against their will and made virtual slaves of the clergy. I do know nuns who live very simply, in a way that was more common before Vatican II; who wear traditional-style habits; and who do humble work taking care of people nobody else wants anything to do with. They are some of the happiest people I’ve ever known. The practical fact is that women have long had important roles in the Church. (St. Teresa of Avila, whose feast day is today, reformed the Carmelite order.). The obsessive focus on ordained ministry as the be all and end all of Christian service is a superficial and worldly thing that entirely misses the point. Nuns can be well educated with a professional ministry, apartment, car, and some disposable income, and still be overworked, underpaid, and not supported by the Church. You know nuns who are some of the happiest people you've ever known? Great. I know nuns who are in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, utterly exhausted, underappreciated, and quietly question their Church and faith. And your dismissal of any talk about ordained ministry for women simply points to the Church's rotten patriarchy -- clinging to subjective beliefs and interpretations that fall further and further out of alignment with the Western world (which, I'm sure, you simply and smugly dismiss as a world rife with apostasy anyway).

3. The allegation I responded to was that the Church is homophobic. That rebutted, now the allegation is that a “supermajority” of priests are gay. Priests, regardless of their personal orientation, are called to lead chaste, celibate lives. The ones who do (and that is most of them) are an example to others that active sexuality is not the only means of expressing love. Celibate gay priests understand the challenges of other gays trying to live in accord with the gospel.You, frankly, have no idea what you're talking about. You think you do, but -- once again -- your words are disconnected from reality. I went to seminary. It wasn't long ago. I saw the rampant unsanctioned relationships. I was propositioned at least three times. There was nothing being done to promote a healthy sexuality among the seminarians. It was a major reason why I left, and why I said that the Church does not practice what it preaches.

+1,000,000. I realized that I could not stomach raising my sons in the Catholic Church where they would see no women in leadership roles. The Church had no problem asking for donations of the money I’ve earned as a woman in leadership in the corporate world, but would never consider allowing me to serve in a real leadership position within the Church.

Growing up, my mom’s hairdresser dated the priest at our Church. He would tell my mom all the juicy details of their homosexual sexcapades then go precacj that homosexuality is a sin. The hypocrisy in the institution is sickening.