Exit, voice, loyalty

Why the scare quotes around “election”?

How is this different from the state of affairs under John Paul II? Doctrinally speaking, I mean?

Is exit the only option?

This rather depends on what Benedict XVI’s papacy turns out to be like. If he lives up to expectations and exacerbates division in the Church over the major issues facing it — from sexual abuse to contraception to the role of women to interfaith dialogue — I could understand people deciding to leave the church who had endured “silent apostasy” during JPII’s reign. The stakes are high enough that, were I a Catholic, I’d find it warranted. (And I say this in full understanding that leaving one’s church isn’t a step taken lightly.)

OTOH, it’s possible that Benedict will prove a more astute politician than some give him credit for. Time will tell.

Exactly which cardinal were you hoping would be elected? None of them would change the Church’s position on homosexuality.

Why should Benedict care about being an “astute polician”? His job is to remind the world of God’s truth. If God says homosexuality is bad, or the earth is flat, so be it. Tell it like it is, Benedict! And if you don’t believe that the earth is flat, don’t be a member of the Flat Earth Society. The idea that the Pope should pander to intellectual and social fashions is ridiculous, is it not?

1. Picket before Mass
2. Attend Mass
3. Abstain from monetary support

or
1. Silent Apostasy, infiltrate lay positions
2. Do not otherwise alter behavior

Maria:

Most of what I know about Roman Catholicism I learned from sitcoms, but Canon 989 seems to require annual confession, unless you don’t have any grave sins, that is.

Speaking as an associate of actuaries, I’d suggest that if you were to part company from the Mother Church over this, the likelihood is that there would be a different Pope before you died and went hell is pretty good. I presume that you would have to repent not only have left the church but also having done so in such a calculating manner, but as long as you were sincere then I think it would be square. This does not constitute actuarial or spiritual advice.

Please, people, I would guess a sizeable portion of regular church-going Catholics don’t go to confession. Me for one, and Maria, and many others.

I don’t see you should object to praying for him. “Pray for your enemies. Bless those that persecute you.” (Or something like that. I was raised Anglican, but dropped away years ago.) I assume you continue to believe in the essentials.

The interesting thing about both this thread and the earlier one is the dogmatism that has been voiced: you’re not a Catholic if you don’t . . .. This is what the election of Ratzinger has encouraged and will encourage further. But I suspect any other result from the conclave would have done the same.

“Please, people, I would guess a sizeable portion of regular church-going Catholics don’t go to confession. Me for one, and Maria, and many others.”

But that’s not in dispute, is it? The issue is whether or not confession is required. The fact that lots of people don’t go doesn’t mean it’s not required.

Similarly, the fact that lots of people mess around with footballs made of pigskin doesn’t alter what’s written in Deuteronomy or wherever the hell it is.

My point was that: I’m surprised people who post here would think that confession is an integral part of being a Catholic as most Americans experience the church (I know Maria isn’t American, but you get my point.) And also that this is irrelevant to her original post.

I suspect many people just feel like changing denomination from Catholic to something else is like changing ‘ethnicity’. I had a very short-lived love affair with Catholicism when I was about 9 years old, if I remember correctly. Soon afterwards, I inherited my parents’ healthy secularism (so healthy, that they allowed me to go to Church), and I abandoned the Church for good.

In Latin America, Catholics view Protestants as belonging to a different family, all the denominations very close together among themselves, and all of them remarkably distant from Catholicism. Many would be incredibly surprised to see how much more progressive some Protestant denominations are here in the U.S., given the prominence of extremely conservative evangelical missions in Latin America.

How did the church get to a position where the major issues facing it are abortion, contraception, homosexuality, women priests, and married priests?
Jesus has *nothing* to say about any of these subjects.

In contrast, he had so much to say about love, about the poor, about selfishness, corruption, and venality, that the powers of the day killed him to try to shut him up. The church has succeeded where they failed.

I’m a (Jewish) non-Catholic, but I’ve long wondered why some of those who feel they must stay in the Catholic Church, but object to the conservative direction of the last three decades or so don’t drift over to the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, where at least they ordain married priests. Any insight on this from the Catholics among us?

How did the church get to a position where the major issues facing it are abortion, contraception, homosexuality, women priests, and married priests?

Because all but one of those are the major moral issues facing Christians generally, entailing fundamental contradictions between the general moral current of Enlightenment rationalism and the traditional drift of religious orthodoxy. And because difficult as they are, it’s much easier to tackle them than to remind people that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was basically1 a communist.

“How did the church get to a position where the major issues facing it are abortion, contraception, homosexuality, women priests, and married priests?”

Because if you are a priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or pope, there is no cost at all towards emphasizing those positions. You are cut off from every person who bears the cost. They preserve your power and demand nothing of you in return that the vow of celibacy does not already demand. If they bring you into confrontation with other people, it will be with powerless and despised minorities whom you can threaten with damnation if they do not obey you.

It’s much easier to denounce gay people and those daring to use condoms to fight AIDS, than to risk yourself confronting powerful people whose sins of omission or comission are responsible for the suffering and deaths of innocent people.

I am kind of amazed that you’ve grown up Catholic, as you say, practicing, and are not aware that confession at least once a year is unambiguously required by the church

Dear me. Only converts know that sort of guff. That’s why they’re usually so unbearable.

Nick wrote: “Dear me. Only converts know that sort of guff.”

My understanding (again, as an outsider) is that Catholic children undergo catechetical instruction prior to receiving first communion. The Catholic catechisms I find on the Internet state the obligation of annual confession. Why, then, is it that only converts know about this?

Nat — based on my family experience, the rules for born Catholics are almost infinitely lax.

Both of my sisters married Catholics, and both were highly annoyed when, in order to convert (which they were both willing to do) they had to learn more about the Catholic Chirch than either of their husbands ever bothered to.

Going outside the bounds of civility, as is my wont, it highly annoys ME to have to care, for political reasons, what the Catholic hieierarchy has ruled about sexual behavior, when the bishopric in Portland here just had to declare bankruptcy in order to stay in operation in the face of multiple sexual-abuse claims.

“I don’t think I’ve done any mortlers though.”

For example, all sexual sins are mortal (masturbation of any kind, sexual activity outside of marriage, sexual activity without the possibility of procreation if the couple is fertile). There is no “parvity of matter” — all sexual sins are equally bad, and there is no gradation, no ‘just a little bad’.

>One should not lump married clergy in with issues
>like contraception, women priests, homosexuality,
>papal infallibility, for which there are much
>greater doctrinal impediments.

There are even married Catholic priests right now!
See http://atheism.about.com/od/romancatholicism/a/celibacy.htm

I believe there are quite a few in England –
conservatives who left the Church of England over
the issue of ordaining women, converted to
Catholicism and remained married.

The celibacy of the priesthood is clearly a
liability, if Benedict has any interest in
being a uniter rather than a divider then that
might be the one progressive move he could make.

Seriously, how DOES one get off the membership rolls?

Wow, Katherine. I’d literally never thought about this before, but your comment gave me a jolt. I was baptized, spent 12 years attending Catholic schools and weekly mass, and left the church at 18. It never occured to me that I could still be considered a “Catholic” by anybody, not even by the Church, and not even in a purely demographic sense, but now I’m starting to wonder.

Oh, you almost certainly are. I remember this from my U.S. Congress class in college–we were comparing the demographics of the Senate & House compared to the U.S. population, and the professor noted in passing that the # of Catholics in the U.S. compared to the number of Protestants is inflated because they count everyone who was ever baptized. I’ve been googling around–apparently you have to contact the diocese or parish where you were baptized and say, look, take me off the list.

Wow, Katherine. I’d literally never thought about this before, but your comment gave me a jolt. I was baptized, spent 12 years attending Catholic schools and weekly mass, and left the church at 18. It never occured to me that I could still be considered a “Catholic” by anybody, not even by the Church, and not even in a purely demographic sense, but now I’m starting to wonder.

You can check out any time you like; but you can never leave.

I quit in my own mind when I was 12, and I suppose I may still be listed on some soggy, official parchment membership roles in the caves of the Vatican. But what of it? I might also still be a member of the Winky Dink Fan Club I joined when I was a little kid. People can create any lists they want and put your name on them, and there is not much you can do about it. Anyway, that’s there busineess. As long as they don’t come asking for money, then what’s the harm?

You could request an excommunication, but they might not grant it. It’s better just to excommunicate the church than to wait for them to excommunicate you.

Katherine, I’m sorry I upset you so, but I can’t begin to understand why, and your post doesn’t help.

To the extent that there’s some question about who is “counted” as a member of the Catholic Church: there’s some discretion granted to the pastor in each parish, to count as he wishes, but most count active Catholics, currently registered with the parish. If you haven’t attended and haven’t contributed for some period of time, you’re likely not counted in any official survey. The social science literature indicates (or did ten years ago anyway) that many more Americans identify themselves as Catholic than register as members of any Catholic Church. The difference at that point in time was estimated to be about 4-6% of the US population. The best evidence, then, is that the “official” Catholic numbers under-count those who call themselves “Catholic”.

In light of that information about the counting of Catholics, is it OK if we recognize that those who don’t share the beliefs of a religion should recognize that they’ve left the religion?

Nick: Only converts know that sort of guff.

In my experience, only cradle Catholics would be proud of being ignoramuses about the faith that they supposedly believe in (let alone constantly appear to be in a state of shock that, yes, the Pope is still Catholic).

Many people comenting here have a curiously Protestant view of Catholicism. A Protestant church is its doctrine—to deviate from the doctrine is to leave the church.

That’s how this ex-Catholic and his two brothers who are priests understand Catholicism. In what sense is one a “Catholic” if one rejects its dogmas?

I don’t believe what the RCC teaches, so I left. For the life me, I don’t see why people like Maria and Andrew Sullivan, who also reject the RCC’s teachings, feel so attached to a label that no longer describes them except in a trivial sense.

You can disagree on very many points of doctrine, and still be part of the tradition.

What do you mean?

There is no great impediment to married priests. They existed for a fairly long stretch of the church’s history (founding to approx 600 AD), and even JPII recognized that there was no great doctrinal problem.

Right, there is a long history of allowing married men to become priests, but there is no history of allowing priests to marry.

Doctor Slack, you write “Because all but one of those [abortion, contraception, homosexuality, women priests, married priests] are the major moral issues facing Christians generally, entailing fundamental contradictions between the general moral current of Enlightenment rationalism and the traditional drift of religious orthodoxy.”

The major moral issues facing any Christian are Mark 12:29-31:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

2. Love your neighbour as yourself.

Hope this doesn’t come across as pompous. In fact I’m a terrible, terrible heretic.

Thomas, that is flatly false.

In light of that information about the counting of Catholics, is it OK if we recognize that those who don’t share the beliefs of a religion should recognize that they’ve left the religion?

The last time the Catholic Church took that sort of attitude to matters of doctrinal disagreement was 1517 and I have to say it didn’t turn out very well.

Yes, how does one go to Heaven?

Does one go to Heaven by obeying every word uttered by the Pope? (Is it part of the Bible, that the Pope is infallible?)

Does one go to Heaven by spreading hate? (Again, which part of the Bible is that?)

Does one go to Heaven by robbing the poor to give to the rich? (Oops, I’m reading the whole Bible I guess…)

These aren’t “simple” questions. If you think they’re “simple”, you’re just deluding yourself.

The “Eastern Rite” in this context means groups “won back” to communion with Rome from various of the pre-Reformation schisms, and keeping their own liturgies and hierarchy, particularly but not exclusively from the main Orthodox communion (in the Lebanon the Maronites come from attempts to resolve the monophysite/monothelite schism). Most of it traces back to the Council of Florence, a last-ditch attempt to reunify East and West so the West would back Byzantium against the Turks. There are a fair amount (though not statistically significant) of Greek Catholics (with a liturgy largely indistinguishable from the Orthodox) and the like as a result.

Reading all this, I’m reminded of a story whose origins I’ve forgotten, about an Irish atheist in Belfast who gets asked if he’s a Catholic or a Protestant. Upon responding that he’s an atheist, he’s asked if he’s a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist. I’d give long odds that the majority of CT readers are on a spectrum that runs from vaguely deist through agnostic to atheist, which makes it quite interesting to see how theology gets discussed.

Katherine, the Uniate Churches represent about 2% of Catholics, mostly in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. They use Eastern Orthodox and other traditional non-Roman liturgies but recognise the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church. They enjoy considerable autonomy, but they are not in any sense liberal churches. Although their priests can be married, it’s strongly discouraged and I think forbidden to bishops. Certainly an ordinary sex life is a rareity among them. As for women in the Church – it’s arguably even less common in the Uniate Churches than mainstream Catholicism. In Canada, you can find one easily enough if you want to know more: look in the phone book for “Ukrainian Catholic” or “Ukrainian Greek Catholic” churches. In Michigan or Australia, look for a Marionite church. Otherwise, I think it’ll be hard to find one in an English-speaking country, except maybe in areas with large Lebanese or Syrian populations. Uniate churches generally have strongly ethno-linguistic characters that limit their capacity or interest in accepting members from outside their communities.

As an apostate Anabaptist, I might recommend the Anglicans for the taste of Catholicism with less of the heavy guilt, although the American branch – the Episcopal Church – always seemed to me to be basically liberal Protestantism with funky collars, so it might not work where you live.

I know this is a terrible thing to say, but I honestly have immense trouble understanding anybody religious whatsoever. Especially my family, who are all very religious. It is a bit of a problem to be honest. How do I rediscover my tolerance? (This is only half in jest by the way). Sorry.

I’m a liberal non-Catholic, and I fully recognize that the church has no business giving a fig what I think; it’d be pretty strange if it did. But I do feel a great deal of sadness for the liberal Catholics who have been anguishing over this, since it doesn’t seem to be easy for them to leave the church over doctrinal disagreements.

It reminds me of the people trying to decide whether to leave the United States and reject their American citizenship after Bush got reelected. Of course, this is in practical terms much, much harder than leaving a church in a modern Western democracy. But it was inconceivable to me more because this is home, I care about it, and to me, when my home goes ideologically sour my first response is not to pick up and leave. I get the impression that for many Catholics, the church is not just a set of doctrinal attitudes, it’s a kind of home.

Many people comenting here have a curiously Protestant view of Catholicism. A Protestant church is its doctrine—to deviate from the doctrine is to leave the church.

That’s true, in a sense. But the “liberal” commenters have an even more Protestant view, in the most literal sense of the word. They think that even while remaining Catholic, they have a right to protest against Catholic teachings, and that when they do so, it is they who are infallible rather than the Pope. Their view of moral authority is incorrigibly Protestant (or, obviously, secular).

Nick wrote: “Er, no. See my last comment. I did, however, get a string of rosary beads and a little book of prayers from my grandma.”

Thanks for the clarification. I see that in 1935 Pius XI issued a statement entitled “On Better Care for Catechetical Teaching” that says, among other things, that “Pastors shall not admit to reception of the sacraments of Penance and Confirmation, as prescribed in Canon 1330, children who have not acquired sufficient knowledge of the catechism according to directives of the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments on August 8, 1910”.

Ben: It doesn’t seem to me that the issue of married priests is the deal-breaker for those upset with Pope Benedict and what he represents. Do the Eastern Catholic churches disagree with the assertion that homosexual acts are disordered and never to be approved?

Walt Pohl wrote: “The Catholic church is a two-thousand year old tradition. . . . You can disagree on very many points of doctrine, and still be part of the tradition.”

But what is it about that tradition that would make Maria (for example) want to stay? There’s a formal concept of “tradition” in Roman Catholicism, namely, “teaching derived from Christ and the apostles, together with that subsequently communicated to the church by the Holy Spirit, and to be of equal authority with Scripture” (OED). Does Maria believe in that sort of tradition? Or is the “tradition”al appeal of Catholicism to those like her akin to the irrational soft spot the rest of us have in our hearts for, say, the towns in which we grew up? What does the Roman Catholic Church have to offer her that, say, Unitarianism doesn’t?

Nick Barnes wrote: “The major moral issues facing any Christian are Mark 12:29-31: 1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”

And then in John 14:15 we are instructed that if we love the Lord we should keep his commandments. Does that entail refraining from participation in abortions and homosexual acts? It appears to me that the Roman Catholic Church has consistently said that it does.

How amusing to listen to liberal non-Catholics (not you, Maria) whine that the Catholic Church is divided because it doesn’t agree with them. The Catholic Church has problems, but appeasing wealthy Western liberals isn’t the path to solution.

Steve, I wish it were that simple. I wish I could say, as an ex-Catholic, that the doings of the Church are now “none of my business.”

Unfortunately, the Church still seems to have a great deal of interest in my business, whether I remain a Catholic or not. When Catholic bishops speak openly in favor of antigay legislation, they’re not minding their own business, now are they? When John Paul II warned that European governments allowing gay marriages and civil unions were under the sway of an “ideology of evil,” was he minding his own business?

Barry: The fact that JPII’s right-hand enforcer was immediately selected suggests to me that JPII’s cardinals are carrying out his will and policies and also that Ratzinger will be able to carry on very well along the same path.

Sounds plausible to me. The question is: how sustainable is that path in actual fact, and will Benedict be able to recognize if it isn’t? Contrary to popular imagination and with all due respect to Steve, there are plenty of issues of concern in the West that resonate just as strongly in Third World congregations: women in the church, contraception, outmoded priestly celibacy (which as someone mentioned earlier probably is more doctrinally tractable than some other problems). An ultra-conservative pontiff can divide the all-important Third World congregations in other ways, too: Latin American Catholics remember, often bitterly, that it was Ratzinger who liquidated liberation theology.

Nick, you write: The major moral issues facing any Christian are Mark 12:29-31: 1. . . Hope this doesn’t come across as pompous.

Not at all. Though I think different Christians would pick different verses (problem 1) and interpret them differently (problem 2) depending on context, education and inclination. Which, unfortunately for them, lands your average Christian — be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox — in the same muddy moral universe as the rest of us. In practical terms, the major issues that occupy the many branches of Christianity are dictated by the currents in that murk, and unfortunately Mark 12: 29-31 doesn’t provide any easy ways of resolving the problems that result.

The whole point of Mark 12:29-31 is that it’s Jesus doing the picking.

John 14:15: “If you love me, you will obey what I command”. No recorded command of Jesus concerns abortion (not mentioned in the bible at all), homosexuality (mentioned in passing in the Torah, with some unclear meaning, which *at most* can be interpreted as suggesting that Jews are prohibited from male-male anal sex), women priests, contraception, or married priests. On the other hand, he *did* go on at considerable length about (for instance) the poor and the sick.

As I said earlier, I am a terrible heretic.

No recorded command of Jesus concerns abortion . . . homosexuality . . . women priests, contraception, or married priests.

However, all those questions are arguably worthy of consideration as major moral questions in and of themselves, explicit commands from Jesus or no, and therefore are presumably worthy of consideration as major moral questions for Christianity.

I’m just wondering whether the Church isn’t being put into a lose-lose situation here. Either it counts lapsed Catholics as Catholics, in which case it’s dishonest, or it doesn’t, in which case it’s intolerant. Just a thought.

I reckon most lapsed Catholics, rather than being ex-Catholics, are simply just sinners. You know, like all the Catholics who haven’t lapsed. Different sins, maybe, but basically the same.

As for those who’ve deliberately turned their backs on the Faith, then, yeah, there’s a good chance they shouldn’t be counted. Catholics are considered excommunicated Latæ Sententiæ if they deliberately choose the reject the doctrines of the Church – and there are mitigating factors, notably ignorance or lack of liberty.

I hope exit isn’t the only option. Loyal opposition from within, maybe.

I can attest, as a convert to Catholicism, that converts are obnoxious, especially in the early stages. I have since calmed down, and in fact I now disagree with the church on many matters — perhaps this is my privilege as a straight man, but I care about the liquidation of Latin American liberation theology more than about the inclusion of women in (a corrupt form of) church leadership and about acceptance of homosexuals.

I’m still officially on the roles in my adopted home parish, and I’ll tell you why the church is so hard to leave — because it’s not just a matter of assent to a list of doctrines. It’s about your actual body — the process of participating actively in the liturgy, the “smells and bells,” the music that can still send a chill down your spine when the Gloria comes back on Holy Thursday after having been gone all through Lent, the rosary beads, etc., etc. It’s about being part of an actual, physical process of worship with people all around the world — knowing that you could walk into a church in Germany or Vietnam and still participate in all the most important ways.

More than being a set of doctrines, tradition in the real, lived sense is the set of practices — physical practices — in which Catholics participate, and the reason it hurts dissenting Catholics to think of leaving is because they really do share a lot with all these terribly bigotted people who believe themselves to be running the show. The liturgical life of the church has a rhythm and meaning of its own, though, that does not finally rely on the varied formal pronouncements of popes.

People who don’t understand how one can be Catholic without “believing” some set of doctrines don’t seem to me to know what it means to be Catholic in the most important sense of the word — not thinking you’re Catholic, but actually being Catholic in a way that you can no longer really help.

And I say that as an obnoxious convert who was eager to promote orthodoxy and who tore myself to shreds emotionally because (surprise!) I was unable to break the habit of masturbating when I converted at the age of 18. But I ended up going to a lot of masses, for some stretches every day of the week, and I ended up saying a lot of rosaries, so I feel like I’ve almost made up for the lost time that cradle Catholics have on me. “Just become Episcopalian” isn’t as easy of an answer as it sounds.

“I’m just wondering whether the Church isn’t being put into a lose-lose situation here. Either it counts lapsed Catholics as Catholics, in which case it’s dishonest, or it doesn’t, in which case it’s intolerant. Just a thought.”

Well, they actually do BOTH.

The only thing I can conceive of having an effect from within is to be quite polite and open with your priest about what church teachings you’re violating that you can’t repent of violating because you believe the church teachings are immoral. And say that you don’t believe you’re in a state of mortal sin, so you will go forward for communion, but it’s his choice whether to give it to you.

If they deny communion to all the people they say are unfit to receive communion, instead of just easy targets like gay people or remarried people or certain politicians–90% of American & European Catholics will not be eligible for communion. They are going to have an open revolt on their hands.

How did the church get to a position where the major issues facing it are abortion, contraception, homosexuality, women priests, and married priests?
Jesus has nothing to say about any of these subjects.

Great question, but I don’t think the answer rests entirely with the Church itself. JP II gave due prominence to social and economic questions and had all sorts of interesting, not at all stereotypically conservative things to say about them, but that fact was basically suppressed in North America — George Bush certainly wouldn’t have been all over him if he actually knew or cared what the man had said. I’m an atheist and no doubt could be better informed here, but my impression is that it’s the American (perhaps more generally Western) media (and public, I suppose) who are obsessed with issues of sex and gender, rather than the RCC itself. It’s as if the line is: Dear Pope, we will continue to pretend to treat you respectfully, but we are not in fact going to listen to *anything* you have to say about *anything* until you fall into line on abortion, homosexuality and the other sex-and-gender stuff we personally care most about. As someone who tends to see stubbornness as a virtue, I kind of admire the Church’s refusal to fall into line, but then since I’m a non-Catholic the fact that they’re substantively wrong is no skin off my nose. My sympathies go out to those in Maria’s position — I don’t really see any good options there.

I’m still officially on the roles in my adopted home parish, and I’ll tell you why the church is so hard to leave—because it’s not just a matter of assent to a list of doctrines. It’s about your actual body

A very perceptive comment, Adam. I’ve had to struggle for years with the fact that my family members–who most emphatically do not agree with the Vatican that their gay son/brother is afflicted with an “intrinsic moral evil”–have remained in the Church that I quite happily left some 20 years ago. And I think you’re hitting on something very important–the regular practice of these highly aestheticized rituals really does “get under your skin.” My 70-year-old parents are basically completely fed up with the Church; my mother was crushed by the sex abuse scandals and is probably appalled by the selection of Ratzinger. But she ain’t goin’ nowhere. “It’s not their Church,” she’s taken to saying, “it’s mine.”

And even as I ponder the discussion upthread about really “leaving” the Church–i.e., I’m considering contacting the church in which I was baptized to be removed from the rolls–I’m fully aware that on some ineffable, almost cellular level, some part of me will always remain “Catholic.”

Unbaptized, here, myself…but one post got me thinking:

“…in 1935 Pius XI issued a statement entitled “On Better Care for Catechetical Teaching” that says… that “Pastors shall not admit to reception of the sacraments of Penance and Confirmation, as prescribed in Canon 1330, children who have not acquired sufficient knowledge of the catechism according to directives of the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments on August 8, 1910”.”

Ummmmm…..why didn’t he mention subparagraph 254(c) of Section 119, I wonder?

In short: unbaptized as I am, I find that kind of language quite absurd when applied to the problems of transcendence, evil, human goodness and charity, and love.

Apropos of earlier comments, is it really so odd to affiliate with a religious institution even if you don’t believe much of the doctrine–the moral claims in particular? Short of being a merely “ethnic,” Catholic you can be a theist or beyond that a generic Christian (add Trinity, Incarnation and Resurrection) and buy into whatever church provides the handiest or most attractive packaging–or ties into ethnicity or family tradition.

This is the way most Protestants in the US have always operated–switching seamlessly between churches of different “mainline Protestant” denominations depending on location, parking, kids’ programs, etc. Sounds good to me.

How does one get oneself ‘struck from the rolls’ of the Roman Catholic church? I don’t think one can, actually — they would regard anybody baptised in their church as catholic come what may. One might become excommunicated, or even apostasise (which itself would surely incur automatic excommunication?), but one would still be a catholic, albeit a ‘bad’ one cut off from communion with the group; the offical line is that excommunication is a desperate slap upside the head intended to recall you to your senses. So, a catholic who leaves the RC church will have to live with the fact that (to the RC church) she will be a catholic to her dying day. Perhaps she can take comfort in the thought that the RC church’s offical dogmata are a load of old bollocks anyway, a thought for which anybody leaving the RC church might be expected to have some sympathy.

You can offically deromanise yourself in other contexts, though. Here in Germany, denominational affiliation is recognised and recorded by the state. (Baptism is sufficient to get you pegged as RC.) If you wish to leave the church officially, you must go down to the town hall and deregister yourself. Now, the large majority of German RCs are purely nominal catholics. At most, they have a sentimental desire to use church facilities for baptisms, marriages and funerals. So they stay in, as the church will (understandably, I must say) generally refuse these services to non-members. The downside is that every registered member of the RC church (as well as of the mainstream Lutheran church and the Jewish community) is assessed a church tax, collected by the state and handed over to the relevant religious body. Only by deregistering can one escape this tax.

So in Germany at least, as well as in other countries that collect and transfer a tax to the RC church, that church has a strong financial incentive to take a soft line on dissenters and the lukewarm. It will be interesting to see (i) whether Ratzinger will take a harder line and seek to purge his church of its Laodiceans, leaving a much smaller but much purer ‘remnant’, and, if so (ii), how his brother bishops in Germany will react.

Deregistrations from both main denominations have been increasing apace, BTW, but the large majority of Germans remain notional but registered members. Personally, I wish more Germans would have the courage of their lack of convictions and deregister, thereby reducing the RC church’s tax revenue. (That’s not a bit of pope-bashing either; though I’m a prod, I wish more people on my side of the line would do the same. A bright line between God and Caesar is a good thing for both, in my book.)

An aside to Ophelia Benson: though I imagine a pigskin football would indeed be not quite the thing, halakhically speaking, I don’t think we’ll see ha-Poel Tel Aviv hanging up their boots any time soon. (Well, admittedly ha-Poel might not be the most observant of Israeli footballers. Who would the frum support – Betar?) Footballs these days are usually synthetic. Indeed, most are made in Pakistan, where one imagines many workers would be reluctant to make pigskin balls.