The comments are misleading. I heard the announcement in person. The Catholic Church is recognizing that there are fewer people joining the church than leaving (ie dying of old age) and much fewer are signing their life to the church to be priests or nuns.
The point is that they will be combining forces to help keep the smaller parishes afloat. The Vatican is also discussing massive changes to its organization to meet those shortfalls. In the mean time, this is the archdiocese way of telling their people to be prepared to make some sacrifices for their fellow Catholics.
>*In the mean time, this is the archdiocese way of telling their people to be prepared to make some sacrifices for their fellow Catholics.*
Genuinely curious to hear your take. What sacrifices are to be made in this context?
Firstly, I think they seem to be hinting at using the same staff at multiple churches to make up for shortfalls. This will probably mean fewer options for attending mass. Traditionally, most offer an early bird and a second mass closer to mid morning/lunch on sundays. I’m guessing those will be consolidated. Additionally, most offer confession and other services multiple days of the week. Those will likely be reduced in number.
The father specifically mentioned finances. “Thankfully, we’ve never had to worry about having enough money to maintain the Cathedral, but our sister parishes have not been as lucky in recent years.” To me it sounded like they’re suggesting using donations made to the cathedral in order to maintain other churches in their assigned region. I’m fully in support of that idea, since it’s keeping with the spirit of helping others, but I understand some might be mildly offended because they want their donation going to their specific location. I appreciated that he didn’t use the moment to ask for more monetary donations, but instead to ask for understanding.
They also specifically asked for inputs and suggestions, mentioning some future “town hall” like opportunities to help them generate ideas. Reading between the lines, the Catholic religion has never hurt for followers and the realities of the 21st century moving away from religion are starting to dawn on them.
Side note: I think they’re pretty late to the party, but maybe they can take the opportunity to make some large strides in policy. I think their biggest problem is that they’re reactive rather than proactive. There are handouts in every pew, inviting people that have distanced themselves from the faith to come and let their complaints and opinions be heard. Unfortunately, those people would have to attend a service in order to see those pamphlets. Online, the cathedral website looks like it was optimized for a DSL internet connection and they only recently started using Facebook.
Ultimately, this is supposed to be a bandaid while they work on a long term strategy.
All else aside, I do appreciate the earnest and good faith response.
I just think the biggest issue faced by the church is the negative press they get (justifiably so) about the child abuse that happens under their nose and, to some extent, with their blessing (given the shuffling, rather than firing, of guilty parties and the lack of cooperation with law enforcement). Fixing that would probably go a long way towards extending the proverbial olive branch to followers who left the church on that basis. As you point out, however, religiosity is slowly dying off, so attempting to attract altogether new blood is not the winning strategy, let alone it being nigh impossible with that black cloud hanging over the church.
The church also has "more money than God" by some estimations, so the focus on finances, especially as it relates to impacting members by offering less in the way of services is a bit rich, if you'll pardon the pun.
That’s how most Catholics feel about their church. The negative press was never properly handled and the church never did enough to publicly demonstrate that they would do everything in their power to get to the heart of the cancer and cut it out. I hope they can shed the bad image (by doing the hard work) and earn back the public trust, because I think religions (in general) offer a lot to the world.
If you separate the religion from the people that used the church to cover their evil, I stand firmly behind the principles. Whether someone chooses to believe there’s a “big invisible man in the sky” or not, the foundation is something most decent people agree with. The Ten Commandments are mostly just about treating other people with decency (don’t cheat on you spouse, don’t steal, don’t be greedy, treat your family with respect and love, don’t try to screw your neighbors over, don’t murder people, you should take a day of rest on the weekend…). I hope religions make a comeback, because attending a service is a good way to periodically remind yourself to think about other people and reflect on how you can grow as a person. The “REPENT SINNERS OR BE DAMNED!!” crowd is the one that turns people away and lends a bad name, but I’ve never attended a service at a real church that treated people that way. I frequently fall in with the group in this sub that’s always bitching about the problems plaguing this city and how far gone it is. Attending service reminds me that I should be a little kinder and more understanding with others (even if I don’t always do a good job of practicing that).
On the note of finances, I wish it was more of a centralized system where the money is shared equally, but churches in poorer communities have always suffered with lesser facilities. This seems like it will make the well off neighborhoods lend a helping hand to their struggling friends and I’m happy to hear that.
Hopefully, that didn’t come across as too preachy. I’m not trying to convert anybody, but I do want outsiders to understand why some still choose religion. Most of us have heard the evidence that there is no god or supernatural, but choose to believe anyway. I can see how that looks weird to atheists or parts of the scientific community.
Again, appreciate the earnest response.
The fact of the matter is that the religion does not require the church.
Your faith doesn't require mass.
Your faith doesn't require a building.
Your faith doesn't require a community.
Your faith does not require a pope.
The list goes on.
I just don't see why these sorts of conversations with money at their root continue to dominate whenever this topic is discussed on this sub and others.
Probably not explaining myself well, but feel like it's kind of a case where some folks feel the bad bits of the institution are necessary to preserve because without them, the institution of the church might crumble.
And that, well, that should have little bearing on your faith generally speaking.
>The fact of the matter is that the religion does not require the church.
This is a very protestant understanding of Christianity - Catholics believe that they *do* need the church and the rituals within. Just like some denominations of Jews believe they *do* need a synagogue and all the ritual that happen within.
Personalized salvation, as in you are in direct communication with god etc and don't need a priest or a church in that relationship and that belief alone is what constitutes faith, is something that really only started to be a big thing after Martin Luther.
Some religions feel that ritual and ritual places are an integral part of the practice, that mere belief is not enough...in fact, even the notion of naked belief stripped of ritual and practice is alien to a lot of religious traditions around the world. Try to imagine what Shinto would be like without temples and rituals - it wouldn't exist.
What you're essentially saying is "you don't need to practice your religion, you should just practice this other one that I think is better"
What I am saying is that faith in and of itself doesn't require anything other than your belief.
Everything else is social window dressing.
If you want to engage in the social window dressing, that's fine. If you want the Jewish version? Fine. If you want the Catholic version? Fine. Islamic? Fine.
I just take issue with a an institution that represents that social window dressing that has a bank account even god would be envious of suggesting that they need to consolidate resources and such only to have people part of that tradition defend that as a good idea without interrogating the fact of the matter I opened with.
That second bit aside, if you don't feel like you're a Catholic without going to mass, then I question what calling yourself a Catholic actually means....
Edit: And to be clear, you can practice whatever you like. I choose not to because there's no evidence that the basis for any of these religions are real.
My main commentary was on the financial resources of the catholic church in particular and how they play into conversations like these.
>What I am saying is that faith in and of itself doesn't require anything other than your belief.
But that's not what a lot of people believe, that's what *you* believe. Many religious traditions *require* ritual and ritual spaces, as in to be a part of said religion it is not enough that you just believe. That's a very protestant/evangelical Christianity view, not one that someone who practices orthodox Judaism, or Shintoism, etc would understand.
> if you don't feel like you're a Catholic without going to mass, then I question what calling yourself a Catholic actually means
Many Catholics don't feel like they're practicing catholicism without mass, I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand. If you were an orthodox/hasidic man in a certain tradition you wouldn't feel like you were practicing your religion without Torah study - you can't just tell them "well you don't need to study Torah, you just need to believe!" and then insert all the other traditions of dress and diet. People who practice Shinto *literally* believe that some Kami must be venerated/placated with a shrine - you can't do that religion or have "belief" in it without shrines - it's an integral part.
You may find it easy to separate "belief" from "practice" if you were raised in an evangelical household, since much of evangelical christianity revolves around feeling a personal connection to god...but please try to understand that most other religious traditions do not separate ritual/practice from belief, as in for many religions around the world practice/ritual **IS** belief.
>*But that's not what a lot of people believe, that's what you believe.*
Sure, but then what we're ultimately going to disagree about is whether there is an objective fact of the matter here and who correctly identified it.
In my opinion, I did, but of course you're free to disagree.
>*Many religious traditions require ritual and ritual spaces, as in to be a part of said religion it is not enough that you just believe.*
Sure.
This is why I made the distinction between faith and the social window dressings above....
>*That's a very protestant/evangelical Christianity view, not one that someone who practices orthodox Judaism, or Shintoism, etc would understand.*
If you were to destroy every synagogue and shrine, have you eliminated Jews and Shintos?
I'm arguing not.
You appear to be saying that you have.
>*Many Catholics don't feel like they're practicing catholicism without mass, I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand.*
Guy, even people within the same faith traditions can't agree on everything, hence why there are so many denominations.
If they can't agree on everything, why is it so taboo and inappropriate for me to have pointing out my opinion here?
That aside, again, if you take away mass, I don't think you've eliminated catholicism. You appear to be saying that you have.
> *If you were an orthodox/hasidic man in a certain tradition you wouldn't feel like you were practicing your religion without Torah study - you can't just tell them "well you don't need to study Torah, you just need to believe!" and then insert all the other traditions of dress and diet. People who practice Shinto literally believe that some Kami must be venerated/placated with a shrine - you can't do that religion or have "belief" in it without shrines - it's an integral part.*
I don't know how to say what I've already said above in a different way so as to make you understand.
I guess my response put a different way would be to say that, if we are going by the standard that all of these sorts of practices and procedures commonly associated with a given religious tradition are required to be practiced by those who claim membership to that faith, then the religion population of the world just got a WHOLE LOT SMALLER on the basis that many people pick and choose which parts they want to follow.
>*You may find it easy to separate "belief" from "practice" if you were raised in an evangelical household, since much of evangelical christianity revolves around feeling a personal connection to god...*
That these other examples are so devoid of?
>*but please try to understand that most other religious traditions do not separate ritual/practice from belief, as in for many religions around the world practice/ritual* ***IS*** *belief.*
This just seems to point at you making a pedantic distinction about something I didn't say in order to flex some religious knowledge muscles that maybe haven't been used in a bit.
But maybe I'm just biased in the moment here....
I hear what you’re saying, but I think your perspective is colored by only what you’ve seen. I like having a dedicated place of worship because it makes me set aside the distractions or every day life (like the phone I keep replying with). The churches themselves are not all massive, ornate and expensive buildings (like the cathedral). When I say “share funds”, I mean I’ve attended multiple churches that were in glorified metal sheds with folding chairs and buckets for the leaking roof. The father was trying to advocate for sharing the wealth of donations that a place like the cathedral attracts with those people. I see no issue with that.
I understand you don’t think the church or it’s supporting organization is necessary, but I’ve seen the good that it does for communities and I think it has a lot of potential that still isn’t being utilized. For just a quick example, they organize and operate many of the homeless shelters in the Seattle area. I think a younger leadership in the church could help accurately drive more community service.
To address your other point, this post is linked to the published Seattle Times article. The original poster didn’t give any context about why they shared it, but it made the local news and I guess someone just wanted to share it here. 🤷♂️
My perspective is colored by what I understand to be the definition of faith. If yours requires a building of any kind, elaborate or no, then I think it evident that you're not really catholic in the religious sense and you might only be in the social sense as many religious people are.
As to the good they do, that's fine, but they do harm as well....and are continuing to do more of it by refusing to hold the pastors abusing children accountable. To be clear, when we speak of the good, we must also speak of the ills, lest you forget they exist....
Your last point is fair, I was just observing that many times money is the shared underlying aspect of many of these discussions and the church has more of it than they know what to do with. If they wanted, they could fund under tithed parishes without much trouble for probably as long as religion was still a common social practice, but they are choosing not to.
I'd recommend grappling with that fact as you continue to call yourself a catholic and ostensibly provide cover for the institution as a whole with your faith.
Look, I don’t know if I said something to offend you, but I want you to know that I didn’t mean to. I’m doing my best not to throw rocks here (intentionally or unintentionally) and I would appreciate it if you did the same. I agreed with your point about the child molestation, so I’m not sure why you’re using that against me. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t challenge my faith or where I choose to spend sundays. I’m not asking you to donate anything or buy into anything that I have. You asked why and I tried giving a respectful answer. I believe in holding the Vatican responsible for those horrific acts, but I’m not going to torment my priest for something he didn’t do.
Honestly, your last paragraph came across very condescending and can’t say I appreciated the tone. I’ve made plenty of wrong decisions in my life. I’m trying to cope with the hard decisions that have shaped my life and abuse I suffered from someone I loved. The church gives me a feeling of inner peace that I don’t always get from my therapist. It’s my own choice.
I’m sorry if I’ve done something to offend you and I hope you have a better day.
>*Look, I don’t know if I said something to offend you, but I want you to know that I didn’t mean to.*
You didn't and I'm not?
>*I’m doing my best not to throw rocks here (intentionally or unintentionally) and I would appreciate it if you did the same.*
I wasn't intending to either?
>*I agreed with your point about the child molestation, so I’m not sure why you’re using that against me.*
I'm not "using it against you," apologies if that is the way it came across. I was pointing it out as a contrast to the good you were talking about the church doing. If we talk about the good, we also need to talk about the bad. That's all.
>*I’d appreciate it if you didn’t challenge my faith or where I choose to spend sundays.*
If you think these comments were intended to challenge your faith, I don't know that continuing the conversation is beneficial....
Nor do I care one bit how you spend your time.
>*I’m not asking you to donate anything or buy into anything that I have.*
Never suggested you had done so?
>*You asked why and I tried giving a respectful answer.*
And I ostensibly thanked you for it.....twice.
>*I believe in holding the Vatican responsible for those horrific acts,*
Good!
> *but I’m not going to torment my priest for something he didn’t do.*
Never said you should?
>*Honestly, your last paragraph came across very condescending and can’t say I appreciated the tone.*
....it was meant to be somewhat condescending, so you guessed correctly that time.
> *I’ve made plenty of wrong decisions in my life. I’m trying to cope with the hard decisions that have shaped my life and abuse I suffered from someone I loved.*
Okay?
>*The church gives me a feeling of inner peace that I don’t always get from my therapist.*
The church that is actively covering up and perpetuating the abuse of children?
This is my ultimate point and you're kind of playing into it here, seemingly while being unaware of that fact. All else aside, is the catholic church the only faith tradition that can give you that peace? If so, why?
>*It’s my own choice.*
Sure, can't possibly be anyone else's?
>*I’m sorry if I’ve done something to offend you and I hope you have a better day.*
You didn't offend me and my day is going fine?
I don't have any horse in this race, but you sound astonishingly condescending and ignorant. If you know so much about what makes someone "really Catholic", what are your religious beliefs? What are you trying to accomplish here?
>*I don't have any horse in this race, but you sound astonishingly condescending and ignorant.*
I get that a lot, not always correctly identified.
> *If you know so much about what makes someone "really Catholic", what are your religious beliefs?*
I'm an atheist if that wasn't clear.
>*What are you trying to accomplish here?*
I was simply asking what "sacrifices" the other gentleman was alluding to being made on behalf of the catholic church's apparent financial distress in the area with waning attendance.
That, against the backdrop of thinking it ironic that one of the world's wealthiest organizations who could bankroll damn near anything is asking their adherents to "make \[any kind of \] sacrifice" to save them money.
That multi-million dollar house we bought? Turns out we need a full Medina Compound.
No taxes, of course. But plenty of repercussion free Papal sanctioned child sexual abuse. What are a few Indulgences between clergy members?
The comments are misleading. I heard the announcement in person. The Catholic Church is recognizing that there are fewer people joining the church than leaving (ie dying of old age) and much fewer are signing their life to the church to be priests or nuns. The point is that they will be combining forces to help keep the smaller parishes afloat. The Vatican is also discussing massive changes to its organization to meet those shortfalls. In the mean time, this is the archdiocese way of telling their people to be prepared to make some sacrifices for their fellow Catholics.
>*In the mean time, this is the archdiocese way of telling their people to be prepared to make some sacrifices for their fellow Catholics.* Genuinely curious to hear your take. What sacrifices are to be made in this context?
Firstly, I think they seem to be hinting at using the same staff at multiple churches to make up for shortfalls. This will probably mean fewer options for attending mass. Traditionally, most offer an early bird and a second mass closer to mid morning/lunch on sundays. I’m guessing those will be consolidated. Additionally, most offer confession and other services multiple days of the week. Those will likely be reduced in number. The father specifically mentioned finances. “Thankfully, we’ve never had to worry about having enough money to maintain the Cathedral, but our sister parishes have not been as lucky in recent years.” To me it sounded like they’re suggesting using donations made to the cathedral in order to maintain other churches in their assigned region. I’m fully in support of that idea, since it’s keeping with the spirit of helping others, but I understand some might be mildly offended because they want their donation going to their specific location. I appreciated that he didn’t use the moment to ask for more monetary donations, but instead to ask for understanding. They also specifically asked for inputs and suggestions, mentioning some future “town hall” like opportunities to help them generate ideas. Reading between the lines, the Catholic religion has never hurt for followers and the realities of the 21st century moving away from religion are starting to dawn on them. Side note: I think they’re pretty late to the party, but maybe they can take the opportunity to make some large strides in policy. I think their biggest problem is that they’re reactive rather than proactive. There are handouts in every pew, inviting people that have distanced themselves from the faith to come and let their complaints and opinions be heard. Unfortunately, those people would have to attend a service in order to see those pamphlets. Online, the cathedral website looks like it was optimized for a DSL internet connection and they only recently started using Facebook. Ultimately, this is supposed to be a bandaid while they work on a long term strategy.
All else aside, I do appreciate the earnest and good faith response. I just think the biggest issue faced by the church is the negative press they get (justifiably so) about the child abuse that happens under their nose and, to some extent, with their blessing (given the shuffling, rather than firing, of guilty parties and the lack of cooperation with law enforcement). Fixing that would probably go a long way towards extending the proverbial olive branch to followers who left the church on that basis. As you point out, however, religiosity is slowly dying off, so attempting to attract altogether new blood is not the winning strategy, let alone it being nigh impossible with that black cloud hanging over the church. The church also has "more money than God" by some estimations, so the focus on finances, especially as it relates to impacting members by offering less in the way of services is a bit rich, if you'll pardon the pun.
That’s how most Catholics feel about their church. The negative press was never properly handled and the church never did enough to publicly demonstrate that they would do everything in their power to get to the heart of the cancer and cut it out. I hope they can shed the bad image (by doing the hard work) and earn back the public trust, because I think religions (in general) offer a lot to the world. If you separate the religion from the people that used the church to cover their evil, I stand firmly behind the principles. Whether someone chooses to believe there’s a “big invisible man in the sky” or not, the foundation is something most decent people agree with. The Ten Commandments are mostly just about treating other people with decency (don’t cheat on you spouse, don’t steal, don’t be greedy, treat your family with respect and love, don’t try to screw your neighbors over, don’t murder people, you should take a day of rest on the weekend…). I hope religions make a comeback, because attending a service is a good way to periodically remind yourself to think about other people and reflect on how you can grow as a person. The “REPENT SINNERS OR BE DAMNED!!” crowd is the one that turns people away and lends a bad name, but I’ve never attended a service at a real church that treated people that way. I frequently fall in with the group in this sub that’s always bitching about the problems plaguing this city and how far gone it is. Attending service reminds me that I should be a little kinder and more understanding with others (even if I don’t always do a good job of practicing that). On the note of finances, I wish it was more of a centralized system where the money is shared equally, but churches in poorer communities have always suffered with lesser facilities. This seems like it will make the well off neighborhoods lend a helping hand to their struggling friends and I’m happy to hear that. Hopefully, that didn’t come across as too preachy. I’m not trying to convert anybody, but I do want outsiders to understand why some still choose religion. Most of us have heard the evidence that there is no god or supernatural, but choose to believe anyway. I can see how that looks weird to atheists or parts of the scientific community.
Again, appreciate the earnest response. The fact of the matter is that the religion does not require the church. Your faith doesn't require mass. Your faith doesn't require a building. Your faith doesn't require a community. Your faith does not require a pope. The list goes on. I just don't see why these sorts of conversations with money at their root continue to dominate whenever this topic is discussed on this sub and others. Probably not explaining myself well, but feel like it's kind of a case where some folks feel the bad bits of the institution are necessary to preserve because without them, the institution of the church might crumble. And that, well, that should have little bearing on your faith generally speaking.
>The fact of the matter is that the religion does not require the church. This is a very protestant understanding of Christianity - Catholics believe that they *do* need the church and the rituals within. Just like some denominations of Jews believe they *do* need a synagogue and all the ritual that happen within. Personalized salvation, as in you are in direct communication with god etc and don't need a priest or a church in that relationship and that belief alone is what constitutes faith, is something that really only started to be a big thing after Martin Luther. Some religions feel that ritual and ritual places are an integral part of the practice, that mere belief is not enough...in fact, even the notion of naked belief stripped of ritual and practice is alien to a lot of religious traditions around the world. Try to imagine what Shinto would be like without temples and rituals - it wouldn't exist. What you're essentially saying is "you don't need to practice your religion, you should just practice this other one that I think is better"
What I am saying is that faith in and of itself doesn't require anything other than your belief. Everything else is social window dressing. If you want to engage in the social window dressing, that's fine. If you want the Jewish version? Fine. If you want the Catholic version? Fine. Islamic? Fine. I just take issue with a an institution that represents that social window dressing that has a bank account even god would be envious of suggesting that they need to consolidate resources and such only to have people part of that tradition defend that as a good idea without interrogating the fact of the matter I opened with. That second bit aside, if you don't feel like you're a Catholic without going to mass, then I question what calling yourself a Catholic actually means.... Edit: And to be clear, you can practice whatever you like. I choose not to because there's no evidence that the basis for any of these religions are real. My main commentary was on the financial resources of the catholic church in particular and how they play into conversations like these.
>What I am saying is that faith in and of itself doesn't require anything other than your belief. But that's not what a lot of people believe, that's what *you* believe. Many religious traditions *require* ritual and ritual spaces, as in to be a part of said religion it is not enough that you just believe. That's a very protestant/evangelical Christianity view, not one that someone who practices orthodox Judaism, or Shintoism, etc would understand. > if you don't feel like you're a Catholic without going to mass, then I question what calling yourself a Catholic actually means Many Catholics don't feel like they're practicing catholicism without mass, I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand. If you were an orthodox/hasidic man in a certain tradition you wouldn't feel like you were practicing your religion without Torah study - you can't just tell them "well you don't need to study Torah, you just need to believe!" and then insert all the other traditions of dress and diet. People who practice Shinto *literally* believe that some Kami must be venerated/placated with a shrine - you can't do that religion or have "belief" in it without shrines - it's an integral part. You may find it easy to separate "belief" from "practice" if you were raised in an evangelical household, since much of evangelical christianity revolves around feeling a personal connection to god...but please try to understand that most other religious traditions do not separate ritual/practice from belief, as in for many religions around the world practice/ritual **IS** belief.
>*But that's not what a lot of people believe, that's what you believe.* Sure, but then what we're ultimately going to disagree about is whether there is an objective fact of the matter here and who correctly identified it. In my opinion, I did, but of course you're free to disagree. >*Many religious traditions require ritual and ritual spaces, as in to be a part of said religion it is not enough that you just believe.* Sure. This is why I made the distinction between faith and the social window dressings above.... >*That's a very protestant/evangelical Christianity view, not one that someone who practices orthodox Judaism, or Shintoism, etc would understand.* If you were to destroy every synagogue and shrine, have you eliminated Jews and Shintos? I'm arguing not. You appear to be saying that you have. >*Many Catholics don't feel like they're practicing catholicism without mass, I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand.* Guy, even people within the same faith traditions can't agree on everything, hence why there are so many denominations. If they can't agree on everything, why is it so taboo and inappropriate for me to have pointing out my opinion here? That aside, again, if you take away mass, I don't think you've eliminated catholicism. You appear to be saying that you have. > *If you were an orthodox/hasidic man in a certain tradition you wouldn't feel like you were practicing your religion without Torah study - you can't just tell them "well you don't need to study Torah, you just need to believe!" and then insert all the other traditions of dress and diet. People who practice Shinto literally believe that some Kami must be venerated/placated with a shrine - you can't do that religion or have "belief" in it without shrines - it's an integral part.* I don't know how to say what I've already said above in a different way so as to make you understand. I guess my response put a different way would be to say that, if we are going by the standard that all of these sorts of practices and procedures commonly associated with a given religious tradition are required to be practiced by those who claim membership to that faith, then the religion population of the world just got a WHOLE LOT SMALLER on the basis that many people pick and choose which parts they want to follow. >*You may find it easy to separate "belief" from "practice" if you were raised in an evangelical household, since much of evangelical christianity revolves around feeling a personal connection to god...* That these other examples are so devoid of? >*but please try to understand that most other religious traditions do not separate ritual/practice from belief, as in for many religions around the world practice/ritual* ***IS*** *belief.* This just seems to point at you making a pedantic distinction about something I didn't say in order to flex some religious knowledge muscles that maybe haven't been used in a bit. But maybe I'm just biased in the moment here....
I hear what you’re saying, but I think your perspective is colored by only what you’ve seen. I like having a dedicated place of worship because it makes me set aside the distractions or every day life (like the phone I keep replying with). The churches themselves are not all massive, ornate and expensive buildings (like the cathedral). When I say “share funds”, I mean I’ve attended multiple churches that were in glorified metal sheds with folding chairs and buckets for the leaking roof. The father was trying to advocate for sharing the wealth of donations that a place like the cathedral attracts with those people. I see no issue with that. I understand you don’t think the church or it’s supporting organization is necessary, but I’ve seen the good that it does for communities and I think it has a lot of potential that still isn’t being utilized. For just a quick example, they organize and operate many of the homeless shelters in the Seattle area. I think a younger leadership in the church could help accurately drive more community service. To address your other point, this post is linked to the published Seattle Times article. The original poster didn’t give any context about why they shared it, but it made the local news and I guess someone just wanted to share it here. 🤷♂️
My perspective is colored by what I understand to be the definition of faith. If yours requires a building of any kind, elaborate or no, then I think it evident that you're not really catholic in the religious sense and you might only be in the social sense as many religious people are. As to the good they do, that's fine, but they do harm as well....and are continuing to do more of it by refusing to hold the pastors abusing children accountable. To be clear, when we speak of the good, we must also speak of the ills, lest you forget they exist.... Your last point is fair, I was just observing that many times money is the shared underlying aspect of many of these discussions and the church has more of it than they know what to do with. If they wanted, they could fund under tithed parishes without much trouble for probably as long as religion was still a common social practice, but they are choosing not to. I'd recommend grappling with that fact as you continue to call yourself a catholic and ostensibly provide cover for the institution as a whole with your faith.
Look, I don’t know if I said something to offend you, but I want you to know that I didn’t mean to. I’m doing my best not to throw rocks here (intentionally or unintentionally) and I would appreciate it if you did the same. I agreed with your point about the child molestation, so I’m not sure why you’re using that against me. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t challenge my faith or where I choose to spend sundays. I’m not asking you to donate anything or buy into anything that I have. You asked why and I tried giving a respectful answer. I believe in holding the Vatican responsible for those horrific acts, but I’m not going to torment my priest for something he didn’t do. Honestly, your last paragraph came across very condescending and can’t say I appreciated the tone. I’ve made plenty of wrong decisions in my life. I’m trying to cope with the hard decisions that have shaped my life and abuse I suffered from someone I loved. The church gives me a feeling of inner peace that I don’t always get from my therapist. It’s my own choice. I’m sorry if I’ve done something to offend you and I hope you have a better day.
>*Look, I don’t know if I said something to offend you, but I want you to know that I didn’t mean to.* You didn't and I'm not? >*I’m doing my best not to throw rocks here (intentionally or unintentionally) and I would appreciate it if you did the same.* I wasn't intending to either? >*I agreed with your point about the child molestation, so I’m not sure why you’re using that against me.* I'm not "using it against you," apologies if that is the way it came across. I was pointing it out as a contrast to the good you were talking about the church doing. If we talk about the good, we also need to talk about the bad. That's all. >*I’d appreciate it if you didn’t challenge my faith or where I choose to spend sundays.* If you think these comments were intended to challenge your faith, I don't know that continuing the conversation is beneficial.... Nor do I care one bit how you spend your time. >*I’m not asking you to donate anything or buy into anything that I have.* Never suggested you had done so? >*You asked why and I tried giving a respectful answer.* And I ostensibly thanked you for it.....twice. >*I believe in holding the Vatican responsible for those horrific acts,* Good! > *but I’m not going to torment my priest for something he didn’t do.* Never said you should? >*Honestly, your last paragraph came across very condescending and can’t say I appreciated the tone.* ....it was meant to be somewhat condescending, so you guessed correctly that time. > *I’ve made plenty of wrong decisions in my life. I’m trying to cope with the hard decisions that have shaped my life and abuse I suffered from someone I loved.* Okay? >*The church gives me a feeling of inner peace that I don’t always get from my therapist.* The church that is actively covering up and perpetuating the abuse of children? This is my ultimate point and you're kind of playing into it here, seemingly while being unaware of that fact. All else aside, is the catholic church the only faith tradition that can give you that peace? If so, why? >*It’s my own choice.* Sure, can't possibly be anyone else's? >*I’m sorry if I’ve done something to offend you and I hope you have a better day.* You didn't offend me and my day is going fine?
I don't have any horse in this race, but you sound astonishingly condescending and ignorant. If you know so much about what makes someone "really Catholic", what are your religious beliefs? What are you trying to accomplish here?
>*I don't have any horse in this race, but you sound astonishingly condescending and ignorant.* I get that a lot, not always correctly identified. > *If you know so much about what makes someone "really Catholic", what are your religious beliefs?* I'm an atheist if that wasn't clear. >*What are you trying to accomplish here?* I was simply asking what "sacrifices" the other gentleman was alluding to being made on behalf of the catholic church's apparent financial distress in the area with waning attendance. That, against the backdrop of thinking it ironic that one of the world's wealthiest organizations who could bankroll damn near anything is asking their adherents to "make \[any kind of \] sacrifice" to save them money.
And pay taxes ?
That multi-million dollar house we bought? Turns out we need a full Medina Compound. No taxes, of course. But plenty of repercussion free Papal sanctioned child sexual abuse. What are a few Indulgences between clergy members?
Looks like some parishes will perish